Washington, November 2. (Adnkronos) – The world does not vote for the president of the United States, but it will have to live with the profound global consequences that the election of Kamala Harris or Donald Trump could have. Implications for the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, for key alliances such as NATO, relations with European allies, and ambivalent countries such as Russia and rivals such as China. We look at the two candidates’ positions compared to the hottest foreign policy briefs.
Both Harris and Trump are convinced that the war in Gaza must end after more than a year, but they have different positions on how this should happen. The Democrat supports the negotiations that have been underway by the Biden administration for months, which provide for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip and a “clear path” towards the establishment of a Palestinian state, always as part of the two-state solution. reiterated Joe Biden.
During the election campaign he also took a clearer position than the administration supporting the population of Gaza for the 43 thousand victims, the suffering, hunger and destruction that they are suffering. But she does not support calls to stop sending US weapons to Israel, which could cause her problems with the vote of left-wing Democrats and Arab Americans.
Trump, however, does not oppose Israel’s military victory in Gaza and does not rule out some form of Israeli control or occupation of the Strip, with the return of settlers. In his first administration he did not actively support the establishment of a Palestinian state, ordered the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognized Israeli control of the Golan, which was occupied by Syria in the Six Day War in 1967.
With a conflict that has now spread not only to Hezbollah but to the whole of Lebanon for a month, the policy towards Iran of the two candidates is important, especially given the risk of an open conflict with Israel, after the recent missile launch. between the two countries. Harris criticizes Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, but Trump claims that he abandoned the nuclear deal with Tehran, signed by Barack Obama in 2015, which did not do enough to stop Iran’s “negative influences” backed by anti- Israelis in the region. Abandoning the deal allowed Iran to proceed with the enrichment of uranium, a key ingredient of the atomic weapons that Tehran is aiming for.
These elections could make a clear difference to the conflict in Ukraine. The Ukrainians fear that, in the event of a victory, Trump, who did not hesitate to say that Volodymyr Zelensky was to blame for the Russian invasion and in the September debate that he did not want to say whether the victory of Ukraine he needed, that he might interfere with them. a quick peace favorable to Moscow, and for that reason they hope for a Harris victory and for the continuation of US military support.
Trump claims for his part from the beginning of the conflict, which he would not have broken out in the White House, he says, given his relationship with Vladimir Putin, who claims that he would be able to end it in a few days. However, Harris said that if Trump had been president at the time of the invasion, “Putin would be sitting in Kiev right now” and that the alleged relationship between the tycoon and the Moscow strongman was a sign of weakness.
Trump has never provided details on how he plans to end the conflict, but in the last few days the Financial Times wrote that his team is working on a plan to freeze the war, minimize the involvement of the United States and transfer much of the transfer. economic burden and the ‘supervision’ of the peace process. This would mean creating autonomous zones and demilitarized zones on both sides of the border and not joining Ukraine in NATO, which would satisfy Putin’s demands.
In the eyes of the European allies, Harris comes with comfort from being part of the Joe Biden administration which directed its transatlantic policy to the slogan “America is back”, America is back, after the years of Trump. But at the same time there is a certain amount of uncertainty as to how, if the facts prove it, the Democrat, who has not made any foreign policy decisions herself so far, will be able to move in the geopolitical situation.
On the other hand, the European allies know exactly the attitude of Trump, the constant attacks on the European Union – – with some exceptions, for example Viktor Orban, the dominant prime minister of Hungary close to Putin – and also on NATO itself , so much so that some of them openly express the fear that the new Trump presidency could face the taboo that the USA will leave the Alliance.
Even in one of his last rallies, last Monday in Pennsylvania, Trump – who was a big supporter of Brexit – had ironic words towards “the EU, with all those small countries that come together”, threatening that the Europeans would pay “a big price.” in terms of duties, if they continue to “not buy our cars, our agricultural products, and sell millions and millions of cars in the USA”. It must be pointed out, however, what Politico defines as a “hard truth”, that is, no matter who wins, Trump or Harris, on November 5 “Europe has already lost” from “America’s interest in the continent has been declining since the end of the Cold War and neither candidate can bring back the transatlantic era of the early 1990s.”
Both Trump and Harris have taken a tough stance on China, their main rival in trade, defense and geopolitical alliances. They accuse Beijing of stealing intellectual property and unfairly providing subsidies to the technology and manufacturing industries to the detriment of American business.
If re-elected, Trump promises to resume the ’tariff war’ against China that he had in the White House, slapping tariffs of up to 60% on Chinese products. But at the same time, he does not hide his admiration for Xi Jinping, like the one he has for every strongman with absolute power that he has admitted he would like to have even if only for one day. The tycoon defined the Chinese president as “smart”, admiring the way he rules “with an iron fist”: “He is for China, I am for the USA, but apart from that we love each other”.
