Those of 5 November will be global elections even more than American ones. Because in the next challenge for the conquest of the White House, the outcome will have repercussions in all areas of the planet to an extent never before seen. To the point of making the thesis of those who argue that all citizens of at least those countries with democracy should be eligible to run for president of the United States less strange and fanciful.
One fact is already established. The consequences will be abysmally divergent depending on whether Donald Trump wins or Kamala Harris prevails (she would be the first woman to ascend to the White House). Indeed, not only two implacable adversaries (or rather enemies from Trump’s point of view) clash, but above all two antithetical and irreconcilable visions of political grammar, society and even institutional etiquette. Autocracy labelled as illiberal democracy with larvae temptations of dictatorship (Trump) versus defence of classical democracy (Harris). Protectionism in the economy (Trump) versus maintenance of traditional trade (Harris). Populism in economic support of forgotten men neglected by elites in deepest America (Trump) versus commitment to minorities, social rights, female empowerment and woke culture (Harris). A shouted campaign overflowing with insults (Trump) against less boisterous but no less aggressive rebuttals pointing the finger at the former president’s condemnation and his low standards of morality (Harris). A tight contest, with an uncertain and unpredictable outcome, between two Americas that have no points of contact and refuse any mediation shortcut. And which forces governments around the world to equip themselves to deal with two scenarios on the most neuralgic issues of international current affairs.
WAR
Trump promises that he will solve with a snap of his fingers the conflict in Ukraine that has been dragging on for two and a half years with no concrete prospect of a truce. But in order to bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table in 24 hours, it will be necessary to grant him the allocation of invaded and conquered territories and the assurance that Kiev will never join NATO. In practice, even if the original plan-blitz was to annex the whole of Ukraine by installing a puppet government, it would mean giving the invader full rein. Vanishing the war effort of the attacked country and the aid in armaments and strategies provided mainly by the US and Europe. Outrageously large losses of life. Devaluing the incalculable damage of entire cities destroyed and the tragedies of the civilian population. In the event of an abrupt capitulation brought about by the interruption of Washington’s aid, Ukraine would be dismembered (western part set to join the European Union, Donbass and Crimea handed over to Russia). And Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to resign. But at that point what would NATO (depowered by the advent of Trump) and Europe, which so strenuously supported Kiev’s resistance, do? Would they resign themselves to quietly exit the scene, shedding bitter tears over the failure of the massive military and financial effort? Or, fearing that Putin, rejuvenated by his success, would be tempted to set his sights on other targets (Baltic countries, Moldova), would they reorganise themselves – perhaps even by setting up a European army – to create new embankments against Moscow’s imperialism? And what are the chances that Western public opinion – tired of war and less and less willing to die for Kiev – would go along with a design that for military urgencies would divert resources from plans for civil progress?
If Harris wins it will continue much the same as under Biden. Attempts will be made to put Zelensky in a position to prepare a counteroffensive that, by threatening Russian territory, could however provoke a nuclear retaliation. In any case, the conflict cannot last forever: between the 14th and 15th centuries the Hundred Years War between the kingdoms of England and France also ended. But speeding up a diplomatic solution would require a greater commitment on the part of China (to which Ukraine has already turned): the only superpower capable of bringing Russia, whose faltering economy depends crucially on Beijing’s support, to milder counsels.
On Gaza, if Trump prevails, the mirage of a Palestinian state will be wrecked for the umpteenth time. And in Israel it will be more difficult to break free and put Benjamin Netanyahu on the stand. Who, in order not to lose power before the entry (hoped for by the Israeli Prime Minister) of his old friend into the White House, is opening after the Majdal Shams massacre another dangerous war front against the Lebanese Hezbollah financed by Teheran. At the same time, he will try to raise his stock by accelerating the drawing up of the Abraham Agreements, even though he will encounter inevitable obstacles after the massacres in the Strip.
If Harris, who is married to a Jew, wins, the US’s historical support for Israel will obviously not be undermined but, beyond the firm and predictable condemnation of Hamas, the Palestinian people’s legitimate claims for independence will not be set aside. And perhaps the everlasting Netanyahu will be pushed out of the picture.
GEOPOLITICS
If Trump wins, the United States will relax relations with Russia and China (for the tycoon, Putin and Xi Jinping are two examples of courageous, decision-making leaders). And the government in Beijing will be encouraged to speed up preparations for the annexation of Taiwan, calculating that the US would probably shrug off the invasion. The little more than folkloric theatrics with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un will certainly reappear on the bill. And tensions with Iran will escalate. While Washington will distance itself from Europe and also from NATO unless the Twenty-Seven decide to widen the purse strings to even out the funds guaranteed by the USA in proportion to the number of inhabitants.
If Harris enters the White House, ties with Europe will not be loosened. Sanctions against Putin will be confirmed, if not increased. A window of dialogue will be reopened with Iran where Masoud Pezeshkian, an apparently moderate president, has just taken office. And the challenge for world supremacy with China will continue. Which will have to take into account an American intervention in the case of aggression against Taiwan.
ECONOMY
With Trump ‘America first’. And therefore protectionism to the bitter end, even if the White House cannot underestimate the gigantic business network that prevents a total detachment from China. And cooled relations with Europe. With Kamala ‘business as usual’. Stable relations with Europe. And reinforced attention against Chinese penetration in the South.
CLIMATE
Trump has already announced that he will cancel all of America’s climate commitments. He is hostile to environmental policies and will launch a massive drilling plan in favour of industry. Kamala realises that the situation is becoming untenable. If green policies cannot be overdone in order not to slow down the economy (today’s need), it is absolutely urgent to slow down the mad rush towards environmental apocalypse (tomorrow’s need, of the world our children will inherit).
AND IF…
Suppose that Trump, considered a sure winner until Biden retires, loses perhaps narrowly. Do you think that, unlike in 2020, he will not reject the verdict of the ballot box, denouncing more or less phantom frauds? And that, again unlike 2020, he will do nothing to appease the anger of the legions of fans who – comforted also by the exculpatory guidelines of a tame Supreme Court – consider him a messiah? The tycoon has already said that if he does not win, there will be blood in the streets. There is also the risk, unless the Pentagon promptly intervenes, that the 5 November elections will result in a civil war.
(Associated Medias) – All rights are reserved