The 2024 U.S. Election: Potential Global Impact and Their Influence on International Relations
12 October 2024 . #2410
Mayilvaganan M examines the forthcoming 2024 U.S. Elections, which are merely weeks away, along with their global ramifications. This analysis underscores the intricate connections between domestic political transformations resulting from the November elections and their effects on international relations. As the electoral landscape continues to evolve, the potential outcomes may profoundly reshape alliances, policies, and diplomatic strategies on a global scale. Furthermore, this analysis delves into the implications of the election results for U.S. foreign policy, as well as their capacity to redefine the geopolitical landscape, consequently influencing nations beyond American borders.
Introduction
President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from the presidential race, coupled with his endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, and then the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in July of this year, has intensified the scrutiny surrounding the forthcoming November election. Consequently, the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on September 10th was closely monitored not only within the United States but across the globe. Indeed, the discourse between the two candidates provided insights into their policy perspectives on geopolitics and foreign affairs for voters, observers, and nations worldwide. While the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections will ultimately be determined by American voters, the implications extend globally. Notably, the victory of either Trump or Harris is anticipated to have considerable ramifications on global geopolitics, as well as to establish a new trajectory for international relations and shape the future of the United States’ engagement in critical regions such as Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific.
2024 U.S. Elections and Global Geopolitics
The 2024 U.S. election is of considerable significance as it occurs against a backdrop characterized by escalating political polarization, and a swiftly changing global landscape. Moreover, the 2024 U.S. presidential elections possess profound implications, as they will set the direction for the nation over the subsequent four years and will significantly affect both domestic and foreign policies. The outcomes have the potential to reshape congressional majorities and influence essential policy decisions, thereby impacting domestic matters such as climate change, healthcare, and immigration, as well as international relations within the broader context of global diplomacy.
As the world’s largest economy and a key player in international affairs, the outcomes of the November 2024 elections hold significant implications for international relations, global trade dynamics, and environmental policies. The interconnected nature of the global community means that decisions made in the U.S. can resonate across continents, influencing partnerships, alliances, and global initiatives. Therefore, the aftermath of the elections is poised to shape trade regulations, climate change agendas, and diplomatic strategies.
Notably, the outcome of the election is anticipated to have considerable ramifications on global hotspots, influence the engagement of the United States in critical regions such as Europe, where longstanding partnerships may be tested; the Middle East, where ongoing conflicts demand immediate attention; South China Sea, which remains a focal point of maritime disputes that is important for international trade and navigation freedom; and the Korean Peninsula, where both diplomatic efforts and military presence are crucial for stability. The implications of these developments could redefine foreign policy strategies and alter the balance of power, prompting a reevaluation of America’s role on the world stage.
Scenario Analysis
Europe
First, the European region is anticipated to undergo significant economic and political transformations in the wake of the U.S. elections, particularly concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If Trump were to win, it is likely that a rift would develop in the relationship between the United States and its European NATO members. It is clear that a considerable number of European nations have already recognized the probable implications of a Trump presidency for the continent’s welfare. The prevailing sentiment suggests that U.S. support for Ukraine may diminish, and that ongoing commitment to NATO could become unreliable with Trump in the Oval Office.
If that is the case, Europe must allocate greater resources towards defense, weapons production, and military capabilities to safeguard its national interests. Furthermore, there exists a broad consensus that Trump is anticipated to pursue a campaign of economic nationalism characterized by tariffs, protectionism, and market exclusion, which would assuredly result in adverse impacts on their economies. Incidentally, a Trump victory could greatly affect national politics in Europe, potentially boosting far-right populist parties that share his views.
Some even believe that Trump will seek to normalize diplomatic relations with Russia despite the suffering experienced by Ukraine. Even Kamala Harris told Donald Trump during their debate that President Putin is “a dictator who would eat you for lunch.” As he sidestepped the question about whether he wants Ukraine to win the war, instead he said “I want the war to stop.” These are some of the potential impact of a Trump presidency that are expected.
In contrast, Kamala Harris articulated the notion of Ukraine’s “righteous defense” and charged Russian President Putin with having “his eyes on the rest of Europe.” Consequently, it is anticipated that Harris’s victory will reinforce U.S. support for Ukraine and, more broadly, for Europe in its efforts against Russia. Thus, a strategic balance is likely to remain in Europe if Harris wins the elections.
Middle East
Secondly, the outcome of the U.S. elections could greatly impact the Middle East, depending on the new administration’s policies. The U.S. support for Israel might stay the same or change, which could shift regional alliances and increase tensions between Israel and Palestine, as well as with neighboring Arab countries.
Notably, on the Middle East conflict, the election campaigns and the September 10th presidential debate shows different views, with Trump emphasizing normalization and Harris supporting a more inclusive peace process. Donald Trump, during the debates, highlighted his first term administration’s efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East, particularly through the Abraham Accords that aimed to improve relations between Israel and several Arab nations. He claimed his strategy was better at promoting stability and peace and praised the Abraham Accords as a major step toward cooperation, stating, “I got countries that had been in conflict for decades to recognize Israel. This is historic and something previous administrations couldn’t achieve.” Given this, one can expect that if he wins the election, his policies are likely to remain pro-Israel, focusing on strengthening U.S.-Israel relations and aiming for broader regional agreements.
