Can Asia survive another pro-war U.S. president?

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat , The Jakarta Post , Cambridge, Massachusetts | Tue, 02/12/2008 11:15 AM | Headlines

With John McCain practically assured of the Republican Party nomination in the race for the White House, there is a 50-50 chance America's next president will prolong, if not enlarge, the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Although he lacks the level of recognition which either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton have in Asia, McCain's foreign policy platform has been the more perspicuous compared to the Democratic Party hopefuls.

A tough-talking realist, McCain is unrelenting on the war in Iraq, tough on Iran, suspicious of China while displaying uncanny attention to the dynamics of Asian security.

In the December issue of Foreign Affairs journal -- which became the de facto platform to outline the candidates' foreign policies -- McCain committed to a U.S. presence in Asia, recognizing it as a linchpin of Asian stability.

This should come as a relief to Southeast Asian analysts who feared prolonged engagement in the Middle East would signal a further distraction to Washington's ties with Asia.

As a Vietnam War veteran who spent seven years in captivity, McCain has more than once expressed detailed interest in the region.

As the current president's interest in Southeast Asia wanes, McCain has asserted his intention to "participate more actively" in ASEAN and expand defense cooperation with countries like the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam.

He also has hinted at a policy initiative on Indonesia, a country usually on the edges of Washington's radar.

The 72-year-old Arizona senator specifically said he would "seek an elevated partnership with Indonesia".

Exactly what this partnership means is unclear.

Closer security cooperation is possible. But perhaps the likeliest possibility is the solicitation of Indonesia's participation in a U.S.-led League of Democracies convened in McCain's first year in office.

This gathering of democratic nations, as McCain envisions, would act when organizations like the UN fail to take the initiative.

The candidate is also keen on creating a new body to replace the defunct U.S. Information Agency, saying its dissolution in 1998 was tantamount to a "unilateral disarmament in the war of ideas".

His keenness is comforting in these policy areas, but less so in other aspects.

McCain clearly sees a future in which the U.S. needs to hedge its bets on a wider coalition to counter China's rise, including alliances with India.

He makes no qualms about saying that China may share interests with the U.S. but not values.

On Iran, terrorism and the Middle East, McCain echoes President George W. Bush.

McCain is adamant that Iran will not win in a showdown -- diplomacy takes precedence, but a military option is viable.

Despite his bold vision of a League of Democracies, a McCain administration would continue support for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's regime, bolster Israel's military superiority and sustain isolation of groups like Hamas.

Though Obama and Hillary evoke similar messages of global cooperation, albeit less detailed, there is a fundamental difference of character with McCain.

The Democratic Party candidates suggest an America which would get "on board" with the rest of the world. McCain's vision seems to hinge on a strategy of co-opting others to a U.S. point of view by cementing alliances and intensifying cooperation.

During a campaign rally, McCain said if the U.S. has been in Japan and South Korea for half a century, it shouldn't pull out from Iraq if backed by the right strategy from the administration.

"If we leave Iraq, they (terrorists) are going to follow us home," said McCain.

Though a pro-war stance is vulgar in other parts of the world, the mood in many U.S. towns has shifted. From a daily list of American dead last year, the recent troop surge in Iraq has dampened bad news from the front.

The desperation on Iraq is not as pervasive as it was last year. There is a pervading sense of "we are now really winning". And Americans like to win, especially the Super Bowl, World Series and wars.

The pivotal moment would be if terrorists weigh in on the debate, as they did in 2004. In that case, Americans could again settle for a pro-war president, even if the rest of the world cannot.

The author, a staff writer with The Jakarta Post, is studying at Harvard University as a research fellow with the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

Comments (0) | Post comment

A | A | A |