Nye: What Constants and Changes in U.S. Foreign Policy in an Election Year (AI Translation)

【周刊提前读】约瑟夫·奈：大选年看美国外交政策的变与不变

As the U.S. presidential election approaches, many are closely observing its potential impact on American foreign policy, albeit with uncertainty [para. 1]. Polls have varied, initially indicating a strong lead for Trump over Biden, but now showing a slight edge for Vice President Harris, the new Democratic candidate. Given the unpredictable nature of voter sentiment, forecasting the outcome before November 5th remains challenging [para. 1].

Changes in foreign leaders' actions can also abruptly shift U.S. policy directions. For example, the September 11 attacks significantly altered President George W. Bush's initially moderate foreign policy stance articulated during the 2000 campaign [para. 2].

Campaign statements offer clues to future policy directions. Should Harris win, it is anticipated that she will continue the Biden administration's policy framework with some adjustments, emphasizing Palestinian self-determination over strong democratic promotion compared to Biden. Nonetheless, she remains committed to strengthening America's alliances and promoting multilateralism [para. 3].

Conversely, Trump remains unpredictable. Although known for his exaggerations, his remarks on unilateralism and weakening alliances and multilateral institutions suggest certain diplomatic tones but lack specificity on particular issues [para. 4].

Observers often attempt to predict policy directions by examining candidates' advisory teams. Harris’s chief foreign policy advisor, Gordon, is seen as a practical and respected centrist with experience in European and Middle Eastern affairs from previous Democratic administrations [para. 5]. Trump, however, lacks iconic figures comparable to Gordon. While Robert O’Brien, his final National Security Advisor, is occasionally mentioned, Trump regrets appointing traditional Republicans to key positions in his previous term, believing it constrained his actions and led to a more moderate policy approach [para. 6].

Despite their differences, both candidates share similarities in their China policy. Both parties regard China as not competing fairly in trade and intellectual property, a view that has continued from the Trump administration to Biden's. Harris, if elected, would likely sustain this policy trajectory with some adjustments based on circumstances [para. 7].

Both candidates also oppose neoliberal economic policies [para. 8]. Trump shifted from the traditional Republican stance on trade, increasing tariffs and decreasing participation in the World Trade Organization. Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and Biden has neither rejoined this agreement nor lifted tariffs on Chinese imports. Biden introduced technology export control measures targeting China, known as the "small yard, high fence" policy. With Harris's connections to the U.S. tech industry as a Californian, she is unlikely to weaken this policy, while Trump may expand the restrictions [para. 8].

A major disagreement between the candidates is their attitude toward Europe [para. 9]. Trump and his running mate Vance are less interested in supporting Ukraine and NATO, with Trump claiming he could quickly end the war through negotiations, though this seems unlikely without severely impacting Ukraine [para. 9].

Both candidates have pledged to ensure Israel's safety and right to self-defense in the Middle East, with Harris also emphasizing Palestinians' right to self-determination. Both are likely to encourage Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel and take a tough stance on Iran. Harris, unlike Trump, is expected to pay more attention to Africa and Latin America [para. 10].

The most notable difference is their attitude toward American soft power. Trump has favored an "America First" unilateral strategy, opposing multilateralism by withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization. Biden reversed these withdrawals, though Trump may exit these agreements again if re-elected, while Harris would likely keep the U.S. engaged in multilateral mechanisms [para. 11].

In summary, the U.S. foreign policy will have consistent elements regardless of the election's outcome, but significant differences in candidates' attitudes toward alliances and multilateralism could lead to distinctly different policy directions [para. 12].