Breathe
By Brenda Estefan
I write these lines from Washington, the U.S. capital. Today, Americans will go to the polls and the rest of the world will watch closely. The election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump will not only define the course of the United States, but will also have profound implications for the rest of the planet.
What is at stake? While the visions regarding the rivalry with China and the war in the Middle East are not so different between one candidate and the other, the approaches of both are opposite on crucial issues such as the conflict in Ukraine, climate change, democracy and international alliances.
One of the most divisive issues between the two is the conflict in Ukraine. While Harris seeks to continue military and political support for Kyiv, Trump has said that, if elected, he would resolve the conflict within 24 hours, which would involve forcing the Zelenski government into a negotiation that could include significant concessions to the detriment of Ukraine. While it is true that, whoever gets to the White House, Washington's intention will be to become less involved in European security in order to focus on the rivalry with China, Trump's approach would imply a greater threat to Europe's stability.
Both candidates' approach to the environment would have significant global implications. Harris supports an ambitious green agenda, pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote international efforts to curb climate change. Trump, in contrast, has demonstrated a skeptical approach, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement during his tenure and promoting deregulation on this agenda.
An eventual Harris victory would mean a revitalization of multilateral cooperation and Washington's commitment to its traditional allies, as well as an institutional management of relations between countries. Whereas a return of Trump to the Oval Office would be accompanied by his unpredictable and confrontational tone. Moreover, as is well known, the New Yorker would be less critical of authoritarian leaders and more pragmatic in his dealings with them, which would leave the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan very pleased.
The global situation is extremely volatile; in fact, it is the most volatile we have known since the end of the Cold War. At that time, although the established order faded, leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush and François Mitterrand managed to build a new equilibrium without descending into open conflict. Bush and François Mitterrand managed to build a new equilibrium without descending into open conflict. There was a moment of risk, but peace and diplomacy prevailed. Today, on the other hand, we are living the end of another era, but this time with ongoing wars and tensions not seen in decades.
The current conflicts transcend regional borders. Ukraine receives financial support and military equipment from its Western allies, while Russia has turned to Iranian drones and North Korean howitzers and now also to North Korean troops. In the Middle East, the conflict that began between Hamas and Israel is increasingly spreading, involving a growing number of countries and actors. In addition, hotspots of tension in Taiwan and the South China Sea threaten to trigger a major conflict.
The world is facing a reality in which actors are not only defending their national interests, but also attempting to redraw the boundaries of global power. This dynamic is generating tensions and conflicts in various regions, and I dare say that, regardless of who comes to the White House, this chaos will not go away. In fact, regardless of today's election outcome, the world is likely to experience more wars before peace is achieved. And perhaps that makes this question all the more relevant: In such an unstable context, is Kamala Harris or Donald Trump better off in the White House?
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()