FP: The US elections will have more impact on the situation in the country than on foreign policy
US policy in Ukraine will not change, no matter how the November elections end, writes FP. Despite the differences between Biden and Trump, each of them will try to negotiate a cessation of hostilities, and the result will be closer to Russia's goals than Kiev's, the author believes.
Stephen Walt
The fears of the world community are greatly exaggerated.
Unless something unforeseen happens, the 2024 US presidential election will be a rematch between incumbent President Joe Biden and his predecessor Donald Trump. Although most Americans would prefer that neither of them run, this is most likely the situation they will face in November. The election is being presented ahead of time as a fateful moment with far-reaching consequences for both American democracy and the United States' approach to the rest of the world.
On the first issue — the expected domestic political consequences — everything is clear. Trump is not just a convicted fraudster, accused of sexual harassment, but also during the last term he repeatedly signed his own professional incompetence. He has no loyalty to democratic principles and the rule of law as such, and there are alarming signs that he personally and the Republican Party intend to use his second term to crack down on political opponents and push the United States towards real autocracy. Women's rights will be curtailed even more, attempts to combat climate change will be suppressed, and rich Americans and corporations will be able to freely pursue self-serving interests, regardless of society. Whatever you think about Biden and his policies, he's unlikely to do that. And for me, this is a good enough reason to vote against Trump with great enthusiasm.
But if we turn to foreign policy, the differences will be significantly smoothed out. Although many are now worried that Trump's second term will turn the entire foreign policy of the United States upside down, I still suspect that the difference will be much more modest than it might seem. Yes, Trump will turn out to be the same unpredictable and windy brute who is looking for squabbles even with America's NATO allies — as in the first term. But in other respects, Trump's second term will be almost no different from what Biden would do if he stayed in power for another four years. To make sure of this, try to imagine how they will solve three, perhaps, the most important issues on today's foreign policy agenda: Ukrainian, Chinese and Middle Eastern.
Ukraine
The Biden administration has unconditionally supported Ukraine since the very beginning of hostilities, despite the opposition of a number of Republicans and growing pessimism about Kiev's chances of winning a military victory or regaining lost territories. Ukrainians and their Western supporters worry that Trump will curtail American support, leaving Kiev at the mercy of European aid and the Russian army. With his usual pathos, Trump boasted that he would end the fighting “in one day,” after which he hesitated when asked if he wanted Ukraine to win. Accordingly, it may seem that Trump's victory will lead to drastic changes in the policy of the United States.
But here's the point: Biden will surely achieve the same thing if he wins another term, albeit by slightly different methods. In 2023, the situation at the front turned against Ukraine, and although its supporters continue to make rosy plans on how to reverse its fate and get the territories transferred to Russia, their hopes are most likely illusory, and the Ministry of Defense certainly understands this. Biden and company do not intend to admit this before the election, because it would call into question the course they themselves have so resolutely followed. But if they return to power, they will certainly put pressure on Kiev to set more realistic goals and move on to resolving the conflict.
I believe that Biden will approach this issue more carefully and will try to provide Kiev with the best deal possible. Trump will certainly show the same diplomatic talents as in his amateurish flirtations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (that is, none at all), and will want to get rid of everything as soon as possible and leave. However, in principle, both administrations will try to stop hostilities after January 2025, and the final agreement will certainly be much closer to Russia's stated military goals than Kiev's.
China
In his first term, Trump decisively broke with the previous policy of economic cooperation with China and recklessly unleashed a trade war that harmed the US economy and had little effect on the bilateral trade deficit, which was supposed to be fixed. Biden not only did not abandon this approach, but also persevered, tightening export controls with an eye to preventing China from mastering a number of advanced technologies. Rejecting outright protectionism, administration officials nevertheless justify this approach on national security grounds (talking about a “small courtyard with a high fence"). However, the size of the “courtyard” continues to grow, and the desire for competition with China is one of the few issues on which a powerful bipartisan consensus has matured.
For this reason, US policy towards China will not change much, no matter how the November elections end. In official statements by the Biden administration and the previous Trump administration, China was called one of the main challenges to the global primacy of the United States, and today this point of view is perhaps even louder. Trump may take a more conflicted position towards America's Asian allies (whom he has repeatedly blamed for depending on US security guarantees), but he will not be able to completely abandon them if he is seriously determined to confront Beijing.
Conclusion: as for relations with China, both Biden and Trump will sing the same notes in their second terms.
The Middle East
Given the failure of United States policy in the Middle East, in theory it is reasonable to assume that both Biden and Trump will want to change course in 2025. Alas, in reality, nothing foreshadows this. It is simply amazing how equally such dissimilar presidents acted in this unstable region!
