The world doesn’t vote United States electionsbut its outcome will determine the course of the planet in the coming years. Not only because of the very different positions that Donald Trump Yes Kamala Harris maintained in numerous areas, but due to the rapid transformation of the international order in recent decades. Both democracy like the globalisation They are in serious decline, besieged by the abyss economic inequalities. Him nationalism It continues to gain ground and the world rearms. They proliferate armed conflicts without multilateral institutions being able to stop them. and the traditional one US hegemony is giving way to a multipolarity marked by rivalry between great powers, the formation of blocs and the growing importance of medium powers. Washington’s intended authority is rapidly evaporating.
It is not surprising, therefore, that anxiety is sweeping the world on the eve of these elections. Depending on who wins, the scales could tip decisively in one direction or the other, with serious consequences for the climate or the regulation of artificial intelligence. And, although Harris and Trump share more positions than you might expect on foreign policy, their starting points are very different. With his nationalist beliefs “America First”the Republican champions isolationismdisdains multilateral institutions (or “globalists”, as they like to call them), prefer the unilateralism to cooperation and conceives international relations as a purely matter transactional. All this mixed by a poorly concealed admiration for leaders and autocrats, which will be a boost for the European national populism or ethnonationalisms in Israel or India if he wins the White House.
These impulses were evident during his first presidency, with the unilateral withdrawal of the Paris climate agreement or the Iranian nuclear dealas well as the output of World Health Organization. But Trump also kept his promise Don’t start new warsan unusual achievement for a US president. ”His successes in foreign policy were not the product of his own brilliance, but of his team’s efforts to curb his craziest ideas and redirect them in a better direction,” says Peter Fever, former National Security Council advisor and Stanford professor, elaborating on what was said by those who held senior positions in his administration, such as John Bolton or H.R. McMaster. “In the end it was a agent of chaoseven though he himself has sabotaged some of his policies.” Trump this time does not want interference and, according to the “Washington Post”, his entourage intends to do so purge the State Department of what the New Yorker calls “the enemy within.”
From the “agent of chaos” to continuity
On the other hand, Vice President Harris intends to give continuity to Joe Biden’s policiesfocused on repairing alliances damaged by Trump and defending multilateral institutions that project American power. All this despite the enormous damage it suffered double standards in Ukraine and Gaza or their complicity with Israeli excesses in Gaza contributed to the system’s credibility. “Harris is expected to be like a Biden 2.0,” Feaver says. “But she probably won’t be as stubborn or display the naive confidence that Biden had in her charm as a diplomat.”
Harris doesn’t belong cold war generation nor did he grow up in industrial America, but on the periphery of America Silicon Valleywhich suggests a new look at some issues, despite never having articulated his own perspective on the world. “I will ensure that America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century and that we strengthen, rather than abdicate, our global leadership”the Democrat said during the campaign.
Europe’s “nightmare”.
In Europe, Trump’s return is particularly worrying. Both for the tariffs it intends to impose on European imports and for its proximity Vladimir Putin his reluctance to continue arming himself Ukraine or his threats to withdraw the United States from I WILL TAKEsomething he was about to do in 2018, according to Bolton, who was his national security adviser. “It’s difficult to find a way to soften him: Trump is Europe’s nightmare,” Rose Gottemoeller, former NATO number two, said recently.
But in Brussels there are also those who think that the alleged tensions with the EU could help the bloc reduce its dependencies and accelerate strategic autonomy which is disturbing, as happened with the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are more doubts about Trump’s promises to keep peace in Ukrainegiven its closeness to the Kremlin’s theses and the possibility that it will force Kiev to accept the partition of the country.
In Near East No big changes are expected for either of them. Harris showed a little more empathy than Biden did towards the Palestinian sufferingbut he has already made it clear that he will not impose on arms embargo on Israel if he does not accept a ceasefire. His administration has not reversed any of Trump’s most controversial decisions in the region, such as transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem or the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, illegally annexed. Trump promises to work magic there too. “It’s time to regain peace and stop killing people,” he said. In private, however, he would have told it Netanyahu “do what you have to do.”
Harshness against China
In front of Chinaconsidered by both as the “major strategic competitor of the United States”both are committed to persistence and maintenance of cold war climate that prevails in relationships. With some differences. On the trade front, Trump promises 60% tariffs on all Chinese imports decouple both economieswhile Harris prefers more selective tariffs, such as the 100% tariff that his Administration has imposed on Chinese electric vehicles. At the military level, Harris should strengthen the block alliances with its Asian and Oceanic partners, such as the group of QUAD or the VICTIMwhich also includes the United Kingdom. And promises to defend the sovereignty of Taiwanunlike Trump, who is much more ambiguous about it.
