US Presidential Election - What Does It Mean To Malaysia and Rest of the World

Come November, the world will wait for the results of US Presidential election with a collective bated breath.  Either winner would not bring rejoice to the world, but different degree of apprehension.

So what does it mean to Malaysia and the rest of the world with the election of either candidates to the most powerful post in the world?

Let's have a look.

Donald Trump
The property magnate turned politician began dabbling in politics when Obama became Mr. President.

With Trump's increasingly vitriolic commentaries, it is a very big concern if this person becomes the next POTUS.  

But that would be least of our concerns.

Historically, US Presidents who came from the Republicans are more hawkish and are more likely to declare an open war (with exception to John Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson).  

Under Republican presidents, US had launched wars in Panama (Bush Senior), Iraq (Gulf War 1 by Bush Senior and 2 by Bush Junior), Grenada (Reagan) and Afghan War (Bush Junior).  They were also involved in Nicaragua supporting the Sandinista which later led to the Contra scandal.

As Trump is a Republican candidate, there may be a penchant for direct intervention.  However, Trump's definition of direct intervention is very scary.  He was revealed to likely to be nuke any of his opposition.

As revealed previously, he was quoted to frequently ask why can the US Military just nuke those opposing the US.

If he is elected as POTUS, be ready to be turned into irradiated dust.

This in turn would likely restart the nuclear arms race.

Hillary Clinton
While Hillary Clinton has the necessary experience and exposure to foreign policies, my biggest concern with Clinton would be their penchant of using subversive elements of other countries to bring down the legitimately elected government of the country.

Arab Spring is an example of the Clinton's using such action to bring down their opponents.

And before Arab Spring, they had Al Gore, who had openly supported Reformasi in Malaysia while attending an official dinner in Kuala Lumpur.

As mentioned earlier, Republican presidents have a penchant of direct confrontation using their military.  Democrat presidents on the other hand prefer to use their intelligence apparatus (read CIA and NSA) to foment dissent and using air power. 

Their penchant of using subversive elements is also coupled by the love of using air strikes to eliminate targets of opportunities.  This kind of targeting only serves to create more anger against the US and recruitment posters to more militant elements.  Examples of air strikes made by US forces are against Yugoslavis, Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan during Bill Clinton's administration and Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen under Obama. 

While Democrats presidents do have direct intervention, these were fewer in between.  Examples of US intervention during Democrat presidency are Haitian invasion (Bill Clinton), Vietnam and Indochina (JFK).  Note that I'm not considering Somalia even though the Battle of Mogadishu had happened during Bill Clinton's time as the Task Force Ranger were sent during Bush Senior's time. 

It would not be a surprise too if more anti-Malaysian government elements would be popping up around the country.  I'm not sure how many noticed the trend, but it seems every few days before Malaysia is going to announce some kind of deals that favour China, there would be negative need about Malaysia or how China becomes a threat to Malaysia.

So if Clinton is elected, expect more protest around the region and more condescending approach to Malaysia, regardless of whoever is the Prime Minister, until whoever who becomes the PM is US friendly and is willing to allow a US military base to be built in Sabah.