Just as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dominated the first term of President George W. Bush, the war on terrorism is dominating the foreign policy issues of the 2004 presidential campaign.

While there is much debate about defeating terrorists and U.S. involvement in Iraq, there has been little campaign discussion about fighting global poverty, solving regional conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, combating the global pandemic of AIDS, debt relief for poor countries and international arms reduction treaties.

The U.S. bishops see all of these issues as an integral part of an effective world struggle against terrorism.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, "we must be careful not to define our security primarily in military terms," said the bishops in "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility," their 2004 election guide for Catholics.

"Our nation must join with others in addressing policies and problems that provide fertile ground in which terrorism can thrive," it said.

Although there are notable differences about fighting the war on terrorism between Bush and his Democratic rival, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, experts interviewed by Catholic News Service see minimal differences between the two on other pivotal foreign policy issues.

Bush's terrorism policy is that "the best defense is a good offense," said James M. Lindsay, vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan New York-based think tank.

"The assumption is that you can wipe out terrorists or at least wipe them out faster than they can replenish themselves," said Lindsay, the National Security Council's director for global issues from 1996-97 during the Clinton administration.

Kerry does not see current involvement in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, he said. Kerry's anti-terrorism policy includes more emphasis on homeland security, working more with European allies and rethinking current policies in Afghanistan, said Lindsay.

The candidates' plans for ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq will depend more on the situation in Iraq on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, than on promises made during the campaign, he said.

On other major issues, foreign policy experts see approaches rather than goals as the delineator between Bush and Kerry.

A key example is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The positions of both candidates include:

---Strong support for Israel.

---Reforms within the Palestinian Authority to develop a new leadership committed to ending violence and to living in peace with Israel.

---The eventual creation of a Palestinian state with the borders to be determined through negotiations.

Middle East experts, however, said Kerry would take a more activist role in seeking solutions.

"The crucial difference is that Bush would do the minimum necessary to manage the crisis, while Kerry would be more fully engaged, be more personally committed," said Allen Keiswetter, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, an independent think tank in Washington.

When Bush took office, he tried to avoid becoming seriously involved but he was "mugged by reality" when the Palestinian suicide bombings of Israeli civilians caused him to become more active in seeking solutions, said Keiswetter, a foreign service officer from 1967-2003.

He was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in 2000-01 during the transition from the Clinton administration to the Bush presidency.

Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen, a foreign policy adviser to the bishops and associate editor of the national Catholic magazine America, agreed that there is little difference between the two candidates on Israeli-Palestinian policy.

He added, however, that the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace have deteriorated significantly during the Bush presidency, making it difficult for whoever wins to seek a solution.

Father Christiansen and other experts also cited a greater emphasis by Kerry on international cooperation and use of international agencies in foreign policy matters.

Lindsay, of the foreign policy council, said Bush is skeptical of international agreements and institutions because he believes they can hinder use of U.S. power to achieve goals.

Kerry believes that international agreements and working with allies gives the United States greater leverage in achieving its objectives, said Lindsay.

The bishops' guidelines call for U.S. support of the United Nations and other international organizations to address world problems such as regional conflicts.

An analysis of the candidates' positions on arms trading and arms reduction in light of "Faithful Citizenship" appears on BustedHalo, a Web site sponsored by Paulist Young Adult Ministries.

The U.S. bishops call it a "moral imperative" that the United States work to curb the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and "reduce its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction."

BustedHalo said Bush withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty and supports development of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. It said Kerry voted for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and opposes the development of tactical nuclear weapons.

Regarding the conventional arms trade, BustedHalo said that since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the United States has begun selling arms to six countries --- Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Yugoslavia --- that were formerly banned from receiving such aid. It said Kerry co-sponsored a U.S. code of conduct that prohibits arms exports to governments which abuse human rights and are engaged in armed aggression.

The bishops also urged U.S. programs to curb world poverty and underdevelopment.

Campaign positions: Previous articles

The Campaign 2004 articles in The Tidings, including those on this page, have been compiled by Catholic News Service to analyze the leading presidential candidates' positions on important issues. Additional articles will appear in the weeks prior to the Nov. 2 election. To date, The Tidings has carried the following articles, available by visiting www.the-tidings.com, and clicking on the Past Issues box on the right of the screen: ---July 30: Marriage. ---Aug. 20: Abortion. ---Sept. 17: Death Penalty. ---Sept. 24: Euthanasia.

Under Bush, the United States has promoted programs to fight AIDS, especially in Africa; advanced efforts to reduce the foreign debt of poor countries; and developed the Millennium Challenge Account, which ties foreign aid to anti-corruption and good government practices in underdeveloped countries.

On these issues, "Bush was able to do what the Democrats said should be done," said Lindsay.

Such programs would be compatible with Kerry's views, but Kerry would not have success advancing them if Republicans controlled at least one house of Congress, said Lindsay.

If re-elected, Bush would have more success with Republicans, he said. "Bush is tough on Republicans who oppose him."

"Faithful Citizenship" also calls on the U.S. government to promote religious liberty as a human right in its foreign policy.

