In Europe, everyone agrees that Trump’s reelection would be a catastrophe. Still, he has several foreign policy successes to his name. Kamala Harris could become the more difficult president for Europe.
This isn’t an election; it’s a roller coaster ride. First, the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, then Joe Biden’s withdrawal. Together, the events guarantee a special place in American history books.
The president renouncing his party’s candidacy is still a disaster for the Democrats. They may have quickly agreed on Kamala Harris and are now trying to project confidence, but they’re fighting with their backs to the wall. Turning the campaign on its head three months before Election Day is a high-wire act.
The last president who gave up just before the finish line was also a Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1968. At least he withdrew seven months before the election, allowing a somewhat orderly regrouping. The Democrats still lost.
This American Is Unique
Harris and her candidacy are a big grab bag. She hardly made a mark as vice president, primarily in the fight for the right to abortion. She has not stood out so far in foreign policy. That’s where American presidents can have the greatest impact. Domestically, they have to wrangle with an obstinate Congress. It’s only beyond America’s borders that the commander in chief of the U.S. forces is actually the most powerful human in the world.
No other politician has such global influence; not even Chinese President Xi Jinping can make such a claim. America is unique, even in a period of weakness like this one. But what will the country do with its power? That is more uncertain today than ever.
The argument that all established parties in Europe instinctively based their support for Biden’s second candidacy on is about predictability. The president is considered a known quantity, whereas his challenger was considered a security threat.
If predictability really were such a decisive criterion, European politicians would now need to unanimously support Trump. At least his first four years in the White House give an indication of what a second term would look like.
The Republican president was a loudmouth who broke with all norms of presidential discourse. But he followed his verbal outbursts with remarkably little action. Sure, he bullied the Europeans who turned out to be unreliable allies who broke their promise year after year to increase their contributions for military defense.
Yet Trump never made good on his threat to leave NATO. Cooperation within the alliance proceeded remarkably smoothly. That was due in part to the fact the president with the big mouth never stumbled into any new wars or other foreign policy misadventures. Even when Iran played with military fire, Trump limited his response to one that was just enough to restore deterrence.
The Europeans were never faced with either unwillingly following the U.S. into battle or offending their big brother. Trump tends to act like a lone wolf, but even Biden didn’t consult his allies before withdrawing from Afghanistan. The Republican president just made clear to the Europeans, with the zeal of a narcissist, who calls the shots in trans-Atlantic relations. They still haven’t forgiven him for it.
On the positive side, Trump can say that he was the first president in a long time to make progress in the Middle East. Under his aegis, Israel and several Arab nations normalized their relations with the so-called Abraham Accords. Trump also demonstrated foresight in reneging on the nuclear deal with Tehran and on the treaty with Moscow forbidding intermediate-range missiles in Europe.
The Trump administration was the first to consistently react to new strategic challenges, moving away from the “war on terror” and small wars on the periphery to confrontation with revisionist powers China and Russia.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump’s harshest critic, was, in contrast, wrong. The Germans in particular can’t forgive Trump for that. Merkel’s refusal to arm Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea was a mistake in terms of both morality and realpolitik. So was the appeasement of Vladimir Putin and energy dependency on Russia.
Only after the war began in 2022 did Berlin grow accustomed to what Trump had been demanding for years: spending 2% of its gross domestic product on defense. Such errors should motivate Europeans to approach Trump less reluctantly in a second term than in the past. Even if he soon demands 3% spending. The new Cold War in Europe won’t be cheaper than the last one.
If Putin Wins in Ukraine, American Will Look Weak
Trump acts selfishly often enough. Hence, he bullied not only China, but also allies across the Atlantic with tariffs. Biden, however, has also acted like a protectionist. Harris is certainly a classic interventionist leftist. The pendulum of globalization is swinging backward everywhere, in the U.S. as in Europe. In the end, Trump is still clearly more friendly to the economy than Harris.
The survivalist Benjamin Netanyahu showed he had good instincts when he committed to Trump early on. From an Israeli perspective, though, there is good reason to be close with Republicans. Only Republicans guarantee complete support for Israel in the existential fight against the murderous quartet of Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas. Biden may maintain arms shipments to the most important Middle Eastern allies, but the left-wing of his party objects. Harris is more likely to give in to the left wing and adopt a more pro-Palestinian course. That would be devastating for the old continent. Growing tensions between the U.S. and Israel would encourage the murderous quartet to be increasingly aggressive.
No one feels the consequences of escalation in the Middle East more directly than Europe. More immigration, more radicalization, more terrorism. At the same time, Europe’s dependence on gas and oil from the region is increasing again since imports from Russia were cut off.
Geostrategic vision has never been one of Europe’s strengths, so they are currently focused only on Ukraine. Biden’s dependability in the war and his clear affirmation of trans-Atlantic relations are continually cited as a primary reason for siding with the Democrats.
Harris has no trans-Atlantic experience. She lacks Biden’s strong emotional connection to this core element of American foreign policy after World War II. In this respect, she’s comparable to the average American and quite similar to Trump. Like him, she looks instead toward the Pacific. In all its diversity, with the threat of China and its immense economic potential, Asia is relevant to the California native. It’s at least plausible to assume that she would orient foreign policy and the military more toward the Pacific and less toward the Atlantic. She would bluster less than Trump. The effect on Europe would be the same.
Still, neither would end aid to Ukraine. The collapse of Ukraine and a Russian victory would make the U.S. look weak. It wouldn’t be a second Vietnam, but it wouldn’t be that far removed. Trump’s isolationist followers in particular want a stronger America, as the polls show.
Even Biden periodically put restrictions on arms shipments: no tanks, no fighter jets, no long-range missiles. Presumably, Washington will become increasingly self-interested, but a complete reversal is unlikely as long as enough congressional members of both parties see the value of having allies and a global American presence.
Both candidates have disadvantages. We can expect a phase of uncertainty from both. In any case, the one-sided European focus on the Democrats was a mistake. It would be smart in terms of realpolitik to be less wary of Trump.
Anyone who feels that would be too much should at least view both candidates with equal skepticism. After all, in the end, what matters in foreign policy is self-interest and not whom you like better.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.