Brussels—The US elections are just around the corner, and Biden’s decision to withdraw in favour of Kamala Harris has once again opened the game with Trump regarding who will be the 47th president of the United States of America. For Europe, a Harris presidency “would mark the continuity of transatlantic relations,” but it is clear that there will not be a return to pre-Trump politics with either candidate.
This is the key content of the studio by Ian Bond and Luigi Scazzieri for the Center for European Reform, which explains what the impact of the US presidential election victory on Nov. 5 of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris would be.
The US vice president is a formidable opponent of Republican Donald Trump, whose victory over Biden has almost been taken for granted. For the EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, “there will be a big difference” based on who will be the next US president, and Harris currently seems to be the better of the two options for Europe.
A hypothetical victory of Donald Trump would make US-EU relations and European security difficult. The Republican’s approach, especially on Ukraine and NATO, opens up alarming prospects for Europe.
His opposition to assistance to Ukraine and support for Russian President Vladimir Putin are concerns on the other side of the Atlantic. Still, Harris’s stance on the issue is also not so clear-cut.
Though strongly critical of Putin, the nominee reflects the great difference in perception of Ukraine between Europeans and the US. For the US, the eventual Russian victory is not an existential threat. In essence, the Democrats’ support for Ukraine is functional to avoid a direct conflict with Russia for NATO and thus for the US. Moreover, “even if Harris were more inclined to be more forward-looking than Biden,” if Republicans controlled the chambers in Congress, the room for manoeuvre for further assistance would still be limited. Trumpian protectionism is not liked (with proposals for 60 per cent tariffs on imports from China and 10-20 from the rest of the world), especially the call for the Europeans to align openly with the aggressive approach with China. Harris seems more cautious and in line with her predecessor, with tariffs targeted to compete with Beijing and subsidies to domestic producers. For Europe, this is not good news: US tariffs on incoming Chinese products would force protection of the European market from Chinese exports with other tariffs, and subsidies would drive investment away from the old continent. It is the same with the supply of advanced European technology to China, on whose ban even Harris has no intention of letting up. Trump’s methods are likely to be less belligerent, but for the US, its already faltering technological primacy cannot be undermined by China through information acquired from Europeans.
The biggest question mark in Harris’ agenda concerns the Middle East. While Trump takes an evident stance, unconditionally supporting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard line, Harris’s agenda has more nuanced outlines.
Until now, the primary goal has been to maintain the unity of the Democratic Party, even on the issue of the conflict in Gaza, considering the criticism previously received from Biden on his policy choices. Harris’ line is moderate, not changing support for Israel but joining the need to commit to alleviating the suffering of Palestinians. No small commitment since it involves lobbying Israel and especially raising the concerns of his party colleagues.
Europe, by contrast, smiles to restrain since there would be an unprecedented rapprochement—for these times—between US and European politics. Again, European problems are not US priorities, so the risk of expanding conflict in Lebanon is not a primary threat to the US and instead has highly impactful risks on the old continent, such as violent radicalisation and large-scale refugee movements.
Of no minor importance is the Democratic nominee’s lack of clarity on how she intends to handle the problem of Iran’s nuclear program. In contrast, Trump has a very defined position, having decided for an exit since 2015 from the nuclear deal during his presidency. The expansion of Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous, given the potential for the Middle Eastern country to produce a nuclear device in a short time. Still, Harris does not seem to be clear (or at least has not communicated anything) about how she will seek Iran’s involvement in negotiations regarding the program. This is yet another question mark on the Middle East and the future of American policy.
Harris and Trump propose two visions of US politics, with substantial differences but similarities in protecting American interests that should give Europe pause for thought.
The election of Trump would be detrimental to transatlantic relations, with some exceptions among European leaders, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Orban, who would welcome a Trump second term with enthusiasm. Harris’s victory would allow the Europeans to have continuity with the Biden presidency, keeping in mind, however, that the United States does not prioritise the Ukrainian issue: America’s priority is to protect its own production and industrial politics.
With Harris, Europe would experience only a slowdown to the (perhaps irreversible) process of moving away from the US “umbrella”. Whoever wins on Nov. 5, it will be necessary for the old continent to think about how to continue with the US gradually becoming more distant and economic competition growing fiercer in the global landscape.
Meanwhile, today the European Parliament elected Brando Benifei (Pd/S&D) to lead the Europarliament’s Delegation for relations with the United States. According to the MEP, “at this time of geopolitical uncertainty, the appointment entails a precise commitment: it is essential to continue working on a transatlantic relationship that is based on mutual respect and cooperation on key issues such as technology, the economy, international security and environmental transition”. According to Benifei, “whoever wins the US presidential election, this relationship will remain fundamental for finding adequate solutions to common problems. Europe will have to find its own voice and greater political cohesion, necessary to be a global player like the US”.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
