by W.P.S. Sidhu
A shorter version of this article originally appeared in Mint.
On Tuesday November 8th the United States, the world’s second largest democracy, will elect its 45th president, if the actual voting is characteristically normal and civil in contrast to the abnormal and uncivil hustings that have been the hallmark of the 2016 campaign. Irrespective of who is elected, given the bitterly contested election, the president will be a weak leader facing opposition from their own party as well as from the rival party and other extreme groups. Such a weak executive of the world’s predominant power will also be confronted with a far more chaotic world and challenges from other rising and declining states, non-state actors and myriad transnational threats even as the global institutions, alliances and arrangements to address them are found wanting.
Among states a recalcitrant Russia will demand more attention from the next U.S. president that it probably deserves. Moscow will continue to defy the established post-Cold War order in Europe, particularly in Ukraine and retain its hold on Crimea. Moscow has also been chipping away at the hard-negotiated bilateral agreements with Washington on intermediate nuclear forces and fissile material arrangements, which is further undermining mistrust.
Even as bilateral relations remain tendentious, Russia’s presence in Syria is unlikely to diminish and might also increase (as the deployment of its sole and unreliable aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean indicates). This is likely to sustain the ongoing dangerous U.S.-Russia proxy war in Syria. The undeclared conflict might even escalate if the US attempts to impose a unilateral no-fly zone.
Similarly, the squabbling states in the Middle East – all U.S. allies – will also preoccupy the next president as they contend with the continuing threat of the Islamic State (IS), the remnants of the Arab Spring, and the growing regional influence of Iran acquiesced by the US. However, if the Iran deal unravels either on the floor of a hostile US Congress or on account of noncompliance by Tehran, it could easily consume the next presidency. Indeed, there is every likelihood that under the new president the U.S. will be drawn into another war in the Middle East (which President Barack Obama studiously avoided after Libya).
These however are mere distractions to the real threat that the new U.S. president will face: an aggressive and revanchist China and its two nuclear-armed allies – North Korea and Pakistan. Even as Washington is increasingly preoccupied with a melee of other crises, Beijing has swiftly moved to consolidate its position in the South China Sea (thus challenging the UN Laws of the Sea Treaty that it had ratified), split the Association of South East Asian Nations consensus, and is weaning longstanding U.S. allies, like the Philippines.
Additionally, under Beijing’s watchful eye and indulgent masterly inactivity North Korea has accelerated its nuclear and missile program and is soon expected to be in a position to realistically threaten U.S. allies and, possibly, even the mainland. Similarly, a recent Bulletin of Atomic Scientists report estimates that Pakistan (another publicly proclaimed strategic ally of China) will have “220–250 warheads by 2025, making it the world’s fifth-largest nuclear weapon state”. This cache, coupled with China’s own growing nuclear arsenal and North Korea’s enlarging capabilities makes the combined nuclear force of the Beijing-Islamabad-Pyongyang axis the third largest – after Russia and the U.S. – and poses a direct threat to the Washington, its allies and interests.
In contrast the much-touted “pivot” or “rebalance” to Asia-Pacific (which was to be based on three pillars – political, military and economic) promoted by the Obama administration, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has practically faded into history. And the indications are that the new president will not resurrect the TPP or revive the pivot. This U.S. retrenchment (more on account of its other preoccupations) will practically vacate the geopolitical space to China and allow Beijing’s writ to run uncontested from the Persian Gulf through the South China Seas to the Pacific Ocean.
In addition, the new president will also face a spate of threats from non-state actors ranging from IS-inspired terrorist attacks in the U.S. and on U.S. interests worldwide to cyber attacks by unidentified hackers who recently targeted infrastructure provider Dyn Inc., a company whose servers monitor and reroute internet traffic worldwide. Finally, the new president will also be confronted with several transnational threats ranging from extreme weather due to climate change, pandemics and global networks of organized crime. None of these can be tackled by Washington on its own.
The two U.S. presidential hopefuls have opposing approaches to deal with these challenges. Hillary Clinton’s likely approach is often described as a more forceful continuation of the Obama Doctrine or a robust Obama 3.0. It relies on global engagement, nurturing existing and building coalitions, and diplomacy backed by force. While it has not always worked (and there is a case for it to evolve), it has not left the US standing alone.
Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ approach reflects, according to some experts, “nativist neo-isolationism”, reminiscent of the 1940s. This partly reflects Trumps own isolation from the mainstream Republican party’s foreign policy. It translates into skepticism about multilateral diplomacy, free trade agreements, immigration, democracy promotion and an inclination for unilateral military action. The chances of its failure are greater than any hope of its success, and it is likely to exacerbate the global chaos.
If the Clinton doctrine prevails it will be mostly business as usual with significant nuances, and a harder line on Russia. With Trump at the helm U.S. foreign policy will be like a rudderless ship with a mutinous crew traversing dangerous and uncharted waters. Be afraid; be very afraid.
W.P.S. Sidhu is Visiting Professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs.