As of: January 27, 2024, 11:19 a.m
From: Foreign Policy
Comments
Press
Split
The world's fears are usually exaggerated.
How would Trump's presidency differ from Joe Biden's?
- An analysis.
Donald Trump
and
Joe Biden
differ primarily in their domestic policy ideas.
Both would pursue similar goals in foreign policy.
Would it make a difference who wins the election?
This article is available for the first time in German - it was first published by
Foreign Policy
magazine on January 22, 2024 .
Washington DC – Barring unforeseen events, the 2024 US presidential election will be a rematch between incumbent President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
While most Americans would be happier if neither ran, that's not the choice they're likely to face in November.
The election is already being seen as a turning point that will have far-reaching implications for American democracy and its relationship with the rest of the world.
Regarding the first point - the likely consequences in the US - the choice is clear.
Trump is a convicted fraudster, sexual abuser and incompetent in his final term as president.
His commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law is nonexistent, and there are worrying signs that he and the Republican Party want to use a second term to punish political opponents and lead the United States into a de facto autocracy.
Women's rights will be further curtailed, efforts to halt climate change will be abandoned, and rich Americans and corporations will be able to pursue their own selfish interests without concern for the far-reaching social and political consequences.
Whatever you think of Biden or his policies, he will do none of those things.
And that is reason enough for me to enthusiastically vote against Trump.
Difference from Biden?
Trump's goals for US foreign policy
But when we turn to foreign policy, the differences are not so serious.
Although many people now fear that a second Trump term would have a dramatic impact on U.S. foreign policy, I suspect the differences will be less significant than you might think.
Trump will be unpredictable, moody, boorish and confrontational - especially with America's NATO allies - just as he was in his first term.
But in other respects, a second Trump term may not be all that different from what Biden would do if he remained in office for another four years.
To see this, consider how each of the two men would handle arguably the three most important items on today's foreign policy agenda: Ukraine, China and the Middle East.
1.Ukraine
The Biden administration has remained engaged in Ukraine since the start of the war, despite opposition from some members of the ruling party and growing pessimism about Kyiv's ability to win the war or regain the territories it lost.
Ukrainians and their Western supporters fear that Trump would end US support and leave Ukraine dependent on any aid from Europe and at the mercy of the Russian army.
In typical bombast fashion, Trump bragged that he could solve the war “in a day,” then fibbed when asked if he wanted Ukraine to win.
Accordingly, one might think that a Trump election would bring about a change in US politics.
My news
Lindner warns of the next budget debacle: Germany on the verge of national bankruptcy?read
The struggle for Taurus is ongoing: How much does a cruise missile actually cost? read
Warning on Holocaust Remembrance Day: “Today the deportation of millions is being planned again” read
Like Jules Verne – Ukraine deploys autonomous submarines against Putin
With Sweden's imminent accession to NATO waters, the Baltic Sea will shrink - and Russia's leeway will dwindle
83 million in damages – Trump is financially devastated
Donald Trump, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and former President of the USA.
© Matt Rourke/dpa
But the problem is that Biden is likely to follow a similar path if he wins another term, even if he pursues it in a different way.
The tide of war has turned against Ukraine in 2023, and although its proponents continue to present optimistic plans for reversing its fortunes and liberating the territory unlawfully conquered and annexed by Russia, their hopes are almost certainly illusory.
The Defense Department probably knows this too.
Biden & Co. will not admit this before the election because it would call into question their previous conduct of the war.
However, if they return to office, they will likely put pressure on Kiev to set more realistic targets and reach an agreement.
I believe that Biden would do this with a sense of proportion and try to help Kiev find the best possible solution.
Trump, by contrast, would likely display the same diplomatic skill he demonstrated in his amateurish friendship with North Korea's Kim Jong Un (namely, none at all) and be more inclined to walk away from the affair.
The point, however, is that both governments will seek to negotiate an end to the war after January 2025, and the resulting agreement is likely to be much closer to Russia's stated war aims than to Kiev's.
2. China
During his first term, Trump decisively broke with previous U.S. economic policy toward China and launched an ill-conceived trade war that damaged the U.S. economy and had little or no impact on the bilateral trade deficit he was supposed to correct.
Biden changed and tightened that approach, imposing increasingly strict export controls to hamper Chinese efforts to dominate several key areas of cutting-edge technology.
Government officials rejected overt protectionism and defended this approach as narrowly focused on national security concerns (i.e., a “small yard” with a “high fence”).
However, the garden is getting bigger, and a more confrontational approach to China is one of the few issues that enjoys strong bipartisan consensus.
Foreign Policy Logo © ForeignPolicy.com
For this reason, US policy towards China will not change much, regardless of the outcome of the November election.
Official statements from the Biden administration and the previous Trump administration cast China as one of the biggest challengers to U.S. global dominance, and that view is even more pronounced today.
Trump may take a slightly more confrontational stance toward America's Asian allies (whom he has repeatedly accused of being overly reliant on American protection), but he cannot abandon them if he is serious about standing up to Beijing.
The bottom line: When it comes to relations with China, both Biden and Trump would be singing from the same choir book in their second terms.
3. The Middle East
Given the wreckage that is US policy in the Middle East, one might think that both Biden and Trump would seek a change of course in 2025.
Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect that either president will behave differently in the future than in the past.
What is most striking, however, is how similar these two very different presidents have behaved in dealing with this volatile region.
As president, Trump terminated the nuclear deal that capped Iran's nuclear program, moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and closed the U.S. consular office for Palestinian affairs in Washington.
He also appointed a lawyer who vehemently advocates for settlers as US ambassador to Israel.
His peace plan mocked the longstanding U.S. goal of a two-state solution while supporting amateur diplomat (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner's plan for Arab-Israeli normalization.
The resulting Abraham Accords led to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Sudan (the latter now in civil war), without addressing the plight of the five million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip living under strict Israeli rule was addressed.
How did Biden deal with the Middle East conflict?
What did Biden do when he inherited this situation?
He made them worse.
Despite a campaign promise to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, he dithered until elections in Iran brought hardliners to power and made a return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action even more difficult.
The result: Iran is now closer to the bomb than ever before.
Biden and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken treated the Palestinians in a similar way to Trump, delaying the reopening of the consulate in Jerusalem, making little effort to restart the peace process and turning a blind eye to increasing violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank, the furthest from the West Bank right-wing government in Israel's history should be tolerated, if not openly supported.
Like Trump, Biden and Blinken instead focused on endearing themselves to Saudi Arabia - a complete reversal of Biden's campaign promise to cast Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as a "pariah" for his role in the murder of exiled journalist Jamal Khashoggi. to treat.
Under the leadership of Brett McGurk, whose presence in Republican and Democratic administrations has made him perhaps the most influential architect of US policy in recent years, the United States has spent the last year trying to forge an agreement that would give Saudi Arabia a Security guarantee (and some other benefits) in return for normalization of relations with Israel.
The Palestinian issue was once again sidelined, with national security adviser Jake Sullivan boasting last fall that the Middle East was "calm than it has been in decades."
These mistakes - starting with Trump and continued by Biden - led to a backfire that was heard around the world.
Facing the prospect of permanent subjugation and slow-motion extermination, Hamas militants broke out of an open-air prison in the Gaza Strip on October 7 and began a brutal attack on border communities in Israel.
Their inexcusably brutal attack on Israeli civilians was a grave crime, but Israel's cruel, disproportionate and arguably genocidal response is an even greater stain on Israel's image, America's reputation and the world's conscience.
Is the US just making the situation in the Middle East worse?
And how did the United States, whose secretary of state once declared that human rights were “at the heart of U.S. foreign policy,” respond to this diplomatic and humanitarian catastrophe?
By providing billions of dollars in military aid to the country whose bombs have already killed more than 23,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (and reportedly bypassing US law) by vetoing UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and by rejecting as “meritless” South Africa’s well-documented lawsuit before the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide.
Administration officials have reportedly urged Israel to moderate its actions but have not threatened to cut U.S. support.
The Netanyahu government has predictably ignored U.S. pleas.
There's no reason to expect anything different, no matter who wins next year.
Both Biden and Blinken are avowed Zionists, and neither is likely to put significant pressure on Israel to change course.
Trump has never seemed particularly interested in either side, but he understands the balance of political influence in America, and his anti-Muslim bias is well documented.
In a second Biden term, there may be an attempt to revive some kind of peace process, but no one should imagine that this will achieve more than America's previous efforts.
After all, the man who reportedly undermined former President Barack Obama's efforts toward a two-state solution is unlikely to achieve it even if he gets another term.
Trump, for his part, is more likely to follow the money, as his son-in-law did.
As with Ukraine and China, similarities in approach outweigh differences in worldview and diplomatic style.
US election will have a much greater impact on US domestic politics
To be clear, I am not saying that this election will have no impact on U.S. foreign policy.
Trump could, for example, try to take the United States out of NATO, although such a move would undoubtedly face enormous resistance from the foreign and defense policy establishment.
He could focus primarily on his domestic agenda - and his ongoing legal problems - which would further reduce his already limited interest in foreign affairs and tend to reinforce the existing status quo.
Even though the primaries are still ongoing, everyone is preparing for a duel between Biden and Trump.
© picture alliance/dpa/Pool Reuters/AP |
Jonathan Ernst/Stefan Jeremiah
Trump was poor at assessing foreign policy talent during his first term (causing unprecedented staff turnover), and this tendency could hamper implementation of U.S. policy and drive foreign governments to hedge even more.
There would be subtle differences between Biden 2 and Trump 2, but I wouldn't bet on a radical change.
All in all, the upcoming election will have a far greater impact on U.S. domestic politics than on major foreign policy issues.
As I mentioned at the beginning, the domestic challenges are large and clear enough - and worrying enough - that it won't be difficult for me to decide how to vote.
Since I like living in a democracy, I just hope that a majority of voters in enough key states agree with me in November.
To the author
Stephen M. Walt
is a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Twitter: @stephenwalt
We are currently testing machine translations. This article was automatically translated from English into German.
This article was first published in English in the magazine “ForeignPolicy.com” on January 22, 2024 - as part of a cooperation, it is now also available in translation to readers of the IPPEN.MEDIA portals.