SOME WORLD VIEWS of US presidential candidates

 Since it is still an early period for the presidential election campaign, any hopeful candidate from either party – Democrat or Republican – must present their views on pertinent issues, particularly on foreign policy, that can draw media and public attention, demonstrating their capacity as chosen ones for the next presidency in 2017.
So it should surprise nobody that Jeb Bush, the former president George W Bush’s brother and a Republican presidential candidate, came out and literally said that the Iraq War in 2003 was a big mistake — causing quite a stir. Unfortunately, that war cost the lives of nearly 4,500 American |soldiers and half a million Iraqis - and a whopping $3 trillion – as |well as a long list of messy consequences that require piles of paper to detail.

In months to come, more spectacular comments and ideas relating to the revitalisation of the US global leadership will definitely come to the fore as the declared presidential candidates make themselves known. How to make America strong again is the best thesis to launch any presidential campaign.

Last week, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, New Hampshire, Governor Chris Christie, another Republican presidential candidate, unveiled his muscular foreign framework by proposing the expansion of the military and strengthening of America’s presence around the world. He asserted boldly that the world was in turmoil because “American power is in retreat.”

To fix this problem, Christie urged an expansion of military forces to 500,000 troops and 185,000 marines, as well as 350 ships from the current 260. For the US to keep its edge, he reiterated, it must bolster its air force as well. He did not say whether the US had the kind of budget to do that.

In the near future – closely associated with the US’s global leadership – will be the rise of China, engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the nuclear-ambitious countries of Iran and North Korea. Obviously, nobody will pick up the US rebalancing policy in the Asia-Pacific, except to denounce it as a failure.

But the top issue for presidential hopefuls would be ways to keep China in check. There will be some outrageous and demonised views from hawkish candidates. Containing China will eventually morph into different double-speak — lesser versions of containment — trying to avoid direct clashes with Beijing.

Rand Paul, the current leading Republican candidate from Kentucky, has very succinct views on the future US role — the necessity to have permanent foreign military bases overseas, which are constantly under pressure from host countries. He opposed granting President Barrack Obama’s fast track authority to negotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership – and last week, he was among the 52 senators voting against providing such a mandate for Obama.

For the time being on the Democrat side, former US Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was the first to announce her presidential ambitions, will likely be the only person ready to discuss issues outside the purview of China, Russia and the Middle East. She could also take up challenges related to India and Asean topics. 

During her tenure, she rebooted the US policy in the region, pushing forward the US rebalancing policy at an earlier stage. She deliberately internationalised the South China Sea dispute and placed the US in the middle of controversy - albeit with Washington’s pledge of neutrality. The Asean-US engagement under her watch was more intense and substantive.

As far as the Asian region is concerned, Clinton would be a rightful candidate for the next president. She is hands-on, friendly and always ready to parley with leaders from this part of the world, especially during the Asean-led meetings. |But it remains to be seen if she |will be able to survive exposure of her private emails, released last week, and the Benghazi incident |in 2012.

However, when poll day draws near, expressed worldviews out there — no matter how outrageous they are — will gradually be diluted as prospective candidates gain wider support. Once they are selected as their parties’ candidates — one on each side - then their views on particular issues will be further fine-tuned to fit the reality of the day.

As it is, American society has a checks and balances system that does not allow extreme views or practices to prosper — barring some freak views and lone wolf actions. Many interested groups are competing with one another openly and forcefully. Only the practical views with community-backed action plans and grounded in moral and collective responsibilities will see the light of day.