What Are the Rising Powers’ Expectations as the 2020 U.S. Election Approaches?

Policy Alert #216 | October 30, 2020

After four years of President Donald Trump’s unconventional foreign policies, the 2020 U.S. Election has become the most anticipated political transition closely followed by all major powers around the world. With COVID infections surging in most countries, the results of the Presidential and Congressional election on November 3 not only lead to significant political impacts globally, but also generate serious consequences on the prospect of post-pandemic recovery.

In this RPI Policy Alert, we examine the Rising Powers’ expectations as the election day is around the corner.

 

China

An editorial from People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, urges the U.S. to stop making an issue out of China during the election:

• “The US can neither achieve lasting unity by ‘making’ foreign enemies at the expense of America’s own interests nor deceive the public for a long time by playing a dangerous game of misleading the world about its relationship with China, as truth will come to light sooner or later. It should be noted that the extreme words and deeds of the US for grabbing attention and gaining private profits will harm the country’s future.”

In an op-ed for Global Times, a nationalist tabloid, Wei Zongyou, professor at the Center for American Studies of Fudan University in Shanghai, argues that regardless of who wins in November, the next administration will continue to be tough on China. Wei also expects that a potential Biden administration will be tough on economic and human rights issues, but more open to climate change cooperation and people exchanges between the two countries:

• “While Biden does not agree with the Trump administration’s approach to China-US economic relations, especially with the latter’s using of tariffs to cope with trade imbalances, he also emphasizes ‘fair trade.’ Biden also claims, ‘Economic security is national security.’ He has vowed to enforce economic foreign policy for the middle class to safeguard US manufactures and jobs. Moreover, he aims to protect US intellectual property, technology, and supply chain security.”

A commentary article in South China Morning Post, an independent newspaper based in Hong Kong, predicts that Biden’s White House will be more favorable for the Chinese economy for two reasons:

• “At the very least, markets might conclude that a Biden White House will be less wedded than Trump to steel and aluminum tariffs, perhaps to tariffs in general. If so, that would have positive implications for China’s economy and its exporters, especially if accompanied by a change of tack in the way Washington seeks to engage with Beijing on key issues.”

In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, Ian Storey and Malcolm Cook, research fellows at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, foresee that although the hard-line U.S. strategy toward China in Southeast Asia is likely to remain unchanged no matter who wins, U.S. policy execution in the region will be less unpredictable under a potential Biden administration:

• “Overall, America’s image in Southeast Asia has suffered over the past four years. In its annual survey of regional elite opinions in January 2020, the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute found that 49.7 per cent had little or no confidence that the United States would “do the right thing” internationally, while 77 per cent believed America’s engagement with Southeast Asia had declined since Trump took office. Three-fifths agreed that a change of leadership in the November 2020 US presidential election would increase their confidence in America’s position in the region.”

 

India

In an op-ed for the left-leaning The Hindu, T.P. Sreenivasan, former Ambassador of India and Governor for India of the IAEA, criticizes President Trump’s unpredictable foreign policies and disengagement from multilateral institutions, which he argues has undermined the post-war international system. Sreenivasan also sees no change in bilateral relationship between India and the U.S. no matter who wins the election:

• “In the international arena, the Trump administration’s biggest disservice was the undermining of the post-war architecture of peace, which was built brick by brick by the U.S. and its allies. The UN, which is at the center of multilateralism, has been weakened to the extent of being paralyzed… the U.S. threw the baby out with the bathwater when it withdrew support from the World Health Organization (WHO). This left China as the champion of the WHO.”

An editorial from the business-focused Economic Times forecasts further bilateral cooperation between India and the U.S. in security, technology, and public health:

• “Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), satellite surveillance, cybersecurity, robotics and materials are integral parts of emerging strategic capability. Equipping powers that are committed to a common goal in all areas of strategic capability is an integral goal of continuing, multifaceted dialogue between countries such as India and the US.”

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Amitabh Mattoo, Professor of Disarmament Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University , argues that the rise of a belligerent China is the main reason why the relationship with the U.S. is the most important of India’s bilateral ties, and that both parties in the U.S. favor engagement with India:

• “Balancing is the most challenging and confrontational option and is likely to be the preferred option of the Trump Presidency. India is not in a position to balance China on its own, and balancing (soft and hard: economic, diplomatic and military) would demand building a coalition with the US and other “like-minded” states.”

