Some thoughts on… Leading Globally
Family and Friends -
Election Day is only 3 weeks away, and you can volunteer to get out the vote for Trump or Harris this weekend. We continue our dialogue on the policy stance of the Presidential candidates. The previous topics were immigration and individual rights. This week is foreign policy.
Steve Uhl perspective
Foreign Policy is our topic this week. In this case we have two great data points: 2016-2020 when there were no major wars like Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Iran et al and 2021-2024 when the world appears in turmoil. Maybe it’s just a coincidence and the Harris/Biden administration was just unlucky…But maybe there actually were underlying drivers to the increasing chaos.
Though Trump was criticized for perceived coziness to Putin – his actual policies were anything but. Trump encouraging U.S. energy production and pipelines, restricting the Nordstream gas pipeline and turning the U.S. into a net energy exporter which both hamstrung Russia’s petrodollars economy and helped reduce European dependence on Russian oil. He tried valiantly to warn Europe against relying on Russian energy, though of course he was ridiculed at the time. The Biden/Harris policies reversed all of that, cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline, reduced oil leases, and unleashing a torrent of regulatory disincentives to production. All of these moves served to enhance Russian economic leverage and perhaps emboldening them to invade Ukraine. Of course that’s speculation – there’s no way to ‘prove’ motivations, but it is a fact that Russian annexed territory under Obama and Biden but not Trump. Could be another coincidence I guess...
Pretty much the same dynamic exists in the Middle East; President Trump had a campaign of ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran, which is ultimately the funder and benefactor of all their proxies who have been making mischief. By aligning with the other Arab countries against Iran, Trump was able to achieve the Abraham Accords which consisted of the first peace treaties between Middle Eastern countries and Israel since 1974and expanding to 5 signatories. And while there were the usual skirmishes here and there, nothing major erupted in the Middle East. Fast forward a few years, and Biden/Harris relaxed enforcement of oil sanctions, allowing Iran to increase its production 80% and generating around $32 billion dollars, in the vain hope that would achieve something. Iran, flush with money, was emboldened to unleash its proxies like the Houthis and Hezbollah on Israel. Could be another coincidence I guess….
As to where we go from here – of course our allies Israel and Ukraine need support, but we also need a strategy, and there is way more strategic thinking coming out of the Trump campaign, despite the caricatures, than Harris/Biden. In Ukraine, it has been effectively a stalemate for 2 years. Russia has 3 times the population that Ukraine has, and it hardly seems realistic that with their manpower they are going to reclaim all the territory such as Crimea that has been annexed in the last 20 years. Yes, we can keep sending missiles there, indefinitely, while men on both sides get chewed up fighting over a few kilometers. And no we shouldn’t abandon them (and I don’t believe Trump will*). But finding a way to end the war, in a way that prevents or dissuades Putin from future adventures, seems like an important priority which only Trump speaks to. And in the Middle East – the Harris/Biden administration mostly mouths platitudes about ceasefires and searching for a two-state solution - pretty much the same boilerplate diplomat-speak that has been so ineffective for 50 years. On top of that, Taiwan is looming out there as the next flash point. Our current leaders seem to be totally passive, just reacting to events. Yes, Trump can be disruptive to the status quo…but when the status quo is seemingly never-ending missile volleys in Ukraine and the Middle East, maybe disruptive is a good thing.
*Trumps rhetoric regarding Ukraine I think is analogous to his rhetoric about abandoning NATO. It’s rhetorical signaling that something significant needs to change – not that that will literally happen.
Waseem Noor perspective
The US has been a global leader and maintained hegemonic influence since WW II through both hard power (the military) and soft power (foreign policy / diplomacy). By emphasizing both, the US has benefited by:
1) permitting US citizens to travel to every corner of the globe
2) establishing trusted trade partners allowing US access to global products, and
3) making the US dollar the default world currency with high demand.
The two Presidential candidates have starkly different views on whether this position in the world stage should be maintained. I see their foreign policy stances characterized by three broad themes.
Stability vs. Disruption
Country relations are built off trust that need to be sustained over decades. Harris has demonstrated stability, while Trump has bragged of his ability to disrupt foreign policy. An example is NATO:
Harris has committed to sustaining diplomatic relations with US allies. She has re-affirmed the US commitment to Europe through NATO, and under the Biden-Harris administration brought Finland and Sweden into the alliance. The 32 NATO countries include Canada, UK, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Turkey, Italy, France, Spain and several East European countries. They implement a collective defense policy where an attack on one is an attack on all. Similar to other NATO leaders, Harris has condemned Russia’s invasion and is committed to aiding Ukraine.
