By Tom Plate

Why have there been no Tony Blairs in Asia standing up for America in the face of the chilling public-opinion winds blowing bitterly in the opposite direction?

It's certainly true that Asia has fielded no one as outspoken as Britain's prime minister — or as France's equally if negatively forceful President Jacques Chirac. However, the region in fact has been no less divided on the Iraq question than has Europe.

Yes, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand and others in the Asia-Pacific have expressed either outright opposition or broad criticism. Even so, American and British soldiers putting their lives on the line should understand that despite all the negative public opinion, some of the region's top leaders have said — openly and bravely — they understand the need for war.

Foremost among them, certainly, is John Howard. From the onset, the Australian prime minister has steadfastly endorsed the Bush administration's view that the Saddam government represents a serious threat. To the groans of his countrymen, Howard has pledged 2,000 troops to the U.S.-led effort. "Alliances are two-way processes," he told the Australian people, who, polls say, are overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's policy and Howard's backing of it, "and where we are in agreement, we should not leave it to the United States to do all of the heavy lifting."

Canberra supported the U.S. effort to obtain a second U.N. Security Council resolution, but agreed with London and Washington that it was not a legal bar to action.

In Japan, where polls suggest up to 80 percent are opposed to the war, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has nonetheless sided with the Bush administration rather decisively. Japan's pacifist constitution allows its P.M. far fewer options than Australia's: Koizumi can't send troops.

Nevertheless, later on, perhaps, his government will contribute to the post-war reconstruction. Koizumi's supportive stance is not only opposed by the Japanese public but by many totems in his own ruling party. For any Japanese P.M., ordinarily a low-profile figure at best, Koizumi's stand is unusually bold.

South Korea, Singapore and the Philippines have also sided with the United States. Seoul's stand is notable because of the new Roh Moo-yun government's policy differences with Washington over the North Korean issue, the Korean public's anti-Bush mood, and the general Korean worry that Washington's preoccupation with Iraq may embolden North Korea to cause new problems or in general to ratchet up peninsular tensions.

Even so, Seoul has offered to send military engineers to aid coalition forces in Iraq and, like Japan, help in the reconstruction.

In Singapore, top officials for many months have been publicly assuming the American use of force to go after Saddam. Last week during a parliamentary debate, the foreign minister, S. Jayakumar, laid out in full Singapore's reasoning for its support of the U.S. campaign against Iraq. It implicitly concurred with the Bush administration's conflation of the war on terrorism with the elimination of the Saddam regime and with its chosen method of remedy. The core of the current crisis is "the failure of Iraq to disarm promptly and effectively," he said.

Agreed Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo last week: "We are giving political and moral support for actions to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

Singapore's support of Bush, however, also offered an important nuance of reservation with wide resonance throughout Southeast Asia, where the twin fears of Muslim radicalism and American unilateralism go hand in hand. The city-state's support "does not mean," explained the foreign minister, "that we are subservient to the United States or that we agree with everything that the United States does, or says, or requests, without regard to our own national interests."

Tom Plate, whose column appears regularly in The Honolulu Advertiser, is a professor at UCLA. Reach him at tplate@ucla.edu. He also has a spot on the Web.