23 October 2024 02:20 pm Views - 426
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump clearly have very different views of the U.S. 's role in the world. Trump maintains his so-called America First worldview, isolationist, protectionist, against forever wars, hostile to some allies, welcoming to some adversaries.
Harris is more in the mainstream foreign policy mold, but also still somewhat enigmatic. She says she believes in the importance of U.S. global leadership and the importance of a functioning U.S. democracy as an example to the world, as does current President Joe Biden. But beyond that, and on critical issues, Harris's approach is less clear.
The U.S. has long seen South Asia as a region of strategic importance, especially due to its position in the Indo-Pacific, proximity to the Middle East, and the rise of China as a global power. South Asia's economic growth, its role in global supply chains, and its strategic importance in countering terrorism and extremism are expected to continue to be focal points in U.S. foreign policy. Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India -- the world's largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States. India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States.
India, as the largest democracy and a rising power, is likely to remain a key partner for the U.S. regardless of who wins the election. The U.S.-India relationship is anchored in shared democratic values, economic cooperation, and common concerns about China's growing influence in the region. The U.S. has consistently sought to deepen defense and trade ties with India, and this is unlikely to change significantly under either a Democratic or Republican administration. In fact, the Biden administration has already deepened strategic ties with India through initiatives like the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue), which also includes Australia and Japan, aimed at ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Managing the economic ties with the US under a Trump presidency won’t be as smooth as it has been generally. Trump has several times labelled India as “an abuser” of import tariffs. Just earlier this month, Trump said “The biggest charger of all is India.” “India is a very big charger. We have a great relationship with India. I did. And especially the leader, Modi. He's a great leader. Great man. Really is a great man. He's brought it together. He's done a great job. But they probably charge as much,” he said.
Trump has vowed to introduce "reciprocal trade" policies if voted to power. This conservative approach to international trade may not bode very well for India’s exports to the US.
On the other hand, Harris might also opt for some protectionist policies but she is largely expected to not go overboard. The Biden administration, for example, recently blocked a Japanese company, Nippon Steel, from acquiring US Steel on national security grounds. The deal worth $14.9bn was met with scepticism amid silent takeover concerns. It shows even Harris won’t give even one of the USA’s top allies a free pass and erect protectionist measures.
Both Trump and Harris are expected to take a confrontational approach with China, which is expected to benefit India. The Biden administration, for example, has taken steps to ensure the balance of technological power between India and China.
When PM Modi visited the US last month for the Quad summit, the two nations signed a deal to set up a semiconductor fabrication plant in India. The initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET) between the US and India is another major example of this deepening partnership.
The deal, signed in May 2022, opened a broad spectrum in areas including artificial intelligence, quantum technology, space, 6G mobile tech and semiconductor supply chain.
Harris is expected to follow in Biden’s footsteps to further shift this balance of power towards India away from China.
Trump has threatened he will impose 60% tariffs on Chinese imports into the country. This is expected to trigger an exodus from China, potentially benefitting nations in Southeast Asia and India.
Given the Narendra Modi government’s past experience of working with Trump and shared conservative values, New Delhi may prefer Trump in the White House as long as diplomacy and matters of international affairs are concerned. Both Trump and Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) share ideologies grounded in nationalism, patriotism, and tradition. Some influential Indian nationalist thinkers have even drawn comparisons between their views and those of American conservatives, pointing to a shared ideological base. This overlap could create a more comfortable diplomatic atmosphere.
The 2024 election will not only shape bilateral ties but also influence how the next president manages conflicts among America’s allies, such as the ongoing India-Canada diplomatic crisis. This situation, which erupted after allegations of Indian involvement in the assassination of a Canadian national, presents a significant diplomatic challenge. Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump will need to navigate this sensitive issue carefully, balancing their commitments to India, a key partner, and Canada, a longstanding ally.
For Trump, who has historically prioritized strong ties with India, the crisis may lead him to publicly back New Delhi, potentially exacerbating tensions with Canada. His administration could adopt a more unilateral approach, emphasizing loyalty to India in geopolitical matters, which might strain U.S.-Canada relations.
