 |
| Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin (Image: The Atlantic) |
This time next month, we get to find out whether it is Kamala Harris or Donald Trump to replace Joe Biden as President. For the first time since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, the chief in the White House is not seeking to fight on.
Biden didn't want to step back. Right up until his final decision, he stubbornly insisted he was the right person to take on former President Trump for a second time. However, questions were being asked about his wellbeing as the 81-year-old had been seen stumbling his words and steps, panicking key Democrat politicians and donors. Their warnings were stark and quite honestly, if he was to carry on by the party's convention, I doubt he'd have been endorsed by his peers. He, nor they, could afford any division when there is threat of another Trump administration looming.
It's hard to define Biden's presidential legacy. I suppose he secured it in November 2020 when he defeated Trump with the third highest proportion of votes in a US election by voting-age. That is all he needed to achieve. His first challenge came two weeks before he was inaugurated when hundreds stormed into the US Capitol which highlighted the country's deep divisions. The groups that took this extreme action argued that Trump 'won' and Biden's win was a set up. Later, the outgoing President faced other contentious moments; abortion rights, Black Lives Matter, Covid-19 vaccine mandates, I could go on. Many of these issues were out of his hands, and it's fair to say Biden inherited a bruised country, not helped by his unpredictable predecessor.
Sure, Biden can celebrate significant successes on the economy, employment, and health. But these are being overshadowed by his decision-making around the conflicts in the Middle East. This crises has been going on since way before Biden even considered entering politics, but in recent years, the tensions were contained to individual dramas - for instance, the uprisings in 2011 were civil (not by nature), there were strong and yet remote targets towards terrorist groups like Islamic State/Daesh who took over various parts of the region, and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen had global leaders turning a blind eye.
Tensions in the Middle East under Trump had been brewing but very few noticed their extent as the world's media were more focused on how he was befriending the likes of Russia's Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong-un. These could have been seen as intriguing moves to gain vital intelligence and improve diplomacy in key states - keeping your friends close and enemies closer. But of course, when Trump became President from 2017, Putin had annexed Crimea three years previous and had been plotting to takeover more of Ukraine, while North Korea's leadership had been stirring the pot with its nuclear ambitions. Trump simply used his time in the most powerful and privileged chair to take a backseat and let them do their thing. Only the Covid-19 pandemic stood in the way and delayed the inevitable. Once restrictions were lifted, it gave Putin the perfect opportunity to execute his plans while North Korea could further cosy up with the Chinese government and together have even bigger ambitions that threaten global harmony. Countries like Taiwan are already on the defensive in anticipation of anything sinister.
Some may argue that Biden could have done more to stay close to Putin, to ensure he was a step ahead of the game. They've only met once in the past four years, and reportedly twice overall. Instead, I got the impression Biden thought that Russia's plans with Ukraine were inevitable and therefore provide unconditional and practically unlimited support towards Volodymyr Zelensky's efforts. With other world leaders following suit, two-and-a-half-years later, we're no closer towards any peace in the country.
Meanwhile in the Middle East, the tensions have turned into widespread bloodshed, escalated due to the atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel on 7 October 2023. Ever since, the Israeli leadership, led by Benyamin Netanyahu, has been blinded by revenge, going on a ground offensive in Palestine down the south of Israel's border, and to the north in Lebanon choosing to fight another terrorist group in Hezbollah. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are funded by the Iranian regime - amongst others - and therefore the Ayatollahs insist on getting involved through funds and rockets. It's become an uncontrollable mess which has led to thousands upon thousands dead and thousands upon thousands more displaced and seeking shelter.
Trump, you can imagine, claims that none of this would have happened if he won the Presidential election in 2020, but who is he kidding? Would he have stopped Putin when he had four years to do so? And if he couldn't do it post-2020, would he supported Ukraine in any way, or let Russia take over? He did an excellent job of leaving Putin to his own devices and now it leaves Ukraine's future uncertain. While I rarely agreed with the US, UK and others' approach to this particular conflict, one piece of analysis I do agree with is that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, there'd be no stopping him from doing the same thing at other former Soviet Union nations. We don't want another Cold War, thank you.
And what would have Trump done differently to Biden after 7 October 2023? With his bullish approach, he may have gone leaps further than the current US President (which you may think is hard to imagine, judging by Biden's regretful narrative moments after that fateful day). You know, I tend to laugh off the thought that there is a shiny, red 'nuclear button,' but if one exists, I wouldn't have ruled out Trump pressing it in the last four years if he was re-elected. And I don't believe anyone would truly rule him out threatening to do so in the next four years, should he defeat Democrat's candidate, current US Vice-President, Kamala Harris.
If you believe in the US polls, it's hard to tell who is likely to take over from Biden. It will be decided by a few key states and fine margins elsewhere. My current prediction is that Harris will win, just, as Trump's election campaign performance has been rather lacklustre. Yes, they've been overshadowed somewhat by two apparent assassination attempts, yet I get the impression that even his most admired fans are tired of him and fear that age, like it did with Biden, would be a distraction. Oh, let's not forget certain lingering legal cases which could result him behind bars for a long, long time.
Harris cannot rely on Trump's mishaps, however. Her time as Vice-President has been scrutinised from almost day one, with commentators accusing her of not doing much and getting behind so-called 'woke' causes that do not resonate with the 'everyday American'. That being said, her campaign has, so far, been rather comfortable and she's performed strongly in interviews and debates. Well, I suppose all she has to do is not say that Haitian migrants eats pets, like Trump has done on a number of occasions.
One thing is for certain is that whoever wins, when they are inaugurated in January 2025, will need to come up with refreshing ideas and urgently collaborate with the global political community to begin roadmaps towards peace. It starts by the US taking a step back, not feel the need to get overly involved in absolutely everything and stop supporting countries without hesitation, because, as we've found, has riled their 'enemies' to tragic extents. The more we see these happen, the more empowered regimes in China and Russia are. While they are a barrier to peace, the US can't do much about it. They'll only change when their leaders go. And while that happens, the US mustn't be relied upon to call the shots - it would only end in more tears and bloodshed.
Comments
Post a Comment