The Republican Party platform supports promoting religious liberty abroad. The Democratic Party platform is silent on the issue.

Lindsay said promoting religious liberty is possible in many parts of the world but either candidate would find it impractical in important Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Sudan.

Different approaches to unilateralism

The words "unilateralism" and "multilateralism" won't make it into either presidential campaign's ads or sound bites, but Catholic peace experts say they represent an important difference between the two main candidates on questions of war and peace.

President Bush has a tendency toward unilateralism, while Sen. Kerry espouses a more multilateral approach, according to the experts.

Catholic social teaching on international justice and peace promotes greater use of international law and international institutions as a means of protecting human rights and the common good.

The differences between the two candidates on questions of unilateralism and multilateralism are not black and white, however. "There is a different emphasis, but not much of a fundamental difference," said Gerard Powers, director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dame's Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen, associate editor of the national Catholic magazine America, said the issue is important, however.

He told Catholic News Service, "I think the Bush administration, as it's articulated its foreign policy ... , would be the polar opposite of the Catholic position because it rejects multilateralism for aggressive, muscular unilateralism, even with respect to our closest allies, saying no one else will determine what our interests are or what we will do. And that includes preventive war.

"Generally, the church has favored multilateralism, and particularly international law and the U.N. system as a way of doing that, knowing that the U.N. system is far from perfect," he said.

On preventive war, the Jesuit theologian said, the Bush administration and the Vatican "couldn't be in a more different position."

He added, however, "I'm not sure that the Catholic position, in terms of the actual decisions, would be any different when it comes to John Kerry, who said that he supported the war and would still go to war despite what we know now about the situation."

Powers and Father Christiansen have extensive expertise in analyzing questions of U.S. international policy in terms of Catholic social teaching and a record of nonpartisanship in their approach to issues. Both are former international justice and peace directors of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility," the bishops' Administrative Committee repeatedly emphasized multilateralism in the conduct of the nation's foreign policy.

The bishops warned against going it alone or defining security "primarily in military terms," even after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our nation must join with others in addressing policies and problems that provide fertile ground in which terrorism can thrive," they said. "No injustice legitimizes the horror we have experienced. But a more just world will be a more peaceful world."

The document also said the United States must "work to reverse the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to reduce its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction by pursuing progressive nuclear disarmament."

Powers said, "The importance of strengthening international law and international institutions is a key element of the church's approach to international affairs, especially since the Second World War."

The U.S. decision to invade Iraq, certainly one of the defining moments of the Bush administration, was marked by a sharp moral divergence between the president and the leadership of the Catholic Church.

As the nation prepared to go to war, the Vatican and the U.S. bishops vigorously and publicly opposed entering into such a war without exhausting the alternatives and without U.N. concurrence. In the final prewar weeks Pope John Paul II even sent a personal envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to the White House to try to change Bush's mind.

Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy spelled out the U.S. policy explicitly: "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against ... terrorists."

The Kerry campaign has sharply criticized Bush's unilateralism, promising that Kerry as president would mend fences with the United Nations and rebuild the international alliances that Kerry says have been damaged by the current administration.

"The main difference between Bush and Kerry on whether to go to war with Iraq was that Kerry thought pursuing it through the U.N. Security Council should be done more aggressively or differently," Powers said. "But they both basically supported, ultimately, the right of the U.S. to use force pre-emptively, without U.N. support if necessary."

George A. Lopez, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame and senior fellow at the Kroc Institute, told CNS that neither candidate represents "the kind of seamless garment that many of us would search for in linkages across peace and justice issues."

He said he thinks Kerry personally comes closer to Catholic positions "across the justice macro-lens" but his positions on other issues "are a bit wanting" from the standpoint of Catholic teaching.

Lopez, who has closely monitored U.S. Iraq policy for years, said he regards the current situation in Iraq as a morass that is still deteriorating. The failure to achieve the goals of the war and postwar occupation "is a fruit of the kind of unilateral approach" taken by the administration, he said.

On the other hand, he said, "Kerry has simply told us, 'I'll do it better,' but he hasn't told us (how). He's told us that, because he'll be more multilateral, the outcomes will be better, but that's not true by definition."

Whoever takes office in January will face a situation in Iraq "which is so far deteriorated and is going to be so difficult to restore that the notion of moving now to a position consistent with Catholic social teaching on peace and war is really beyond the fact," he said.

Addressing the Bush administration's overall approach to international laws and accords, Father Christiansen said, "The Catholic inclination is to strengthen international organizations and international law and the administration ... has done everything to kind of defy existing international agreements."

Lopez criticized Bush's unilateral abandonment in 2001 of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, in force since 1972, by which the United States and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) mutually agreed not to establish a national missile defense system. Lopez acknowledged Bush's argument that the treaty was outdated but said, "not in a way that would rule out aggressive dialogue to update it."

At the same time he criticized Kerry for not articulating a clear position on the U.S. posture toward treaties. "Kerry has to make a generic case for why treaty behavior is in our national interest, whether it be the chemical weapons convention, Kyoto (a convention on the environment) or the ABM. He's got to make a claim that makes sense there," Lopez said.

---CNS