Better the devil you know, perhaps
It is impossible to recall an American president as unpopular internationally as George W. Bush. There is no doubt that most Southeast Asians would be thrilled to see his challenger, Senator John Kerry, emerging victorious in the November 2 election. Mr Bush's failings - at least from a foreigner's viewpoint - are legendary. His divisive and crude rhetoric has outraged many, especially in the Muslim world. His stubborn approach to the lawlessness in Iraq has also frustrated global opinion.
Alongside the avowedly redneck Mr Bush, Senator Kerry, with his elegant presence and manners, would seem to herald a welcome return to multilateralism. Travelling across the region last week, I was struck by the sense of relief that accompanied Senator Kerry's performance in the two US presidential debates.
However, I remain sceptical about how Southeast Asia would fare under a Kerry administration. It is vital not to forget the extent to which September 11 traumatised America. While Mr Bush's crude certainties are shocking to non-American ears, his simplistic arguments resonate with large swathes of the population.
There are four reasons why Senator Kerry would be a more complex and difficult occupant of the White House for Southeast Asia. First, his family connections and interests will accentuate his Atlantic orientation. He seems to view the rebuilding of the European alliance as his most critical challenge, which will once again distract the White House from the far more important task of engaging China.
Both Mr Bush and Senator Kerry failed to address US-China relations in the September 30 foreign policy debate, and neither seems to have a full grasp of the complexity of the bilateral relations, or the extent to which China is slowly turning the tables on the US. Foreign (mainly Asian) investors are gorging themselves on US assets, reversing America's traditional role as the world's leading creditor nation. There will come a time soon when American prosperity is held hostage by Asian financiers and central bankers. The adjustment, in terms of power, wealth and influence, will be more painful and shocking for the US than September 11. I am unsure that Senator Kerry understands the inevitability of these commercial forces and how they will ravage the US.
Second, Senator Kerry has reiterated calls for a major conference of all leading allies to mobilise support for the US position in Iraq. Having raised American expectations that the international community will rally round the US following a leadership change, Americans, I believe, will be disappointed by the half-hearted response.
Third, a Kerry administration would be looking to recoup US standing in the world. Given the media focus on Darfur and Sudan, it seems highly probable that the US would seek to intervene in what some have described as 'genocide'. Many Muslims would see that as yet another example of an unjustified strike against an Islamic country. Moreover, US prestige and moral authority cannot be reclaimed so easily. Doubts over American intentions will always remain, especially because the Democrats (with their substantial Jewish vote base) will be at pains to demonstrate their whole-hearted support for Israel.
My final point is that a Democrat president will seek to promote civil liberties in the region. Once again, this will be used to whitewash over the recent US human rights abuses. Such a shift will be condemned as hypocritical.
While America will be ready to forget the legacies of a Bush administration, the world will not. A Kerry presidency will have to live with Mr Bush's many missteps. Southeast Asians would be unwise to expect too many changes from a new president. Style, as they say, may be everything in diplomacy, but the substance will remain unchanged.
Karim Raslan is a lawyer and writer based in Kuala Lumpur
