Robert Patman: Security the key for US election win

COMMENT

The American presidential election in November promises to be a watershed event for both the United States and much of the world.

Unlike many previous elections, the contest between the Republican incumbent, George W. Bush, and the Democrat Senator John Kerry could be decided on the issue of national security.

In recent months, Bush has repeatedly emphasised that he is a "war president" and made it clear that the challenge of terrorism is a central theme in his campaign.

Bush has stressed that the world is now safer with Saddam Hussein out of power, and he has contrasted his own leadership with the "inconsistency" of Kerry over foreign policy and security issues.

Certainly, evidence from opinion polls suggest that many Americans have been impressed by the response of the Bush Administration to the traumatic events of September 11.

While Kerry does not wish to contest the election purely on Bush's terms, he believes the best way of advancing his own agenda during the election - highlighting issues such as the loss of 2.7 million American jobs since 2001 - is to show that Bush is vulnerable on his chosen ground of national security.

Having served his country with distinction in Vietnam, Kerry does not shrink from telling Americans that President Bush misled them over going to war in Iraq and, and that he has also damaged the international reputation of the United States in the process.

The mounting list of US casualties in post-war Iraq, and testimony to the bipartisan Congressional 9/11 Commission that President Bush's invasion of Iraq has "greatly undermined the war on terrorism" from former White House counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke, seems to bolster Kerry's criticism.

However, Kerry's strategy involves a delicate balancing act. He wants to be seen as the loyal opposition to the Bush Administration.

Conscious that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 created a national sense of anxiety and vulnerability similar to the early years of the Cold War, Kerry seeks to limit Bush's ability to play the patriotism card.

Indeed, Kerry voted to support the war in Iraq and, despite his subsequent misgivings about Bush's go-it-alone approach to the war, he has repeatedly stressed to Americans that if he became President, he would "never give anyone else a veto over the national security of our nation".

But recent exchanges in the presidential contest indicate that Kerry will have to do more than simply criticise President Bush if he wants to make it to the White House.

According to poll results, the Bush campaign's attempts to paint Kerry as a liberal who flip-flops on the issues has affected the race more than charges that Bush and his team have blundered in Iraq and played into the hands of international terrorism.

This state of affairs could change. But there are strong reasons for believing it is unlikely to do so while Kerry persists with an approach to national security that differs only marginally from that of the Bush Administration.

First, 9/11 was a transformative event that freed the Bush Administration from the normal political constraints.

By declaring war against global terrorism, President Bush has created a political climate that temporarily privileges security concerns over domestic, bread-and-butter issues that often determine presidential elections.

Second, Americans tend to link Iraq and the war against terrorism far more readily than non-Americans do. And it may be that the Madrid bombing and renewed threats of terrorism in Europe, as well as the sharply deteriorating situation in Iraq, will convince many American voters that this is precisely the time to support President Bush's recent pledge "to stand firm" behind the present strategy.

Third, Kerry's charge that the Bush Administration misrepresented the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is probably accurate, but that does not mean it will be politically damaging for Bush.

Unlike the Blair Government, the Bush team never justified its invasion of Iraq exclusively in terms of these alleged weapons.

It also saw "regime change" in Iraq as a means to spread democracy in a region linked to terrorism.

Besides, Bush is not the first President to be economical with the truth in national security matters.

So Kerry is unlikely to convince US voters if he simply presents himself as a Bush Mark II candidate.

The real challenge for him is to develop an alternative strategic vision which is just as firm and resolute, but more credible and effective than the "distinctive American internationalism" offered by Bush.

The key lesson of 9/11 is that even the homeland of the world's only superpower is vulnerable in the new security environment and that an effective unilateral war on terrorism by the US and its close allies is just not sustainable, in financial or diplomatic terms, in an inter-dependent world.

If Bush refuses to recognise this, Kerry must clearly demonstrate he is prepared to. He must publicly acknowledge that the Bush Administration was wrong to bypass the United Nations Security Council over Iraq and that a Kerry administration would seek to exercise global leadership through the UN rather than outside it.

Kerry's new security strategy for the 21st century will, therefore, have to embrace the notion of "hard multi-lateralism".

In the age of globalisation, it is the support of other nations and multinational institutions that offers the best hope for ensuring that America, and the rest of the world, is more secure.

To be sure, Kerry will need political courage to advance this new strategic vision. But, in the present context, the biggest risk for Kerry may be not to take any risk at all.

Many Americans have a deep sense of unease about the present Bush security strategy, but they are likely to continue to give it the benefit of the doubt if they see it as the only strategy available.

It is up to Kerry to make clear that there is an alternative approach to fighting global terrorism.

* Associate Professor Robert Patman teaches political studies at Otago University.