Conversely, Harris emphasized the persistent violence and humanitarian challenges in the region, asserting that the policies implemented under Trump’s administration have failed to establish stability. During the debate, she criticized Trump’s strategy for not adequately addressing the root causes of conflict and for insufficiently advocating for the rights of Palestinians. She underscored the importance of a two-state solution as a prerequisite for attaining enduring peace, articulating, “we cannot ignore the plight of the Palestinian people. A real and lasting peace will require a two-state solution.” Therefore, should she succeed in the election, it is expected that constructive U.S. diplomatic initiatives will be pursued to address the needs of all parties involved.
Another focal point will be on Iran, as the U.S. stance on Iran’s nuclear program and its sanctions could lead to either new negotiation opportunities or heightened tensions in the region. Harris seeks to uphold the policy of the current administration regarding the stringent enforcement of sanctions on Iranian oil exports, while also ensuring that Tehran is effectively barred from acquiring a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Trump could pursue the expansion of sanctions with the objective of bringing them into alignment with some form of agreement, such as the Abraham Accord.
Additionally, the future of agreements like the Abraham Accords may rely on the new administration’s perspective on regional partnerships, thereby influencing Israel-Arab relations in general. Also, a review of U.S. military presence and security commitments in Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf could significantly affect regional stability of Middle East in general.
Overall, the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape is likely to be shaped by the priorities and foreign policy strategies of the next U.S. administration, alongside ongoing regional issues and conflicts.
China, South China Sea and Indo-Pacific
Finally, the United States’ approach to China, the South China Sea and Korean peninsula is expected to experience a significant policy shift following the inauguration of the new administration after the November 2024 elections.
Two contenders, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have different views on China, as seen in the presidential debate, reflecting their political beliefs. Trump took a tough approach during his time in office, imposing tariffs on Chinese goods to fix trade issues and address intellectual property theft. He viewed China as a key economic rival and aimed to update trade deals to help the United States. He also raised concerns about national security related to technology and espionage and took steps to limit Chinese companies like Huawei and TikTok due to fears about American data safety. So, if he succeeds again, Trump might continue to confront China, potentially resulting in trade complications between the two nations.
In contrast, Harris articulates a diplomatic approach, emphasizing the significance of alliances and collaborative efforts with other nations in Indo-Pacific, to address the challenges presented by China. She could reinforce the Indo-Pacific coalition of like-minded countries to reduce China’s influence, particularly in areas like the South China Sea and Taiwan. Furthermore, she may advocate for accountability and impose sanctions against China regarding its treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang and the situation in Hong Kong. With respect to climate change and environmental issues, Harris is anticipated to pursue cooperative initiatives with China, whereas Trump may not engage in such approaches.
On the Korean Peninsula, if Harris assume the presidency, it is expected that she will adopt a diplomatic approach towards North Korea, collaborating with South Korea, Japan, and other allies to formulate a comprehensive response strategy without engaging in direct negotiations with North Korea. Conversely, if Trump were to regain the presidency, it is plausible to observe a continuation of key elements from his previous policies, likely including direct negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and emphasizing personal diplomacy as a mechanism to facilitate denuclearization, while either maintaining or potentially increasing economic sanctions to apply pressure on the regime.
In short, on Indo-Pacific, Harris is likely to prioritize diplomatic initiatives, multilateral cooperation, and the advancement of human rights, whereas Trump’s strategy is expected to focus on aggressive confrontation and the international isolation of China. Nonetheless, observers assert that there is a limited prospect for a substantial change in US policy regarding China, irrespective of who holds the presidency.
Conclusion
The upcoming American election, featuring Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump as the main candidates, will significantly impact global politics, as the policies and ideologies they represent will resonate beyond U.S. borders. If Harris wins, we can anticipate ongoing cooperation between U.S. and its allies, emphasis on climate concerns, and stronger multilateralism. A win for Trump could signify a return to the “America First” policy, which may reduce U.S. engagement with international allies and nations, while prioritizing national interests. This means there might be a reevaluation of alliances with European countries, prompting NATO members to spend more on defense.
In summary, any prospective alterations in U.S. foreign policy following the election of Donald Trump or Kamala Harris could greatly influence global affairs and affect international relations, especially in military alliances, diplomatic agreements and trade. As a result, countries around the world will be closely monitoring the shifts in U.S. policy, adjusting their own strategies and expectations in response to the new administration’s priorities and decisions.
Dr. Mayilvaganan M is the Director at CHSIA and serves as a Consultant at Communitology, as well as a Non-Resident BOB Fellow at the Bay of Bengal Programme.
Views expressed are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CHSIA.