US voters hold fate of the free world in their hands

Conventional wisdom may be that foreign policy seldom has a big impact on elections anywhere. But that should not be the case in the US presidential election on Wednesday AEDT. Domestic issues, especially the economy, may be top of most voters’ concerns. But in a deeply troubled world confronted by the crisis in the Middle East and profound challenges presented by Ukraine and Taiwan, among others, it is imperative that voters also consider the respective foreign policies of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Not since Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 has the US, and the rest of the free world, faced such grave challenges. Yet neither candidate presents a reassuring prospect to democracies such as Australia that look to the White House for leadership in defence of our freedoms.

Ms Harris has been at Joe Biden’s side for four years. Yet, as The Wall Street Journal notes, she is a “California progressive, elevated at the last minute, who looks unprepared for a world on fire”. She can claim she has been a key part of an administration, led by Mr Biden, that has been mostly solid in backing Ukraine’s valiant fight for survival against Vladimir Putin’s monstrous assault on its sovereignty. It has been resolute, too, in backing Taiwan against constant threats of attack by China. The key role of the Biden administration in AUKUS has been a crucial aspect of its recognition of the vital strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific in dealing with China’s aggression in our region, including its attacks on the sovereignty of countries such as The Philippines.

To her credit, Ms Harris has been steady in supporting the administration’s mostly firm backing of Israel’s battle for survival against Iran and its evil terrorist proxies. But at times since the October 7 slaughter, Ms Harris, in declaring her support for Israel’s right to defend itself, has sounded and acted similar to our own preachy Foreign Minister Penny Wong. She has made naive and gratuitous criticisms of Israel. Ms Harris’s snubbing of Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the US congress signalled to many that her policy towards Israel could differ significantly from Mr Biden’s. Her persistent demands – like those of Senator Wong – that Israel surrender its hard-won advantage in the battle for survival against terrorism by agreeing to a ceasefire is absurd.

Someone akin to Senator Wong in the White House is not what the US and the free world need. Neither, however, does it need the uncertainty that surrounds a possible Trump return, with his inexplicable liking for some of the world’s most odious rulers, notably Russian despot Putin, Chinese dictator Xi Jinping and the former US president’s favourite, “little rocket man” Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang. While Ms Harris is a largely unknown quantity when it comes to her own foreign policy, Mr Trump has form from his previous four-year term. He can claim credit for some key foreign policy achievements: the Abraham Accords remain an important aspect of the Middle East landscape, despite the war ravaging the region. Mr Trump also showed the decisiveness that was needed when he abandoned Barack Obama’s deeply flawed nuclear deal in 2018 and imposed sanctions on Tehran. Ms Harris, by contrast, appears to favour a return to the deal, arguing that abandoning it and imposing sanctions have done nothing to halt Tehran’s support for terrorism and its quest for the bomb.

Whoever wins the election must be unflinching in supporting Israel in what is in effect its war against Iran’s hegemonic ambitions. Doing so is an imperative of US policy on which there can be no compromise. It should be an iron-clad guarantee for the incoming US administration – as important and inviolable as its pledge to combat Russian and Chinese aggression. Yet Mr Trump, with his admiration for Putin, appears uncertain.

Mr Trump’s repeated assertion that he would “solve the Ukraine problem” within 24 hours of winning the election is obviously nonsense – unless he is prepared to give in to Putin’s demands that would effectively destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty. Whatever deal Mr Trump attempts to pursue in the event he is elected president, it must be to the advantage of Ukraine.

Similar concerns relate to Taiwan, with The Times reporting last week that Taipei is worried by the way China is “crowing that the island … will be ditched if Trump wins the election … Trump has shed his pro-Taiwan advisers … and threatened to bring down its key industry – the manufacture of computer and semiconductor chips”. Asked in an interview whether his isolationist “America first” doctrine would weaken Washington’s commitment to Taiwan, Mr Trump avoided the question, saying: “Taiwan should pay us for defence.” Like his hesitation when it comes to dealing with Putin’s onslaught against Ukraine, Mr Trump’s response to the Taiwan question is hardly reassuring, especially for US allies in the Indo-Pacific region. With our own navy now reduced to just one rusty Collins-class submarine, this question is all the more important for Australia. A second Trump presidency would need to set aside its isolationist impulses and commit to full engagement in the region, recognising its responsibilities to AUKUS, the Quad and the ongoing security of The Philippines.

The choice US voters make between Ms Harris and Mr Trump as the US commander-in-chief could not be more vital. It is crucial to Australia’s security, the rest of our region and the free world.