The 2024 US presidential election holds immense global significance, with the outcome potentially reshaping international relations and affecting the fates of numerous nations. The contest between Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican nominee former President Donald Trump carries particularly weighty consequences for countries grappling with conflict, economic uncertainty, and geopolitical instability. From the ongoing war in Ukraine to the volatile tensions in the Middle East, the next US president’s foreign policy will have far-reaching implications, impacting everything from military aid and trade agreements to the very survival of some nations. This article explores the stakes for several key countries depending on the election’s outcome.
Key Takeaways: How the 2024 US Election Impacts the World
- Ukraine’s survival hinges on the election, with a Trump victory likely leading to reduced military aid and pressure for territorial concessions to Russia.
- US-China relations remain fraught, regardless of the victor, but a Trump presidency could reignite a damaging trade war.
- Israel and Iran face potentially contrasting outcomes: a Trump victory could embolden Israel against Iran, while a Harris victory might prioritize de-escalation.
- Global stability is at stake, with differing approaches to international cooperation and alliances expected from each candidate.
China: A Looming Trade War?
China and the United States are locked in a fierce economic rivalry, and the animosity is unlikely to abate regardless of who wins the presidency. Former President Trump has openly threatened to revive the trade war he initiated during his first term, imposing $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. He justified these measures as necessary to reduce the trade deficit, bolster American jobs, and enhance US competitiveness. While a Harris administration might adopt a less overtly confrontational approach, the underlying tensions between the two economic giants are unlikely to simply disappear. The possibility of renewed trade conflict remains a significant concern for global markets and economic stability.
Russia and Ukraine: An Existential Choice
The ongoing war in Ukraine casts a long shadow over the election. Kyiv’s continued resistance heavily relies on foreign military aid, making the US election’s outcome a matter of existential importance. A Trump administration, along with hard-line Republicans, is widely perceived as being far less inclined to provide further military assistance to Ukraine, severely hindering its ability to defend against Russia. Trump’s past statements, including his boast of being able to resolve the conflict “in 24 hours,” suggest a willingness to significantly curtail aid in pursuit of a negotiated settlement potentially involving Ukraine relinquishing substantial territory. This scenario could lead to further losses for Ukraine, making a continued fight without US support a precarious gamble.
Expert Opinions and Uncertainties
“The U.S. election may well force the hand of the Ukrainians, as a Trump win will immediately lead to a change in American policy orientation and much more direct pressure for Kyiv to negotiate. Which means the Ukrainians may soon have to decide if they want to break from their most important military supporter or not,” noted Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group. Even a Harris administration, despite its commitment to continued support for Ukraine, faces challenges. Securing additional financial aid may prove difficult depending on the composition of Congress. While Harris has pledged support “for as long as it takes”, the precise definition of this commitment and the parameters of US aid remain unclear.
Israel and Iran: A Clash of Approaches
In the Middle East, Trump’s and Harris’ foreign policy positions show some unexpected alignment. Both candidates have pledged continued support for Israel while simultaneously emphasizing the urgent need for conflict resolution in Gaza. However, their approaches differ significantly, especially when it comes to Iran. Trump has cultivated a strong image as a protector of Israel, highlighting his previous support for the country and making inflammatory statements against those who do not support the country. This rhetoric has deeply resonated with a significant segment of the Israeli population. A Harris administration, however, is expected to maintain a policy of de-escalation of tensions in the region. This contrast in approaches creates uncertainty to the region’s future stability.
Public Opinion and Policy Implications
A recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that nearly 65% of Israelis believe Trump would be better for their country’s interests, significantly outnumbering those who favored Harris. This reflects Trump’s actions during his first term, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israeli sovereignty. However, Harris has faced criticism for perceived ambivalence towards Israel, stemming from her expressions of concern regarding civilian casualties in Gaza. She countered these criticisms by firmly restating support for Israel’s right to defend itself and condemning Hamas’ attacks. Regional and Western officials believe a Trump presidency would be detrimental to Iran, potentially leading to increased Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and a return to the “maximum pressure” sanctions policy. In contrast, Harris is viewed as more likely to pursue de-escalation, aligning with the Biden administration’s approach.
Expert Analysis on Future Policies
Ambassador Mitchell B. Reiss, a distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, points out that a Harris administration is likely to continue Biden’s foreign policy trajectory. “We do not know her world view, her policy preferences, even her choices for senior Cabinet positions,” Reiss stated. “My best guess is that President Harris would largely continue Joe Biden’s foreign policy, prioritizing good relationships with allies and friends, and placing a heavy emphasis on diplomacy.” Reiss contrasts this cautious approach with the potential unpredictability of a second Trump term: “We already know that Trump views the world more in personal and transactional terms than in strategic terms. He is skeptical about U.S. commitments to allies and sending U.S. troops overseas — he is not committed in the same way that previous presidents have been to the traditional role the U.S. has played in constructing and leading the liberal international order that has brought us so much peace and prosperity since WW2.” The differing policy approaches of each candidate promise to profoundly affect the future trajectory of global power dynamics and international relations for years to come.
