One of the democratic contradictions of the White House race is that Kamala Harris ‘ victory would likely benefit the center-right government’s foreign policy goals.
All New Zealand governments have backed multilateralism and an internationally recognized rules-based purchase that are enshrined in the corporations of the UN since the end of World War II.
The relationship with the United States has taken into account that and has a tendency to surpass the fluctuating government and policy in Wellington or Washington.
New Zealand’s present National-led alliance inherited close relationships with the US, too. National visitor numbers came in second only to Australian customer numbers last year. Our third-largest trade business is the US. Additionally, the two nations continue to be effectively linked under the Five Eye knowledge sharing arrangement.
However, the coalition’s main foreign policy objectives are to improve its relationship with classic friends like the US. The outcome of any effort to improve relations with the US will depend greatly on how successful any force for closer relationships can be given Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s quite distinct worldviews.
Closer connections in the harmony
On the one hand, Republican candidate Trump is opposed to international institutions, unless they directly serve US regional interests. And he wants to reverse the impact of globalization by constraining emigration, free trade and global leadership.
Nationalist cliches like” America First” suggest a return to the so-called golden age of patriotism and sovereignty: a world where the greatest strength of all is uncaged and free to proclaim its supremacy.
On the other hand, Harris might appear to be in favor of a more conventional US international plan perspective. This acknowledges the significance of international organizations and relationships in a world where isolation is never coating.
The next White House occupant has a good chance of having a major influence on New Zealand’s foreign policy.
Energy acts and the Pacific
Second, Trump’s belief in a global system run by powerful countries would appear to be a recipe for denying a smaller state like New Zealand a voice on global issues that matter.
Next, a Harris foreign policy is more likely to complement New Zealand’s local rely on ties with Pacific Island nations, which is supported by close people-to-people ties and a sizable portion of the nation’s international development aid program.
Former US president Joe Biden oversaw years of abuse of a large portion of the Pacific, which had helped other nations, particularly China, benefit from.
The US-Pacific Islands Summit is held annually in 2022, which was launched by the Biden group. Additionally, Kamala Harris actively participated in the US$ 800 million in climate change and development aid program for Pacific Island countries in 2022-23.
Whether Trump will maintain this enhanced diplomatic and economic engagement in the Pacific ( and elsewhere ) is questionable. Also, after Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, Trump will probably leave it for a next time.
AUKUS and Ukraine
Third, the state of New Zealand must balance trying to navigate relations with China, the country’s largest trading partner, while pursuing its purpose of approving the US.
Subsequent New Zealand governments have been considering partnering with an agreement to promote superior security technologies under foundation two of the AUKUS safety partnership, which aims to deter a growing China in the Indo-Pacific region, since March 2023.
It’s still to be seen how China would respond if New Zealand joined. However, Trump’s insistence on US supremacy in any international agreement might make it more difficult for the government to secure local support for pillar two membership.
Trump is more likely than ever to demand that supporters spend more on defense, even outside the AUKUS discussion.
Third, New Zealand has a large interest in the failing of Russia’s intended annexation of Ukraine. Wellington’s interests are obviously more in line with Harris’s vow to keep support for Ukraine to regain its territorial dignity.
Trump’s promise to end the conflict within 24 hours, on the other hand, was probably only be kept by giving Vladimir Putin what he wants.
Middle East and UN
Suddenly, it appears that Trump and Harris have no significant policy differences regarding the disastrous condition in Gaza and Lebanon.
There is still a slim chance that the Harris supervision will accept a level of unwavering support for the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu, a level that would be inappropriate for a powerhouse whose foreign plan is supposed to be based on general principles and respect for international law.
But for Trump, this would be nearly unachievable. However, he would likely provide Netanyahu with yet greater support.
Nevertheless, the National-led coalition’s foreign plan goals seem to connect more with a Harris-led presidency than a Trump-led coalition.
But even if Harris wins, the position of interests will not be ideal. The UN security Council’s veto power and US exceptionalism, an unofficial ideology that claims the country is a social model for the rest of the world, are likely to remain confining factors in the relationship between New Zealand and the US.
Alexander Gillespie is a doctor of law at the University of Waikato, and Robert G. Patman is a professor of international relationships at the University of Otago.
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.