(Analyst: Jacob Allsup) As the 2024 U.S. presidential election draws near, voters are presented with two contrasting visions for how America should navigate an increasingly multipolar world. The unipolar moment of U.S. hegemony is fading as powers like China, Russia, and regional alliances are asserting themselves on the global stage. In this changing landscape, the U.S. must adapt by strengthening its alliances and recalibrating its foreign policy approach. Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have articulated starkly different strategies for addressing these challenges, each with profound implications for America's global role.
A World in Transition: From Unipolarity to Multipolarity
The post-Cold War era was characterized by U.S. dominance across economic, military, and geopolitical arenas. However, the global landscape has shifted dramatically in recent years. China's rise as an economic powerhouse, Russia's resurgence on the global stage, and the increasing assertiveness of regional players like India and Turkey are reshaping the world order. The U.S. can no longer dictate the rules unilaterally; it must navigate a more competitive, multipolar environment. In this evolving context, the foreign policies of Harris and Trump offer two distinct responses to these challenges.
Kamala Harris: Continued Engagement, But at What Cost?
Kamala Harris represents continuity with the Biden administration’s foreign policy, which is heavily focused on preserving alliances and upholding liberal internationalism. Harris's commitment to Ukraine and NATO reflects her belief in the importance of multilateral cooperation to deter authoritarian powers like Russia​.
By continuing Biden's extensive military and financial aid to Ukraine, Harris aims to strengthen NATO's resolve against Russian aggression. However, this approach has placed a significant strain on U.S. resources—both economic and military. Critics argue that the Biden-Harris approach risks overextending America, echoing the criticisms of the U.S. acting as the world’s "policeman" while neglecting domestic issues.
In Asia, Harris has embraced the Biden administration's strategy of bolstering alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Australia as part of a broader effort to counter China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific. This includes continuing the QUAD partnership (U.S., Japan, India, and Australia) and supporting U.S. naval operations in the South China Sea to ensure freedom of navigation​.
While this enhances regional stability, critics contend that Harris's emphasis on maintaining the current order could escalate tensions with China without yielding clear strategic gains for the U.S.
Donald Trump: A Pragmatic and Strategic Realignment
In contrast, Donald Trump’s foreign policy is grounded in a realist framework that prioritizes U.S. interests and seeks to avoid entangling America in prolonged foreign conflicts. Trump’s first term demonstrated his ability to negotiate with global power players, including Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and even Kim Jong-un. His willingness to engage directly with strongman leaders, combined with his transactional approach to alliances, allowed him to recalibrate U.S. relationships without compromising on American security​.
Should Trump return to the White House, his foreign policy would likely shift toward reducing U.S. involvement in costly foreign engagements, particularly in Ukraine. Trump has criticized the massive financial outlays to support Ukraine and has argued that Europe should bear more of the burden for its own defense​.
Rather than draining American resources on distant conflicts, Trump aims to refocus those resources on building domestic industry and ensuring America is economically and militarily capable of competing with China.
Trump’s emphasis on rebalancing alliances is crucial. He advocates for a fairer distribution of costs within NATO, ensuring that European allies step up their defense spending. Far from weakening the alliance, this would compel NATO members to take greater responsibility for their security, thereby strengthening the alliance's collective power​.
Policy Breakdown: Implications for Key U.S. Alliances
NATO and Europe:
Kamala Harris: Harris’s unwavering support for Ukraine and NATO reflects her belief in the importance of multilateralism. However, her approach risks further entrenching the U.S. in long-term financial and military commitments that many argue Europe should handle more equitably.
Donald Trump: Trump will likely continue to demand that European nations increase their defense contributions. His transactional diplomacy seeks to reduce the U.S.'s financial burden while preserving NATO's strategic value. Rather than abandoning NATO, Trump aims to realign it, ensuring that American commitments match U.S. interests​.
Indo-Pacific:
Kamala Harris: Harris supports deepening alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Australia, maintaining a strong military presence in the region to counter China's ambitions. While this enhances U.S. influence in the Indo-Pacific, it risks heightening tensions with Beijing​.
Donald Trump: Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy would focus more on leveraging economic power and negotiating favorable trade deals, as seen in his first term. His ability to secure concessions from China through tariffs and trade negotiations demonstrated his focus on outcomes that directly benefit the U.S. Rather than escalating military tensions, Trump would push regional allies to contribute more to their own defense​.
Middle East:
Kamala Harris: Harris will likely continue Biden’s balanced approach in the Middle East, maintaining strong ties with Israel while advocating for diplomatic engagement with Iran. This could preserve stability but risks allowing Iran to further its nuclear ambitions through prolonged negotiations​.
Donald Trump: Trump would likely return to his hardline stance on Iran, focusing on increasing sanctions and pushing for Arab-Israeli normalization, building on the Abraham Accords from his first term. Trump’s realpolitik in the region prioritizes U.S. security and economic interests, minimizing U.S. involvement in protracted Middle Eastern conflicts​.
Conclusion: A Clear Choice in a Changing World
Whichever approach the next president takes, the U.S. must recognize the limits of its ability to unilaterally influence global affairs. Success will likely depend on how well the country can leverage its strategic alliances, whether through the continued multilateral engagement advocated by Harris or the more transactional, interest-driven diplomacy proposed by Trump. Both approaches offer unique strengths and potential drawbacks.
The fundamental challenge for the next president will be navigating the complexity of multipolarity, where influence must be shared and where regional powers will demand more autonomy in their dealings with global powers. As U.S. foreign policy shifts, it will need to adapt not only to managing relationships with allies but also to competing with rivals who are emboldened by the changing global structure.
Deeply rooted in this transformation is the question of how the U.S. can preserve its strategic edge while avoiding overextension. As the world moves toward greater decentralization of power, the ability to prioritize both global responsibilities and national interests will define U.S. foreign policy for decades to come. This election will not just determine short-term policy choices—it will shape the contours of U.S. engagement in a world that is increasingly shaped by diverse, and sometimes competing, centers of power.
The outcome of the election could either reinforce the U.S.'s role as a stabilizing force in global politics or catalyze a rethinking of how to wield influence in a way that better reflects the emerging multipolar reality.
Comments