Campaigns, China, and Chaos: The 2024 Election Overview
Ah, the US election. A time when candidates act like they’re battling gladiators, except instead of swords, they wield policies on international trade with a little sprinkle of chaos theory. Vice President Kamala Harris versus former President Donald Trump! The battle of the titans, the clash of the titans… over who can throw more tariffs at China! You’d think we were living in a high-stakes game of Monopoly gone wrong. Yes, folks, in this year’s drama, the audience can’t help but ask, “Is it too late to switch to a rom-com?”
High Tariffs and Hot Air
As Trump flexes his economic muscles with a very presidential 60% tariff on all things Chinese, it’s a wonder any financial market can even find its pulse! I mean, let’s not forget that we’re just starting to dust ourselves off from the glorious sideshow known as the Covid-19 pandemic. And now we’re addressing issues like decoupling technology? It’s like tossing a grenade into a recovering party! Meanwhile, Harris touts her grand vision: “Let’s ensure the United States won’t just win, but dominate the 21st century!” because clearly ‘keeping up’ is so last decade.
Two Birds, One Zero-Sum Competition
What a spectacle! Both candidates seem to have an acute case of “out-hawking” each other. It’s like a game of chicken, except with each feigning that they’re the hawkiest hawk in the aviary, completely ignoring the palpable reality: a chunk of the world actually doesn’t see America as the superhero it thinks it is anymore. Shocking! The idea that the US is <not> the unrivalled king of the hill? Blasphemy! But the data doesn’t lie, folks. What’s happening in Asia is raising quite a few eyebrows.
America: Still the Big Cheese?
The Lowy Institute’s Asia Power Index indicates that while the US still remains the most powerful country in Asia, China’s rise isn’t exactly like the arrival of a new mobile phone – it’s plateauing. Just like that pesky middle tier in a boxing match, it’s there, but everyone’s wondering when the knockout will land. The keen observers in the boxing ring of politics see two candidates who wouldn’t know nuanced diplomacy if it smacked them on the head with a gently used policy paper.
Trendlines, Turmoil, and Tardy Policy
With Washington somehow melding the concepts of “American primacy” with “let’s ignore what the world is asking for,” it’s just peachy to note that the US is gradually sliding out of favor in Asia. Regions where its economic influence once ruled with an iron fist are showing signs of cooling ardor – a tragic rom-com twist! In this farcical scenario, Southeast Asian countries are doing the ol’ dance of diversity, not wanting to pick between two suitors who are less Romeo and more Robocop.
Three Steps to Revamp US Asia Strategy
Now, if the next president is serious about actually addressing issues instead of merely squawking at China like an untrained parrot, there are three golden rules they might consider:
- A Benign Presence: The world doesn’t want Uncle Sam coming in with his military bases and brute force. What they crave is a US presence that whispers sweet nothings in the form of economic partnerships and development finance. Let’s leave the manhandling out of it, eh?
- Get Real about Primacy: The idea that the US needs to be the top dog in Asia is like believing in fairytales. Recognize your limits – it’s time to stop pretending the crown isn’t a tad heavy.
- Options, Not Ultimatums: Nobody likes forced choices – especially if it means siding with a bigger bully. Asian states want to play the field, not be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Peering into Crystal Balls
Let’s be honest: whichever candidate storms into office, they might just be forced to rethink the “win-at-all-costs” philosophy in this global tug-of-war. With 62% of voters stating foreign policy is important to their vote, it seems this is a chance for a major pivot. But given the current trajectory, it appears more like a glitzy car chase in a subpar action movie than the change the world desires. In the end, this election isn’t just about who wears the crown—it’s a test of whether they’re even willing to change the royal robe to fit modern realities.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, buckle up! As dark clouds gather over the geopolitical landscape, we await the next escapade in US foreign policy with popcorn in hand and our smartphones ready to Tweet about it.
With just days remaining until a tightly contested US election, political analysts are urgently scrutinizing the foreign policy strategies of both leading candidates. In what is shaping up to be a fierce showdown between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, each contender is striving to depict the other as soft on China, aiming to outdo one another with aggressive foreign policy proposals.
Trump has made headlines with his proposal for sweeping 60% tariffs on all imports from China, a move that could send shockwaves through global financial markets already grappling with the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing complications from US-China decoupling affecting crucial technology sectors.
Meanwhile, Harris has voiced her aspiration, stating that her primary objective as president would be to ensure that “the United States of America wins the competition for the 21st century,” highlighting her vision of an assertive American stance on the global stage.
For many national security analysts observing from Asia, there appears to be little distinction between the two candidates when it comes to their approaches towards China. Both leaders fundamentally view American power as crucial and recognize that the U.S. is enmeshed in a zero-sum rivalry with its Chinese counterpart.
This perspective, however, contrasts sharply with the political realities both candidates and their respective parties must face—recognition of which is essential for developing a more effective Asia strategy:
- The United States no longer enjoys unrivaled status as the world’s sole superpower.
- China is not universally viewed with suspicion – let alone hostility – throughout the region.
True, by most objective measures the United States’ position in Asia at the close of 2024 is considerably stronger than it was in 2020.