Harris is expected to maintain trade restrictions imposed by Biden, who maintained and increased some of Trump’s tariffs, including 100% on electric vehicles, 50% on solar panels and 25% on EV batteries. But he criticizes his opponent’s plan for blanket tariffs, saying they will end up taxing consumers as a result. The Democrat will continue to strengthen diplomatic ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific to counter China’s influence in the region, and has shown support for maintaining the status quo in Taiwan, one of the points of tension between Washington and Beijing. While Trump’s less predictable approach to foreign policy could create tensions with Asian allies, it is unclear how he intends to manage relations with Taiwan. During his first administration, Washington increased arms sales and military cooperation with the island. But at the same time, the tycoon said that Taipei should pay the United States for military protection.
Interview: Time.news Editor Converses with Foreign Policy Expert Dr. Sarah Mitchell
Time.news Editor: Welcome, Dr. Mitchell! Thank you for joining us today. The U.S. presidential election is just around the corner, and while the world doesn’t get to vote, the consequences of these elections are undoubtedly global. Let’s start with the candidates. What are your thoughts on how either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump could reshape U.S. foreign policy?
Dr. Sarah Mitchell: Thank you for having me! You’re absolutely right; the implications of this election will resonate far beyond U.S. borders. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, despite both having strong convictions about ending the war in Gaza, have markedly different approaches. Harris aims for a negotiated peace that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state, while Trump appears more inclined to support Israel’s military outcomes, even hinting at potential occupation. This divergence could affect U.S. relations in the Middle East for years to come.
Editor: It’s fascinating how their stances on Israel and Palestine reveal broader strategies. Harris seems to evoke continuity with the Biden administration’s approach. Do you think this alignment would reassure European allies?
Dr. Mitchell: Yes, it would. Harris brings the benefit of familiarity and the “America is back” narrative which has been comforting for European leaders after the unpredictability of Trump’s past presidency. However, there’s uncertainty regarding her ability to navigate complex geopolitical situations, given her relatively less experience in foreign policy decisions.
Editor: And what about Trump? His approach has been controversial, to say the least. Could he pivot U.S. foreign policy back to a more isolationist stance?
Dr. Mitchell: That’s a real concern. Trump has already indicated a preference for reducing U.S. military involvement overseas, particularly in Ukraine. His speculative plans to freeze the war and shift economic burdens could significantly alter the U.S.’s role on the global stage. There’s anxiety among allies that this could leave spaces for adversaries like Russia and China to exploit.
Editor: Speaking of China, both candidates have taken a tough stance against Beijing. How might their policies differ in addressing China’s influence?
Dr. Mitchell: Both candidates share a critical view of China, primarily its intellectual property theft and economic practices. However, the methods they would employ could differ. Trump may lean more towards an aggressive trade policy or unilateral actions, whereas Harris might prioritize coalition-building with allies to better address these challenges collectively. The effectiveness of either approach will shape America’s standing in the Asia-Pacific region.
Editor: Let’s talk about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. How might the outcome of this election influence U.S. support for Ukraine against Russian aggression?
Dr. Mitchell: This is crucial. Ukrainians are genuinely concerned about a potential Trump presidency, given his past comments suggesting a willingness to negotiate with Russia at Ukraine’s expense. Harris, on the other hand, pledges continued military support which resonates with Ukraine’s hope for sovereignty. A Harris win may ensure an ongoing commitment to support Ukraine, while a Trump administration might foster an unpredictable relationship that could imply a riskier geopolitical landscape.
Editor: That’s quite a dichotomy! Do you think European allies are aware that regardless of the outcome, there might be a significant shift in America’s interest in Europe?
Dr. Mitchell: Indeed, that realization is settling in. As Politico pointed out, it seems that no matter who wins, Europe may have already lost out to some degree on the strategic focus from the U.S. The post-Cold War sense of partnership and prioritization is fading, impacted by shifting U.S. domestic priorities. Alliances may become strained as focuses shift towards rising powers in Asia and concerns closer to home.
Editor: what should our readers keep in mind as they prepare for these elections?
Dr. Sarah Mitchell: As the election approaches, it’s essential to recognize the global stakes involved. The foreign policies of both candidates reveal fundamentally different visions for America’s role in the world, impacting not just U.S. allies, but adversaries as well. Understanding these dynamics can help citizens appreciate their vote’s lasting implications beyond U.S. borders.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Mitchell, for your insights. This election certainly poses significant consequences for the global landscape, and we appreciate your expertise on such a critical topic.
Dr. Sarah Mitchell: Thank you for having me! It’s been a pleasure discussing these vital issues.