It has been said with justice that this US presidential election is a world election in which the world has no vote. Rarely if ever has a presidential election in the US attracted so much international attention, based on the assumed worldwide consequences of a Bush or Kerry victory.
Veteran commentators are struck by how central foreign policy issues have been in the campaign and how sharply divided are the two main candidates on them - a highly unusual feature, based on perceived threats to US security after the 9/11 attacks. The balance of international opinion decisively favours a Kerry victory - and especially so in Europe.
In evaluating the international effects of the election, these facts about a deeply polarised United States - and a polarised world - must be taken fully into account. But so must the possibility that either man would in fact pursue a convergent and surprisingly similar agenda. If Mr Bush wins he would feel more free in a second term to repair international relations hurt by the Iraq war and less constrained by his conservative base. If Mr Kerry is victorious he would apply his more multilateral approach to the same objectives, especially over Iraq. Neither man would be in a hurry to repeat that exercise in unilateral pre-emptive intervention. They would both have to grapple with declining US influence abroad and the weakening performance of the American economy arising from trade and budgetary deficits.
In the final week of the campaign such a potential convergence is far from the rhetorical hustings, the consciousness of voters or the preferences of international opinion. The campaign has hinged on the contrast between Mr Bush's support for the forward projection of American military power to tackle emerging threats and support its values of democracy and capitalism around the world and Mr Kerry's preference for leadership by negotiation and a greater reliance on diplomacy and alliances to achieve much the same objectives.
Mr Bush has formed an extraordinarily close bond with his supporters based on his response to the 9/11 events. According to the latest research the majority of those intending to vote for him believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or an active programme to manufacture them, despite the categorical findings of the Iraq Survey Group that this was not so. Mr Bush's supporters also believe there was a direct link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, a belief refuted by the 9/11 commission report. Both are held to be true because the Bush campaign asserts them. Such wilful ignorance is dangerous for American democracy and the safety of a world that relies so much for its stability on US power and leadership.
A Bush victory would hasten a readjustment of security structures and alliances in Europe and Asia and a greater political equality between the major players involved. The same forces would be at play were Mr Kerry to win next week, but he would be in a better position to influence and mitigate their effects on US power.