US Election: Perspectives from abroad

US Election: Perspectives from abroad
31 Oct
2016
Three experts speculate on the impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency will have on the regions of Europe, Latin America and Asia

After ten gruelling months of campaigns, the contest for the presidency of the United States is almost at an end. Clinton and Trump, with their polar views on immigration, trade and foreign policy, are predicted to wield vastly different influences on global affairs. Whatever the outcome, the relationship between the US and the rest of the world has been fundamentally altered. Such is the consensus among three regional experts:

Xenia WickettEUROPE: Xenia Wickett, Project Director of the US Project at Chatham House

Whoever wins, from the European perspective the world has fundamentally changed. When European countries look to the US they look for three essential ingredients. The first is a partner in driving forward the Western ideal and supporting the architectures that have been created over the last 60 to 70 years that define the way that nations interact with one another (such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank). The second is the US being an economic power, a factor that has been sensitive since 2008 when the US slowdown had huge implications for European countries. The third ingredient is the US being a provider of global security and stability – as the world’s policeman – as well as, more specifically, America’s spending, support and engagement in NATO. All of these principal objectives are right now in question regardless of the election outcome:

• The Western ideal has been questioned. In the United States right now the debate from Donald Trump is that election is going to be ‘stolen’, that the other side has ‘cheated’. Over the last few months the rhetoric has been less than constructive. So the idea that European countries look to the US today as an ideal to aspire to, something that they want to join and be recognised as, has kind of gone. The concept of America espousing this ideal is significantly damaged.

• America as an economic power. Here there are two challenges. First, if you thought that US politics was bipartisan before the election, we have got a whole new degree of political partisanship today. That must be added to the fact that even if Trump wins, the Republican party is going to go through huge changes in the coming years trying to hold itself together. Such can also be said about the Democratic party, which is going to have to merge in some coherent way the Sanders faction with the Clinton faction. Right now, it is hard to define whether the fights are more within the parties or between the parties. Meanwhile, the level of political partisanship is gong to make it almost impossible to get anything done. Some of the big economic challenges that the US faces on taxation, on how to re-engage and mitigate inequality is going to be impossible to get through Washington. Secondly – and it doesn’t really matter whether you’re talking about Trump or Clinton – TTIP isn’t going anywhere and neither is trade. So as Europe used to look to America as an open economic driving force, now it sees that actually the US is getting kind of protectionist. Both of these slow downs will impact its economic image in Europe.

• America as a provider of security. Europe will question that too, whether it’s Clinton or Trump [that wins]. It goes beyond defence sequestration and funding for the military to a more profound point, one that America has been saying for two decades: that it doesn’t want to be the world’s policeman. For the first time America is now acting in a way that echoes those words. Such was central to Obama’s foreign policy agenda and it is likely that both Clinton and Trump will preside over a country that continues down this path towards expecting others to bear burdens and step up. This is true whether we are talking about NATO or more broadly.

So the three principal relationships between Europe and the United States are in question, and they have been raised by recent events or by the current state of the political debate. If it is Clinton that wins, there is a sense that some of these challenges would be mitigated and that one of the first things she would do would be to reassure allies in Asia and Europe. While she will pivot to Asia, she won’t ignore Europe. Clearly, she is more open to trade than Donald Trump is. On the other hand, one of the things that makes Europe nervous about Trump is that he prizes unpredictability and the transactional nature of engagement. It’s going to be very hard to have a relationship with the US under Donald Trump. At the same time, traditional allies also don’t necessarily want to be associated with an America like this. So if leadership requires followers, the question is where do the followers come from?

