Australians Can Help Vote Bush Out

Australians traditionally have a healthy cynicism about politics, and not without reason. In a country where voting is compulsory and differences between the two major parties are not normally radical, the informal "donkey" vote is always well represented at the ballot box. Life in the Lucky Country tends to move along nicely enough, regardless of whose wife is ordering the new drapes in Kirribilli House. But this year it's different.

This year, a vote for John Howard is not just a vote for Peter Costello, it's also a vote for George W. Bush.

As Duncan Currie wrote in The Weekly Standard in Washington:

Should Howard lose, pro-US leaders in other allied countries might conclude their positions on Iraq are suicidal. For that reason, the future of US policy in Iraq is inseparable from the Australian election.

Australians will be going to the polls on October 9th, just three weeks before the US presidential elections on November 2nd. A defeat for John Howard - particularly a landslide defeat - will make instant headlines in the global media. It will be reported in newspapers around the world as a major blow to Bush's "Coalition Of The Willing" in Iraq. A more reasoned, less aggressive approach to international issues will be demanded.

Tony Blair is already facing pressure from within his own party to pull British troops out of Iraq, while Italian politicians have begun mentioning January as a reasonable departure date. If Howard's pro-Bush government falls, it will be seen as the collapse of the first domino, with Bush to follow, then Blair, then Berlusconi and others.

Imagine the repercussions of a resounding Latham victory. The US networks will compare Australia's vote with that of the Spanish in particular, but also the Phillipines, Honduras, Dominican Republic, New Zealand and others who have already chosen to "bring the troops home". US papers will re- focus on the dwindling international effort in Iraq. Bush would suffer a body-blow just three weeks before his own bid for four more years.

"Even if Iraq is not the deciding issue in the Australian elections, it could be perceived as such, and there could be tremors [if Howard loses]," said Derek Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"It clearly would give heart to Democrats in the United States -- first of all they can make the case that our allies in the 'coalition of the willing' are losing in the elections, which demonstrates an essential mistrust of their following of the United States," he said.

Senator John Kerry, Bush's rival for the White House, would not hesitate to capitalize on it.

"I am sure if that theme takes hold, if Kerry thinks it is a winning theme, he will pick up the issue of Blair and use Howard as another data point to highlight particularly the US-UK relationship," Mitchell said.

"It may have more impact just highlighting even further that the Anglo alliance is weakening. Bush is simply the last pillar in the Anglo-US alliance and suggest we need a change," he said.

Japan Today says the B-B-H-K colaition (Bush, Blair, Howard and Koizumi) is about to implode, and ordinary Japanese will "shed tears of relief" when it does so.

Even small-town US papers have begun expressing concern at the possibility that the USA's global political isolation could increase further. A piece titled "What If Bush's Allies Lose Their Countries' Next Elections" puts it this way:

American voters... should ask themselves how the nation will fare if Blair and Howard are defeated and anti-American sentiment takes solid shape in the form of elected governments empowered to more actively oppose our nation's economic and security interests.

Similarly, Australians should ask themselves what happens to us if Howard wins, but Bush and Blair are then voted out? Our role in a very unpopular war will not be easily forgotten, particularly by our Asian neighbours.

This year, a vote for John Howard is a vote for George W. Bush. And a vote for George W. Bush is a vote for more pre-emptive strikes, more religious crusades, more international divisiveness and - inevitably - increased global terrorism. It's also a vote against international law, the United Nations and the Geneva Convention, the International Criminal Court (surely the best way, ultimately, to bring tyrants like Saddam and Milosevic to trial) and the Kyoto Agreement on Climate Change.

This year, a vote for John Howard is a vote that says "I don't care that we helped the USA invaded a soveriegn country on false pretexts, in contravention of UN law, for the loss of many thousands of lives."

This year, a vote for John Howard is a vote that says "I don't care that Iraq is now over-run by violence, I don't care about accountability in politics, I don't care about international law and domestic civil rights, I don't care about the separation of Church and State, I don't care about global warming, I don't care about blatant, overwhelming media bias, I don't care that globalisation is being hijacked by big business while millions continue to live in poverty, I don't care, I don't care, I don't care."

UPDATE: Poland's Defence Minister says he expects Polish troops will completely pull out of Iraq by the end of 2005. More than 70 percent of Poles are opposed to the presence of their country's troops in Iraq, and the government's popularity has dropped to single digits.

"The Bush administration is of course going to be disappointed," political analyst Krzystof Bobinski told AFP.