Selim Yenel is a retired Turkish ambassador, having formerly served at the Turkish missions at the OECD, UN, and the EU. In 2019, he became the First Deputy Secretary General of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization. In 2020, he was elected Chairman of the Global Relations Forum Executive Committee.

 

The year 2024 has been quite exceptional, with almost half the world’s population voting in one election or another. Even the most authoritarian countries hold elections, as these essentially provide legitimacy to those elected. Most of these elections are important for the country itself and possibly for the region, depending on the nation’s influence. Yet, there is one election whose result will be crucial for almost every country.

High stakes for a coin toss: the presidential candidates’ odds displayed in Times Square, New York

 

Presidential elections in the United States have always been significant with their global impact, but the outcome of next November’s election seems poised to be the most consequential in decades. Never before has a candidate’s personality mattered as much as it does now. Recent developments concerning the Democratic Party’s candidate being changed so late in the race are also unprecedented. Although presidential debates have had little effect in the recent past, the first one in 2024 removed the incumbent President from contention, and the second one disrupted the former President’s poll numbers. Still, the outcome remains far from certain, as daily polling reflects the shifting mood of voters. Social media, with its ever-expanding influence, is playing an unscripted role, making predictions harder to formulate. Additionally, questions are being raised about whether the result will be respected.

 

The Changing Global Order

Until recently, regardless of who was in the White House, the basic principles and outlook of U.S. foreign policy were more or less established. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained the sole superpower with a global reach. Following the events of September 11th, 2001, instead of acting in accordance with the international rules it had helped establish, the United States acted with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan, damaging its standing.

 

At the same time, the rest of the world slowly began to feel liberated from Cold War competition. There was now more room to maneuver, and countries began to act more independently, stepping out of the shadows of the superpowers.

 

Furthermore, the international order Washington crafted after World War II also began to waver. The irony was that as the number of members in multilateral institutions rose, their effectiveness and influence began to diminish. The United States found that its role in these institutions was being overshadowed, and certain decisions were made contrary to its interests. With American involvement waning, these organizations struggled to meet increasing global challenges. American leadership, once taken for granted, became damaged with the second Gulf War against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. The UN Security Council became paralyzed as permanent members cast vetoes when their policies were challenged.

 

As the world undergoes a transformation, with new power centers emerging and hard power now becoming a preferred method for nations to advance their interests, leadership is nowhere to be seen. One might also ask whether leadership is still desired. Has the moral high ground been lost? The fact that the United States, while criticizing Russia for its aggression, has engaged in similar actions—albeit for supposedly different reasons—has undermined its principled example.

 

In this current era, American supremacy is increasingly being questioned by emerging powers. China is the new rival. Although it is a great power and is making efforts to be more active globally, Beijing’s reach is still insufficient to compete with the United States. Yet its goal is to become a superpower in every sense. Until recently, China refrained from involvement in faraway regional conflicts but is now becoming more active. It is too soon to tell whether China’s success in brokering a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia will extend to other areas, but it has been enough to rattle Washington as it tries to pivot toward Asia.

 

It is not only the rise of China but also the emergence of many middle powers, such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, that are becoming regional actors. These countries have been using their newfound space to act independently. They have resisted choosing sides between Washington and Beijing, engaging with both.

 

Russia, long relegated to the status of a nuclear has-been, re-entered the international scene with its expansionist aggression toward its neighbors. The United States has been a steadfast supporter of Europe, relying on the EU to provide peace and stability on the continent after the end of the Cold War. The EU is essentially a regulatory power that can influence others. It acted quickly after the Soviet Union broke up, admitting former satellite countries into its fold. However, the EU lacks the military capability to prevent conflicts, and when the EU wavered, as in the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Washington had to step in. Although Moscow’s intentions were becoming clearer, it was the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that truly woke the world and forced the United States to increase its support.

 

The Middle East is yet another region where the conflict between Israel and its neighbors has kept the United States involved. The chaos that began with Hamas’s October 7th, 2023 attack and Israel’s heavy-handed response has derailed the carefully scripted reconciliation process that the Abraham Accords had initiated. Now that the conflict is spreading to Lebanon, the region is under threat of an all-out war. Just as Washington hoped to shift focus toward Southeast Asia, it has been pulled back into Europe and the Middle East.

 

As many Western countries rhetorically supported the established international rules while following them selectively, nations in the Global South have grown reluctant to abide by them. As acts of impunity went unpunished, the twenty-first century has seen a reversion to hard power. The UN has become irrelevant in preventing the increasing number of conflicts. As diplomacy fails to resolve disputes, the countries concerned have taken matters into their own hands. A notable example is Azerbaijan, which reclaimed its Karabakh region from Armenia through military means after 30 years of futile negotiations.

 

Washington’s Challenges

The United States has tried to avoid being labeled an empire by promoting its democratic values and establishing international institutions to create a global order based on equal rights and the sovereignty of nations. The results, however, are mixed. Throughout its history, there are numerous examples where the U.S. has interfered in the affairs of other countries when it believed its interests were threatened—whether through direct intervention, subterfuge, or simply applying pressure.