Kevin MiddlebrookLATIN AMERICA: Professor Kevin Middlebrook, Professor of Latin American Politics, UCL

Latin America, like the rest of the world, is holding its breath. Never in memory has the outcome of a US election held such a capacity to disrupt – and not in a progressive or constructive way – its relations with other countries. The reason, of course, has nothing to do with the multiple weaknesses of Hilary Clinton as a candidate, the threat is still a very real possibility of a President Trump. Other parts of the world may be more vulnerable to the Trump factor than Latin America, nevertheless, there are different parts of the Caribbean and Latin America that would almost certainly be negatively affected by the implementation of the policies – or the policy sketches – that Trump has outlined thus far.

Immigration and trade have been two key issues in the campaign and both are very important in the region. If Trump were to drastically restrict immigration, Mexico and central America would be the most immediately affected. Mexico will not, of course, pay for any physical barrier on its border with the US unless, as a Mexican official joked recently, that border follows the 1835 border, which would return the current US states of California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada to Mexican sovereignty.

But given Trump’s hype about a big wall, the pressure on him to build some kind of barrier wold be quite intense. Despite the inevitable delays due to financial cost, environmental impact assessment and so forth, no such barrier would fully block the migration flow or drug smuggling. Demographic shifts and already very strict border enforcement mean that northward migration is much smaller than it was a decade ago. Meanwhile, drug smugglers learned the value of tunnelling long ago. Yet the political symbolism of a new barrier along the border would certainly have very negative consequences over the bilateral relationship as well as the relationship with the rest of the hemisphere.

In regards to trade, the challenges begin with the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. Whereby, US legislation has progressively concentrated within the Federal Executive the power to suspend or curtail trade relations with particular countries. Prime expert opinion seems to be that a President Trump could quite easily file the six-month notice required to exit the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and similar trade deals and, perhaps more worryingly, US membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clinton herself has given strong assurances to her US labour allies that she would also renegotiate parts of NAFTA, but only Trump might take actions that would really unleash chaos in Latin American and world trade relationships.

More generally, even with the decline in US influence in the Western Hemisphere through the post-Cold War era, countries in the region do look to America for constructive dialogue to help address many of the shared problems they face. Though the region is not high on the priority of US foreign policy, Latin American countries do expect to be treated seriously. Here, Trump’s brief visit to Mexico City last August really did send shivers down the back of many Latin American leaders. Not only did Trump use the visit as a prelude to his anti-immigration campaign in Arizona that day, but he later bragged that the success of his visit could be measured by the fact that popular outrage in Mexico forced the resignation of the cabinet official Luis Videgaray. Videgaray was at the time President Peña Nieto’s closest advisor and the frontrunner to be the government party’s nominee for the Mexican presidential election in 2018. The public and political humiliation suffered by Peña Nieto will surely be remembered as one of the worst disasters in Mexican foreign affairs. The case demonstrates just how negative an impact a Trump administration would have on the public perceptions that underpin hemispheric relations in the United States and in Latin America.

Michal MeidanASIA: Dr Michal Meidan, Associate Fellow, Asia Programme, Chatham House

The way the debate has unfolded raises question about managing domestic politics for any elected president, be it Clinton or Trump. What kind of congress they will have to deal with? How easily will they be able to push forward their different policy choices? Perhaps for Asia, the first complicated factor is what happens to the defence budget for key allies in the region.

The second is the global context, specifically, this anti-globalisation and anti-trade sentiment. If we have learnt anything from Brexit it is that there is a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction that is pervasive in the US, that persists in Europe and I think for some of Asia too, perhaps most noticeably in China. Asian leaders have to question how much that resonates within their own domestic politics and how much of this anti-establishment sentiment exists for their populations.

The third complicating factor is Asia itself, which is going through some major political transitions. The year ahead will not be easy and looks to compound a lot of these anxieties about the global economic and trading outlook. Thailand, following the death of the King, is an open question. Perhaps the base case is that things will muddle along in a stable transition, but things could also go wrong. Myanmar is another country that is in transition, opening up to the West and the US. Meanwhile, there are elections coming up in Malaysia and Cambodia and, of course, the political transition in China in 2017, which adds to an already different China that we have become used to. Ever since Xi Jinping came to power, a lot of paradigms about China such as economic growth and political management have changed and will continue to change. Of course, the rise of Duterte in the Philippines is an additional change of tack in the US alliances and the general configuration of politics and geopolitics in the region.

