Nationalism or multilateralism? Voters will decide the foreign policy of the world power. usa elections

Depending on who wins the presidential election in the United States this Tuesday – and given the stubborn tie between the two candidates in the election, the final results may take time to come – the foreign policy of the great world power may take a very different direction. Leggy: Republican Donald Trump’s isolationism or the Joe Biden-era multilateralism that Democrat Kamala Harris promises to continue. In a fight in which both forces are as tight as they are this year, and in which the majority of voters declare that they attach great importance to international affairs, this situation could tilt the balance to one side or the other.

Whoever manages to overcome the 270-vote threshold that provides a majority in the Electoral College, the winner between the two candidates will immediately face two big hot potatoes: the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East. In less urgent, but urgent terms, a third challenge is emerging: the rivalry with China and military-to-military relations in the Indo-Pacific.

Tradition dictates that voters’ everyday concerns – the performance of the economy, safety on the streets – are what decide the outcome of American elections. A common refrain that dates back at least three decades, dating back to Bill Clinton and the famous “It’s the economy, stupid!” His campaign was pitted against George Bush in 1992, who, as head of a coalition of nations, had ended the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

But this time the matter may be different. It’s true that the economy is by far the biggest priority for Americans. But according to a Pew Research Center survey in September, 62% say foreign policy is an issue they are very interested in. The issue is particularly important to Trump supporters: 70% of them recognize it, while among Harris supporters the percentage is 54%.

“In a very close race like this year’s between Trump and Harris, foreign policy issues could tip the balance,” Gregory Aftandlian, a Middle East policy expert at the Arab Center in Washington, wrote in a report. “In particular, voters’ opinions on candidates’ positions on the Israel–Hamas–Hezbollah and Russia–Ukraine wars could be decisive in swing states and, therefore, in the electoral outcome.”

Protest vote in Michigan

In particular, his position on the war in Gaza, which could have an impact in the state of Michigan, where the Arab-American population threatens to vote a protest against the Democrats in power over the White House’s support for Israel in a 13-month confrontation. Harris preaches the need for an immediate ceasefire, but like Biden, rejects an arms embargo on Israel. Trump says it is important for the conflict to end quickly, but Israel “must prevail.” Republicans assured that he is a stronger ally of the Jewish state than his rivals.

Neither candidate has been particularly forthcoming when it comes to articulating their geopolitical positions. But this is enough to make it clear that they are completely different.

Harris, who pledged to support a stronger military in her acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination in August, claims a willingness to cooperate with her colleagues in defending against authoritarianism. He then commented, “In the eternal struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know which side I am on and I know which side the United States is on.” The Vice President hopes to maintain support for Ukraine in the fight against Russian aggression. Trump, on the other hand, is full of praise for Kremlin tenant Vladimir Putin. He has criticized Kiev’s spending on military aid and assured that he would be able to end the war in a single day, forcing the claimants to negotiate. Presumably, without Washington’s assistance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to surrender.

The next occupant of the White House must confront not only two wars, but also a moment when a realignment is taking place in global geopolitics. Cooperation between autocratic powers is growing: North Korea not only provides ammunition and missiles to the Russian war machine, but now – according to complaints from Washington, Seoul and Kiev – is also preparing to deploy troops in Ukraine. Is. Beijing and Tehran also support Moscow’s military industry. Other states of the so-called Global South, such as Brazil, Turkey or India, avoided supporting the West in the war.

“These actors will test a new administration not by challenging the United States directly, but by attacking perceived weaknesses, such as the strength of Washington’s commitment to its allies and partners or the influence that Russia and China have over developing countries.” There are no other options,” writes Victor Cha of the Center for International Strategic Studies (CSIS) in the introduction to this report. think tank On the global consequences of the US election.

China and Russia pressure

In his opinion, China and Russia “will test Harris’s relative inexperience in foreign policy (…) in the areas of security and economic pressure.” If Trump wins, “they will explore to what extent they can pressure US allies to bow to Moscow and Beijing’s preferences without provoking a US reaction, in a context of ‘America First’ with minimal US involvement.” Can put it.”

If Trump wins, this minimal participation could have consequences for Washington’s participation in alliances of which it is a member, from agreements to combat climate change to NATO. The former Republican president, who tried to leave the Atlantic Alliance, announced during the campaign that he would not respect Article 5, which requires mutual defense among member states if a partner were attacked. Which does not meet its military spending commitment of 2% of GDP.

“Under a second Trump term, NATO will look very different than it does now. Less an alliance based on common values, and more a fee-for-service agreement. This change will come at a time when the challenges and dimensions of the alliance are growing as never before: although it is a North Atlantic alliance, China’s support for Russia in the war and its hegemonic ambitions in the Indo-Pacific each have concerns from Europe and from Europe. Combines. Pacific again,” says Liana Fox, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

One area where foreign policy and domestic issues mix is ​​immigration, the issue that matters most to Americans in this election, with the sole exception of the economy. Both Democrats and, above all, Republicans have moved to the right on this issue, promising to tighten border controls, or tighten border controls. Harris, who as Vice President was in charge of tackling the causes of migration in Central America, assured that she wants to defend the failed border security bill introduced by both parties in Congress earlier this year. Trump has promised, among other things, “the largest deportation campaign in American history.”

A big unknown is how the great world power will cooperate with its neighbors to resolve the issue, former Mexican Ambassador Julian Ventura said from Chatham House in a recent videoconference. “If it would seek legal avenues for migrant flows, it would try to address the causes of African migrant flows into Central America, or even the US.”