Will America Elect The Unknown Or The Unpredictable? – OpEd
By Arab News
By Alistair Burt
The world this week awaits the verdict of its most important democracy. This US presidential campaign, astonishing in so many ways, reaches polling day on Tuesday with the outcome still uncertain, a contest between the unknown and the unpredictable. It is not an enviable situation either for the US or for the UK, EU, Middle East and others, which will be watching with perhaps greater anxiety than ever before.
It could still be the case that the most consequential decision in the campaign remains that of those who persuaded President Joe Biden to opt for a very early TV debate with Donald Trump. Shrewdly but secretly gambling that exposing the president’s frailty would allow for a replacement candidate, it immediately shifted what had been gathering momentum toward Trump. It refocused the issues of age and capacity squarely on the man who was now the oldest candidate. While that gamble to replace Biden may have worked, it remains to be seen if it has swayed the election itself.
Whatever the real or imagined preferences of foreign countries as to the outcome, the truth is that they will respect the decision of the American people and get to work with the new incumbent in the White House. They will deal with the specific differences in policy about which they already know, while recognizing there are generic issues that either can bring to the table.
Kamala Harris is still largely an enigma. If she were to win, we all assume there would be a degree of continuity in foreign policy, such as clear support for NATO and Ukraine, but probably also keeping with a rather more ill-defined approach to the Middle East. The Israel/Gaza/Lebanon policy of the Democratic incumbent seems to please no one. Whoever you talk to feels abandoned. Benjamin Netanyahu feels he is not being supported strongly and unquestioningly enough, while Palestinians and the Arab street are outraged at the degree of catastrophe being inflicted on innocent civilians and which remains unimpeded, even actively supported, by the US. Regional powers will probably be assuming that the US under Harris will continue to prioritize the Far East and they will be left on their own to deal with long-unresolved issues, such as the future of the Palestinian question and what to do with Iran.
Trump brings a whole new suite of baggage — much of it terrifying. Europe and the world worry about climate change commitments, while Trump is a climate change denier, calling it a “hoax.” International consensus and agreements would either fall or need drastically reworking. Europe and the free world are engaged in confronting the first invasion of a sovereign country on the European continent since 1945 (allowing some license for Soviet actions against client states in the past) and the loss of US support in terms of aid or arms, as hinted at by Trump, would likely be decisive in Russia’s favor, opening up the question of “where next?”
Trump has already threatened not to assist NATO states if they have not paid what he considers appropriate amounts to the alliance’s funds. He said in February that he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” toward “delinquent” NATO members, though in the current atmosphere of defense uncertainty both candidates will want to ensure greater defense commitments from Europe. Europe will fear being caught up in a Republican trade war, with tariffs imposed on itself and further pressure on China.
And while some in the Middle East may prefer Trump to the Obama years and the mixed messages from the Democrats, the region will not know quite what it is getting from a new Trump presidency. Israel may or may not get unqualified support, even to the point of annexation of the West Bank. A deal with Saudi Arabia may be seen as the answer to everything, but the terms of such a deal in relation to Palestine are now very different.
Will renewed “maximum pressure” on Iran — the policy that tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal and gave the region more and better quality enriched Iranian uranium — be accompanied by actions? Or will the opposite be the case to deliver on Trump’s promise to the US people not to become militarily engaged in the Middle East again?
Apart from these specifics, there are deeper worries. What damage has the election already done to a polarized American people and political system? What is this fear of malevolent retribution, which has stopped major US newspapers from endorsing Harris? Will the result be contested, as seems certain if Trump is not declared the winner, and what may ensue? Authoritarians the world over would get a renewed boost. Can a united US emerge, with clarity in its foreign policy, if still divided by the election? And how will the international order, creaking with a dysfunctional UN, be affected by a US that might turn in upon itself, consumed by domestic bitterness?
None of us can affect the outcome, but most would settle for a clear winner, an absence of bitterness, signs of reconciliation among the American people and a renewed commitment to their place in the world.
- Alistair Burt is a former UK member of Parliament who has twice held ministerial positions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; as parliamentary undersecretary of state from 2010 to 2013 and as minister of state for the Middle East from 2017 to 2019. X: @AlistairBurtUK