US Elections and World Order

(To Renato Scarfi)
31/10/24

In just a few days, Americans will go to the polls to elect the next president of the United States. This is an event of global importance, even if the only ones to participate directly will be the American voters, which also attracts the attention of those populations that are not fortunate enough to be able to choose their own representatives.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the anticipation for a an event that could have profound implications for future international relations and global balances.

As we approach the end of one of the most raucous election campaigns ever, in fact, the world is wondering about the implications that the victory of one or the other will have on international relations, in a period characterized by strong friction and two open clashes that are keeping the world in suspense.

On one side there is a Trump who has already tasted the power and visibility associated with remaining in the White House, while on the other there is a Harris who holds a position (the vice presidency) that entails substantial international invisibility.

In this context, the eyes of the world are particularly focused on Donald Trump who, to the surprise of political analysts, was already elected president in November 2016, on the basis of his anti-elite proclamations (of which he himself was a part). During this campaign Trump has not abandoned his propaganda which has in the slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), in the fight against immigration, in the hostility towards ethnic minorities and in the reduction of multilateral commitments are its fixed points. Its very slogan, however, is the implicit recognition of the relative decline of the values ​​of American society that, according to Trump, can come back great only through a withdrawal into itself. However, in this way Trump demonstrates that he knows little about the history of his country, since the USA became large and powerful precisely when it voluntarily and definitively abandoned (until today) its isolationist policy, seen at the time as protection from the great European powers, and opened up to the world and international alliances.

Consequently, in foreign policy he wishes to pursue a unilateralist approach based on bilateral relations, is hostile to globalization and claims to want to reconcile with Putin's Russia, putting an end to the war in Ukraine, and to leave to the European, Asian and Gulf countries the direct responsibilities, and the related burdens, related to their security. Positions in line with his previous mandate, during which he publicly expressed doubts about the future of the Atlantic Alliance.

While some support Trump's approach, other experts blame him for having overturned the grand strategy of the United States and hope that, if defeated by Harris, he will abandon politics once and for all, so that the United States can resume the role it had during the twentieth century, increased after the dissolution of the Soviet Union: that of a country with unchallenged hegemony but governed with a certain balance, even if imperfectly, in a world in the process of progressive liberalization.

This is the climate that is being felt in the US on the eve of the elections, which will take place in a country characterized by deep internal divisions, with voters often hyper-polarized on one side or the other, in which some key states see large communities of non-American origin capable of having an influence on foreign policy decisions. Like Illinois, which has a significant Polish community and which in the 90s led Clinton to support NATO enlargement to Poland, a move considered premature at the time by many analysts.

New (or old?) global balances

It is useless to deny that the unipolar world that emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union is now obsolete and today we are moving towards a multipolar world, of which the contours are not yet clearly perceptibleThe opposition to the current system (the BRICS) is led by a China that represents a real strategic, economic and technological challenge, which wants to compete with the USA for primacy and which is attracting countries around itself that share itsauthoritarian approach and a strong anti-Western vocation. A diverse coalition that has already demonstrated deep internal divergences (economic, political, military, religious) and which brings together countries that have historically been hostile to each other.

A coalition that sees China and Russia as the two countries that represent a increasingly significant challenge on the sea, the true global economic artery. In fact, 80% of goods travel by sea, energy supply lines run and thousands of kilometers of cables for telematic connections are unrolled. Blocking access to the sea would mean blocking the global economy.

The United States has understood the challenge that is emerging. Currently on the sea they have no equals, nor credible rivals. They are the only global power in the field, with a GDP of about 25.000 billion dollars (China almost 20.000 billion and Russia about 1.800 billion)i. This allows the US to allocate a Defense budget that now exceeds 800 billion dollars.ii (China 225 billion and Russia 160 billioniii) and enables the United States to use in foreign policy a complete military arsenal of nuclear weapons, satellites, sophisticated weapons, cutting-edge technological capabilities, air and, above all, naval assets, with a powerful fleet that includes numerous submarines and well 10 aircraft carriers, which ensure a strong projection capacity. And it is precisely on these skills and on the essential need to protect the main sea routes of communication (and freight transport), together with the energy supply lines and the telematic lines (which run on the seabed) on which efforts are being concentrated (and which Italy should emulate).

At the national level, the current international situation has in fact surpassed the concept of Enlarged Mediterranean, and sees theextension of the area of ​​national interest also on the Indo-Pacific. In fact, the main trade routes that provide us with raw materials and allow the trade that makes us prosper pass through those seas. It therefore seems essential to be present on those seas too, better if inserted into ad-hoc multinational devices, in order to be able to adequately protect our national interests. Not doing so would mean delegating to others our possibilities of counting in the world and giving up providing our contribution to global balances.

Conclusions

In Washington, polls agree that it will be a head-to-head between the two candidates. While the gap between the two appears minimal, it remains to be seen where the votes of the 18% who still appear undecided will go. A situation of apparent balance that was unpredictable just three months ago.