 

Washington views itself as a benign power compared to Russia, China, and other authoritarian regimes. It has long claimed the mantle of the leader of the free world, a label amplified during the Cold War against Soviet communism. Yet, this outlook can be challenged by those on the receiving end of American pressure. Whether it’s Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, or others, the U.S. has not hesitated to promote regime change. It has also not refrained from pressuring even its allies when necessary. Regardless of how countries perceive the U.S.—as an ally, a threat, or an enemy—they must take its policies into account.

 

Washington realized that its initial efforts to integrate China into the international order as an accountable member had failed, as Beijing gained influence and began to flex its muscles. China played by the established rules and even mastered them, gaining control of several international institutions. The decisions made by these organizations later conflicted with American interests. It soon became clear to Washington that Beijing was becoming not only a competitor but also a threat.

 

Varying Viewpoints of the Presidential Candidates

The two presidential contenders offer very different viewpoints regarding foreign policy. Past presidential elections did not feature such wide disparities. You could always count on Washington supporting Europe through NATO and the liberal world order it created. Before we assess the possible policies of the candidates, we must remember that there will also be Congressional elections. If a president’s party controls either chamber of Congress, their success in passing legislation will be easier. However, if the president loses the Senate and/or the House of Representatives, it will be a tall order to make meaningful progress.

 

Currently, we face a situation where the Republican candidate offers a bleak picture and remains unpredictable. Even with the example of Trump’s four years in power—and largely transactional foreign policy—his behavior often appeared impulsive. His relationships with authoritarian leaders, notably Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, were unprecedented. He was also inherently against his predecessor’s achievements and swiftly withdrew from the nuclear accords with Iran.

 

Nevertheless, during his administration, he was prevented from derailing long-established U.S. policies. This time, however, he is much better prepared, with several think tanks and other organizations geared toward supporting his ideas. The Republican Party is beholden to him, and those within the party who oppose him have been sidelined. Although Trump denied supporting certain plans such as “Project 2025,” prepared by the Heritage Foundation, his supporters aim to defenestrate the bureaucracy and replace it with loyalists.

 

If Trump is elected, many questions already being asked concern how he will tackle the Russia-Ukraine war and handle relations with China. Whether he will continue to support NATO, Taiwan, or any other ally in the face of danger is open to interpretation. The legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in December 2023, preventing any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without Senate approval or an Act of Congress, is not an absolute safeguard. The crucial issue is demonstrating Washington’s commitment to its allies. For instance, if Russia invaded a NATO country and the U.S. remained silent for any reason, that alone could cause the military alliance to lose credibility and become redundant.

 

Trump’s policies toward the Middle East are much clearer. During his time in office, he was a strong supporter of Israel. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and succeeded in bringing Arab countries closer to the Jewish State through the Abraham Accords. A second Trump term would likely be even more forthcoming in supporting Israel and endorsing any action it takes in the region.

 

Although Vice President Kamala Harris does not appear to have a record on foreign policy, it is assumed that, if elected, she would continue the current administration’s policies. In any case, the expectation is that there would not be much change from the present course. She would support NATO and Israel and aim to manage competition with China. Beyond that, she has refrained from discussing foreign issues.

 

How the United States and China will manage their rivalry, and whether it will lead to conflict, is a matter of concern. Whether Washington will come to Taiwan’s aid in the event of Chinese aggression is still unknown. One must also understand that the CHIPS and Science Act, passed by the Biden Administration, has a long-term goal of persuading chip companies to manufacture semiconductors in the United States. This would reduce U.S. reliance on a single source, which could have the side effect of diminishing Taiwan’s strategic importance. Thus, it’s not just former President Trump’s stance on Taiwan that is unpredictable. Although the Biden Administration has strengthened alliances around China—whether through bringing Japan and South Korea together or through AUKUS and QUAD—whether these efforts will be enough to dissuade China remains debatable. Nevertheless, if any aggression from China toward Taiwan goes unchallenged, it will have global repercussions regarding U.S. commitments.

 

The United States is not only a military but an economic power as well. Any decision by the Federal Reserve or fluctuations in the stock market have consequences around the world. Oddly enough, the commercial relationship between the U.S. and China could serve as a stabilizing factor if managed properly. However, the fact that the United States and China are so financially and economically intertwined, does not eliminate the possibility of armed conflict; the extensive trade between the United Kingdom and Germany more than a century ago did not prevent the outbreak of World War I.

 

Former President Trump is promoting the idea of imposing high tariffs not only on Chinese products but also on goods from around the globe. This would exacerbate the existing trend of protectionism. He also intends to interfere with the Federal Reserve, depriving it of its independence and turning it into a political tool. Although the chairman and six other members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the Fed has significant operational autonomy.

 

Areas of Differing Policies

The result of November’s election will be significant for every country. There are numerous challenges and issues that need to be managed or resolved. Some are regional, but most are global or have ramifications that extend beyond borders.