What is clear is that the next president will inherit a turbulent and chaotic world, with the moral leadership of the West seriously affected, rules trampled upon and numerous actors willing to take advantage of the disorder to advance their own interests crude national interests. Too many countries feel it 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 attempt to reform its international system to more fairly reflect the new reality, the trend is likely to worsen. “I think the United States is weak,” Israeli journalist Yossi Melman, who specializes in security and international affairs, recently told the BBC. “America is losing its influence.”
#ELECTIONS #midst #era #disorder #world #risking #elections #United #States
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Foreign Policy Expert
Time.news Editor: Good afternoon. Today, we’re delving into an issue that resonates globally: the upcoming U.S. elections. With potential outcomes that could shape international politics for years to come, I’m joined by Dr. Maria Thompson, an expert in foreign policy and international relations. Dr. Thompson, thank you for being here.
Dr. Thompson: Thank you for having me. It’s a critical time, and I’m glad to discuss the implications of these elections.
Time.news Editor: Let’s start with the broad strokes. It’s clear that regardless of who becomes president, Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, the implications will extend far beyond U.S. borders. What do you think are the biggest concerns on the global stage?
Dr. Thompson: Absolutely, the ripple effects of these elections will be significant. The decline of democracy and globalization, coupled with rising nationalism and economic inequalities, has created a precarious situation. The next president will either compound these issues or initiate a course correction. The global anxiety surrounding the elections underscores the stakes involved.
Time.news Editor: Speaking of anxiety, what are the potential scenarios we might face with either candidate? Let’s start with Trump.
Dr. Thompson: Trump’s return to office would likely mean a return to an ”America First” approach. His history of unilateralism, such as the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal, suggests he might continue down that path. Additionally, his admiration for autocrats could embolden similar movements globally, which is concerning for democracies, especially in Europe.
Time.news Editor: And what about Harris? How does she differ in her approach?
Dr. Thompson: Kamala Harris aims to build on Biden’s legacy, focusing on multilateralism and repairing alliances. While she might not have the same experiences as Biden, her perspective growing up in Silicon Valley suggests a potential for innovative approaches to foreign policy. However, her track record shows she may not challenge the status quo dramatically, particularly regarding controversial U.S. policies in the Middle East.
Time.news Editor: It’s interesting you mention the Middle East. How do you see either candidate influencing U.S. relations in that region?
Dr. Thompson: With Trump, one could expect a continuation of his controversial policies—perhaps even more aggressive ones—like the unconditional support for Israel without demanding accountability. Harris, on the other hand, has shown slightly more empathy towards Palestinian issues, but has not indicated any drastic shifts in policy. Both seem unlikely to impose significant changes.
Time.news Editor: And Europe is notably anxious about Trump’s approach. Can you elaborate on this?
Dr. Thompson: Yes, Trump’s proposed tariffs on European imports and his friendly stance towards Putin have unnerved European leaders. Trump’s isolationist tendencies could seriously jeopardize European security, especially in terms of support for Ukraine. However, some European officials believe that his presidency might push the EU towards achieving greater strategic autonomy, reducing reliance on the U.S.
Time.news Editor: It sounds like there’s a real fear that the transatlantic alliance could be tested. Moving onto the Asia-Pacific, how do both candidates view China?
Dr. Thompson: Both candidates identify China as the main strategic competitor of the U.S. However, they come from different philosophies. Trump’s approach might be more belligerent, characterized by trade wars and confrontational rhetoric. Meanwhile, Harris might pursue a strategy that combines competition with collaborations on global challenges, though specifics remain unclear.
Time.news Editor: As we look ahead, what do you think will be the most pressing issues for whoever occupies the White House come January?
Dr. Thompson: Climate change and artificial intelligence regulation are paramount. How the new administration addresses these issues will not only impact domestic policy but international coordination. The outcomes of these elections could significantly determine the ability of the U.S. to lead on these critical global issues.
Time.news Editor: It’s clear that the upcoming elections carry immense weight for the future of international relations. Thank you, Dr. Thompson, for your insights today.
Dr. Thompson: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these vital issues. The world will be watching the U.S. closely.