SYDNEY, Australia, 7 October 2004 — On one side is the incumbent, a conservative career politician who steadfastly defends his decision to send troops to Iraq.
On the other side is an aggressive challenger a generation younger who calls the war a mistake and pledges to bring home most of the troops by Christmas.
On Saturday, Australia’s voters will decide which of the two should lead their country: John Howard, a shrewd three-term prime minister who has closely allied himself with President Bush, or Mark Latham, a brash Labor Party leader who once broke a taxi driver’s arm in a quarrel over a fare.
Polls show the race is close, with Howard, 65, holding a slim lead over Latham, 43. For most Australians, the election is likely to turn on the question of the economy, which should be an advantage for the Liberal Party incumbent since Australia has enjoyed a prolonged period of growth during his 81/2 years at the helm.
Nevertheless, Latham — who once referred to Bush as “the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory’’ — has attracted considerable support by presenting himself as the candidate of change.
He has promised to maintain the nation’s strong economy, provide greater opportunities for working people — and bring Australia’s roughly 850 soldiers home from the war zone.
“The whole thing is much closer than anyone predicted,’’ said Greg Lindsay, who was once a friend of Latham’s and is now director of the Center for Independent Studies, a conservative think tank in Sydney. “Iraq will be an issue but it will not be the deciding issue. For most people, things like the movement of interest rates are very important.’’
The Bush administration has already seen one key ally in the war driven from office: Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was defeated in March elections by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who then pulled his nation’s 1,300 troops out of Iraq.
At the White House, the possibility that another ally could be ousted before the US presidential election Nov. 2 has sparked such concern that top administration officials have assailed Latham’s troop withdrawal plan.
In June, with Howard at his side at the White House, Bush called Latham’s plan “disastrous.’’ US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell later echoed the president’s criticism, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contended that the issue had split the Labor Party. Party leaders denied Armitage’s claim and accused the Bush administration of meddling in Australia’s domestic affairs. Underlying the debate is Australia’s ambivalence over its relationship with one of its most important allies. Australians value their independence but also know that friendship with the United States is essential to their security.
Howard, for one, believes the US relationship is paramount. He once described Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific region as Washington’s “deputy sheriff.’’ During US preparations for war in Iraq, Howard embraced the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and early on pledged Australian troops.
Last year, during a Howard visit to Washington, Bush invited the traveling Australian media into the Oval Office and described the prime minister as “a close personal friend,’’ “a person whose judgment I count on’’ and “a man of clear vision.’’
But other Australians dislike the idea of their country being treated as if it were America’s 51st state. Latham has sharply criticized Howard’s close ties with Bush — sometimes in vulgar terms. When Howard traveled to the United States to meet with the president, Latham said: “He went, he kissed some bums and got patted on the head.’’
More recently, the combative opposition leader accused Howard of not being honest with the Australian people about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.
“Young Australians were sent to war for the wrong purpose,’’ Latham said. “They were sent to war under a false doctrine, the doctrine of pre-emption. As it turns out, there was nothing to pre-empt in Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction.’’
Polls show that a majority of Australians oppose the war in Iraq but also oppose an abrupt withdrawal of their troops, most of whom provide security for Australian diplomats and train Iraqi forces.
“The majority of Australian opinion is that the war was a mistake,’’ said Rod Tiffen, a political-science professor at Sydney University who once had Latham as a student. “But they are also against the idea of a quick pullout.’’ In the end, the election likely will come down to whether Australians are tired of Howard and ready for the kind of change — and uncertainty — that Latham’s candidacy represents. Both candidates are articulate, although Latham was widely regarded as the winner of the one formal debate between them. The choice is seen more one of contrasting styles and generations.
Howard is a staid, conservative monarchist and onetime Sydney lawyer who has been a member of Parliament for 30 years.
As prime minister he instituted a harsh policy of locking up all undocumented asylum seekers, including children, who come from other countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of falsely claiming during the election three years ago that some asylum seekers were so desperate that they threw their own children into the water in the hope that nearby Australian Navy patrols would pick them up. A subsequent investigation indicated that no children were thrown overboard.
Three years after the last boat of asylum seekers landed in Australia, dozens of children remain locked up, advocates say.
Howard recently released a campaign proposal for large spending increases for health and education projects. He says his government has generated enormous surpluses that can be used to pay for the programs.
Like Howard, Latham has been in politics much of his adult life. He served for a short time as mayor of the town of Liverpool, near Sydney. Latham became the Labor Party leader last December and is known to become testy under pressure.
Latham has drawn support from voters with proposals to give free hospital care to those older than 75; take money from elite private schools and spend it on schools in poor districts; cut welfare payments to push aid recipients off the dole; and preserve giant old-growth trees in Tasmania.
Latham says he would like to help the United States regain the high moral standing it once held in the world.
“I want to render the United States the best service any Australian prime minister ever could,’’ he said, “and that is to help the United States develop its true role of world leadership based on respect, understanding and the cooperation demonstrated so powerfully after Sept. 11 but undermined so tragically by the mistakes in Iraq.’’
