How US election results shape international peace efforts
This article is authored by Gunwant Singh, scholar of international relations and security studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
The recent United States (US) presidential election, culminating in Donald Trump's victory, has profound implications for international peace and conflict dynamics, particularly concerning the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the ongoing tensions in West Asia. Analysing the potential shifts in US foreign policy under the incoming administration is crucial for understanding the future trajectory of these conflicts, especially in light of recent events, escalating tensions, and evolving global alignments.
Historically, US foreign policy has oscillated between interventionist and isolationist tendencies, influenced by the prevailing political leadership and shifting public sentiment. Over the past two years, the Biden administration adopted a proactive stance, providing substantial military and economic support to Ukraine in its defence against Russian aggression. This approach was rooted in a commitment to uphold international norms, support democratic allies, and deter acts of territorial conquest. The Biden administration's aid package to Ukraine totaled over $75 billion, including advanced weaponry like the HIMARS systems, artillery, and financial support for governance and reconstruction. This assistance not only fortified Ukraine's resistance but also sent a message to other authoritarian regimes, signaling the US’s commitment to maintaining a rules-based international order.
In contrast, President-elect Trump's foreign policy philosophy, characterised by an America First doctrine, emphasises reducing US involvement in overseas conflicts and reassessing traditional alliances. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly expressed skepticism about the extent of US support for Ukraine, suggesting a reevaluation of aid and a potential shift towards encouraging negotiations with Russia. This perspective aligns with his broader strategy of minimising US entanglement in foreign disputes, as he has previously called North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) contributions into question and promoted the idea of European nations shouldering a greater share of their defence responsibilities.
Recent reports and geopolitical developments indicate that Russian President Vladimir Putin may view Trump’s election as an opportunity to push for negotiations favourable to Moscow’s interests. The potential for a ceasefire or diplomatic engagement is being discussed among analysts, but Russia's significant demands such as Ukraine abandoning its aspirations for Nato membership and ceding occupied territories complicate the prospects for a sustainable resolution. For Ukraine, scaling down US support risks weakening its military position and bolstering Russia's leverage in negotiations.
Reducing US support for Ukraine could also alter the balance of power in Eastern Europe. European allies, who have relied heavily on US leadership in countering Russian expansionism, may find themselves compelled to assume a more prominent role in supporting Ukraine. Germany, for instance, has already increased defense spending and committed to sending more advanced weaponry to Kyiv. Nato's recent deployment of thousands of troops along its eastern flank underscores the recognition among European nations of the need to bolster collective defense capabilities amid uncertainties regarding future US involvement. A Trump-led administration may accelerate this trend, urging Europe to develop more autonomous security mechanisms, which could both strengthen and strain the transatlantic alliance.
In West Asia, the US has traditionally played a pivotal role in mediating conflicts, maintaining alliances, and shaping the region's power dynamics. The Biden administration maintained strong support for Israel, providing over $3.8 billion annually in military aid and diplomatic backing, especially during escalations with Hamas and regional adversaries. The violence continuing following the devastating October 7 attack by Hamas, which killed over 1,400 Israelis and Israel's retaliatory campaign in Gaza has resulted in significant casualties, with over 43,000 Palestinians reported dead, according to Gaza's health ministry. Amid these developments, the Biden administration has faced criticism for balancing unequivocal support for Israel with calls for minimising civilian casualties, reflecting the complexities of US diplomacy in the region.
Trump's approach to the West Asia policy, as evidenced during his previous tenure, demonstrated a willingness to challenge longstanding US positions and prioritise pragmatic deals over traditional diplomatic norms. His recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, relocation of the US embassy, and withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal were hallmarks of a strategy aimed at reshaping the region's geopolitical landscape. The Abraham Accords, which normalised relations between Israel and several Arab States, were lauded as a significant achievement, despite their limited impact on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In this term, Trump is expected to continue a transactional approach, potentially leveraging US support to broker broader regional agreements. Speculations suggest that he might seek to negotiate a grand bargain between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which could include the establishment of a Palestinian State as a precondition for normalisation. This strategy, while ambitious, carries significant risks. It may necessitate concessions from Israel that could face strong domestic opposition while raising doubts among Palestinians and regional actors about its feasibility and fairness.
The escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza adds another layer of complexity to US involvement in the region. Calls for a ceasefire have gained traction globally, but the US, under both Biden and potentially Trump, has been reluctant to push Israel for de-escalation without achieving its stated security objectives though recent developments suggest that there could be a de-escalation. Trump's past rhetoric and policies suggest he might adopt a similar, if not more assertive, stance in aligning US policy with Israeli priorities while simultaneously seeking to redefine the terms of US engagement in the region.
The potential recalibration of US foreign policy under Trump's leadership has elicited varied reactions from international actors. European allies have expressed concerns about a possible retreat of US engagement in global security matters, fearing a resurgence of isolationist policies that could embolden adversarial powers like Russia and Iran. The recent shift in US posture in the Indo-Pacific, with a greater focus on countering China, further complicates resource allocation and strategic priorities for conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia. Conversely, some West Asian nations, particularly Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, may view Trump’s prospective strategy as an opportunity to redefine their relationships with both the U.S. and neighbouring countries. A potential Saudi-Israeli deal, for example, could reshape regional alliances, with the US playing the role of broker.
Domestically, the transition in foreign policy is likely to encounter both support and opposition. Proponents of reduced foreign intervention argue that focusing on domestic issues, infrastructure, and economic growth aligns with national interests, especially as polls show declining public support for prolonged US involvement in overseas conflicts. Critics, however, contend that a withdrawal from international engagements could undermine global stability, embolden adversaries, and diminish US influence in critical regions, potentially creating vacuums that adversarial powers like China and Russia might exploit.
In conclusion, the outcome of the presidential election heralds potential shifts in foreign policy that could significantly impact ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia. The incoming administration’s inclination towards reducing direct involvement in foreign disputes suggests a move towards encouraging regional actors to assume greater responsibility for their security. While this approach may align with domestic priorities and reduce military expenditures, it carries significant implications for international stability, alliances, and the balance of power. Navigating these complexities will require nuanced diplomacy, strategic clarity, and a careful balance between national interests and global commitments to ensure the US remains an effective actor in fostering peace and addressing conflicts.
This article is authored by Gunwant Singh, scholar of international relations and security studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