In an op-ed for Indian Express, Tanvi Madan, director of the India Project at the Brookings Institution, points out that U.S. foreign policy under the new administration will have more significant implications for India. Madan emphasizes that U.S. policy toward China and American leadership in the world will be two of the most consequential factors:

• “For the Indian government, the Trump administration’s more hawkish view of China has been welcome. It broadly converges with Indian concerns about a rising China’s actions and intentions. And it has facilitated, if not driven, the Trump administration to assign India an important role in its strategic framework, including through the Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept… If Trump wins, India will carefully consider three elements: Whether Trump stays the course or again pivots on China, which officials remain in or join the administration, and how Beijing responds to a Trump victory.”

 

Japan

In an op-ed for the center-right The Japan Times, Kuni Miyake, president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at Canon Institute for Global Studies, suggests that U.S. policy toward China remains the central concern for Japan. Miyake adds that while President Trump has been unpredictable toward China, U.S. policy has traditionally been consistent and he does not expect a potential Biden administration going back to engagement with China:

• “Washington’s China policy is consistent. It has been a combination of “engagement and deterrence” for the past few decades and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. The only difference is the priority. In his second term, U.S. President Barack Obama shifted his emphasis from engagement to deterrence.”

A commentary article from the left-leaning The Mainichi worries that no matter who wins in November, bilateral trade negotiations with the U.S. will remain a demanding challenging for Japan:

• “The schedule and style of talks may differ substantially depending on who emerges the victor, but both President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden are likely to push for greater market access to Japan as they focus on protecting American industries and jobs to revive the U.S. economy hit by the coronavirus pandemic.”

A commentary article from The Japan Times proposes that if Trump wins a second term, Japan would need to focus on building stronger ties with other democracies around the world:

• “[D]emands by the U.S. that Tokyo take an adversarial stance toward Beijing, as opposed to objecting to specific problematic behavior, is an approach that creates immense difficulties for Japan and ultimately is unsustainable… these moves may prompt Japan to seek coordination and solidarity with other partners such as the European Union, Australia, India and even South Korea, which currently remains embroiled with Japan in a row over historical and trade issues.”

 

Russia

In response to Biden’s comment on Russia being the greatest security threat to the U.S. and its allies, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said:

• “It’s not right, we strongly disagree with that assertion. We can only regret that hatred against Russia is being spread this way and our country is depicted as an adversary.”

Facing U.S. allegations of election interference, Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Head Sergei Naryshkin emphasizes that Russia is not planning to meddle in the US presidential election and wishes less confrontations in the U.S. society:

• “I would like to emphasize that the degree of calm when holding the US election is also affecting Russia. I mean that two US political camps tend to turn to very unfair propaganda too often, although propaganda is mostly unfair. But the stronger the confrontation between them, the more the propaganda machines of the Republican and the Democratic camps use lies and a myth of Russia’s alleged meddling in the election, Russian aggression and Russian threat, which is not true. We don’t need this.”

Responding to a question on the potential domestic turbulence of the U.S. election, Naryshkin foresees that the upcoming U.S. election could be destabilizing for the country:

• “The risks you are mentioning do exist. It is not a secret. We and the whole world in general do not need additional turbulence, no one needs domestic political instability [in the US], considering that the US is a nuclear power. Therefore, we will be hoping for the best.”

In an op-ed for the government-funded RT, Glenn Diesen, a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal, warns that Biden’s perception of Russia as the greatest security threat is based on emotion and outdated ideology, which creates concerns about the future of European security:

• “Russia’s alleged effort to restore the Soviet empire similarly lacks coherence. The accusation evokes familiar and powerful Cold War connotations that can mobilize political support and resources among NATO states… Moscow is not led by communists seeking to rid the world of capitalism. Russia has neither the interest nor capacity to control a foreign population that does not want to live within Russian borders.”

In an op-ed for the independent, Dutch-based The Moscow Times, Tatyana Stanovaya, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center, argues that while it is generally believed that the Kremlin favors Trump over Biden, Russian elites may see some benefits under a potential Biden administration:

• “[T]here are those in the Russian elite who see more problems from Trump’s presidency than advantages. These people include a sizeable proportion of the diplomatic service and other experts who advise the authorities on foreign policy issues, but who don’t take part in the decision-making process. As far as they are concerned, the increased unpredictability and reduced professionalism of U.S. politics under Trump is a threat not only to the U.S. state, but to the entire global community, including Russia.”

 

RPI acknowledges support from the Carnegie Corporation and MacArthur Foundation.