How the U.S. Election Matters for the Rest of the World

[kagy]

How the U.S. Election Matters for the Rest of the World

Israel and Gaza

By Patrick Kingsley

Israelis would vote by a large margin for Trump, polls show.

Russia and Ukraine

By Anton Troianovski

Putin believes both Trump and Harris are going to be less committed to Ukraine.

China

By Keith Bradsher

A trade-off centers on two issues: tariffs and Taiwan.

Europe and NATO

By Steven Erlanger

This election feels like the end of an era, whatever the outcome.

Global trade

By Ana Swanson

Can Trump unilaterally upend global trade? Yes, he can.

South Africa

By John Eligon

Trump resembles a lot of autocratic African leaders.

Mexico

By Natalie Kitroeff

Trump’s threatened deportations could have huge consequences.

Climate

By Somini Sengupta

U.S. actions will impact the entire world.

The world doesn’t pick the U.S. president, but it will live with the consequences of whether Americans elect Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald J. Trump. It’s a decision that will have globe-spanning consequences, from the wars in Gaza and Ukraine to climate change and global trade.

The world wants to know: What kind of superpower will America be in the years to come? Was Trump an aberration, or was President Biden?

I spoke with my fellow Times foreign correspondents about what’s at stake. One thing is clear: This election polarizes the world as much as it does the United States — but sometimes in unexpected ways.

— KATRIN BENNHOLD

Israel and Gaza

Patrick Kingsley is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief.

Israelis, if they could, would vote by a large margin for Trump — the polls show that very clearly. But whoever wins, the long-term impact will probably be limited.

Israeli society, not to mention the government, is more opposed to Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution than it has been in decades. No U.S. president is likely to change that. President Harris would probably put more pressure on Israel to reach a cease-fire and open up talks with the Palestinians. But she would be unlikely to, say, cut off military support to Israel.

President Trump would perhaps be less bothered about Israel allowing Jewish settlers back into Gaza, as part of the Israeli government would like to do. He also talks a much more aggressive line on Iran than Harris, which pleases many Israelis. But you don’t quite know which side of the bed he’s going to wake up on. You get the sense he’s more risk averse than he sounds, and he recently appeared to rule out trying to topple the Iranian regime.

Because of that unpredictability, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel he can take more advantage of a Harris administration. So the internal Israeli thinking might be more nuanced than it seems.

Russia and Ukraine

Anton Troianovski is The Times’s Moscow bureau chief.

This is an election that matters massively to Russia and Ukraine.

Some Ukrainians worry that Trump will try to force a quick peace deal that’s favorable to Russia. But they also fear that American support for Ukraine could decline under a Harris presidency. Some Ukrainians also say that Trump might not be so bad: after all, it was during his presidency that the U.S. started sending antitank weapons to Ukraine.

However, in Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin sees much less of a difference between Trump and Harris on Ukraine than we might think. He believes that America's commitment to Ukraine will eventually wane, whatever the outcome of the election.

Putin wants a deal, something that he can call a victory. He believes that Ukraine is a puppet of the United States. So he believes he can only get that deal in a negotiation with the U.S. president. He has publicly backed Harris. That might seem disingenuous, or counterintuitive, but Putin may think he can do business with her.

There is one way in which a Trump victory would unambiguously strengthen Putin: It would mean an America that’s far less engaged in the world and in Eastern Europe, which Putin sees as his rightful sphere of interest.

China

Keith Bradsher is The Times’s Beijing bureau chief.

Whoever wins, the next U.S. president will be a hawk on China. But the people I speak to in Beijing are divided about which candidate would be better for China. The trade-off centers on two issues: tariffs and Taiwan.

Chinese economic officials are very aware that Trump has called for blanket tariffs on China’s exports, which could pose a serious threat to China’s economy. This is a country that is enormously dependent on foreign demand, especially from America, to keep its factories running and its workers employed. Manufacturing creates a lot of wealth, and it offsets China’s very serious housing market crash.

Meanwhile, the Chinese foreign policy world sees advantages to Trump’s winning the election.

China feels increasingly hemmed in by U.S. efforts, particularly by the Biden administration, to strengthen alliances with many of China’s neighbors: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India and above all Taiwan. Harris would probably continue those efforts. Trump is much less committed to building and maintaining international alliances.

And Trump has also shown much less interest in defending Taiwan. That is very welcome in Beijing.

Europe and NATO

Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent for The Times, covering Europe.

For Europe, this U.S. election feels like the end of an era, whatever the outcome.

