How the U.S. election plays out elsewhere

Western countries have been obsessively following the U.S presidential election. Around the world, there are reasons people are taking note. 

News Decoder correspondent Daniel Warner recently argued that while the U.S. election has gotten non-stop coverage for months in the Western press, it is not as important elsewhere in the world. A range of multinational alliances outside the U.S. sphere of influence has shifted its position as the central superpower in the world. 

But the difference between a President Kamala Harris or Donald Trump will matter to a number of countries in different ways. To see how, we turned to our network of correspondents who live and have worked around the globe. Here are their takes: 

Shaping important relationships

Consider Rwanda, wrote correspondent Jeremy Solomons, who lives there. It is a relatively small country in East Africa, but it has a large global political clout due its active membership in the United Nations, Commonwealth of Nations and the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and participation in peacekeeping operations across Africa. 

Who wins the U.S. presidential election could shape an important relationship there which tends to fluctuate. As president, Trump dismissed Rwanda as a “shithole” country; in contrast, the Biden administration, for which Harris serves as vice president, has courted it as a counterweight to the growing influence of China, Russia and Islamic insurgents across Africa.

Emboldened illiberalism

In Hungary, illiberal populist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has made no secret of his support for Trump, wrote correspondent Helen Womack, who is based in Budapest. Indeed he has staked everything on a Trump victory. In July, just weeks after seeing Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Orbán visited Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Florida and the two discussed the “possibilities of peace” in Ukraine, something Kyiv would have seen as a sell-out.

A win for Trump would strengthen Orbán and other right-wing politicians in Europe. A victory for Harris, on the other hand, would leave Orbán looking isolated in the EU and weak at home. 

Poll watching in the Baltics and beyond

In Estonia, where politicians try to be diplomatic, it’s still clear which candidate they believe would be better for Estonia, reports correspondent Tira Shubart, who has just returned from filming on the Russian border and the main NATO base in the country.

Estonia lives alongside a large and increasingly aggressive neighbour. It’s a nation which shares a border with Russia just short of 300 kilometres in length. And Estonians know a thing or two about Russian aggression. The Baltic nation was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 and it was 51 years before Estonia regained it’s independence. Until 1991 Estonians were swallowed by the USSR.

In 2004 Estonia eagerly joined NATO and the European Union. The Estonian border is where NATO meets Russia and the EU’s external border. It’s no surprise that Estonians prize membership of the military alliance and contribute 3.4% of their GDP to NATO — well above the 2% of GDP that is recommended.  

Donald Trump has been consistently negative about NATO, even to the point of considering withdrawing the United States from the military alliance. The former president has also said that he would not defend NATO allies who did not spend enough on defense. Indeed Trump has even said he would encourage Russia to invade countries who weren’t paying enough into NATO.

The Estonian army, which numbers only 4,500 soldiers, depends on multinational NATO battlegroups based in the country. All are keenly aware that on the Russian side of the border, there are 19,000 troops. And Putin has threatened to double that number. 

When Trump called Putin “a genius” for invading Ukraine in 2022, alarm bells rang in the Estonian capital of Tallinn. They will be watching the 5 November election apprehensively.

How the U.S. election plays down under

From Australia, correspondent Richard Hubbard reminded us that three years ago the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom signed a trilateral security policy, known as AUKUS, to provide nuclear powered-submarines down under and tackle the growth of China in the Indo-Pacific region.

The deal also includes cooperation on eight priority research fields: advanced cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonics, electronic warfare, innovation and information sharing.

It is a deal that will shape Australia’s defence strategy well into the future. On this issue alone, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election is key to Australia because Trump is seen as what some call “a restrainer” when it comes to foreign policy. 

In the words of U.S. analyst Jeremy Shapiro, a research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations, restrainers are interested primarily in economic competition with China, not geopolitics. They want America to wind back its global military commitments. According to Shapiro, Trump himself is the leading member of this tribe, though his first-term record does not reflect a consistent adherence to its principles.

While Trump is seen as sceptical of America’s alliances, Harris is seen as an alliance believer. At a recent security conference in Germany Harris said she believed it is in the “fundamental interest” of the American people to fullfil its longstanding role of global leadership.

A new poll by Australian-based international policy think tank The Lowy Institute found that 73% of Australians say they would prefer Harris to become president compared to 22% for Trump. The reasons are many and varied, but U.S. foreign policy, particularly as it affects the Asia Pacific region, is a big one.

North of the United States

Canada sees the U.S. election as critical, wrote correspondent Susanne Courtney. We hide behind American military strength and presume we will be defended, she said. 

But a Trump presidency threatens not only Canada’s presumed protection by U.S. might. Canada has been badly tainted by the rhetoric that the GOP allows to be spewed that values individual freedoms above social good and equates that to freedom from taxation by the state. 

What remains to be seen is what remains of Canadian decency and ability to be boring.

Precarious consequences for Europe

A U.S. presidential election is always important for France and Europe, wrote News Decoder founder Nelson Graves. This year, it is particularly consequential. A victory by Trump would weaken Europe’s security and democratic institutions, undermine European unity and threaten its economies. 

Trump favors a negotiated settlement of the war in Ukraine that, at least in the medium term, would cede substantial territory to Russia, potentially emboldening Vladimir Putin to destabilize or even invade other neighboring countries. 

Putin would welcome a Trump victory, as would Orban and Turkish President Recep Erdogan. Far-right parties in Europe would have an ally in the White House who would support their efforts to consolidate power at the expense of civil liberties. The European Union would have greater difficulty agreeing on common policies governing immigration, energy, trade and defense, a paralysis that would be welcomed by a transactional U.S. administration. 

NATO, which has been Europe’s bulwark since the end of World War Two, would be hobbled by a U.S. administration uncommitted to mutual defense and tolerant of an aggressive Russia. Trump’s economic policies, including his vow to slap tariffs on imports and deport large numbers of immigrants essential to the U.S. economy, would spur inflation, while his proposed tax cuts would add to the U.S. debt. 

Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence of the U.S. central bank would add to inflationary pressures and undermine confidence in U.S. financial markets. That could hit European exports and trigger a global economic slowdown. 

A Harris victory, meanwhile, would generally mean a continuation of the status quo in Washington. There is no assurance she would inherit a Democratic majority in either the U.S. House or Senate, but even so, Europe and France would breathe a sigh of relief.

questions to consider:

1. In what ways could the outcome of the U.S. presidential election affect people in other countries?
2. According to the correspondents cited in this story, how could a Harris presidency differ from a Trump presidency?
3. Has the U.S. election gotten much news coverage where you are? What are the big issues around it for your region?