With foreign policy making unusually big waves in an American presidential election, the world is watching campaigning nervously. Each new promise by President George W. Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry could rock a boat most nations want to see sailing smoothly. Election promises do not always come to fruition, especially when made in the heat of close battle. What the rivals say and do is meaningless until months into a presidency, when the realities of an administration become apparent. So when Senator Kerry talks of a formula for success in Iraq and North Korea or sets out a new approach to trade, it is a case 'of watch this space'. Likewise, a second Bush term does not necessarily mean a continuation of what went before. Observers stress that picturing a world in which Mr Bush is still at the helm of the US or Senator Kerry has taken up residence in the White House is guesswork. It may also be an indication that in troubled global times, with the US, the world's most powerful nation, pushing its considerable military and economic might around, that no one wants to put their necks on the chopping block. That would certainly seem to be the case in Asia, where conservative leaders would prefer the status quo to change. Singapore-based regional security analyst Tan See Seng pointed out this week that the unilateralism Mr Bush had been so widely accused of towards the United Nations and Iraq had not been evident in East Asia. 'President Bush facilitated [the] Association of Southeast Asian Nations and US co-operation on counter-terrorism and in Northeast Asia he supported the six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula and sought to assure China over his position on Taiwan,' said Dr Tan, of Nanyang Technological University's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. 'East Asia remains important to Bush, as evidenced by Secretary of State Colin Powell's whirlwind tour of the region this week on the eve of the election. The bad news is that Bush remains a lightning rod for anti-US sentiments, which doesn't bode well for East Asia, not least where the interests of Washington's Asian allies are concerned.' Anti-American sentiment is also rife in Western Europe, Arab and Muslim countries and Latin America over the war in Iraq and trade policies, but there is widespread belief among analysts that a second term for Mr Bush would mean a different approach. John Dumbrell, a British professor of US-European relations, said there would be a desire to mend fences, no matter which candidate won the presidency. The question was one of style or substance, the University of Leicester expert explained. 'In many areas, there's not a lot Kerry can do, such as in Iraq,' Professor Dumbrell said. 'He can't withdraw and therefore won't do much different from Bush. He'd try to bring allies in, but the French are not going to send troops to Iraq and nor are the Germans.' It is on trade where Senator Kerry will be noticeably different. He has indicated he will be tougher on trade issues and has threatened to punish American companies who outsource their services overseas. But his hands were likely to be tied by America's ballooning budget, current account and trade deficits, said Stephen Roach, the chief economist and director of global economic analysis for financial adviser Morgan Stanley. A second Bush term would up the ante on US and international imbalances, he said. Domestic economic growth would have to be financed by nations buying American debt through bonds, increasing pressure for a devaluation of the US dollar and for an increase in interest rates. With Asian nations, particularly China and Japan, servicing the bulk of American debt and holding tens of billions of US dollars, the region is directly in the economic firing line. Mr Roach said pressure on the dollar would be decreased only through tackling the deficits. 'For Bush, the only means to deficit reduction would be to abandon his campaign-driven support for permanent tax cuts,' he said from New York. 'For Kerry, It probably means his health plan would be at risk as he faces up to the urgent imperatives of a post-election reality check.' That could also apply to any attempts at altering the course the Bush administration has set on Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Senator Kerry has said he would opt for bilateral negotiations to end Pyongyang's nuclear proliferation, while President Bush insists his six-party talks are the best solution. The director of Columbia University's Centre on International Organisation, Edward Luck, pointed out that the chances were high that Senator Kerry would face a US Congress in which his Democratic Party held a minority of seats. 'If there's a Republican Congress and a Democratic president, particularly after such a bitter election, there's bound to be difficulties in devising a real bipartisan foreign policy,' Dr Luck suggested. 'The likelihood is there will be a lot of Republican opposition to Kerry initiatives in foreign affairs, particularly those to do with the UN and multilateral institutions.' Whoever won would believe they had a mandate to go forward with their election platforms. In President Bush's case, that could well mean a continuation of what Dr Luck described as his 'rather distinct foreign policy'. 'He seems to be a very positive, self-assured, determined individual who even if he wins by only the tiniest of percentages, might interpret that as a mandate,' he said. 'But my hope is that should he be re-elected, he would recognise that he won despite his foreign policy and not because of it and he would make some changes in personnel at the top and lessen his dependence on neo-conservative advisers who have led him into some very troubled waters in Iraq.' In such a case, President Bush may go back to the foreign policy he promised in the 2000 election, which was more in line with the traditional Republican approach - careful in the use of force abroad and seeking to build a stronger set of international alliances. Senator Kerry, with his strong background in international affairs as the leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would offer no shift in US policy on issues like the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians or trade with Asia. His main difference would be style. For Dr Tan, that could be critical in resolving hot spots like Taiwan and North Korea. 'Of course, it would mean East Asians will have to play the 'getting to know you' game all over again with a new US president,' he said. 'That might mean putting certain important issues on the backburner while waiting for Kerry to ride out his learning curve.'