 

The war between Russia and Ukraine is approaching its third year with no end in sight. Trump intends to stop aiding Ukraine, which would free Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hands and prolong the war. The EU would be hard-pressed to fill the vacuum left by the United States. The outcome would not be favorable for Ukraine or Europe, and NATO’s resolve would be put to the test. Vice President Kamala Harris would more likely continue supporting Ukraine’s resistance. If Ukraine retains U.S. backing and Russia sees that it will continue to bleed without making significant progress, this might convince Putin to end the war.

 

The ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, along with the proxies of Iran, shows no signs of resolution. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is relying on a Trump victory, which would free him from any potential U.S. restrictions. This could lead to further flare-ups, as Netanyahu may use the conflict as a pretext to continue governing. After Lebanon, Iran could become a target, with Trump potentially supporting Israel. Vice President Harris, on the other hand, would continue to support Israel while attempting to prevent further bloodshed and offering lip service to the plight of the Palestinians. President Biden’s efforts to end the war in Gaza have highlighted the limits of U.S. influence. Harris may not be able to prevent further aggression but would at least try to restrain Israel from overreaching.

 

Nuclear non-proliferation has recently become a growing concern. Established treaties and agreements are being disregarded, and the threat of nuclear use has been increasing, especially by Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. During Trump’s presidency, nuclear arms control was not a priority, and he withdrew the United States from the Open Skies Treaty. Vice President Harris would most likely continue President Biden’s efforts to achieve strategic arms control.

 

Climate change is another area where the candidates’ policies differ significantly. President Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” includes subsidies for clean energy. For these policies to yield meaningful results, they need to be continued, and a possible Harris administration would likely do so. On the other hand, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords early in his first term and would likely continue disregarding any climate change policy.

 

On energy, Vice President Harris had to walk back her statements against fracking and now accepts it as a reality, though she emphasizes the need to diversify energy sources. Trump, with no qualms about promoting the interests of big oil, would open new areas for exploration. He is also against electric cars, though he slightly softened his stance after Tesla developer Elon Musk endorsed him.

 

Migration is not only a global issue but also one that directly affects the United States, playing a major role in campaigns. The increase in illegal immigration feeds the narrative of populists and extremists. Racism in the U.S. is a persistent issue that refuses to go away, and the fact that Kamala Harris is biracial has stoked the debate. Trump has advocated strict policies, including deporting undocumented immigrants and viewing migration solely as a threat, without addressing its root causes. He believes building a wall is a sufficient solution. While Vice President Harris also supports tougher border control, as the child of immigrants herself, she would likely be less harsh in dealing with migration.

 

Cybersecurity is another area in which the U.S. and China are competing, particularly regarding privacy as social media takes over mainstream media. Chinese ownership of TikTok has sparked concerns about its influence. This raises the threat of misinformation and disinformation, especially during elections, which undermines trust in institutions. Trump has benefitted from spreading false narratives and would leave regulation to the companies. Harris, in contrast, would continue efforts to combat this phenomenon.

 

Artificial Intelligence is the next sphere of rivalry between China and the United States. Both political parties would support efforts to achieve superiority, as it would enhance military capability.

 

Related to this is the race in space. China has entered this field and made considerable progress, forcing the United States to reconsider reviving its nearly dormant space programs. Again, both parties would likely be in similar positions to continue funding.

 

Another global challenge is food security, which ties in with climate change and migration. The views of the Republican and Democratic parties differ widely on these issues. As Trump and his followers are disbelievers in climate change, establishing food security would not be a priority for them. The Biden Administration, on the other hand, has recognized the importance of this matter through sustainable agricultural practices, which Harris would most likely continue.

 

COVID-19 demonstrated the need for leadership. The opaqueness of China, when openness would have helped find treatment earlier, and the hesitation of the United States to take the lead during the Trump Administration cost lives. It took time to convince Trump of the pandemic’s seriousness, as he has a disdain for science. If another health crisis arises, Harris would be more prepared to react and take on a leadership role.

 

The promotion and safeguarding of human rights used to be at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. However, the influence of the United States, as well as the EU, has faded in this regard due to double standards. President Biden has at least paid lip service by organizing summits on democracy. Vice President Harris may continue this trend, even as it fades as a priority. China, notwithstanding its own domestic situation, does not apply such notions in any of its practices. If Trump is re-elected, he would likely disregard these policies.

 

Finally, the eventual evolution of world order will be a major issue for whomever wins the presidency. China is the main rival, and there are several regional actors that are acting more independently. President Biden has continued the United States’ tradition of building alliances, and Kamala Harris seems to share this mindset. Trump, on the other hand, prioritizes independence over alliances and prefers to go it alone, raising concerns about increased isolationism. Beijing and Washington need to find a working relationship that prevents their rivalry from escalating into conflict. The superpowers of the Cold War era managed to avoid direct confrontation, and the character of who leads the United States will determine how the next four years unfold.

 

In summary, whoever wins the presidency in November 2024 will have significant consequences not only for the United States but for the world. It is unfortunate that other nations cannot vote in an election that affects them as well.

Back to Table of Contents