US 2024 Election and International Relations
- Jia Han
- Aug 18, 2024
- 4 min read
As noted earlier, the world has become more dangerous than at any time since the end of WWII (e.g. [1-6,8]). The question is what should we do about it? First, we need to identify the type of tensions or conflicts. We might be in Cold War II, as some scholars argue [3-5]. Others may have different opinions. Assume that we are in Cold War II. Cold War II has similarities as well as differences from Cold War I. Second, as explained in [6] a good grand strategy was crucial in Cold War I. However, we do not have one for Cold War II yet. For now, we may adapt what worked in Cold War I. This is happening so far [7,8]. If we view international relations at an abstract, high level, the foreign policies of the two parties are similar, at least for now [9].
On the other hand, the 2024 US election is important to world politics. Either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will be elected as president. On the Republican side, I would prefer either Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley over Donald Trump. The reason is that either one can be a unifier and has proven records in domestic governance. Furthermore, Nikki Haley has also shown good knowledge and skills in international relations. Unfortunately, lawfare had given them no chance. (It is hard to say how likely they would come out on top even without lawfare). If Harris wins, her administration will continue Biden’s modus operandi. The Biden administration has been run largely by bureaucrats with Biden calling the final shots. Harris probably relies even more on bureaucrats because she has no experience in decision making, either domestic or international. What concerns me is that the Biden/Harris administration is/will be seen as weak by bad actors. As mentioned before, because no nation monopolies coercive power, thus effective deterrence is the key.
What is deterrence? Let us revisit the theoretical model for international relations. Among approximately two hundred nation-states, some are good, some self-interest-centered, and some are bad. Bad actors intend to disrupt the world order to gain advantages in territories, power, or glory. It is up to good powers to deter such actions. Deterrence was a key factor in limiting conflicts in Cold War I. The US president is the most important deterrent factor in world politics. If the US president is strong, then bad actors will refrain. Otherwise, they may take aggressive ventures.
How do we know whether a US president is strong? This is difficult to measure quantitatively. Study of his/her education, knowledge, writing, speaking, and previous decision-making under difficult circumstances might help. (This is not foolproof. Some may consider JFK weak but later he proved strong under duress.) I found Smith’s textbook enlightening on this topic, particularly the chapter on Niccolò Machiavelli [10].
Now consider some well-known examples. President Obama was a great orator but was weak in dealing with real-world politics. One example is the “red line” he warned Syrian President Assad against using chemical weapons. When Assad did use chemical weapons, Obama did nothing. (Bad actors may test.) Another event was when Xi went to see Obama. Obama told Xi not to militarize the South China Sea which Xi promised. Just few months later, Xi did just that. Obama had no response. Trump, on the other hand, is much stronger. During Trump’s four years, there were no Middle East wars, Iran was much weaker, and Russia did not invade Ukraine. Are these all coincidences? I would say that deterrence was the key. Afghan chaotic withdrawal led Putin to believe that Biden was weak, thus if he invaded Ukraine the US and the rest of the West would not take action. He miscalculated this. After he started the war, it would be difficult for him to lose the war since it would endanger his authority in Russia. This shows that it is better to deter than to fight a war.
Thus, at the abstract level differences in both parties’ foreign policies are not large. However, Kamala Harris seems weak and inexperienced in international relations, which can be problematic.
References:
[4] Niall Ferguson in seminar at UATX: Cold War II (3-2024)
[5] David E. Sanger, New Cold Wars: China's Rise, Russia's Invasion, and America's Struggle to Defend the West Hardcover – 1 January 2099【译丛】从一场冷战到多场冷战 - 议报
[10] Steven B. Smith, "Political Philosophy," Yale University Press, 2012.
Comments