Australian for Bush

However, his chief opponent, Labor party leader Mark Latham, 43, advocates a quick exit. During a radio interview in March, Latham pledged to bring Australian troops “home for Christmas.” This was a gaffe. Polls show Aussies divided on whether sending troops was a mistake, but opposed to an immediate pullout. Latham’s popularity dipped. In June, his party tempered its stance to possibly keeping more than 400 Australians in Iraq past Christmas, including those guarding their embassy. Latham then brought on the hawkish and pro-American Kim Beazley as Labor’s defense spokesman. Beazley served as Australian defense minister from 1984-1990, during which time he earned the nicknames “Bomber Beazley” and “Kimbo” (after Rambo).

Will Iraq be a salient electoral factor? No, say the Liberals. Yes, but only indirectly, says Labor. Citing Howard’s prewar arguments about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Labor has questioned his veracity. Meanwhile, Latham has used Iraq as a wedge on the issue of regional terrorism. “We have become less safe in the war against terror because of the conflict in Iraq,” he argued last month. “Why? Because it diverted so many resources from the real task, and for Australia the real task is in our part of the world, in Asia.”

Latham made those comments in a TV debate dominated by national security. The prime minister rebuked his “cut and run” strategy. “We should stay and finish the job–that’s the Australian way,” Howard said. Withdrawing would “send a message that one of the original coalition has weakened and buckled.” According to a survey of the studio audience, Latham won the debate with 67 percent to Howard’s 33 percent. Labor subsequently gained in national polls.

That must worry George W. Bush, who has a close relationship with Howard. The two have much in common. Both are famously plainspoken. Both are routinely derided by their opponents in academia and journalism. Both give speeches charged with pro-family rhetoric. Both have pursued a pro-growth economic agenda. Most important, both preach a foreign policy born of 9/11.

Howard was visiting Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001. He has since laid out his own version of the Bush Doctrine. In December 2002, shortly after the Bali nightclub bombing (which killed 88 Aussies), Howard declared his willingness to launch preemptive strikes against terrorists overseas, with or without United Nations approval. “International law has to catch up with that new reality,” he said. This provoked a flurry of outrage in neighboring Asian countries. But Howard stood by his remarks. “I meant what I said,” he told reporters. “I was asked a question and I don’t seek to qualify the answer.”

The prime minister reiterated this preemption doctrine last month, and challenged his rival to endorse it. Latham demurred. Liberal senator Brett Mason, a firm Howard backer, admits the Australian people “are concerned about the principle [of preemption].” Howard maintains a narrow advantage on security. But Latham’s anti-preemption stance and Australia-first message have resonated.

Mason also says domestic issues can’t be overlooked. “It’s the economy, stupid,” he jokes. Here, the Aussie PM is rock solid. Australia’s economy is barreling ahead at 4.1 percent annual growth. Job creation is up; unemployment and inflation are down. Stocks have soared to historic highs, and interest rates are at 30-year lows.

But health and education, Latham’s signature themes, work against Howard. So does Australia’s unique electoral apparatus. Like Great Britain, Australia is a parliamentary democracy. But unlike Britain, which relies on first-past-the-post voting, Australia has preferential voting. This system is applied to elections for Canberra’s House of Representatives, where the government is formed.

In preferential voting, voters place a number “1” next to their “first preference” candidate, and rank the other candidates “2,” “3,” etc. Election officials then count all the first-preference votes (usually called “primary votes”). To win outright, a candidate must garner over 50 percent of first-preference votes. If no one does, the last-place candidate is eliminated. All his votes are re-allocated based on the number “2” picks listed on those ballots. This process continues until a candidate obtains majority support.

So a party could win the primary round, but lose the preferential vote and thus the election. According to a poll published last week in the Australian, that’s what might happen on October 9. Howard himself is more popular than Latham, and his Liberal-National coalition holds a 3-point lead in first-preference votes. But once second-preference votes are distributed, Labor jumps to a 4-point advantage. Labor representative Brendan O’Connor says the preferences of left-wing minority parties, such as the Greens, are “flowing mainly back to Labor.”

The stakes were raised on September 9, when the al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah blew up Australia’s embassy in Jakarta. This recalled Spain, where terrorist bombings swayed voters against José María Aznar’s pro-American party in March. The motive behind the Jakarta attack is unclear. But some Laborites argue that Howard has made Australia a target. And an AP/Ipsos poll released last week found that 66 percent of Aussies believe the Iraq war has increased the threat of global terrorism. Should Howard lose, pro-U.S. leaders in other allied countries might conclude their positions on Iraq are suicidal.

For that reason, the future of U.S. policy in Iraq is inseparable from the Australian election. Liberal House candidate Michael Shevers may be right when he says, “Most people are sick and tired of talking about it.” But on October 9, expect the coalition of the willing to cast more than a passing glance Down Under.

Duncan Currie is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.