The Biden administration has secured access to nine military bases in the Philippines as part of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, a deal that had been stalled during Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency (2016-2022). Over a single month in 2023, the administration established a new trilateral partnership involving the US, Japan, and South Korea with its two East Asian allies and marked a significant upgrading of relations with Vietnam to a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.”
The Asia Power Index from the Lowy Institute confirms this trend, illustrating that while the United States remains the most powerful nation in Asia, “China’s power is plateauing” rather than eclipsing that of the US, despite Beijing’s efforts to narrow the gap.
However, the long-term outlook for US influence in the region remains troubling. As Washington crafts a strategy that seems to hinge on the assumption of American primacy while simultaneously steering clear of a rapidly shifting regional economic architecture by rejecting profitable free trade agreements, it risks diminishing its influence in Asia.
Persistent inattention and pervasive inconsistency in US policy are largely responsible for this trend and require urgent rectification, but time is of the essence.
While US leaders often tout that the United States is the largest contributor of foreign direct investment in Southeast Asia, this evaluation solely reflects total investment stocks. Recent figures from the Lowy Institute indicate that, over the last decade, China outpaced the US in investments in the region with a staggering total of $218 billion compared to the United States’ $158 billion.
Reluctant to jeopardize relations with their largest trading partner and the geographical reality of being in close proximity to China, Southeast Asian nations are increasingly hesitant to align with perceived US-led initiatives aimed at containing Chinese influence.
The escalating anti-China rhetoric emanating from Washington, particularly during an election year where each party vies to demonstrate toughness towards China, has yet to be offset by a constructive vision for regional stability that emphasizes economic engagement and diplomatic engagement rather than military confrontation.
Regardless of political affiliation, the next administration holds a pivotal opportunity to recalibrate Washington’s Asia policy in response to the region’s demand for a more constructive and balanced US role. The upcoming president should consider three guiding principles to ensure effective engagement.
First, Asian states are seeking a more benign and sustainable US presence that transcends mere security partnerships and military installations, focusing on providing vital public goods like economic investments and development finance tailored to meet the growing needs of Asia’s prosperous middle classes.
The middle class in Asia is projected to expand to 3.5 billion by 2030, positioning it as the largest in the world. Moreover, a 2019 report by the Asian Development Bank highlighted that the infrastructure needs of developing nations in the Indo-Pacific will require a staggering $1.7 trillion annually through 2030, factoring in the urgent demands of climate change adaptation.
In stark contrast, official development finance directed towards Southeast Asia dipped to its lowest level since 2015 in real terms by 2022, according to a recent study.
Second, the United States does not have to maintain absolute dominance in the region to be an influential contributor to the stability of regional order. Policymakers in Washington are mistaken if they believe that effective regional strategies can rest on the assumption of unchallenged American primacy in Asia.
Given the current geopolitical landscape, the pursuit of primacy should not dictate US strategy and is ultimately an unrealistic aim. Such a focus on dominance squanders valuable resources and stretches American policymakers thin, especially at a time when the electorate prioritizes pressing domestic issues like the economy and healthcare.
Lastly, smaller Asian states desire a range of options and alternatives. While it has become a common observation, the fact remains that Asian nations are reluctant to be forced into a binary choice between the US and China. For several years, China has been the dominant economic partner across the region, and its influence shows no signs of waning.
The US, conversely, is increasingly viewed as erratic and often associated with a source of instability. Recent boycotts of American brands like McDonald’s and Starbucks in Indonesia and Malaysia illustrate a growing sentiment against US policies in the context of its support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
Both Indonesia and Malaysia serve as critical regional allies for the United States and are considered pivotal “swing states,” with public opinion prompting political leaders in these countries to pursue a more distant relationship with the United States. Lawmakers in Washington must be increasingly attuned to the growing scrutiny regarding how the United States is perceived by Southeast Asian nations.
Given these limitations on American power and influence, the next president must recognize the importance of fostering alliances and partnerships that can effectively mobilize resources. Washington ought to empower allies and partners willing to contribute positively to preserving a rules-based (although not exclusively liberal) global order.
Neither candidate, however, is likely to adopt these recommendations fully. There are no signs from either party suggesting an abandonment of the prevailing approach which prioritizes competition with China—often at any cost—under the vague premise of “winning” that rivalry.
The entrenched notion of primacy may prove too deeply ingrained for any subsequent US leader to relinquish. Faced with international power dynamics and domestic political maneuvering, no candidate appears willing to entertain anything less than an unchallenged position for the United States.
Nonetheless, the next leader will likely be compelled to respond to evolving voter preferences. Although foreign policy typically takes a back seat in elections, a significant proportion of voters—62%—indicate that it holds considerable weight in their decision-making process, with this breaking down to 70% of Trump supporters and 54% of Harris backers highlighting its importance.
Both candidates are attempting to position themselves as agents of change. While the global perspective on this election may not align with that sentiment—it’s important to note that both candidates have incumbent ties—there is an undeniable need for the US to recalibrate its approach toward Asia given the realities of the 21st century. The election represents a critical opportunity for the United States to redefine its ambitions in alignment with contemporary global challenges.
Hunter Marston (@hmarston4), a PhD candidate at Australian National University, is a Southeast Asia associate with 9DASHLINE and an adjunct research fellow with La Trobe Asia.