In contrast, Harris may pursue a more diplomatic path, aiming to mediate between the two nations while still supporting India’s strategic importance. Her administration could emphasize the need for multilateral dialogue and collaboration among allies, seeking to address Canada’s concerns without alienating India.
As for domestic contradictions, Trump has long expressed admiration for Modi's no-nonsense style of governance, which may lead to increased tensions within India, particularly regarding the rising Hindu nationalism. This surge in Hindu nationalist sentiment has exacerbated tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities, creating a volatile social landscape.
If Trump were to return to the presidency, his approach could inadvertently bolster this trend, as his affinity for Modi might be perceived as tacit support for Hindu nationalist policies. Such dynamics could complicate U.S. engagement with India, as rising sectarian tensions may draw criticism from international observers concerned about human rights and religious freedoms.
Conversely, Harris, with her emphasis on democratic values and human rights, may be more likely to address these issues in her diplomatic approach. Her administration might encourage dialogue around communal harmony and promote initiatives aimed at fostering inclusivity, which could mitigate some of the potential fallout from rising nationalism.
For Pakistan, the election outcome may influence the trajectory of U.S. relations, which have fluctuated over the years. Pakistan has long been a key partner in the fight against terrorism, but its ties with China have become increasingly important, particularly in the context of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). While Pakistan has faced challenges with the U.S. over human rights issues, terrorism, and military cooperation, the outcome of the election could determine whether Washington seeks to rebuild its relationship with Islamabad or continues to prioritize its strategic partnership with India.
Pakistani leaders are keenly observing the developments and pondering the potential impact a Harris or Donald Trump presidency could have on their ties with the United States. Pakistan’s relationship with the U.S. has been complex and often turbulent, especially during Trump’s first term in office.
During the Trump presidency (2017-2021), the Pakistan-U.S. bilateral relationship was characterized by Washington’s singular focus on concerns relating to alleged militant safe havens in Pakistan and complaints about Islamabad’s non-cooperation in dealing with the Afghan Taliban. The Trump administration cut off $1.3 billion in security assistance for Pakistan over these claims. In addition, the much-coveted training and educational programs at U.S. military academies for Pakistani military officers, a hallmark of bilateral military cooperation for decades, were suspended.
The Trump administration also sought to strengthen India-U.S. relations through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad). It bolstered the idea of India as a strategic partner to counter China’s influence in the region, which further strained Pakistan-U.S. relations.
Should Trump win the presidential election, Pakistan can expect its ties with the United States to weaken. With U.S. forces out of Afghanistan and limited bilateral security cooperation in place, Washington under a second Trump presidency would likely reduce engagement with Pakistan further.
Moreover, Trump’s presidency is expected to see a tougher stance on trade and economic relations with China, including more push back against Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This could mean that Pakistan’s cooperation with China under the CPEC may come under increased scrutiny and pressure from the Trump administration, forcing Pakistan to choose between the two sides.
On the other hand, a Harris presidency may not see significant changes from the current Biden administration’s approach toward Pakistan. Under the Biden-Harris government, Pakistan’s ties with the U.S. have reached a somewhat more comfortable place, with Washington not hindering Pakistan’s efforts to mobilize financial support from international institutions and not pressuring the country on its ties with China.
It is worth mentioning that even after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden-Harris administration continued to see Pakistan’s support as essential to defeating al-Qaida and the Islamic State Khorasan Province in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.
Moreover, the Biden-Harris administration brought the focus back on continuing to build relationships with Pakistan’s military through training future Pakistan military leaders. These areas of cooperation are likely to remain significant if Harris wins the November elections.
A Harris administration is expected to adopt a more nuanced and balanced approach toward Pakistan, potentially offering opportunities for the country to continue its security cooperation against terrorism and receive financial support. The Biden administration has requested $101 million in aid for Pakistan to combat terrorism and support economic reforms. This aid will likely be used to offer Pakistan arms and tools to ramp up its counterterror efforts against militant threats emanating from Afghanistan. This aid may come in installments, with part of it shifting to the next government. A Harris presidency could continue the military aid to Pakistan and may further enhance it if the bilateral relationship improves.