Depending on whom you talk to in Europe, a Trump victory is either a nightmare or a gift. Europe’s growing band of nativists — in Hungary, Italy, Germany and elsewhere — regard Trump as the leader of their movement. If he regains the White House, he would normalize and energize their hard line on immigration and national identity.

Meanwhile, most western European leaders are deeply anxious. Trump’s talk of slapping 20 percent tariffs onto everything sold to America, including European exports, could spell disaster for Europe’s economy. And, of course, Trump has repeatedly talked about leaving NATO.

Even if the United States doesn’t formally leave NATO, Trump could fatally undermine the alliance’s credibility if he says, “I’m not going to go fight for some small European country.”

If Harris wins, there is a feeling that she, too, will be preoccupied at home and more concerned with China, and will expect the Europeans to do more for themselves. There is a palpable sense in Europe that Biden was perhaps the last U.S. president to be personally attached to an alliance forged in the Cold War.

Global trade

Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics.

Donald Trump says “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary. More beautiful than love, more beautiful than respect.”

So this election is, among other things, a referendum on the entire global trade system, with U.S. voters making a choice that could affect the entire world.

Harris, if elected, would maintain targeted tariffs on Chinese goods on national security grounds. Trump is promising something much, much more aggressive, setting tariff levels that haven’t been seen in nearly a century: 10 to 20 percent on most foreign products, and 60 percent or more on goods made in China.

This would hit more than $3 trillion in U.S. imports, and probably cause multiple trade wars, as other countries retaliate with tariffs of their own. Most economists say we could end up with more tariffs, less trade, lower income and growth — a poorer world, essentially.

Can Trump just do that? Yes, he can. He has broad legal authority. And that would mean the United States is undermining the big international trade rules that it helped to create.

South Africa

John Eligon is The Times’s Johannesburg bureau chief.

There are some interesting differences in how people in Africa see Harris and Trump. Despite the fact that Trump has vulgarly dismissed African countries, some see him as a strong leader who gets things done. In many ways he resembles a lot of autocratic African leaders.

Harris, in Africa, is known for spending time in Zambia when she was growing up, as the granddaughter of an Indian diplomat stationed there. And her being of African descent resonates very deeply. She is seen as being very much of the continent.

Biden — and presumably Harris — wants African countries to decarbonize, because many still rely on fossil fuels for energy. Trump would probably not have that focus, and so his presidency might be desirable for countries that want to continue burning coal and oil and gas, instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into the clean energy transition.

South Africa is feeling a push and pull between the West, where it has the strongest economic ties, and the alliance of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, among others). It seems plausible that if Trump wins, he will be much more isolationist, and might have no problem watching countries like South Africa and Ethiopia draw even closer to BRICS.

Mexico

Natalie Kitroeff is The Times’s Mexico City bureau chief.

Mexico is facing significant challenges if Trump is elected. There will almost certainly be heightened tensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Mexico is the biggest U.S. trading partner, and it could face heavy tariffs. And it will be the next-door neighbor of a president who has threatened to use the U.S. military on Mexican soil.

But Mexico anticipates a tough immigration regime whoever wins. Under President Harris, that would probably mean continuity with the Biden administration policies that have become much more restrictive over time. Migration is a shared issue. Migrants from all over the world pass through Mexico to get to the U.S. border, and the United States can’t control the flow of migrants without Mexico’s assistance.

Trump has promised to deport 11 million people, mostly to Latin America — though experts are dubious that such a feat is even feasible. But even a small number of deportations could have huge consequences throughout the region.

Mexico has some leverage. But its leaders could really be backed into a corner by an emboldened Trump. And they know it.

Climate

Somini Sengupta is The Times’s international climate reporter.

The stakes could not be higher. The United States has emitted more carbon than any country in history, and is the second-biggest emitter right now after China. What it does next will impact the entire world’s ability to avert catastrophic climate change.

If Harris is elected, she is likely to press ahead with Biden’s policies of shifting to renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. Less clear is whether she will restrict oil and gas production, as the United States is now producing more oil and gas than any country ever has.

Trump, if he wins, may not scrap the Biden-era policies altogether. But he could overturn dozens of measures that regulate emissions from cars and power plants, eviscerating the country’s ability to reduce emissions fast enough.

Trump’s actions could also leave China without serious competition in renewable energy technology like batteries and electric vehicles. China is already leading that race.

Whoever wins the U.S. election, the energy transition is already in motion. But speed and scale matter. Trump could slow the transition to a crawl, with potentially disastrous consequences for the climate, and the world.