Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September-October 2008, pages 40-41

Islam and the Near East in the Far East

U.S. Elections Spark Keen Interest Among Southeast Asians

By John Gee

	Schoolchildren play basketball in the yard of Menteng One Elementary School in Jakarta, which Sen. Barack Obama (circled in inset) attended as a child in the late 1960s (AFP photo/Ho).

IF SOUTHEAST Asians could vote in the Nov. 4 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama would probably romp home to an easy victory. There is no doubt that he has come over as an eloquent, likeable and inspirational candidate—despite the feeling, shared with many Americans, that his presentation hides a dearth of concrete policy positions. McCain, by contrast, appears staid and unexciting. These perceptions cut across communities and countries, irrespective of religious views and, to a lesser degree, of political alignment.

That said, there are differences of perspective in the region. Interest in Obama was sparked early in Indonesia by the discovery that he had spent some of his childhood years in the country. Some thought that this might have given him a more sympathetic view of the region and a greater openness to Muslim opinions than the great majority of U.S. politicians. Indonesians remain intrigued by how Obama might perform as president.

A further factor in the Democrat’s favor was his early opposition to the Bush administration’s Iraq policies, viewed as disastrous and plain evil by virtually all Muslims and by many others in the region, and as disastrous and misconceived by nearly everyone else. Conversely, McCain’s standing has suffered from the self-inflicted wound of his support for the invasion of Iraq, although the actual distance between his and Obama’s positions on the future of the U.S. presence in the country appeared to decline during the course of the campaign.

As in the U.S., the Democratic primaries aroused a degree of interest in the presidential campaign that has not been seen in the recent past. “Who would you prefer—Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?” became a staple of conversation among the newly introduced or recently reunited during those months—or at least by those who were not fully preoccupied with trying to make a living. As in the U.S., there were women who backed Clinton, wanting to see an effective female politician in the White House, and who were disappointed when she lost the Democratic nomination race.

In Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, small circles of committed Palestine supporters debated whether there was any chance of a more even-handed U.S. policy emerging as a result of the election—but without raising their hopes much. Obama’s speech of obeisance at the AIPAC conference and Clinton’s affirmation that the Democratic front runner was a friend of Israel only confirmed the general sense of skepticism about a fundamental change of policy being in the pipeline. But at least, they think, U.S. policy won’t become any worse than it has been under the Bush administration. Then again, if Obama has the likes of Madeleine Albright and Dennis Ross at his shoulder, things don’t look too promising.

Threats to Iran Arouse Worries

Whoever wins the presidency will inherit a poisoned chalice. The economic crisis triggered by the sub-prime mortgage mess, high oil prices and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will restrict the scope for initiative of Bush’s successor and probably force him to make some unpopular decisions.

In much of Asia, there are worries that an additional problem will be dropped into a new president’s lap. At the time of writing, there were fears that either the Bush administration or the Israeli government might launch an attack upon Iran’s nuclear installations.

There was dismay in June when Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s transportation minister, was reported as saying that an Israeli attack on Iran was “unavoidable” as a result of the international community’s failure to halt Iran’s nuclear program. A major Israeli military exercise involving more than 100 warplanes, followed by an Iranian missile demonstration, did nothing to ease disquiet.

Opinions may be divided on whether Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and whether it is a threat to other countries in the region, but there is a widespread belief that the consequences of any attack on the country would be grave. Out of self-interest rather than sympathy for Iran, East and Southeast Asians generally favor continuing negotiations over problems and avoiding armed conflict.

As a July 17 editorial in Singapore’s Business Times commented: “Let there be no mistake: if war does break out, it will have an impact on the balance of power in the Middle East, affect the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections, determine the international energy prices for months or even years to come, and thereby push the U.S. and global economies into a horrendous crisis. The world hopes that cool heads will prevail.”

Rocketing oil prices and an economic slowdown have resulted in discontent with most of Asia’s incumbent governments, made worse when they have implemented cuts in energy subsidies, as did those in Malaysia, Indonesia and India. Governments and peoples will be angry at any country that takes actions that cause a radical deterioration in their living conditions. Poor and rich countries alike would be hit: Japan imports 90 percent of its oil from the Middle East, from which Asia as a whole draws 75 percent of its oil imports.

No one would expect most of this oil to stop flowing, and there seems little reason why Iran would deliberately choose to withhold supplies from Asian countries that opposed offensive action against it: indeed, continuing those exports would help ensure that it retained a stream of income even if it chose to interrupt supplies to more hostile states. Violence introduces greater uncertainty, however, including the risk of disruption to production and delivery systems. Furthermore, in the interlinked global economy, any action that results in inflation being stoked or the squeezing of the West’s spending power is bound to have consequences for Asian countries that have invested heavily there, and for which the U.S. and Europe are major markets.

John Gee is a free-lance journalist based in Southeast Asia, and the author of Unequal Enemies: The Palestinians and Israel, available from the AET Book Club.