The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 marked the end of a two-decade military engagement, but the challenges it leaves behind are far from over. The Taliban’s return to power and the ensuing humanitarian and security crises will continue to demand attention from Washington. The next administration will likely have to decide how to handle its relationship with Afghanistan—particularly in terms of humanitarian aid, counterterrorism, and regional stability.
South Asian nations, especially those bordering Afghanistan, like Pakistan and India, will look to the U.S. to lead efforts in promoting peace and preventing the resurgence of terrorist groups in the region. The 2024 election could determine whether Washington continues to take an active role in Afghan affairs or shifts its focus entirely to other parts of the world.
For Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the 2024 election could bring shifts in economic partnerships, especially if the U.S. focuses more on sustainable development, infrastructure, and climate resilience. Sri Lanka’s recent economic crisis has raised concerns about its ability to manage debt and develop its economy without international assistance, including support from the U.S. and international financial institutions.
Defined in the State Department’s Integrated Country Strategy as the “fulcrum” of the Indo-Pacific, Sri Lanka is crucial for promoting Washington’s broader regional policy. Concerns about China’s economic and potential military engagement with Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean region will continue to drive U.S. interests in maintaining relations with the island nation. Washington views Sri Lanka as a “lynchpin” of its Indo-Pacific strategy and seeks a partner committed to strengthening the democratic process and economic governance while protecting its sovereignty from malign regional actors.
One of the defining aspects of U.S. foreign policy in South Asia is the balancing act between promoting democratic values and pursuing strategic interests. South Asian countries are deeply diverse, with varying degrees of democratic maturity, human rights records, and civil liberties.
In India, where democracy is a cornerstone of foreign policy, the next U.S. administration will likely continue to engage with New Delhi as a partner on issues such as technology, security, and climate change. However, growing concerns about India’s domestic policies—ranging from religious freedoms to press censorship—may also prompt the U.S. to address human rights in its diplomacy, especially if the next president prioritizes values in foreign relations.
In Sri Lanka and Pakistan, where political and economic challenges persist, the U.S. may find itself once again engaged in balancing aid with concerns about governance and human rights. And in Nepal, where the influence of both China and India is growing, Washington will need to tread carefully to maintain influence without alienating its regional allies.
Climate change, regional stability and human rights
Climate change is expected to be a major issue in the 2024 election, with both major parties recognizing its global impact. South Asia, with its vulnerability to floods, cyclones, and rising sea levels, will be one of the regions most affected. The U.S. could play a key role in providing assistance for climate adaptation and mitigation projects in South Asia. In adition, U.S. foreign policy could focus on regional cooperation on environmental challenges, particularly in the context of transboundary water issues, where countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh share common rivers.
Meanwhile, Human rights will likely be a contentious topic in U.S.-South Asia relations. The U.S. has historically been outspoken on issues like religious freedoms, press freedom, and minority rights, and this may intensify under the next administration. The rise of nationalism and authoritarian tendencies in some South Asian countries—such as India and Sri Lanka—may prompt the U.S. to engage in greater dialogue over democratic values and human rights protections. How the U.S. balances its strategic interests with human rights concerns will be a defining characteristic of its South Asia policy.
South Asia's future under a new U.S. administration
South Asia’s future is deeply intertwined with U.S. foreign policy, and the 2024 election will set the tone for how the U.S. engages with this critical region in the years to come. Whether through deepening strategic partnerships, addressing climate change, or navigating complex security challenges, the U.S. will remain a key player in the South Asian geopolitical landscape.
As both U.S. presidential candidates seek to solidify their foreign policy legacies, they will have to consider the region’s strategic importance, economic growth, and rising environmental risks. South Asia, with its growing population and emerging economies, will remain a priority, and the outcome of the election will likely have lasting effects on how the U.S. navigates the complexities of this dynamic region.
For South Asian nations, a pressing question looms: How will the next U.S. president define America's role in their future, and what will that mean for regional stability, development, and cooperation in the 21st century?