• 
• 

The first debates last week between the two US presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, revealed a big difference in their perceptions of foreign-policy issues. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia and Iran seemed to get all the attention of the two senators aspiring to become the next US president. It was sad that they only mentioned the trouble spots that represent the failure of US policies rather than its prospects in the future.

Later, the American media, especially the network news stations, dissected the candidates' views in detail, minute by minute, with graphs and fact-check teams. Most commentaries and opinions focused on style rather than substance. None of them raised the question of why the two candidates failed to recognise the importance of East Asia. In the 97-minute debate, there was no mention of East Asia at all.

In less than five weeks, there will be a new president. The new US administration will soon find out that what the two Asian giants, China and India, will have a great impact on the region and the world - to a far greater extent some of the countries mentioned during the debate. Japan, the world's second-largest economy, did not feature in their foreign-policy perspectives.

Suffice to say, the differences between the two candidates have clearly emerged. Obama's overall views are focused on diplomatic efforts and multilateral cooperation. Given his background and the way he was raised, he would appear softer in comparison to his opponent, who advocates a stronger stance by the US whenever its interests are affected. McCain perceives the US as the world's superpower and thus the country must behave as such. His muscular view of the situation in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan is scary because it would entangle more US troops and demand even more tax money.

It is obvious that the US under Obama would be perceived as being gentler and friendlier, while under McCain as being more decisive. Which approach is best for the world's greatest power? The American people are spilt equally on this issue. Most foreigners watching US politics would immediately agree that Obama's position would be best for America, considering what the country has gone through since the September 11 tragedy. A US that is willing to listen more closely to other world leaders would certainly bring closer cooperation. During the debate, Obama emphasised that the US needs to work multilaterally to secure global peace and stability.

For McCain, his foreign-policy views are grounded in his experience in the Vietnam War. More than he would like to admit, he represents the so-called American psyche when it comes to US relations with the world. This perception entails US supremacy around the world through advocacy of democracy and human rights. His view of setting up a League of Democracies is an ideal that could be dangerous if aimed at countries like China or Russia. To promote global democracy is a difficult job due to differences in political, economic and social environments, all of which affect the quality of democracy. Just look at Thai democracy today.

McCain's strong America with a new coalition of the willing from democracies around the world will only work if these countries build their own political systems that respect freedom and human rights. America should have realised by now that any value that Washington imposes on the rest of the world will not always work. Certainly, it can help to provide a fertile ground for democracy. But it must be done with respect for local conditions. In the past, the US has been pushy and overzealous in promoting democracy and freedom.

At this point in time, with huge economic problems awaiting the American people, it is preferable that a gentle America emerges for the benefit of the global climate and to restore the US's standing abroad. And a set of clear policies towards Asia would help. After all, the US is facing one of the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression and no country in the world wants to see the US go down the tube - because such a scenario would affect global economic growth.