A Choice of Two Directions Down Under

SYDNEY, Australia —  On one side is the incumbent, a conservative career politician who steadfastly defends his decision to send troops to Iraq.

On the other 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 issue of the economy, which should benefit the Liberal Party incumbent since Australia has enjoyed a prolonged period of growth during his 8 1/2 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 while providing greater opportunities for working people -- and bringing Australia’s roughly 850 soldiers in Iraq home.

“The whole thing is much closer than anyone predicted,” said Greg Lindsay, a former friend of Latham’s who 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 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 U.S. 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 the plan “disastrous.”

“It would say that the Australian government does not see the hope of a free and democratic society leading to a peaceful world,” Bush said. “It would embolden the enemy who believe that they can shake our will.”

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell later echoed the criticism, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contended that the issue had split the Labor Party.

Party leaders denied Armitage’s claim and accused the administration of meddling in Australia’s affairs.

Underlying the debate is Australia’s ambivalence over its relationship with one of its main allies. Australians value their independence but know that friendship with the U.S. is important for their security.

Howard believes the U.S. relationship is paramount. He once described Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific region as Washington’s “deputy sheriff.” During U.S. preparations for war in Iraq, Howard embraced the Bush doctrine of preemption and pledged troops early on.

Last year, during a visit to Washington by Howard, 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 some 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 to Bush -- sometimes in vulgar terms.

After a Howard meeting 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.

“Young Australians were sent to war for the wrong purpose,” Latham said. “They were sent to war under a false doctrine, the doctrine of preemption. As it turns out, there was nothing to preempt in Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction.”

Polls show that a majority of Australians oppose the war 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 taught Latham. “But they are also against the idea of a quick pullout.”

Public opposition to the war might be far greater but for the fact that not a single Australian had been killed or kidnapped in Iraq as of Monday. Similarly, Howard was politically fortunate that no Australians were killed in a suicide truck bombing Sept. 9 outside his nation’s embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Rather than sending troops to Iraq, Latham argues that Australia should focus on fighting terrorism in Southeast Asia, where Australians have been targeted in other suicide attacks. Nearly 90 Australians were killed in the 2002 bombing of two Bali nightclubs.

In the end, the election is likely to come down to whether Australians are tired of Howard and ready for the kind of change -- and uncertainty -- that Latham represents.

Both candidates are articulate, though Latham was widely regarded as the winner of their one formal debate.

The choice is seen more as 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 asylum seekers, including children, who enter the country without authorization.

He is accused of falsely claiming during the election three years ago that some asylum seekers arriving by boat were so desperate that they threw their children into the water in the hope that nearby Australian navy patrols would pick them up.

A subsequent investigation indicated that no children had been 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 to spend more than $4 billion on health and education projects. He says his government has generated enormous surpluses that can pay for the programs.

“Who do you better trust to keep living standards high in Australia?” Howard asked at a recent campaign event. “Who do you better trust to keep our economy strong? Who do you better trust to keep interest rates low?”

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. Howard is running television ads accusing him of mismanaging the community’s funds.

Latham became the Labor Party leader in December and is known to become testy under pressure.

It appears he has not suffered much in the polls from his 2001 altercation with the cabdriver, although surveys indicate women are more hesitant to support him than are men.

According to Latham’s version of events, the driver was taking a circuitous route to his destination when Latham objected, got out of the cab and walked away without paying. The driver pulled the politician’s briefcase out of his hand. Latham, who used to play rugby, tackled the driver. The cabby’s arm was broken in the fall.

Latham has drawn support from voters with proposals to give free hospital care to those over 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 Washington 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.”