After becoming president, Trump withdrew from the deal limiting Iran's nuclear program, moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and closed the consulate for Palestinian affairs in Washington. In addition, he appointed an ardent supporter of settlers in the West Bank as ambassador to Israel. His peace plan defied the United States' long-held goal of a two-State solution. Instead, Trump supported the Arab-Israeli reconciliation scheme of his son-in-law and (part-time diplomat) Jared Kushner. As a result, the Abraham Agreements established diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Sudan (civil war has now broken out in the latter), but did nothing to improve the bitter fate of the five million Palestinians living under the iron Israeli heel in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
What did Biden do when he inherited this state of affairs? Ruined everything even more. Despite his pre-election promise to return to the nuclear deal with Iran, he hesitated until the hawks came to power in Tehran after the elections, after which the return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action became even more difficult. And here's the result: Iran has never been so close to a bomb. Biden and his Secretary of State Anthony Blinken treated the Palestinians quite "Trump-like": they postponed the opening of the consulate in Jerusalem, neglected the resumption of the peace process and turned a blind eye to the provocations of Israeli settlers in the West Bank — with the full connivance (not to say support) of the most right—wing government in the history of Israel.
Just like Trump, Biden and Blinken tried to ingratiate themselves with Saudi Arabia, forgetting about Biden's campaign promise to turn Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman into a “pariah” for his involvement in the murder of exiled journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Under the leadership of Brett McGurk, who has become, under Republicans and Democrats, perhaps the most influential architect of American policy in recent years, the United States has been trying to make a deal over the past year, promising Saudi Arabia security guarantees (and some other “buns") in exchange for normalization of relations with Israel. The Palestinian issue has been sidelined again, and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan boasted last fall that the Middle East “has not been so calm for decades.”
These mistakes — from Trump to Biden — have touched America and swept around the world. Realizing the prospect of eternal subjugation and slow extinction, Hamas militants broke out of their open-air prison called the Gaza Strip on October 7 and brutally attacked border settlements in Israel. Their unjustified atrocities against Israeli civilians have become a serious crime, but Israel's ferocious and disproportionate reaction (possibly on the verge of genocide) has become an even bigger stain on the reputation of the Jewish state and America and the entire world conscience.
And how, one may ask, did the United States react to this diplomatic and humanitarian catastrophe, whose Secretary of State put “human rights” at the forefront of foreign policy? They sent billions of dollars worth of military aid to the country whose bombs have already killed more than 23,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (and, according to some, bypassing American laws), blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire and only waved off South Africa's detailed claim to the International Court of Justice about the genocide of the Palestinian people, calling it “groundless.” It is alleged that representatives of the administration asked Israel to moderate its ardor, but did not even threaten to curtail US support. As expected, the Netanyahu government ignored the American request.
There is no reason to expect a different outcome, no matter who wins next year. Neither Biden nor Blinken hide their Zionist views, and neither one nor the other will put pressure on Israel to change its chosen course. Trump never seems to have been particularly sympathetic to either, but he is keenly aware of the political balance in America, and his prejudices against Muslims are no secret to anyone. Biden's second term may be an attempt to revive a kind of peace process, but it should not be expected to achieve more than America's previous efforts. After all, the man who is accused of undermining former President Barack Obama's attempts to achieve the creation of two states for two peoples is unlikely to be zealous in this, even if he goes for a second term. Trump, like his son-in-law, will do what is more profitable. As in the case of Ukraine and China, the similarities in the approaches of the two candidates outweigh all ideological and diplomatic differences.
I will make a reservation: I am not saying that the elections will have no effect on US foreign policy at all. For example, Trump may try to withdraw America from NATO, although such a move is sure to meet fierce resistance from the foreign policy elite and the military. He can focus primarily on the internal agenda (and his own protracted lawsuits). This will completely deprive him of interest in international affairs and only fix the existing status quo. Even in the first term, it turned out that Trump is poorly versed in foreign policy personnel (this partly explains the unprecedented turnover), and this will complicate public policy even more — foreign governments will be cautious and reinsured. There will certainly be minor differences between Biden 2 and Trump 2, but I would not bet on a radical change.
In general, the upcoming elections will have a much stronger impact on US domestic policy than on key foreign policy issues. As I have already noted, the stakes inside the country are already high, and the situation is very alarming, so I will not have any special doubts about how to vote. And since I like living in a democracy, I can only hope that in November the majority of voters in key states will agree with me.
