NEW DELHI: In the current geopolitical context, more than half of the world is conflict ridden. One can infer from US actions in the recent past that it is hardly showing any interest in bringing peace and stability.
The recently concluded 90-minute showdown between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump could not give a better picture to the US electorate about any decisive outcome. It is unfortunate but true that the United States is undergoing a serious leadership crisis. There were pointed barbs and puzzling tangents during the presidential debate. It showed as if both Harris and Trump were hardly interested in addressing the larger issues both at the domestic and global context. The US right now is witnessing a serious crisis on the economic front where inflation is very high and rising unemployment is becoming seemingly unbearable. Moreover, it seemed clearly that neither Harris nor Trump had a clear strategy to deal with these issues. Trump, while discussing his economic plan, mentioned his studies at the University of Pennsylvania and said he had gone to the Wharton school of finance and all the top professors thought his plan was a brilliant one. It is inexplicable why he could not mention the plan with specificities before the audience.
In the current geopolitical context, more than half of the world is conflict ridden. One can infer from US actions in the recent past that it is hardly showing any interest in bringing peace and stability. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Hamas conflict are good case studies to elucidate that the US is no more in a position to lead the global affairs. Harris’ claim that Trump would easily give Ukraine to Russia was not a well thought of an idea. Trump’s claims on Harris’ position on Israel was also not in conformity with the emerging geopolitical challenges. He said clearly that Harris hates Israel and if she becomes the President, Israel will cease to exist within two years. These barbs could not give a good feel to the US electorate and the rest of the world as to where the US was headed. The worst thing Harris did was to attack Trump’s ego. She said world leaders and US generals think Trump is a “disgrace”. In retaliation, Trump labelled Harris a “Marxist” and blamed her for the misrule in the last four years.
On immigration, Trump’s views are well known. How he kept debating all his four years as the US President that he would erect wall across US-Mexican border and check the flow of illegal immigrants became a part of a worldwide debate. His hard line on immigrants is in contrast to the Democrats’ view on this issue. There is no denying the fact that the US remains a land of immigrants since Columbus discovered it way back in the 15th century. Trump went to the extent of saying that illegal immigrants were eating pets in Ohio and may other places.
As the debate got unfolded, it seemed Trump was not well prepared and hence he certainly was not able to nail on Harris the failures of the Biden administration on areas of both domestic and global concern. Trump certainly has good debating skills and hence the expectation was how he would trample Harris all over with coherent and pointed ideas. But Harris kept needling Trump repeatedly to divert him from his focused thinking. This was deliberate on the part of Harris and was seen as a successful strategy to divert him from attention on the details. Though the very first question asked to Harris was a direct one, she ducked and could not answer in the manner it was needed. The question to Harris was “do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?” Instead of answering to the question in “yes” or “no” she talked about how she will boost the economy. The US economy certainly has not improved in the last four years. But Harris had no clarity about today and painted a rosy tomorrow for the people of the US.
The debates on many other issues such as abortion, gun laws and perception of world leaders were not seen happening with any objectivity. On abortion, Harris made a pledge that when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe vs Wade, as President of the US, she will proudly sign it into law. There is certainly not going to be any change on the proliferation of guns in the United States. The perception of world leaders on the two candidates is yet to evolve. But the positions of Democrats and Republicans on their proximity to the rest of the world are also known.
As far as India is concerned, there is going to be a continuity in their bilateral approaches. The foundation of bilateral relations between India and the US has become very strong. The US will work very closely with India and share responsibilities where India will play a greater role in leading global affairs. The US electorate remains in a dilemma, so is the rest of the world. ABC News could not remain neutral and openly showed its bias in favour for Harris. Obviously, the two critical battleground states, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and major population centres like Philadelphia and Milwaukee, will be decisive for the final outcome. The other two western battleground states, Arizona and Nevada will also play a critical role in the overall outcomes of this presidential election.
Dr Arvind Kumar is Professor of the United States Studies at School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.