Opinion: The global order is at stake in November

A vote by the citizen of a superpower affects the entire world. Americans’ choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in November will reverberate far beyond U.S. borders. And at the core, this election is a choice between two views of what America is and what it should be on the global stage.

The first view, represented by Harris, is an America that is a guiding light to the world, shaping the global order in a way that brings material and other benefits but requires a commitment that can involve a heavy price in lives and treasure. This version of America not only seeks its own advantage, but also stands for principles that attach to democracy, freedom and economic opportunity for all.

The Trump version of America stands for nothing except self-enrichment. It will incline toward “strong leaders” — like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev and even Russia’s Vladimir Putin — and ignore or ridicule liberal democracies. But as the possessor of the strongest militaries and economy on earth, it has considerable power. It will be loved by few but perhaps feared by more.

Here’s a look at what’s at stake for each global region.

Middle East

A Trump victory would help Israel’s right-wing government in its efforts to somehow survive the debacle of the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas and the subsequent calamitous war in Gaza. It may allow Israel free rein to escalate the war against its sworn enemies. If Harris wins, expect less patience for Israel’s continuing settlement of the West Bank, or for Netanyahu’s policy of prolonging the war in Gaza without outlining an endgame or a strategic goal.

The bigger question involves Iran: It is unclear which administration would do more to bring about the desirable outcome of a collapse of the ruling Islamic theocracy. Democratic administrations have in recent decades been more inclined to put up with the regime in exchange for an end to its nuclear program, which led to the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal (which Trump withdrew from in 2018). But Trump’s instinctive isolationism may actually be better for the mullahs.

That said, Trump would be less likely to tolerate outrages from the Houthi militia in Yemen, which has been impeding global maritime commerce through the Suez Canal.

East Asia

The main question is which U.S. leader will create a bigger temptation for Chinese irredentist hostility toward Taiwan. Ironically, that may be Trump. His transactional perspective and impatience with the intricacies of global affairs suggest there are circumstances where he abandons Taiwan. Moreover, Taiwan’s main claim on the West’s loyalty (other than its semiconductor industry) relates to shared values, but Trump is indifferent to democratic allies.

A Harris administration might not only more robustly support democracies in East Asia but also push for greater economic integration with Southeast Asia through trade agreements and initiatives that counter China’s Belt-and-Road Initiative.

Africa

A Harris administration would be more driven by progressive thinking about the “Global South,” and thus likely prioritize partnerships with African nations, focusing on economic development, public health and climate change. Harris’s commitment to human rights and democratic governance could also lead to greater support for civil society organizations and efforts to counter violent extremism in the Sahel and Horn of Africa.

Trump’s first term saw a significant disengagement from Africa, and a second term could continue this trend, allowing China and Russia to further expand their influence, exacerbating humanitarian crises and driving more African nations into the arms of authoritarians — which in turn will spur migration to Europe and create instability there.

Europe

A second Trump administration would again berate NATO allies for their alleged free-riding, devalue NATO as an institution and pursue closer relations with right-wing populist governments and parties. Trump would also undermine the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5, the cornerstone of collective security in the Euro-Atlantic region. His instinct to allow Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to some NATO members would not be tempered by the judgment of the types of national security professionals who staffed the first Trump White House, who would be replaced this time by loyalists and right-wing populists who will do Trump’s bidding.

A Harris administration would seek to reassure allies of the American commitment to their security — while maintaining pressure for all 32 NATO members to meet the pledge of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense (it is not a purely Trump issue, and indeed 23 of NATO’s 32 members now meet the target, whereas only seven did prior to Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine). A Harris administration would seek to increase this number, deepen NATO’s political integration and bolster its warfighting capabilities with an eye toward deterring a Russian move against a NATO member.

Eurasia

A second Trump administration would seek to bring an end to the war in Ukraine and downplay the threat of Russia emerging as a hegemonic power in Eurasia (the prevention of which has long been viewed as a vital U.S. security interest ). It might freeze aid to Ukraine to induce it to negotiate, which could bring about a temporary end to active combat, but would set the stage for Russia to resume the war as soon as it has rebuilt its military capability.

A Harris administration would not be similarly naive, but would likely be saddled with the legacy of Biden’s approach to the war in Ukraine, which has favored preventing conflict escalation ahead of enabling a Ukrainian victory. Unless Harris is willing to accept more risk, the outcome in Ukraine will probably leave Russian troops in part of that country.

The main difference could be in security guarantees for Ukraine, something a Harris administration might be willing to press for once fighting ends. The gold standard is NATO membership; absent such a push, Ukraine will be extended the same types of vague assurances of Western support that failed to prevent the 2014 and 2022 Russian invasions.

Latin America

The crisis in Venezuela, where strongman Nicolas Maduro is trying to steal an election, offered Trump a chance to show where he stands on Latin America. Trump falsely claimed that Venezuela has successfully cracked down on crime under Maduro, whom he has praised as smart and tough.

The issue is critical for Americans concerned about immigration, because the more authoritarian misery the region experiences, the more its people are likely to try to flee north. A Harris administration is likely to emphasize democracy, human rights, transparency and economic development, doubling down on isolation of the criminal regime of Maduro while strengthening ties with allies like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

On the other hand, a Trump/Vance administration would view Latin America through a single lens: that of stemming immigration to the U.S. Its focus, however, would likely not be on the root causes but on interdiction at the southern border.

In sum, the choice between Trump and Harris is not an illegitimate one — but the choosers should be aware of exactly what the implications will be for the world.

Col. (Ret.) Robert Hamilton heads Eurasia research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He has been a professor at the U.S. Army War College and served in a variety of diplomatic posts. Dan Perry is the former chief editor of the Associated Press in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.