The world stands at a crossroads. Our foreign correspondents predict where Trump or Harris could take us next

When the US election results start pouring in from around the country on November 5, it won’t just be Americans holding their breath.

The world will be watching.

Opinion polls suggest the contest between former president Donald Trump and the current vice-president Kamala Harris could be extraordinarily close.

Both candidates are offering starkly different visions for the future of the United States.

But they also represent vastly different world-views.

And from the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, to the geo-strategic complexities of our own region, the election outcome will have major foreign policy implications.

Our ABC correspondents from around the globe break down what could follow either a Donald Trump or Kamala Harris victory next month.

The Ukraine War

By Europe correspondent Kathryn Diss

A US election has consequences and implications for most corners of the globe, but this particular ballot has some of Europe on edge. 

You’ve probably guessed that fear comes from the possibility of a second Trump presidency, and most of it boils down to the war in Ukraine.

Being a businessman, Trump doesn’t like giving money away, particularly when he doesn’t think the US is getting anything out of it.

He withdraws from international treaties, rips up trade deals and pulls out of global agreements.

The ones that matter to Europe are his threats to pull out of NATO and his somewhat implausible pledge to end the war in Ukraine in a single day.

So, let’s unpack that a little.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was America, not Europe that largely co-ordinated the response. The United States plays a disproportionate role in keeping Ukraine’s war efforts alive and is by far the single biggest contributor.

When you just look at the military support, the US has out spent the next biggest contributor, Germany, five to one.

Trump has made it pretty clear he wants to cut that funding.

“I think [Ukrainian president Volodymyr] Zelenskyy is maybe the greatest salesman of any politician that’s ever lived, every time he comes to our country he walks away with $US60 billion,” Trump said at one of his rallies.

Through his Republican allies in Congress, he stalled the latest funding package from passing for several months as Ukrainian forces struggled to keep Russia’s advance at bay.

He’s also said he would end the war in 24 hours but exactly how he would secure a peace deal quickly begs the question of what Ukraine would have to sacrifice to make that happen.

“That’s a ridiculous boast. He can’t do that. A peace deal sooner is going to be bad news for Zelenskyy because he won’t get territory back,” Jeremy Shapiro from the European Council on Foreign Relations told the ABC.

So, why is it that a rich continent like Europe relies on a country on the other side of the world to defend it?

It comes down to the NATO alliance, which has kept Europe largely at peace since World War II.

NATO is a global military pact that relies on one principle – collective security. That means that an attack on one is considered an attack on all, and the other member states would help defend it.

“It’s the promise to defend your allies and it’s the belief by your adversaries that you will,” Mr Shapiro said.

“Donald Trump — or any president of the United States — can destroy NATO in an afternoon simply by saying, ‘I’m not going to honour that promise’, which Donald Trump has already partially done.

“And having done that, there’s no point in withdrawing from NATO.”

But there is one thing that Trump has said on this front that is accurate: not everyone has been pulling their weight.

After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, NATO members agreed to spend 2 per cent of their GDP on defence.

At the time, only three nations — the United States, United Kingdom and Greece — were meeting that mark.

Fast forward eight years to when Russian forces marched on Ukraine and only seven countries were on track.

But the war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call for many countries. In 2024, 23 nations are set to meet or exceed those spending commitments.

“Trump, stressing that the European members have got to do more is actually a very positive development. Europe should be able to defend itself,” Mr Shapiro said.

But what about Kamala Harris? She’s on the other end of the spectrum.

The presidential candidate would most likely continue in US President Joe Biden’s footsteps, and has even pledged to stand strong with Ukraine and its NATO allies.

While many observers believe she’ll pull back from Europe a bit, given the competing demands unfolding in the Middle East, she’s not going to consider the radical steps Trump has suggested. 

The US is also shifting its focus towards China and the threat that poses to global world order. Beijing is America’s biggest rival, not Moscow, and its historic ties to Europe are seen as a bit of a drag.

Europe does appear to be aware of America’s wavering support, but Trump or Harris will determine how quickly and bumpy that transition may be.

For Ukrainians, that decision could dictate what kind of country they call home at the end of the war.

Relations with China

By East Asia correspondent Kathleen Calderwood

When Americans go to the polls in early November, Beijing will be watching closely, and the result could have major implications for what is arguably the world’s most consequential relationship.

China carried out a day of large scale military drills around Taiwan on October 14, with some analysts suggesting Beijing limited it to a size that wouldn’t make China even more of an election issue so close to polling day.

Many assume that China’s communist leadership would prefer a Trump presidency, in the hope he will turn America away from its allies in the region — Japan, Korea, the Philippines and most importantly, Taiwan.

A more isolationist America under Trump may also leave greater space for China to continue expanding its diplomatic power around the globe, as it seeks to gain influence in the Middle East, Africa, South-East Asia and the Pacific.

But the other side of the coin is that, as the Chinese economy falters, the unpredictability of a second Trump term — combined with the potential for even more ratcheting up of trade tensions — would make a difficult domestic situation in China even harder to manage.

Trump hates that America runs a trade deficit with China and during his presidency ramped up economic pressures on Beijing.

He put tariffs on more than $US380 billion worth of imported steel, aluminium, washing machines, solar panels and Chinese goods, and has flagged potentially tripling those if he’s re-elected.

Biden maintained most of those trade barriers and has added more – while also putting restrictions on US exports to China of high tech goods his administration considers critical to national security.

There’s no suggestion a Harris presidency would see trade restrictions lifted, but it’s likely to be a more predictable dynamic.

“I think Kamala Harris, maybe her policy will continue like Biden, but Biden has also given Taiwan some military assistance,” said Ming-Shih Shen from Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research.

“I think Harris’ policy is try to manage … competition with China, and she doesn’t want to break into conflict and war with China.

“But we know that Trump is unpredictable.”

Biden has explicitly and repeatedly stated that the US would defend Taiwan in the event of conflict with China – even though the White House has each time wound that back – while Trump recently said he expected Taiwan to pay for America’s protection.

“[Donald Trump’s] basic belief is he doesn’t like other countries, friend and foe, to take advantage of the US,” said Alexander Huang, the International Affairs Director for Taiwan’s main opposition party the Kuomintang.

“So from a trade deficit or trade surplus, to supply chain, to the defence spending of different countries, I think he will watch carefully how the US can focus more on expending American interests.

“I think his decision style will be comparatively more based on his view if not instinct or a kind of stereotype about certain issues.”

Taiwan has spent billions purchasing American weapons, according to the US State Department – the backlog alone is worth $US20 billion.

But in late September, Washington announced its largest military aid package for Taiwan to date, which is worth $US567 million.

It was approved by Biden through the presidential drawdown authority – meaning it was coming out of US stockpiles – and American troops are in Taiwan training members of the island’s armed forces.

Meanwhile, former president Trump has shown an admiration for authoritarian leaders like China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, describing the Chinese president as “a brilliant man, [who] controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist”.

It is often noted in political and diplomatic circles in Taiwan that while Trump may be unpredictable on China and its ambitions across the Strait, the support for the democratically governed island in the US is bipartisan, and the Republicans around the former president are hawkish.

Whether Trump would listen to such advice is another matter.

North Korea and Asia

By North Asia correspondent James Oaten

When it comes to the US challenging China in the 21st century, few countries will be more pivotal than its North Asian allies, Japan and South Korea.

Japan hosts more US troops than any other country, with around 52,000 active-duty troops.

While South Korea hosts the US’s biggest military base outside continental America.

These two nations rely on their alliance for a sense of security, and are coming together over a mutual concern about the degrading security environment.

Japan and South Korea are, after all, in a hostile neighbourhood, with Russia, North Korea and China all close by; three authoritarian nations with a mutual distrust or disdain of the US.

