The right man for Asia
In a year with a bumper crop of national elections in the region, the US polls were the most watched in Asia. And there has been a palpable sense of dismay that, in reconfirming George W. Bush as president, Americans did not choose as wisely as many Asians had hoped. That disappointment is misplaced.
But more interesting is how an opinion was formed that John Kerry would have been better for Asia. This comes from a number of misunderstandings concerning international security, and prejudices about America.
The invasion of Iraq cemented the impression that the US, under Mr Bush, is dismissive of international opinion; that America has become even more a nation that rides roughshod over the consensus of the world community. The overarching sentiment is that 'unilateralism' has no place in contemporary international politics, that the post-colonial era should be one of a 'democracy' of independent regimes.
Matters of war and peace, thus, ought rightly to be decided within the multilateral framework of that international parliament of independent regimes, the United Nations. This notion ignores one glaring fact. Despite rosy hopes for the UN, the reality is that not all nations are equal. The US really is the most important nation in the world. Most people will accept that it holds such a status in the economic sphere. But most are unwilling to accept that the US is also politically the most important regime. The upshot is that America has interests throughout the world, and these are best served by its role as guarantor of international security. The nature of this role makes the US a benign world power, the first nation with this stature that harbours no ambition of empire. Because it is not an imperial power, American foreign policy is most effective when it is guided by pragmatism.
This was the case in Iraq. The evidence available at the time argued for the swift toppling of Saddam Hussein. Because few in the international community were willing to be convinced, this forced a decision that is now described as unilateralist. Yet, certainly, that description does not sit well as a characterisation of the Bush administration. In Asia, for example, pragmatic American policy compels Washington to continue to insist on the six-party-talks format as the preferred means of settling the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. But Mr Bush gets flak for refusing to hold bilateral discussions with North Korea. So while, over Iraq, Mr Bush is charged with unilateralism, with North Korea he is, ironically, accused of refusing to forgo multilateralism.
The displeasure among many non-Americans towards Mr Bush is not so much because he is a unilateralist. Rather, it is rooted in resentment against America's historically established leadership, and Mr Bush's willingness to assert that role. There has hardly been a recent US president - whether Democrat or Republican - who was unambiguously well-liked abroad for his foreign policy.
Although Senator Kerry may have given the impression that he would have sought a greater international consensus, prudence would have probably dictated that a Kerry administration was not unlike that of Mr Bush. But if a Kerry administration did abandon prudence, an America in retreat would have been highly damaging to nations whose own security interests are congruent with those of the US.
Those dismayed at Mr Bush's re-election will want to consider that a president Kerry would not have substantially redirected the trajectory of US foreign policy. But if he did, the abdication of leadership would have left a vacuum that would render Asia's several discrete security interests in disarray. Either way, uncertainty at the outset would have been gleefully seized on - unilaterally - by rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran.
Tion Kwa is the former editorial page editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review
