Fran O'Sullivan: If trade is on your mind, a Bush second term would be no bad thing

COMMENT

Hard heads will cheer the apparent re-election of President George W. Bush as a signal that Americans are prepared to put their own interests foremost (as all voters should) instead of cavilling before internationally fomented concerns, however well-founded.

Last night the trends were clearly going Mr Bush's way - although his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, was reserving his position over possible recounts in the tightly won state of Ohio.

Conventional wisdom said the Republican President would pay an electoral price for his ill-considered Iraq invasion.

But, as with Australia's John Howard, the conventional wisdom was wrong. Mr Bush clearly won the popular vote from his countrymen, even if the complexities of the US electoral college system ultimately over-ride this simple but telling factor. British Prime Minister Tony Blair - who faces election next year - will rest easier.

Mr Bush's return will inevitably be demonised as a signal that the US will continue to exert a unilateralist foreign policy. But that would be to misread both the result and the message voters have sent.

They expect their leader to adopt a more consultative role in high-profile conflicts - even Iraq. But ultimately they will want him to put America's interests first.

Two realities will play a part here. First, there are limits to US domestic tolerance - and bankrolls - for the high cost of the Iraq epic.

Second, the US does not have a standing Army of sufficient strength to play global policeman without the help of friends.

The US State Department is expected to use next year's 60th anniversary of the United Nations as leverage to open a wider-ranging debate over the multilateralist system.

Cynics will say Mr Bush will not be able to change his stripes. But two of his Republican predecessors presided over important foreign policy shifts.

Richard Nixon opened relations with Mao's China, and Ronald Reagan's railings against the "Evil Empire" played a big part in the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

Bill Clinton - who had the chance - failed to take out terrorist Osama bin Laden. He was otherwise occupied.

Bush's first chance to demonstrate he has listened to international concerns will come when he delivers a keynote speech - Building Peace and Prosperity in a Divided World - at the Apec leaders meeting in Santiago in a fortnight.

He will face questioning from Asia-Pacific political leaders - including New Zealand's Helen Clark - on his intentions not just in Iraq but in regard to the rest of the "Axis of Evil".

The US - not just Mr Bush - wants Iran to scale down its nuclear aspirations. North Korea continues to thumb its nose at similar calls.

The Asia-Pacific leaders will be looking to the President to give a signal that he is prepared to work with other nations to ensure that Iran and North Korea do not erupt into flashpoints.

On one particular front, trade, a Bush return is in fact better for multilateralism because a Kerry victory would foreshadow significant protectionist leanings.

Mr Bush achieved approval from Congress by just one vote for the presidential authority to forge international trade deals. Mr Clinton did not even get that far.

A Bush Administration is the best bet in getting a clear result from the current Doha trading round.

The Bush victory is no bad thing for this country. Key Bush Administration officials are well in touch with the Clark Government's drive for a US free-trade deal.

For Clark's part, Santiago is her first chance to say: "How about it?"