|
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Bush, Kerry zero in on security
By Isolde D. Amante
SEATTLE, Washington -- Foreign policy was on the agenda, but the first of three presidential debates in the run-up to the US elections on Nov. 2 came down to one thing: Who can make Americans feel safer?
Sen. John Kerry, in a performance that media pundits say could reenergize the Democratic campaign, said he will do so by rebuilding international alliances in the anti-terrorism campaign, strengthening the US military and homeland security forces, and reaching out to the Muslim world.
"You don't take America to war without a plan to win the peace," Kerry said.
The senator took the first question in the 90-minute debate moderated by PBS executive editor Jim Lehrer at the University of Miami in Florida.
US President George W. Bush, for his part, cited the capture of Saddam Hussein and upcoming elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan as signs of progress in the war against terrorism, and emphasized what the Republicans have portrayed as Kerry's tendency "to change his core values because of politics and pressure."
"You cannot lead if you send mixed messages," Bush said.
As for the charge that he has left America's alliances in tatters, he said, "Resolutions and failed inspections will not make terrorism go away."
Nuclear weapons
In their first joint appearance since the campaign began, both candidates agreed that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists pose the biggest threat to the United States.
But while the debate focused on America's role abroad, for the candidates, it was a chance to project to voters at home an image of leadership and strength.
Kerry, hounded in recent weeks by accusations of flip-flopping, repeatedly referred to his service in Vietnam, but avoided mentioning his anti-war activism once he got back home.
Bush, whose strengths include an ability to "stay on the message," kept bringing up contradictions in Kerry's previous statements, including his failure to support additional funding for the troops even after he voted in favor of going to war in Iraq.
"I don't think the debates will be a make-or-break event in the election," said Prof. Bryan Jones, who teaches political science at the University of Washington.
"But even if they haven't articulated them very well, there are huge differences between these two candidates' foreign policy ideas."
Seven of the 17 questions raised during the debate focused on the war in Iraq, which has cost the United States some $200 billion so far and claimed the lives of over 1,000 American soldiers.
Unusually prominent
"It is quite unusual for foreign policy to be prominent in our elections, which are mostly inward-looking and hinge on domestic concerns," said Dr. Gordon Adams, head of the Security Policy Studies Program at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., in an interview a week before the debate.
Adams, who worked five years in the Clinton White House as a budget and national security adviser, said the 2004 campaign is only the third time since 1968 that foreign policy turned up on most voters' radars.
The previous two were in 1968, when the burden of US involvement in Vietnam hobbled the Democrats, and in 1980, when the hostage crisis in Iran sank Jimmy Carter's reelection bid.
"The issue here is how the public perceives both men as leaders. This is more about our engagement in a specific war, and less about broad foreign policy issues," Adams added.
Differences between Bush and Kerry's plans on other foreign policy issues, including trade and counter-terrorism arrangements with Asia, are not widely discussed, although both candidates' views do vary.
"In general, a Kerry administration would take a more multilateralist approach and pay more attention to alliances, primarily with Europe. A Bush administration will generally be more unilateral. He has pledged to work with allies, but reserved the United States' right to act by itself, if necessary, as preemption," said Adams.
Abu Sayyaf
Would US involvement in the campaign against Abu Sayyaf be altered if Kerry wins on Nov. 2? "Yes, but not much differently," he added.
"However the engagement happens in the Philippines, it will be an engagement. I don't think there will be an effort to negotiate or make a terrorist organization go away by waving your hands at it."
Relations between the US and the Philippines were strained earlier this year when President Arroyo ordered the early withdrawal of a small contingent of Filipino soldiers from Iraq, as demanded by captors of overseas worker Angelo dela Cruz.
A fleeting reference was made in last night's debate to the US-assisted campaign against the Abu Sayyaf.
"The front on this war is more than just one place. We've got help. In the Philippines, we're helping them there to bring Al Qaeda affiliates to justice," President Bush said.
'Hunt them down'
Senator Kerry, in his strongest statement to date on the war against terrorism, said, "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are, but we also have to be smart.
And being smart means not diverting the war...I will not take my eye off the goal: Osama bin Laden."
American voters will get the chance to address both candidates in a town hall meeting on Oct. 8, and the candidates will face off on domestic policy and the economy during the third presidential debate on Oct. 13.
As spelled out in a 30-page set of rules on the debates, neither candidate was allowed to directly challenge the other to make a campaign pledge, leave the lectern to approach his opponent, or ask questions other than rhetorical ones.
(Sun.Star Cebu news editor Isolde D. Amante is one of the 12 Asian journalists invited by the United States Government to observe and cover the 2004 US presidential campaign in the hope of providing them with a better understanding of American politics.)
(October 2, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
Bishop links politicians, mayors to jueteng