Authors: Naziba Mustabshira and Arman Ahmed*
As the 2024 United States presidential election knocks at the door, the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald J. Trump may reshape the United States’s standing in the world. This event may redefine not only the national but also the international context since the newly elected president will have to address several pressing international issues. To predict the outcomes of both campaigns, one may explore the implications of either a Harris or Trump administration, examining such issues as trade agreements, the US’s place in the Indo-Pacific region, and the country’s relations with China. Taking such factors into account, it is possible to estimate what impact the candidates’ policies may have on the future order of international security and the US position in it.
Views on Indo-Pacific
The Trump administration introduced the Free and Open Indo-Pacific initiative, which the Biden administration supported, but its implementation has been slow. Kurt Campbell, White House’s Indo-Pacific coordinator, acknowledged this publicly in 2021. Throughout the Biden-Harris administration, the world has witnessed Washington’s attempts to strengthen ties with its Asian allies. Recently, Biden and Kishida have signed yet another military agreement between the countries along with Australia to develop a new air missile defense network. Though Biden stated that this agreement was purely defensive and not specifically aimed at any nation, it somewhat points to a precautionary move in a crisis like the Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Asia has proven to be a difficult playing field for the US, mostly because of its lack of geographical connections to the region. There have been various perspectives on the United States’ position regarding Asia. Some analysts believe that China is becoming more powerful in the region and will soon pose a real threat to the US and its allies. Secondly, some people tend to take a neutral position, arguing that current developments and potential future scenarios provide no persuasive argument in favor of the two confrontational approaches. Thus, the current situation in the region may extend in the future, making multipolarity even more obvious.
Speaking of India and Japan, these states may be seen as the two most influential “historic enemies” of China that may unite with the US and overtire Chinese hegemony. The Chinese economy is larger than the economies of India and Japan combined. But they have maintained regional influence on economic partnerships such as trade, investment, and development funding in the region. However, China has the upper hand in the region because of its control of the South China Sea and, by extension, the Strait of Malacca and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The Philippines is also a key player, hanging between the US and China over its claim to territory in the South China Sea; Beijing’s push on its neighbors has pushed it closer to Washington. In February 2023, the U.S. established new military bases in the Philippines, causing trouble with China’s allies in the region.
Kamala Harris is currently the vice president. She does not have much experience with foreign policy. Thus, there may be questions regarding how the Harris-Walz administration would address Asia after the November elections. In September 2024, twenty-five new bills were passed by Congress to protect the United States against the Chinese Communist Party. These bills included concerns such as technology-related risks, international trade, currency, etc.
If Trump wins a second term, his handling of the Indo-Pacific strategy and China will largely depend on his fancies. He could either continue with the old Indo-Pacific strategy, broadly in agreement with the Biden administration. However, there is a remote possibility of Trump abandoning the strategy for his “America First” dogma. It would cause immense disappointment to the US allies and put to risk relations, which the Biden-Harris Administration would have been building assiduously.
Trade policy and global economic implications
Kamala Harris, on the one hand, did not favor widespread tariffs, claiming herself to be “not a protectionist democrat.” In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration did not lift Trump’s $360 billion in tariffs on imports from China and added new ones. On the other hand, the Vice President-elect also ordered US Steel to be sold to European buyers. The administration did not consider this as a policy that was protectionist to essential industries. On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration confessed that past trade deals favored corporate earnings rather than workers. Kamala established an “opportunity economy” for the middle class. Her campaign may get a boost of the federal reserve rate cut, according to the Washington Post. During Trump’s administration, the United States opted out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This worsened the climate for American workers because import taxes were low and protected polluting manufacturing industries. However, Biden and Harris do not like globalization either, and they prefer trade deals that create new American jobs. Moreover, they are environmentally friendly.
The global supply chain and production changed only slightly as a result of the trade war. It resulted from China and Trump’s protectionist U.S. policies. On the other hand, the domestic policy by Biden and Harris was not exclusively focused on manufacturing; it was also focused on infrastructure. One of the domestic policy goals was to transform the global production and supply network to foster global competition. Thus, it can be concluded that the domestic policy by Biden and Harris also had an effect on the global trade of manufactured goods.
Stance on US-China relations
Kamala Harris’s approach to U.S.-China relations is defined by strategic competition with engagement. As Vice President, Harris recognized that China contributed to a distortion of the global economy, mainly through the theft of intellectual property, and emphasized that Chinese leadership posed the primary national security threat to the U.S. Her policy of “de-risking,” which avoids full “decoupling” from China. Simultaneously, she would maintain tariffs rather than repeal them and treat China as a partner in issues like climate change and global health. Harris emphasized the importance of holding China accountable for the atrocities in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. The policy would allow for balancing foreign policy, ensuring the United States’ competitive advantage while adhering to democratic values. The impact of such a policy would be positive since global perceptions will portray the United States as stable and firm while capable of engaging China to resolve global issues.
Donald J. Trump’s policy is defined by confrontation with China. As President, he initiated a trade war with China and now promised to impose sixty percent of tariffs on every Chinese goods if he gets re-elected. Such a policy has focused on economic decoupling, notably halting economic dependence on China in areas such as pharmaceuticals and electronics. In addition, Trump’s administration adopted measures designed to restrict China’s access to advanced technology, such as semiconductors, and heightened the number of military patrols and arms sales to Taiwan. The policy’s global implications are negative; it will continue to escalate trade and technology wars. The policy is not sustainable from a long-term perspective.
Conclusion
On the 5th of November, the citizens of America head to the polls. Despite frequent and impassioned campaigns run by both candidates, recent polls show that Harris has a lead over Trump. This reflects a massive shift in voter sentiment, driven at least in part by growing concerns about the future of American foreign policy. Nevertheless, no amount of guesswork on the world’s part can preempt actual voters. They possess inordinate power to determine the core trajectory of the U.S. and, by extension, the rest of the world in the coming millennium. This election will establish not only a set of domestic policies but will define America’s role in an increasingly multipolar world.
*Arman Ahmed is a third-year International Relations student at BUP with a keen interest in geopolitics and critical writing. He has published several articles on regional and global issues and has previously worked as a research intern focusing on Eurasian and Southeast Asian geopolitics. Arman’s work explores the complexities of international relations in a multipolar world.
