With the 2016 US Presidential Election right around the corner, it’s time we remind ourselves the extent of influence the US has on the rest of the world. As a superpower, the US has been a global leader to which many countries still look to for guidance and takes on the responsibility for more than just one nation’s people. Some examples include aiding to put an end to the conflict in Syria and leading the global economy. Such is the usual for those with power on the international stage, and to deny this would be as unhelpful as it is ignorant.
There are many still many issues on the President’s plate, but this article will zoom in on some of the main concerns in the Asia-Pacific region and how the two candidates would tackle them.
Security
For starters, one of the major concerns is the progression of the South China Sea conflict. The US has ensured that its presence in the contested area is noticed by asserting freedom of navigation rights and supporting other countries in the region, as I have elaborated on this article. Will the new administration focus on solving the conflict through diplomatic reason or bulk up on military presence and press on as they have? As with everything else, the outcome depends on the candidates.
Donald Trump wishes to pull out US troops from Japan and South Korea which is troubling as the Japan-US alliance is essential to the stability of the region and reducing security in South Korea could have detrimental effects. From what has been gather through the sentiments of this unpredictable candidate, Trump sees no purpose in maintaining the so-called “pivot” towards Asia the Obama administration had begun—in military terms at least. A smaller US presence in the area will tilt the power balance in China’s favour, leaving the future of the dispute in an even more precarious, unclear position than before.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton led the Obama administration in forming stronger alliances with countries in South East Asia as Secretary of State. The US stands with other countries such as Vietnam in supporting the Hague ruling which rejects China’s claim in the South China Sea conflict. However, it is a given that none of these countries wish to go to war. Therefore, Secretary Clinton will probably carry on with this stance, considering the work she had already put into the region. Hence, the idea of her allowing the conflict to escalate to violence seems far-fetched.
Trade
The predominant concern for Asia, economically, are the attitudes towards trade that will be undertaken by the new administration. The most prominent question on most people’s mind is if the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership agreement), will ever be ratified. This is the 12-way trading agreement among countries in the Pacific (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Brunei etc.) that would reduce tariffs and enforce “stricter labour and environmental standards” to boost the growth of countries covering 40% of the economy.
From an objective standpoint, the pledging of both candidates not to ratify the TPP is worrisome to Asian countries. Say what you will about free trade and its effects on the US but to countries like Singapore and Malaysia, trade is not only desirable but necessary for the wellbeing of their economies. Not being open to trade would not only slow economic progress within these few countries but the global economy as well.
The IMF has predicted a continual of slow global economic growth, aided by the protectionist ideals of Brexit and the likes of Donald Trump, who wants to impose tariffs on US’s biggest trading partner (China). At least one of the two candidates is known to have shown concern for the region’s interests. Hillary Clinton does not directly oppose free trade but the agreement itself. This in turn gives a more promising outlook compared to the candidate denouncing bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, one of the region’s biggest economies and US ally.
Commitment to alliances in the region
The lack of assuring action on the US’s part for something as desirable as the TPP has caused countries to lose faith in the US, as said by Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. And while most countries have not denounced allying themselves with the US to the extremity of Philippine President Duterte, failure to deliver on promises has sparked apprehension.
When President Barack Obama took office, he made it a key point to make a ‘pivot’ towards Asia a priority. The Obama Administration has worked hard to assert their presence and gain trust among countries in the Asia region, with Secretary Clinton herself leading the way for their accomplishments. However, with their term coming to an end, these are concerns that must continue to be addressed and prioritised by the US for the sake of their own interests in the region.
To say who would be best in pursuing the region’s interests is a debate in itself. However, there is no question of who is the more experienced candidate among the two to handle affairs abroad.
Alliances are two-way and the US will not be able to further their interests without compromise. There is no doubt that the result of the election day will have lasting effects on the rest of the world. The only question is—how?