The entry into the field of Democrat Harris, the first African-American to run for the White House, who replaced Biden in the race, has in fact captured the attention of the people and the media, giving a jolt to a campaign that seemed to be heading towards a full Republican success. A change also underlined by the fact that, for the sprint final candidates, while continuing to show some (even serious) lapses in style, seem to have returned to sensitive political issues such as the economy and work, the main topics of interest for Generation Z voters, which could have their weight in an electoral system that does not reward the overall number of votes, but the number of electors in each individual State. In a substantially balanced situation, only one thing is certain: there will be a changing of the guard at the White House. We will see whether Trump will take Biden's place or whether, instead, it will be a "soft" handover with his vice Harris.

In this context, what should we expect from the victory of one or the other? With Trump, if we are to believe his propaganda and his past, a more assertive approach is to be expected, even towards his allies, tending towards isolationism, introspection and protectionism. With the Harris It is foreseeable that Trump's current style will continue, less brutal and indelicate, characterised by a more balanced, “soft” and cooperative attitude towards friendly countries, with a foreign policy that addresses global problems in a less unilateral way, while remaining focused on defending its own national interests and its areas of primary strategic significance, such as the Indo-Pacific. An approach perfectly in line with the statements of Bill Clinton who, when he was president, stated “…multilateralists if we can, unilateralists if we must…”, signifying a preference for collegial decisions agreed with allies, but ready to move forward alone.

Two attitudes, therefore, in strong disagreement on the methods, less distant on the general objectives, also taking into account that the US Congress, currently with a narrow Democratic majority, can always intervene on US foreign policy. However, in foreign policy, ways often translate into substance and the multilateralist attitude allows to broaden the basis of consensus around ideas.

It is therefore obvious that the next US elections will be charged with important meanings. Just as it is obvious that, from a military perspective, for Westerners there will no longer be the almost free warm and dry place that we have become accustomed to taking for granted, protected by that umbrella that the United States has so far guaranteed. Times have changed and, if we want to guarantee our security and count in the world, we will have to take responsibilitySweden also understood this, having remained neutral for 200 years but recently broke the ice and, faced with the danger posed by Putin, joined NATO.

Meanwhile, the arc of crisis that crosses the Eastern Mediterranean finds a further element of instability in the terrorist attack in Ankara. An arc of crisis that could further widen if Putin decides to intervene in Transnistria, with the excuse of protecting the Russian-speaking minorities from alleged (and yet to be proven) Moldovan pressures. A dramatic and very dangerous deja vu.

In a fragmented and uncertain world, in which the UN now appears incapable of containing or resolving international disputes, regardless of who occupies the White House a change of attitude will be necessary to take on a greater burden for our own security and strengthen our deterrent capabilities, preferably within the alliances to which we belong. Starting with NATO, a political-military organization that is once again very useful because it allows Western countries to unite their defense forces, trained with common procedures.

It is essential to take note that the new global order will once again have its core in the control of waterways, in the dominion of the sea and in the exercise of maritime power, the only dimension capable of guaranteeing the economic development of nations and the prosperity of peoples. Without a significant and valid presence on the seas of the world, no democratic balance can be guaranteed.

In this context, alliances will have an enormous weight on future world balances. No one can cope alone with the serious challenges that are emerging, especially when you face adversaries like Putin and Xi Jinping, threatening and determined to exacerbate every crisis, and when it comes to protecting an entire system of life that may not be perfect, but which is the freest we have.

You could say that Allies need the United States as the United States needs allies from a political, economic and military perspective, also because this guarantees the Pentagon the availability of 750 bases in approximately 80 countries and five continents. A report win-win whose end (or drastic reduction) would be self-defeating for all parties involved.

For our country there are no alternatives. Due to the affinity of fundamental values, of life systems, of objectives and also of weapons systems, we have to stay on the western side, of liberal and democratic countries, with the United States, with NATO. Elements that have guaranteed us peace and prosperity for decades. A membership that can make us loyally criticize certain decisions but that must also be collaborative, leaving however the freedom to keep channels open with those who think differently, as long as our position is clear.

There is no need to be afraid of taking initiatives and political decision makers have the duty to look far ahead, beyond the horizon dictated by the simple management of power, too often limited to the next elections.

The next US presidential elections will be crucial not only for the ongoing crises, starting with Ukraine, but also for Europe. It is for these reasons that Italy and the European Union must renew their attitude, fully recovering the transatlantic relationship and addressing international issues with a multidisciplinary, broad and interconnected vision, with the awareness that doubts must be overcome with dialogue between allies, so that this social/economic/political "bloc" that believes in the free market, free trade and the improvement of the living conditions of its citizens can continue to prosper.

i 2022 data of Center for Economics and Business Research (Cebr) published on Sole 24 ore online on 31 December 2022

iii Russia is on a war economy and has tripled its military spending since before the invasion of Ukraine.

Photo: US Air Force