America’s Choice: Bridging Global Divides or Deepening Them?

As the United States prepares for another significant presidential election, the global community observes with eagerness. For many, the inquiry extends beyond who will prevail, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, to the nature of change the forthcoming president would effectuate. Will the new leader champion peace, justice, and genuine democratic values on the global stage, or will they continue the path of self-interested policies that have left America’s international allies increasingly sceptical?

US Foreign Policy, Israel, and the Palestinian Crisis

One of the most controversial areas of American foreign policy is its unwavering support for Israel, despite the country’s severe actions in Gaza actions that many view as verging on genocidal. Palestinian civilians bear the brunt of relentless bombings, military blockades, and limited access to basic necessities, much of it funded by American taxpayers.

This brings us to a pointed double standard. Washington criticises nations like Iran for nuclear ambitions, yet Israel remains an exception, operating with a nuclear capability that goes unchecked. The question here is one of fairness: if security is a right, why is it not one for Palestine? And if nuclear disarmament is the ultimate aim, why should it apply selectively?

The influence of Zionist lobbyists in Washington is another significant concern. Pro-Israel lobby groups exert enormous power in determining American policies, which affect millions. The US has long positioned itself as a beacon of justice and democracy, but many question whether it can truly claim that title when its actions appear to prioritise the interests of a small few over values of equality, human rights, and peace. A increasing global voice calls on America to embrace a peace process that recognises the rights of the three Abrahamic faiths Islam, Christianity, and Judaism to coexist in the Holy Land. Establishing a legitimate Palestinian state in which people can live freely and securely is largely regarded as a critical step towards achieving peace.

The UK and European Concerns

In the UK, there is a heightened interest in the results of the US election, possibly more than ever before. Trump’s recent allegation of “foreign election interference” by the Labour Party highlights the belief that Britain has significant interests at stake. Polls indicate that two-thirds of Britons would prefer to see Harris in the White House, while only one in six favour a second term for Trump.

The apprehension surrounding a potential Trump victory is clear. Another Trump presidency could result in steep tariffs on European exports, destabilisation of NATO, and appeasement of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. By contrast, many view a Harris administration as a chance for stability, though expectations remain measured. Her record suggests that her approach may lean towards a more insular America, with less concern for European interests.

Harris’s foreign policy experience is relatively limited, and historically, she has prioritised domestic issues. Her international engagements, such as attending the Munich Security Conference and meeting Ukrainian officials, have been routine, though largely unremarkable. When she has represented the US at critical events, her presence has often been overshadowed. For instance, during her visit to London last autumn, she delivered her own AI security speech 50 miles away from the UK’s AI Summit, signalling that thank you very much the US will handle its tech giants independently.

This cautious approach to international relations has left European leaders uncertain of her commitment to close collaboration, though her alignment with democratic values is broadly acknowledged.

The Implications of Leadership on Global Stability

Ultimately, neither Trump nor Harris offers a simple solution to America’s role in fostering global democracy. Trump’s platform leans heavily towards an “America First” stance, which would isolate the US from its allies and potentially damage democratic principles at home and abroad. His disregard for these values has even led to high-ranking US military figures labelling him a “fascist” and “authoritarian.” Harris, while expected to be more predictable, might also disappoint those hoping for a US foreign policy focused on broader international engagement.

In Pursuit of a Fair and Democratic Future

As Americans go to the polls, people throughout the globe are hoping for a fresh start, not merely a new president. To lead the United States towards a posture that gains trust, restores relationships, and respects the sovereignty of other nations, the next leader must strike a balance between home concerns and foreign obligations. The future of the United States and the possibility of a more equitable global order, in which Palestine and all other nations enjoy the freedom to choose their own destiny, are both at risk.