A Harris presidency is seen as a continuation of the Biden administration, which has been predictable, but with no major breakthroughs due to Ukraine and the Middle East dominating Washington’s attention.

Meanwhile, a second potential Trump presidency is viewed by many experts as chaotic, and full of surprises, both good and bad.

The big question is how Trump will view Japan and South Korea, as he openly complains that allies are taking advantage of the US military.

Japan’s military spending has long been at a minimum, but the country is rapidly course correcting, with plans to hit the coveted two per cent of GDP by 2027.

It’s also buying new long-range missiles from the US that will allow it to hit mainland China for the first time.

So, Japan is expected to avoid the frustration of Trump.

“American bases here in Japan is very important for the US ability to send its troops around in the world,” said Yoko Iwama from Japan’s National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.

But South Korea is a different story.

Unlike Japan, it’s long held a strong military budget. But Trump was very aggressive towards Seoul over cost sharing agreements for US troops, demanding it pay four times more for the US military or risk its departure.

He’s continued this policy ahead of the upcoming election.

“Whenever he made these demands, the perception was that it’s no longer an alliance, but rather a protection racket,” said John Lee, editor at the online publication Korea Pro.

Trump also developed a strange relationship with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un.

After threatening the regime with “fire and fury”, he then developed a friendship with the supreme leader.

“I think he misses me,” Trump recently boasted at a campaign rally.

His efforts to negotiate North Korea end its nuclear ambitions failed spectacularly. John Lee said that was due to his “utter lack of preparations and foreign policy foresight”.

And there’s now real concern about what another Trump presidency may mean.

“There’s the fear that Trump is going to think to himself that North Korea is an issue that he left unfinished,” Mr Lee said.

“If he does, the fear is, will South Korea be part of the negotiations, or will it be sidelined?”

The impact on the Israel-Gaza war

By Middle East correspondent Matthew Doran

The latest bloody chapter in the long running Middle East conflict has been one of the most intractable issues to come across President Joe Biden’s desk.

And despite the United States’ deep involvement in trying to negotiate some sort of resolution, using political pressure to cajole Israel into ending the war, its efforts so far have yielded little tangible change.

That means it will remain problematic for the next occupant of the Oval Office.

The Biden-Harris administration does appear increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the war in Gaza, and his more recent military incursions into southern Lebanon.

Its public overtures for restraint, however hollow they may be perceived given ongoing US military and financial support for Israel, have gone largely ignored.

If Kamala Harris was to win the election, the model for dealing with the conflict is already there. She’s been part of the Biden team working on this case for more than a year.

And while a Harris administration may feel emboldened to take a harder line against Israel, away from the immediate polling problems that may raise, it would continue with the established US policy of pursuing a two-state solution in the Middle East.

A Trump presidency could turn that idea on its head. In the first debate in June, he said he would “have to see” whether he thought Palestinian statehood was a good idea.

And remember, this is the president who controversially moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a provocative move, given the status of the Holy City is one of the most contentious elements in any deal.

If you were to ask Trump why the latest conflict has kicked off, his answer would be fairly simple: It has happened as a resulted of the weak leadership of Biden and his presidential challenger Kamala Harris.

He believes Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, and the chain of events it set off, never would have happened if he was still president.

That is not to say that a Trump White House would simply back Israel to the hilt, even with his assertions he is the most pro-Israel president in history.

Indeed, the man who’s made his career on the art of the deal says Israel is doing a bad job of selling its campaign in Gaza to the world, and he also has beef with Benjamin Netanyahu.

Where there could be significant change is on countering Iran.

Trump withdrew from the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran the last time he was in power, and he slapped the regime in Tehran with significant sanctions.

When it comes to military responses, his vice-presidential candidate JD Vance has said that when it comes to hitting Iran “you punch them hard”.

But as is often the case with Trump and his team, words are one thing. Actions are another.