The
Guardian view on the US election and foreign policy: the world can’t afford
Trump again
Editorial
The decision
of American voters will be profoundly consequential for everyone. A Harris
victory would offer some hope
Fri 25 Oct
2024 13.30 EDT
This spring
Josep Borrell, the EU foreign affairs chief, warned bluntly that Europe should
prepare itself for potential war: “Maybe, depending on who is ruling in
Washington, we cannot rely on the American support and on the American capacity
to protect us,” he said. Weeks earlier, Donald Trump had remarked that he would
encourage Russia to attack Nato countries who paid too little.
Japanese
defence spending has soared. In South Korea, there are growing calls for an
independent nuclear deterrent. America’s allies are nervous as they contemplate
next month’s election. Autocrats, upon whom Mr Trump lavishes praise, are
hopeful. The votes of tens of thousands of Americans in battleground states are
likely to prove profoundly consequential for the rest of the world.
The
assumption is that a Trump victory would be felt first and hardest by Ukraine.
Whatever his precise relationship with Vladimir Putin, with its cosy phone
calls, the former president’s sympathies are clear. He blamed Volodymyr
Zelenskyy for starting the war with Russia. Mr Trump’s running mate, JD Vance,
has urged an immediate end to assistance.
On the
Middle East, Kamala Harris has been more sympathetic to Palestinians and
critical of Israel than Joe Biden, but there is no sign yet that she differs on
policy. The dramatic erosion of Arab American support does not appear to have
prompted a long‑overdue reconsideration of arms
shipments to Israel. Yet Israel’s prime
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is thought to eagerly anticipate the return of a
president who rewarded and encouraged the Israeli right. Mr Trump pulled out of
the Iranian nuclear deal, with which Tehran was complying – though at least his
aversion to “endless wars” held him back from a strike on Iran. Would that hold
now?
Mr Trump’s
presidency made the world more dangerous. Since his blustering mishandling of
Kim Jong-un, North Korea has accelerated its nuclear programme and moved closer
to China and Russia.
The Biden
administration did not reject all aspects of Mr Trump’s tenure. Hawkishness on
China is one of the few bipartisan issues left. But the White House’s targeted
approach is in contrast to Mr Trump’s crude economic nationalism – threatening
60% tariffs on Chinese products and up to 20% on all imports – which could
spark a global trade war. He initially wooed Taiwan, but now says it should pay
the US for its defence. That reflects a nakedly short-termist, transactional
approach to foreign policy – with domestic political needs the priority.
The
Democrats – and Ms Harris – have tacked right on immigration, but Mr Trump has
snatched infants from their parents and now promises mass deportations. His
fascistic language about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America
legitimised and spread racism. He has emboldened misogynists, the far right and
strongmen internationally.
Ms Harris is
not thought to be as emotionally attached to Israel or Europe as her boss, nor
to share his vision of a civilisational clash between democracies and their
foes. She says she would “stand strong” with Ukraine, but might be somewhat
more inclined than Mr Biden to push for a deal with Russia. While most expect
there would be broad continuity, it is impossible to predict exactly what a
candidate will do once in office.
We can be
sure, however, that while Ms Harris would not always get it right on foreign
policy, she would bring stability, responsibility and dedication – in contrast
to Mr Trump’s reckless, erratic, fact-free and narcissistic approach. And while
climate action under her would still fall short of what is needed, her rival
would deliberately wreck existing global accords. For all these reasons, the
world cannot afford a second Trump administration.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário