By Neville J. Bissember
For supporters of the incumbent PPP/C, both here and in the Diaspora – Queens, NY to be exact – it must still be fresh in their subconscious that it was thanks to the Trump Administration and a robust campaign by the Mercury public strategy firm, that their party was returned to office. So those supporters “in farrin” would likely be inclined to vote for former President Donald Trump again next November, in case the same support is needed come election time here next year. Whether that sentiment is shared in the corridors of power within the Party I am unsure, but already you are hearing grumblings up North that a Democratic administration led by an African-American would likely favour the return of the local Opposition to power – in whatever configuration, PNC, AFC, APNU. But then again, Vice President Kamala Harris is being regarded in some quarters as Indian-American as well, so…
More analytically, it must first and foremost be recognized that this is an American election, where issues and interests like the economy and inflation, abortion and health care, paid family leave, immigration, crime and policing and sexual orientation will loom large. In international affairs, besides Israel, Iran, Russia, China, Europe/NATO and maybe Cuba – the Biden-Harris administration had not moved forward on the diplomatic thaw between Washington and Havana that President Obama had overseen – the presidential candidates would not readily recognize the priorities and concerns of most other countries, except where they touch and concern US national interests.
It cannot be discounted however that within the US, and in some states more than others, immigrants from the Caribbean are an important sector of the electorate. Whether these voters can sufficiently articulate the concerns of their countries of origin with their elected representatives in order to have them eventually passed on and taken into account by their presidential candidates would be a relatively hard sell; it is here that a high-priced lobbying firm could make a difference. So, while we in the developing countries may not be able to move the needle significantly come November 5, 2024, what is it that we could expect should either candidate win?
We already had a chance to see what a Trump presidency would look like and chances are that his return to the White House would be met with (much) more of the same. Regarding climate change, which is of vital importance to us in the Caribbean, this is the President who unsigned the ground-breaking Paris Accord into which President Obama took the USA in 2016. As set out in the “Project 2025” document currently in circulation and widely regarded as a Republican manifesto of things to come – Mr. Trump has distanced himself from the document – ‘the next conservative Administration should rescind all climate policies from its foreign aid programmes; shut down the agency’s [USAID] policies, programmes, and directives designed to advance the Paris Climate Agreement; and narrowly limit funding to traditional climate mitigation efforts’.
It is to be recalled that it was the Biden-Harris administration which rejoined the Paris Agreement, although like most other developed countries, their pledges of financial support for mitigation and adaptation have not been matched by commitments of funds.
On international peace and security, Mr. Trump says he will end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours, a fantastic claim that Russia’s UN Ambassador has dismissed out of hand. He has been making similar criticisms as in the past about NATO, although he has tempered these somewhat by arguing for other NATO members to pay their fair share of dues, rather than outright withdrawal. It seems fairly certain also that Mr. Trump would not maintain the same amount of financial and military support for President Zelensky, which is aimed at taking on his old “pal” President Putin.
On Israel, the available evidence suggests that whichever candidate wins the next election, US support for Israel would remain steadfast, be it militarily, in terms of financing and war materiel, politically as regards garnering support domestically and with allies abroad, and diplomatically by backstopping Israel’s excesses and any unacceptable conditions for a ceasefire by using the power of its veto in the UN Security Council. However, in so far as the search for a solution to this intractable issue has shown the need for flexibility on all sides, it was President Trump who took the precipitate step in December 2020 of recognising Jerusalem, a sacred site for Christians, Jews and Muslims (in alphabetical order) as the capital of Israel.
In Asia, China-Taiwan relations would continue to loom large, as would the continued nuclearization of North Korea. President Trump had managed during his first Presidency to ingratiate himself with both President Xi and Chairman Kim, especially as regards the latter, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in North Korea. While the full extent of what this latter relationship meant for the US is still unclear, the fact remains that the US and China will have to continue an uneasy alliance as regards issues such as tariffs and trade, science and technology, intellectual property and de-escalating tension within the south China Sea – in other words, the US and China will agree to disagree on some things, but not on others.
As regards donor assistance and humanitarian aid, in February this year Donald Trump said the US was ‘stupid’ to give money without a payback, without ‘strings’. This would negatively impact US contributions to international organizations and humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, for example in Haiti. With the financial cuts and resource cutbacks he had already initiated for USAID, it is to be expected that Trump 2.0 would deliver more of the same, to the detriment of social security and safety net programs in developing countries, which are designed to give poor people a leg-up to lift them out of poverty, and ultimately to promote development in those countries.
As Vice-President Kamala Harris sheds the constitutional mantle of President-in-waiting and asserts herself by demarcating her political space more as Kamala Harris, presumptive nominee of the Democratic party and presidential candidate, the expectation in the main would be that going forward, she would continue to embrace much of the policies of the incumbent administration which bears her name. We already got an indication of what lies ahead, when National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said in a June 2024 speech ‘…that the US needed to work with international institutions and with partners to come up with a “better value proposition” for developing countries…”on the clean energy transition, on technology, on fighting corruption [and] on basic development”‘. More specifically, Sullivan referred to plans for “a major initiative with the Congress aimed at truly delivering on the promise of unlocking resources for the developing world”. It is a fact-checkable fact that US aid levels have increased substantially under President Biden and this stands in marked contrast to the position of Mr. Trump on development aid, as stated above.
On a general policy framework for global development such as this, it is not to be expected that, as with the cooling-off of the Obama initiative on Cuba that emerged under President Biden, a Harris administration would be inclined to backpedal on aid policy.
Similarly, on climate change, it was the Biden-Harris administration that resumed the principled approach to addressing this existential issue, if only in words more than deeds. The mantra of 1.5 degrees to stay alive is critical to our survival, and global warming is the handmaiden of sea level rise, of major importance to countries like Guyana that lie below sea level. There is no indication as yet that a Harris presidency would not continue along the trajectory of supporting climate change initiatives within the framework of the COP 29 this November, although if victorious, she would not assume office until January 2025. Maybe, like President Lula of Brazil, Ms. Harris could also be invited to the meeting in Azerbaijan even before she is inaugurated…
In the area of international peace and security, Ms. Harris could be expected to maintain the position of her current administration as regards support for Ukraine, with the caveat that the post-election configuration in the Senate would be crucial for her to get measures passed into law. There is already talk about Ms. Harris restoring America’s image with international partners, while Mr. Trump makes derogatory comments about the parentage of Canada’s current Prime Minister.
On Israel, the current administration continues to be supportive of Prime Minister Netanyahu, upholding the country’s right to defend itself over the grave humanitarian abuses and violations of international humanitarian law being committed, as decided by the United Nations General Assembly – the US’s veto in the Security Council assures this body’s inertia – and the International Court of Justice. Suffice to say that the second gentleman of the US is a practicing Jew.
Regarding Asia, we should expect from Ms. Harris more of the same hardnosed posturing that President Biden adopted with China’s President Xi. Back in March 2021 President Biden, in response to China’s perceived goal of becoming the most powerful country in the world, had said, “[T]hat’s not going to happen on my watch….’ It remains to be seen what combination of carrots and sticks Vice President Harris would employ when dealing with President Xi. And, although I am not a betting man, my money would be on the position that says the relationship between former President Trump and Chairman Kim is one that is exclusive to them.
NSA Sullivan in his speech this year had referred to competition with China as a ‘key policy driver ’. This would be particularly relevant, if not beneficial for us in the Caribbean, as Washington has been uneasy over the inroads which Beijing has been steadily making over the decades in America’s “backyard”, a geographical space that I had argued decades ago should be regarded instead as its “front lawn”, if only to shift context and perspective to what should be a mutually beneficial relationship. However, to be fair, China’s posture towards the Caribbean and Latin America could be regarded as a mirror or counterpoint to US forays into the South China Sea and its interests in Taiwan and the Philippines. As we would say in Guyana, “do fuh do is nah obeah!!”
As Guyana’s current development trajectory is inexorably hitched for the immediate period to the oil and gas wagon, the approach of former President Trump at the Republican Convention three weeks ago, of revising the decades-old mantra of “Drill baby drill” may be comforting to our decision makers. But Steve Benen, writing in the MaddowBlog, says that the US is already engaged in increased drilling: ‘In fact, the United States during the Biden-Harris administration has not only produced more energy than any other country on the planet, energy production in the United States under Biden-Harris has also reached an all-time high’.
In other words, both candidates are keen on pursuing exploration activities in the fossil fuel sector. And yet, the Biden-Harris administration claims that it is big ‘on the clean energy transition’, and would have developing countries like Guyana leave its newfound oil and gas wealth in the ground – despite the compensation we deliver to environmental degradation with our carbon sink forest cover – while it pushes ahead with its own energy security program. Which candidate then, would be better, one that plainly encourages increased drilling domestically, or one that is already supporting such drilling, but touts transitioning away to non-renewables? Even here, Guyana is not a laggard in terms of its positive approach to alternative uses of solar and hydro and the cleaner form of natural gas. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree with whoever occupies the White House come January 2025 and perhaps set benchmarks and guidelines for our transition away from petroleum into cleaner energy. Rationalising development priorities alongside environmental concerns is the stuff of creative diplomacy and negotiation.
As long as the flow of arms, drugs and people continues to head upwards through the Caribbean to North America, we will have a basis for cooperation and information sharing with the US. Either elected President would want to reduce that trafficking in all three areas, nuanced perhaps in the extent of their approach when it comes to economic migrants – to build a wall or not? If one were to add the financing of terrorism and money laundering to the mix, the coincidence of interests is readily discernible. So it remains in the Caribbean’s continued interest to sustain the relationship with SouthCom through the Tradewinds exercises, and the DEA and the ATF with drug interdiction and arms trafficking takedowns in our maritime spaces.
Across our Western border, President Maduro remains defiant in the face of questions about the integrity of the election process – before, during and after: with the banning and arrest of candidates; jerrymandering and harassment of opposition voters on polling day; and the painstaking sloth in the release of results from polling stations, to facilitate a declaration of victory by the incumbent, incredibly supported by some among us, absent the verification of the polling data! Recall that it was during the Trump Administration that the talk about unconstitutional removal of the Venezuelan government was at its loudest.
In contrast the Biden-Harris administration had taken a “softly softly” approach, through third party meditation, using friendly regional governments, reopening direct dialogue between Washington and Caracas, enlisting the expertise of Norway, the negotiation czars, and lifting some economic sanctions. While it may be coming to the realization that old habits die hard in Caracas, either candidate would no doubt have breathed a sigh of relief if President Maduro had not rejected the offer from Panama to act as a “bridge” for his departure to a third country.
For its part, Guyana would have to continue to rely on the political, diplomatic and material support of any US Government. However it should not be assumed that there is any preference on the part of any US administration regarding the resolution of the border controversy, given that Washington’s economic priorities as it relates to the more extensive oil reserves of Venezuela cannot be ignored, in the political calculus of choosing their friends and interests.
The upcoming US election will be ground-breaking in a number of ways, beyond the prospect of a woman of colour being elected to the highest office in the land. The record fundraising, the surge in new voter registration, the prominence of women and African-American voters are all contributing to making this contest extraordinary. President Biden’s replacement by Vice-President Harris as the Democratic candidate has produced a seismic and unprecedented shift in US politics: already polls are starting to trickle in showing Ms. Harris ahead of Mr. Trump. If this trend were to continue – some believe electioneering does not start in earnest until after Labour Day and we haven’t had the Presidential debates as yet – who knows whether the misogynist, staring down the prospect of defeat by a woman, and a woman of colour at that, would not withdraw at the last minute!
In the meantime, Guyana and indeed the Caribbean has to continue to make itself visible and relevant to the US. It is not by accident that a steady stream of US Cabinet members has visited our shores during the administration of President Irfaan Ali, the most recent being USTR Katherine Tai, although her visit so late in the life of the Biden administration could be regarded as more an exercise in ticking a box with CARICOM than anything of real substance.
So, to those residing in Region 11, I urge them to realise that the help that was needed from the Trump Administration to unseat the government in 2020 would not be required this time around, given that the PPP/C is the incumbent; besides, the opposition continues to be in disarray, dogged by internal wrangling and disorder. Thus whichever candidate emerges victorious – and accepts the results of the elections – Guyana would generally be given a passing grade, going forward in cooperation with the most powerful country and partner in our Hemisphere
