US presidential election aftermath

ALLIES and supporters of the United States who praise it as the champion of democracy, freedom and human rights will now be rushing to join the media queue to congratulate the incoming president.

In their public messaging, they are likely to extol the outcome as yet another example of American exceptionalism and a role model for the countries of the world they regard as autocratic and necessary to bring down to uphold their definition of democracy and the Western rule of law.

Privately though, they will be feeling and reacting differently. They are also likely to be afraid of what will now follow.

The explanation is not far to find. Though portrayed in Western media as offering vastly different visions of the US for the next four years as well as being diametrically opposed in their foreign policy objectives, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump concur in adherence to the slogan made famous by Trump: that is to “Make America Great Again” (Maga).

It is a slogan that Democrat party leaders embrace just as strongly but would rather not let the rest of the world be aware of or knowledgeable about.

How will Maga impact US foreign policy?

Post-election, the Maga agenda will be pushed hard and at the expense of the interests and concerns of the rest of the world. Maga foreign policy impact will be felt not only by countries that the US sees as rivals and enemies – China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia, Venezuela, Belarus and others.

It will also inflict costs on allies including Canada, European Union nations, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and a few others such as the Philippines, previously provided with generous financial and military support by a moneyed and powerful benefactor, which is now relatively impoverished and less influential.

Countries not hitched to the American ideological bandwagon that see themselves as independent such as Mexico, India and Vietnam will find that sitting on the fence in the next four years will be much less comfortable as the new US president will not shield or spare them from the looming policy changes in trade, immigration, security, climate change and wherever else he or she sees as important and necessary to uplift the US and stem its decline.

Earlier in July, The Economist drew up a table ranking the vulnerability of various countries likely to be impacted by a new Trump presidency’s core policies. The table, The Trump Risk Index, assessed the exposure and vulnerability of America’s 70 largest trading partners to potential policy changes.

Although no similar table was drawn up for a Harris presidency, if one were to be drawn up, it is likely that there will be little or no difference in the index finding and ranking.

Increasingly, we find that liberal and conservative American analysts – both now recognising that the US is in an existential crisis – are converging in support of Maga to be the focus of US foreign policy.

The crisis, a long-developing one, exposes not only the deep divisions within American society with equal numbers on Republican and Democrat sides of the political fence in disagreement on the domestic policy reforms that the country badly needs.

It also brings to attention the current status of the US described by Trump as “a failing country”. It is a description that some Americans have taken umbrage with but which many Democrat supporters agree on while denouncing the Republican and Trumpian rhetoric and record on failing to improve the state of the nation.

What is perhaps most unsettling is that the disorder and instability in the US may see the new president become more reliant on US military superiority to ensure American dominance in global geopolitics.

The US military may again be called upon to underpin the foreign policy actions needed to make America great again.

Is a last hurrah coming to ensure that the US continues its defence of the unipolar world that it has shaped and is fixated on preserving?

Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: [email protected]