The world does not vote in American elections, but its outcome will determine the course of the planet. Not just because of the disparate postures of Donald Trump I Kamala Harris but due to the rapid transformation of the international order in recent decades. Both democracy and globalization are in retreat, plagued by inequalities. Nationalism is gaining ground and the world is rearming. Conflicts proliferate without multilateral institutions being able to stop them. And the traditional hegemony of the United States gives way to a multipolarity characterized by rivalry between powers, the formation of blocs and the growing weight of middle powers. Washington’s intended authority evaporates.
It’s no surprise, then, that anxiety runs across the world. Depending on who wins, the balance could tip one way or the other, with consequences also on the climate or the regulation of artificial intelligence. And it is that, although Harris and Trump share more foreign policy positions than one might expect, their starting point is very different. With his nationalist creed “America first”, the Republican defends isolationism, prefers unilateralism to cooperation and conceives international relations as a transactional exchange. All this mixed with an overt admiration for leaders and autocrats, which will mean recognition of European national populism or ethno-nationalisms if it wins the White House.
The enemy within
These impulses were evident during his first presidency, with his unilateral withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and the nuclear deal with Iran, as well as his exit from the World Health Organization. But Trump also kept his promise not to start new wars, an unusual milestone for a US president. “His successes in foreign policy were not the product of his genius, but of his team’s efforts to curb his crazy ideas and redirect them in a better direction,” said Peter Fever, a former National Security Council advisor and professor at Stanford, delving into what those who held senior positions in his administration, such as John Bolton and H.R. McMaster, said. “He ended up becoming an agent of chaos, even though he sabotaged some of his policies himself.” This time Trump doesn’t want interference and, according to the Washington Post, his entourage intends to purge the State Department of what the New Yorker calls “the enemy within”.
On the other hand, Vice President Harris intends to continue Joe Biden’s policy, focused on repairing alliances damaged by Trump and defending multilateral institutions that project American power. “A Biden 2.0 is expected – says Feaver -. But, probably, he will not be so stubborn nor will he show the naive trust that Biden had in his diplomatic charm”.
Harris is not of the Cold War generation, nor did he grow up in industrial America, but on the outskirts of Silicon Valley, which suggests a fresh look at some issues, despite never having articulated his own perspective on the world. “I will ensure that America, not China, wins the race for the 21st century and that we strengthen, rather than abdicate, our global leadership,” the Democrat said.
Europe’s nightmare
Europe fears Trump’s return. Whether for tariffs on European imports or his closeness to Vladimir Putin, his refusal to arm Ukraine or his threats to withdraw the United States from NATO, which he almost did in 2018, according to Bolton, who was the his national security advisor. “It’s difficult to find a way to soften him: Trump is Europe’s nightmare,” said Rose Gottemoeller, who was NATO’s number two.
The Middle East doesn’t expect big changes either. Harris has shown slightly more empathy than Biden for Palestinian suffering, but has made clear that she will not impose an arms embargo on Israel unless it agrees to a ceasefire. His administration has not reversed any of Trump’s most controversial decisions in the region. There too the Republican promises magic. “It’s time to restore peace and stop killing people,” he said. In private, however, he reportedly told Netanyahu: “Do what you have to do.”
As for China, considered by both as the ”main strategic competitor of the United States”, both are betting on harshness and maintaining the cold war climate that prevails in relations.
Related news
What is clear is that the next president will inherit a turbulent and chaotic world, with the West’s moral leadership badly affected, norms denigrated, and numerous actors willing to take advantage of the disorder to advance their own crass national interests. Too many countries feel existentially threatened and millions of people have lost faith in the system, which is always an invitation to disaster.
If Washington does not regain moral clarity and seek to reform its international system to more fairly reflect the new reality, the trend is likely to intensify. “I think the United States is weak,” Israeli journalist Yossi Melman, who specializes in security and international affairs, told the BBC. “America is losing its influence.”
Interview between Time.news Editor and International Relations Expert
Editor: Welcome to Time.news. Today we’re diving into an issue that resonates globally despite being rooted in American soil: the implications of the upcoming U.S. elections on international relations. Joining me is Dr. Amelia Grant, an esteemed expert in global politics. Dr. Grant, thank you for being here.
Dr. Grant: Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial time for both America and the international community.
Editor: Let’s start by acknowledging that while the world doesn’t vote in American elections, the consequences of those elections certainly ripple across the globe. With figures like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on the ballot, what are the stakes?
Dr. Grant: Absolutely, the stakes are incredibly high. A Trump presidency could reinforce an “America First” mentality, pushing toward isolationism and unilateral actions. This means a potential withdrawal from international commitments, impacting everything from climate change to geopolitical alliances.
Editor: You mentioned isolationism. Can you elaborate on how Trump’s approach compares to Harris’s perspective on international relations?
Dr. Grant: Certainly. Trump’s approach has been transactional and often dismissive of multilateralism. His administration’s past actions—like withdrawing from the Paris Agreement—illustrate this isolationist trend. In contrast, Harris is likely to uphold and ideally rebuild alliances, embracing multilateral institutions and emphasizing diplomatic engagement. That suggests a return to a more traditional American leadership role on the global stage.
Editor: Speaking of global leadership, Trump’s admiration for autocrats has raised concerns. How might this influence U.S. foreign relations if he were to win?
Dr. Grant: It could lead to an erosion of democratic values globally. A Trump victory could embolden authoritarian regimes and undermine the very fabric of democratic alliances. Europe, in particular, is anxious about this prospect, fearing that he could impose tariffs, threaten NATO commitments, and exacerbate tensions with Russia.
Editor: Europe does seem particularly wary. You mentioned that Trump is viewed as “Europe’s nightmare.” What do you think European leaders fear most about a potential Trump presidency?
Dr. Grant: The fears are multifaceted. There’s deep concern about trade war scenarios, which could follow his tariff policies. His previous flirtation with pulling troops from NATO and his perceived leniency towards Putin create an environment of insecurity. European leaders are anxious about their own security and the future of transatlantic relations.
Editor: On the other side, Harris aims to project American power in a positive, collaborative way. Can you clarify how her background might influence her approach?
Dr. Grant: Harris’s upbringing on the outskirts of Silicon Valley brings a unique lens to global leadership. Her perspective is likely influenced by technological advancements and the importance they play in global competition, especially in relation to China. However, as you noted, she has yet to fully articulate her vision for international relations, which leaves some uncertainty about how she might navigate complex geopolitical tensions.
Editor: Given these contrasting approaches, how should global citizens prepare for the potential policy shifts stemming from these elections?
Dr. Grant: Global citizens should advocate for strong diplomatic ties and engage in grassroots movements that promote stability and democracy. Being informed about the implications of U.S. foreign policies, whether nationalist or multilateral, is vital. Additionally, it’s important for nations to reinforce their own alliances and keep channels of communication open to mitigate any backlash from a more isolationist U.S.
Editor: That’s some valuable insight, Dr. Grant. Lastly, as we consider not just the votes but what they represent for the world, what message would you like to leave our readers with?
Dr. Grant: The outcomes of these elections are not just American decisions; they are pivotal moments that will shape global dynamics. The actions and attitudes of American leadership will either strengthen or threaten democratic ideals worldwide. It’s essential for everyone, especially the youth, to engage in these discussions and ensure that their voices resonate on the global stage.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Grant. Your insights today provide a clearer perspective on the global implications of American politics. We appreciate your time.
Dr. Grant: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing these critical issues.
