Millions of Asians will be glued to their screens, big and small, on Wednesday morning as the results of the US presidential election stream in. Much will be riding on the outcome when it comes to relations between the United States and Asia. The question is whether a new administration will pursue a path toward mutual prosperity and security or take a detour into muddy waters amid growing mistrust.
The contrasts between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump are clear in many voters' minds. One is a former secretary of state whose qualifications for office are beyond dispute. However, her perceived cosiness with Wall Street and controversy surrounding her use of a private email server for official communications continue to haunt her campaign in its final days.
The other is a wealthy property tycoon and former reality television show host with a flamboyant hairdo. Add a history of bankruptcies and dubious tax filings, together with lewd remarks about women and insults directed at immigrants, and that is basically what Donald Trump is known for.
The winner will inevitably direct how the US engages with the world. A president needs the ability to manoeuvre US foreign policy and steer management of international affairs in favour of the US as well as preserve the status quo.
Both Ms Clinton and Mr Trump have outlined a series of policies toward Asia. For a start, both are critical of China's economic policies, with Mr Trump labelling China a "currency manipulator", in line with Republican orthodoxy. Ms Clinton has been critical of Chinese dumping of steel into the American market, endangering American steelmakers and their employees.
But Mr Trump's foreign policy toward China takes on a very hawkish tone, as suggested by his vow to increase the US military presence in the South China Sea, investigate China for unfair trade practices, and beef up US deterrence against Chinese cyberattacks.
On the other hand, Ms Clinton would pursue classic carrot-and-stick diplomacy, identified through her willingness to cooperate with China in areas of common interest, but to take a tough stance on issues such as cyberattacks and China's poor human rights record.
For longtime US allies in Asia Pacific such as Japan and South Korea, Ms Clinton has reaffirmed a commitment to foster vigorous alliances by bolstering the US ballistic missile shield. Mr Trump could destablise the existing US security umbrella in Asia as he wants US allies all over the world to contribute more financially in exchange for the security provided by American troops in various regions.
In his eight years in office, President Barack Obama has spoken frequently of a new "pivot" toward Asia. The aim has been to create a hedge against China's rise and also shift Washington's focus away from unproductive meddling in other areas such as the Middle East. Improving trade relations with Asian countries has been another key policy of Mr Obama as the economies of many traditional trading partners in Europe remain sluggish.
So the trillion-dollar-question is, what will the future hold for Asia under a Clinton administration or a Trump presidency?
A Clinton administration will follow similar foreign policies to those seen under the Obama administration -- she helped shape many of those policies, after all, as secretary of state for four years -- and consistent with the traditional foreign policies pursued by most US administrations over the last 70 years, says David Brewster, a senior research fellow at the National Security College of Australian National University.
"That means she will probably be inclined to push back a little harder than Obama was willing to do against efforts by China to undermine the US role in Asia," he told Asia Focus.
Under President Clinton, there would be a greater US focus in the region and a greater willingness to use US strength to push back against perceived Chinese assertiveness, which probably means greater US spending on military activities in the region.
"Based on past performance, I expect that quite early on Beijing will probably test the resolve of the Clinton administration in the South China Sea or elsewhere, and I think that President Clinton will feel bound to push back quite hard," said Dr Brewster.
"Under a Trump presidency, Beijing would be moving on many fronts, and who knows what would happen?"
A Trump presidency also means many US friends and allies in Asia would hedge against perceived uncertainty, either by becoming closer to China or by building up their own defences, with the option of seriously considering acquiring nuclear weapons as one of the possibilities, or even resorting to both choices, he said.
Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has expressed his intention to dramatically change the longstanding US-Philippine alliance. He has openly insulted Mr Obama for criticising his lethal war on drugs, saying he was ready for a "separation" from the US.
Mr Duterte has also expressed a wish to establish closer ties with China despite the two countries' territorial dispute in the South China Sea. That dispute may already be easing following a recent visit by the Philippine leader to Beijing.
Thailand is another traditional US ally that could gravitate further toward China, given how US officials have voiced concerns about the Thai military junta's spotty human rights record and the absence of a functioning electoral democracy.
"Mr Trump will not win the election, but if he did it would be a disaster for Asia," said Dr Brewster. "Few people believe that he would actually implement all of his crazy announcements, but the mere uncertainty about what his next bizarre move would be would severely undermine trust in the US.
"With Mr Trump, all bets would be off and we would likely see a great deal of instability."
Asian leaders can expect some continuity of the Obama pivot and rebalancing policy under a Clinton presidency but it will not have the same thrust and commitment because she will be constrained at home, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University.
"Ms Clinton is clearly more of an internationalist and Mr Trump is more nationalist and inward-looking. However, Ms Clinton's internationalism will be held back by domestic priorities," said Dr Thitinan.
But whoever wins, Washington is likely to address China's dominance in Southeast Asia, including the South China Sea controversy.
"This is why countries in the region are trying to find ways to deal with China directly because they know they cannot rely on the US. However, Japan can provide some hedging for these countries in place of the US," said Dr Thitinan.
On dealing with North Korea, Ms Clinton has stated that she intends to work with the United Nations on sanctioning the pariah state, while pressing China to deter Pyongyang from developing its nuclear programme. She has also pledged to bolster missile defences for Japan and South Korea in order to safeguard against a possible North Korean attack.
Mr Trump believes China has "total control" over North Korea and has threatened to "make trade very difficult" for Beijing if it does not collaborate on reining in Pyongyang. Despite saying that he is willing to hold direct talks with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, Mr Trump has also stoked fears of nuclear proliferation in Asia by mentioning that he would support a nuclear-armed Japan.