Trump has taken a more transactional approach with trusted allies. He has threatened to "encourage" aggressors (for example Russia) "to do whatever the hell they want" with NATO countries that fail to pay their dues. He has claimed he would stop the war in Ukraine, by ceding territory to Russia, but has not outlined a plan. He has kept close ties to Putin and has refused to criticize him.
Without stability, people cannot travel, businesses do not work, and companies fail. Maintaining the benefits of global influence requires stability.
Harris brings rational thinking and respect with allies. Under Biden-Harris, the world’s perception of the US has risen again from the lowest points under the chaos and disruption of Trump’s Presidency.
Nuanced vs Blunt
Interacting with countries and societies requires consideration of culture and traditions. Policy proposals have multiple layers of impact requiring sharp, analysis to understand. Harris’ approach to foreign policy is nuanced, while Trump has been blunt. An example is China:
Harris recognizes that China needs to be held responsible for human rights issues and manipulation of currency, and at the same time is an irreplaceable partner to resolve international issues. This nuanced perspective led the Biden-Harris administration to implement the Indo-Pacific strategy which is an alliance between Australia, India and Japan to counter China, as well as programs to compete with China’s Belt-and-Road initiative. Recognizing American workers need to be protected from the impacts of globalization, Harris has started selectively restricting trade on Chinese products that are strategic for the US, e.g. computer chips, automotive software and electric vehicle parts. At the same time, the US is working with China on climate change.
Trump takes a blunter approach. He has demanded eliminating US dependence on all Chinese areas, including steel, pharmaceuticals and electronics. During his Presidency, he started a trade war with China increasing tariffs on imported goods. If elected, Trump has proposed a sweeping 20% import tariffs on all international goods and even higher tariffs on goods from China reducing access to most of the world’s goods. Economists have said, this will reshape world trade and cause higher inflation that will hurt US consumers.
Without nuance in foreign policy, the US loses standing with other countries, and loses access to goods and services from around the world. Maintaining the benefits of global influence requires nuance.
Harris will continue policies created by Trump, like trade tariffs and the Abraham Accords, and will implement alterations rather than an overhaul. This demonstrates a thoughtful, nuanced approach to policy.
As witnessed during his Presidency, Trump’s words and actions are naïve and erratic. Based on his whims, he proposes simplistic solutions to complex problems, e.g. tariffs on China to quell immigration. Proposing unreasoned, blunt policies does not support global leadership.
Alliance vs Isolation
The success of the US and world economy over the past 70 years has been attributed to the US’ openness to working with other countries on a multi-lateral basis. Harris proposes partnering with leaders of other countries, while Trump’s actions have resulted in a retreat of the US from the global stage. An example is international agreements:
The Biden-Harris administration has committed to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, a legally binding treaty between 196 countries to address climate change by decreasing greenhouse gases. In March, Harris’ administration released the Global Health Security Strategy 2024 which recognizes how unprepared the US was before COVID. It also creates a plan to enhance the prevention, detection and preparation for and response to infectious disease threats by partnering with other countries and the World Health Organization (WHO).
The Trump administration withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, rolled back more than a 100 environmental rules, and stopped funding to the WHO. These are isolationist policies.
Without alliances, the US dollar becomes weaker as there is less demand for the currency. Maintaining the benefits of global influence requires engagement and alliances with other countries.
Harris executed on promoting alliances. Trump initiated an exit from the world stage.
Conclusion
Last month Trump said, “If Kamala wins, foreign leaders will treat America’s president as a joke. They already do.” In fact, Harris has met over 150 foreign leaders and they see her as authoritative but personable. On the other hand, even Trump’s own cabinet members do not believe he is fit to be President. His National Security Advisor, John Bolton (diplomacy) stated that world leaders think he is “a laughing fool” they can take advantage of. His Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper (military) called him a “threat to democracy”.
Harris can lead the US and the world successfully given her stable, nuanced and alliance-focused approach to foreign policy. Trump’s disruptive, blunt and isolationist characteristics have damaged US standing on the world stage. I wouldn’t want a person with Trump’s characteristics to lead an international private company where my money is invested, to lead a global organization where I work, or an academic institution that teaches overseas and domestic students. Why would we want him to lead the US and the world again?
==
Post your comments to our blog website. If you are not registered to vote, you can find information about your state at vote.gov. Interested in volunteering to get out the vote? Here are links for Trump and Harris. Previous blogs are at www.kkwn.org. Look forward to hearing from you.