How USA2024 Could Shape Key Geostrategic Dossiers

The 2024 US presidential election will inevitably reshape the global landscape, given the United States’ central role in international affairs. As the leader of the Western order, the US wields unparalleled influence in establishing international governance and stability. Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump takes office, the US presidency will profoundly impact regions where the American presence is crucial for maintaining strategic balance.

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump represent distinct approaches to leadership and foreign policy. Harris leans toward an idealistic, multilateral vision grounded in collective action with allies and adherence to democratic principles. Conversely, Trump is known for a transactional, often unpredictable approach, favoring immediate gains and bilateral negotiations. These differences suggest that while the general contours of US foreign policy might stay the same, specific dossiers could experience sharp contrasts depending on the next administration. Below, we explore four critical regions and how a Harris or Trump presidency might shape US engagement.

Middle East Conundrum

A Harris administration would likely continue the Biden administration’s diplomatic emphasis, maintaining strong but balanced support for Israel while acknowledging Palestinian rights and leveraging partnerships with key players like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Harris’s approach would likely prioritize dialogue with Iran, seeking diplomatic solutions over escalation but maintaining a severe stance.

In contrast, Trump is expected to adopt an assertive posture in the Middle East, offering robust, often unconditional, support to Israel and potentially abandoning the two-state framework. His approach to Iran could involve backing Israeli military actions to contain Tehran’s influence, even at the risk of heightened tensions.

However, Harris and Trump share a strategic understanding of Saudi Arabia’s role, albeit with different emphases: Harris may favor responsible partnerships, while Trump would likely deepen ties with an eye on immediate geopolitical leverage.

Africa Can(‘t) Wait

Harris’s potential administration is expected to build on Biden’s strategy by prioritizing sustainable development and multilateral partnerships in Africa. This approach could involve supporting economic growth, climate initiatives, and democratic institutions as alternatives to China’s growing presence. Harris’s emphasis on shared values could strengthen US-Africa relations through long-term commitments.

Trump, however, would likely adopt a security-centric, transactional approach, prioritizing counterterrorism and short-term economic agreements that serve US interests. This could entail a reduced focus on development initiatives, with more direct, bilateral arrangements. Both candidates recognize Africa’s increasing geopolitical significance and seek to counter China and Russia.

However, Harris would do so through development and diplomacy, and Trump would do so through security-focused and economic leverage. Africa will not be among the top agenda items for at least the first two years. This could further complicate the US position on the continent, which is on the rise and is experimenting with the desire for multi-alignment in developing a multipolar order. Africa may deepen alternative partnerships to fill its strategic urgencies in the face of a potential American absence.

Indo-Pacific, China Dilemma

Harris would likely emphasize multilateralism in the Indo-Pacific, aiming to fortify alliances like the Quad, AUKUS, and Camp David Principles to present a unified response to China’s regional influence. Her administration would likely support collective security frameworks and deepen collaboration with allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia, using diplomacy to manage tensions and assert a balanced regional order.

Trump’s approach, by contrast, would likely hinge on bilateral engagements and economic negotiations, emphasizing securing US interests first. His stance on China remains firm, but his policies might fluctuate, adding an element of unpredictability to relations with allies.

While Harris would focus on unified action against China’s ambitions, Trump might take a more individualized stance, aiming for immediate benefits in trade and security agreements. The issue will not be so much about standing vis-à-vis China but about the relationship with allies: linked to this is the regional dilemma after US2024. What will become of the US latticework approach?

India Ductility

A Harris administration would pursue closer cooperation with India, emphasizing multilateralism and shared democratic principles. Harris’s heritage and understanding of the region could further boost ties, while initiatives like the Quad would remain central to balancing China’s influence. This cooperative framework would likely expand into defense, technology, and climate areas.

In contrast, Trump will likely approach US-India relations from a pragmatic, bilateral perspective, valuing immediate economic and strategic gains. His past relationship with India focused on defense and counterterrorism, suggesting he might continue this transactional model.

While both candidates see India as vital for stability and countering China, Harris would lean towards multilateral engagement, and try to engage India in something broader about joint management of global dossiers, while Trump would favor tailored, direct America First agreements.

What to watch

Regardless of the outcome, certain fundamentals in US foreign policy will likely remain unchanged across these regions. Both Harris and Trump recognize the importance of balancing China’s rise, maintaining strong ties with Israel, and engaging with Saudi Arabia for Middle Eastern stability. Similarly, both administrations would continue countering China’s and Russia’s influence in Africa while fostering closer ties with India to support Indo-Pacific security.

However, the overarching difference lies in their approach. Harris would likely pursue a cohesive, multilateral approach, emphasizing shared values and long-term stability. Trump, conversely, could prioritize transactional, short-term gains, relying on economic leverage and security guarantees. The coming years will reveal whether a more idealistic or pragmatic strategy prevails, but either path will undeniably shape the global order and redefine America’s role amidst allies and rivals in these critical regions.