TRADE IMPLICATIONS
While there would not be a significant change in US foreign policy toward Asia under a Clinton presidency, a Trump presidency would result in a more difficult relationship, especially if he follows through on some of his campaign promises.
These include slapping tariffs on Asian exports and sending Asian foreign workers home, said Kaewkamol Pitakdumrongkit, a Singapore-based assistant professor at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies' Centre for Multilateralism Studies.
"These measures would lead to a reduction in Asian nations' GDP (due to tariffs) as they are export-oriented, and could make it difficult for Asian foreign workers to renew their US work visas which in turn hurts remittances back to their home countries," said Dr Kaewkamol.
"Take the Philippines as an example. Thirty percent of Filipino workers [abroad] are working in the US and contribute to remittances and GDP. Mr Trump's policy to curb foreign workers will hurt them."
Both Ms Clinton and Mr Trump, meanwhile, stand united in opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a multilateral trade pact with 12 signatory countries that has yet to enter into force. The prospect for immediate ratification of the US-led TPP is dim, as trade with Asia is now being framed by many American politicians as hurting US domestic manufacturing and workers, said Dr Kaewkamol.
"The ratification process would face a huge resistance in the US Congress as few congressmen and women would risk their careers by supporting the deal as doing so would jeopardise their constituencies and votes," she said.
Dr Brewster said a Clinton administration would probably put the TPP on hold for at least a year and try to negotiate some face-saving changes before moving forward with a deal.
"With Mr Trump, who knows? He probably doesn't know," he said.
Despite the candidates' professed dislike of the TPP, the new American president has to plan his or her next move wisely. That's because Asia is working on its own mega-deal, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), involving the 10 Asean members plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.
The RCEP negotiations are behind schedule but this is understandable as cutting a deal with all 16 nations will be difficult, said Dr Kaewkamol.
"But if the TPP fails and the RCEP succeeds, the US would lose its leadership in rule-making in an international trade realm. It would lose its credibility in the eyes of US allies in Asia, which could undermine the US influence and leadership in the region," she said.
"The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) might also undermine US clout in Asia, but I think the US and other countries, such as Japan, have some room to fill, such as capacity-building or personnel training programmes, which could help bolster infrastructure development in the region."
BUSINESS AS USUAL?
The presence of American businesses with footprints in Asia is immense. From major beverage companies such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo to energy majors including Chevron and ExxonMobil, the flow of US money into Asia is monumental.
The US ranks third behind EU and Japan among the top three sources of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Asean. Last year, FDI from American businesses totalled US$13.6 billion, accounting for 11.3% of total FDI flows into Asean.
Major American multinationals are not expected to change their investment strategies in Asia, said Darren Buckley, the Bangkok-based country head of Citibank, saying Asia was a continent full of business potential, given the huge need for infrastructure upgrades and a growing population.
But the US government's interaction with its Asian counterparts could change after the election depending who becomes president, said Mr Buckley.
"Mr Trump certainly seems to be wanting to renegotiate everything with everybody and wants to take a harsher stance on China, so that would lead to changes in the overall government-to-government relationship," he told Asia Focus.
"It is still seen as though if Ms Clinton wins, more of what has been happening under Obama would be continued, and I do think Ms Clinton will have a more positive or favourable view on interaction with Asia," he said, noting that Washington began lifting some sanctions on Myanmar when Ms Clinton was still secretary of state.
Stanley Kang, chairman of the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce, in Thailand, said Ms Clinton was seen as having vast political experience, which would ensure continuity of US foreign policy.
But many Americans are also looking for change and to some, Mr Trump seems like a candidate who would better serve average people and businesses, he told Asia Focus.
For Mr Kang, Asian businesses that prefer a Clinton presidency are those that support policy continuity, whereas businesspeople favouring a "business-over-politics" standpoint would prefer a Trump presidency.
In any case, US-Asia trade relations would be damaged less by a Clinton presidency than a Trump administration, said Dr Kaewkamol.
"It is mainly because Mrs Clinton knows the importance, economically and strategically, of maintaining and fostering US-Asia ties," she said. "For example, the TPP has a strategic component as it is part of the United States' rebalancing policy toward Asia. Her presidency would be more predictable and business-friendly than that of Mr Trump."
If Mr Trump becomes the next president, he is expected to surround himself with experts who could guide him to take an appropriate course of action in the economic realm, given his own lack of experience.
"But, there are certain aspects where the US president can wield his power with little constraint from Congress and the court system, such as imposing punitive tariffs of other countries' exports for up to 150 days," she said. "This action could jeopardise US-Asia trade. Such uncertainty about Mr Trump may cause businesses to be worried."
Regardless of who wins the election, leaders in both major US parties have recognised that Washington must remain committed to deepening engagement with the Asia-Pacific region and Southeast Asia in particular, said Melissa Sweeney, a spokeswoman for the US Embassy in Bangkok.
"It is fundamentally in our interests to do so, and interests do not depend upon the party or administration in power," she told Asia Focus.
Recognising Asean's diplomatic, economic and strategic importance, the US has invested heavily in its relationship with Asean, she said, noting that the partnership has been important in addressing shared challenges on a diverse range of regional and global issues.
"Nor will the election's outcome affect our longstanding alliance and friendship with Thailand. We are proud of our long tradition of friendship and cooperation with Thailand, a partnership that stretches back over 10 generations," she said.