The simple way of looking at it is the difference between rhetoric and reality. Whatever has been said, once a President comes in there will be constraints: domestic and international. However, I do not think we should be complacent in thinking that affairs will keep going as they have been. Before the last few months, everyone was assuming that Clinton would win the election and few gave a second thought to Trump except as a side note. Over the past few months, however, more and more governments in Asia have been studying Trump: looking at his biography and analysing his policy statements.

In this context Clinton is a known commodity to Asia. She has served as Secretary of State, she has been to the region, governments there know her as well as her likely team in Washington. For China, however, she is not seen as the best possibility: she has been hard with the nation on human rights, on trade, on the South China Sea and she was the architect of the Pivot to Asia, which is seen very much as an anti-China group. For other Asian countries, however, she is predictable and someone the Japanese and most Southeast Asian nations would be happy to see in the White House. All the while, the Chinese were thinking of her as a necessary evil until Donald Trump became a plausible option.

The statements Trump has made has generated a lot of concern for most of Northeast and Southeast Asia. Even if you assume that his ‘erecting trade barriers and imposing 45 per cent tariffs on China’ are not realistic, there is the huge concern from the lack of respect with which he discusses Asian countries and people in general. His statements about rethinking his alliances and pulling out of bases in Japan and Korea are very worrying for those countries, as well as his anti-TPP rhetoric. Delaying or preventing TPP is, in a simple sense, bad news for Japan and Vietnam. Any Southeast Asian nations that liked the possibility of using TPP to hedge against China will feel it unlikely under a Trump presidency. Further to that, Trump’s comment about non-intervention in the South China Sea, about pulling back and letting the Asians deal with Asia themselves is extremely worrying for many countries in the region.

Trump statements are perhaps of least concern to China. In fact at this point the Chinese are considering that Trump would actually be good news for the them. Especially in that – at least from what we know know – he would try to reduce engagement in the region. TTP not happening takes a lot of pressure off China and means it won’t have to push forward other trade agreements that are already looking quite wobbly. Also, if anything has been the biggest victory for the Chinese press, it’s Trump. The press there have been happily echoing the nonsensical debate that is happening in America. They see it as a triumph of non-democratic leadership over the chaotic democracies.

These perspectives were given at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, as part of an ongoing series of reports, lectures and events on the US Election.

Share this story...

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

Related items

Leave a comment

ONLY registered members can leave comments and each comment is held pending authorisation before publishing. Please login or register to voice your opinion.

Geographical Week

Get the best of Geographical delivered straight to your inbox every Friday.

Subscribe Today

EDUCATION PARTNERS

Aberystwyth UniversityUniversity of GreenwichThe University of Winchester

TRAVEL PARTNERS

Ponant

Silversea

Travel the Unknown

DOSSIERS

Like longer reads? Try our in-depth dossiers that provide a comprehensive view of each topic

  • REDD+ or Dead?
    The UN-backed REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) scheme, under which developing nations would be paid not to cut dow...
    The true cost of meat
    As one of the world’s biggest methane emitters, the meat industry has a lot more to concern itself with than merely dietary issues ...
    Long live the King
    It is barely half a century since the Born Free story caused the world to re-evaluate humanity’s relationship with lions. A few brief decades later,...
    London: a walk in the park
    In the 2016 London Mayoral election, the city’s natural environment was high on the agenda. Geographical asks: does the capital has a green future, ...
    The Money Trail
    Remittance payments are a fundamental, yet often overlooked, part of the global economy. But the impact on nations receiving the money isn’t just a ...

MORE DOSSIERS

NEVER MISS A STORY - follow Geographical

Want to stay up to date with breaking Geographical stories? Join the thousands following us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and stay informed about the world.