The election and foreign policy

The agendas of the two parties are vastly different. It shows in most areas such as immigration, government spending, regulations, abortion rights, transgender and DEI policies, taxation, energy strategy and so on. There are opposing views cross the board. The same is true for foreign politics and policy. Trump and Harris have vastly different views of the world. Trump has a position of putting American interests first, a disregard for international organizations and multinational cooperation, and Harris follows Obama’s and Biden’s rule-based foreign policy, where the U.S. tries to work with other countries to form a global security agenda and implementation. One is based on nationalism, the other on globalism. The impact on global security is tremendous as the U.S. still is the strongest military power in the world.

According to polls and conventional wisdom, U.S. voters are largely motivated by domestic concerns and especially the economy, but also topics like immigration and abortion rights. But the upcoming presidential election may be somewhat of an outlier. Foreign policy actually ranks quite high in voters’ concerns.

Trump’s starting point and basis for much of his foreign policy, is that the U.S. has been taken advantage of by other nations, especially in trade and security, and it is time to rectify that by putting America first. In his presidency, Trump showed a clear willingness to buck traditions and undid some of globalist Obama’s signature policies, such as the Iran nuclear deal, which exchanged sanctions relief for restrictions on Tehran’s domestic nuclear program, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

Trans-Atlantic relations were tense under Trump, especially because of his hostility toward NATO. Trump wants all NATO countries to pay their fair share and what is wrong with that? Trump routinely demanded allies to pay their fair NATO share at high level summits.  

While NATO did make inroads in bolstering its Eastern flank in that period, the alliance was primarily defined by internal turmoil and limited cohesion during Trump’s time in office. Trump is not obsessed with NATO eastward expansion like Biden and did not create tension with Russia during his presidency. U.S. relations with the European Union hardly fared better. In 2018, the U.S. imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union, citing national security concerns, but it was really a matter of fair trade and the EU had taken advantage of the U.S. for decades.

Trump also broke with previous U.S. presidents in his administration’s Asia policy. One of his first moves in 2017 was to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal negotiated by Obama with massive disadvantages for the U.S. Trump’s late 2017 national security strategy also announced a major shift toward China, labeling it as a strategic competitor, implying a greater emphasis on containing China as opposed to cooperating with it. China is indeed an adversary to the U.S. and continues with a corrupt dictatorial regime.

This hawkish turn played out especially in the field of trade. Trump’s administration imposed four rounds of tariffs in 2018-19, affecting US$360 billion of Chinese goods. Beijing, of course, responded with tariffs of its own. The two countries did sign a so-called phase-one deal in January 2020 that sought to lower the stakes of this trade war. But the COVID-19 pandemic nullified any chance of success, and relations soured further with each Trump utterance of the pandemic being a Chinese virus, which turned out to be true.

Trump showcased somewhat contradictory impulses toward the Middle East and other issues. He pushed for disengagement and to undo Obama’s major policies. Besides withdrawing from the Paris climate accords in 2017, Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal in 2018. His administration also signed a deal to end the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and it withdrew forces from northern Syria.

This eventually resulting in diplomatic success with the Abraham Accords through which Trump helped facilitate the establishment of normal diplomatic ties between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco.

Trump would likely continue his agenda with America first and put increased pressure on the EU for fair trade, continue pressure on China and work for peace through strength globally.

Although not taking a driving role in foreign policy, Harris has been part of an administration that has committed the U.S. to repairing alliances and engaging with the world. She is seen as inexperienced in global affairs. She would emphasize cooperation within global organizations such as the UN, the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization.

With China, it is less clear. The U.S. under Biden has not fundamentally deviated from strategic competition with China, even though the tactics have differed a little. The administration maintained Trump’s tariff approach, even adding its own targeted rounds against Beijing on electric vehicles.

Moreover, it cultivated different diplomatic platforms in the Indo-Pacific to act as a counterweight to China. This included the cultivation of the Quad dialogue with Australia, India and Japan, and the AUKUS deal with Australia and the U.K., both of which attempted to further the Biden administration’s strategy of containing China’s influence by enlisting regional allies. Finally, the Biden administration did maintain some channels of communication with China at the highest level as well, with Biden meeting Xi Jinping twice during his presidency.

The Biden administration’s Middle Eastern policy displayed significant continuity with Trump’s approach. While it turned out to be chaotic, the U.S. completed the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan in summer 2021. The Biden administration also embraced the format and goals of the Abraham Accords. Biden did manage to mess up the ties with Saudi Arabia and that has still not been fixed.

After the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel completely changed the equation in the Middle East. Preventing the spiral of violence in the region has become an all-consuming task. Since then, Biden and Harris have continued to support Israel’s genocide in the Gaza strip and an escalation of the war into Lebanon. Harris is likely more anti-Israel than Biden, but the U.S. military-industrial complex is firmly behind Israel.

In terms of Ukraine, Biden pushed strongly for Ukraine inclusion in NATO, created tension with Russia. The tone of the Biden-Harris administration has been in sharp contrast with that of Trump, reaffirming frequently its clear commitment to continued war in Ukraine and keep sending billions to Ukraine in a U.S. proxy war. Trump has talked about finding a peaceful solution and ending the conflict.  Ukraine. Harris has suggested that she would continue Biden’s policy of providing Kyiv with extensive and continuous military support. She has not mentioned any efforts to end the conflict.

Based on their records, what could we expect of a Trump or Harris presidency? It is unlikely either candidate will abandon strategic competition with China. But Trump is more likely to seriously escalate the trade war, promising extensive tariffs against Beijing. U.S. policy toward Europe will largely depend on the results of the election. Harris has frequently underlined her steadfast support for NATO, as well as for Ukraine. Trump, on the other hand, is showing signs that he is unwilling to further aid the regime in Kyiv and will likely try to find a peaceful solution.

The distinctions between the candidates are very clear. Trump has a strong foreign policy record with a peaceful presidency, whereas the Biden years have been chaotic. Should it be a foreign policy election, Trump would most likely win. Nationalism versus globalism is the main issue.