With the U.S. presidential election fast approaching on November 5, discussions around the future of U.S.-China relations are heating up. The two leading candidates, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, offer sharply contrasting visions for how America should interact with China and Asia as geopolitical tensions rise.
The backdrop for this debate includes the impending arrival of two giant pandas at the Smithsonian National Zoo, symbolizing China’s soft power. This event coincides with the inauguration of the next American president, providing both nations with a moment to promote amity amid rising tensions. Yet the delicate balance of power between the U.S. and China casts doubt on the ability of either candidate to markedly improve relations.
According to various international observers and officials, there seems to be no favorable outcome for the relationship under either candidate. Many experts suggest Asia might prefer Harris’s predictable policies over Trump’s isolationist tendencies. Under Trump, the fear of harsh tariff hikes and renewed trade wars is top of mind for many, leading to significant concerns for Asian manufacturing networks. Harris's approach is anticipated to align more with the current Biden administration's policies, including multilateral discussions aimed at cooperative trade.
Countries across Asia, whether they lean toward Trump or Harris, share a common concern: the pressure to choose sides between the two superpowers. Malaysian officials, including Deputy Investment Minister Liew Chin Tong, see Harris and Trump as different not by their direction but by the intensity of their approaches. Both candidates are viewed as having irrefutable limitations on their capacity to revert to past trade frameworks.
For example, Trump’s proposed tariffs, which many experts project could lead to price hikes on consumer goods and stunted economic growth, oppose Harris’s focus on targeted sanctions. Business circles are bracing for potential backlash if Trump returns to power, with Wendy Cutler, vice-president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, stating, “Should Trump win, our trading partners need to prepare for tariff hikes.”
On the other hand, Harris may offer greater stability as she is expected to maintain cooperation across trade relationships, potentially reducing the risk of abrupt disruptions. Her policies would likely continue to be rooted within the realms of multilateralism and dialogues aimed at securing economic interests without aggressive isolationism.
While there’s consensus on some areas, certain analysts, like Greg Poling from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, note the worries associated with Trump taking office again. He predicts, “There might be a souring of sentiment toward the U.S., leading to diminished trust. Otherwise, they may navigate through it with mumbled grievances.”
Importantly, U.S. allies in East Asia may face renewed uncertainties with Trump at the helm, especially considering his historical demands on Japan and South Korea to up their contributions for defense. When Trump entered office previously, he garnered mixed relations with these nations, leading some analysts to worry about similar patterns repeating.
The impact of these differing approaches also echoes across the Pacific. India and the Philippines remain optimistic about their ties with U.S., regardless of who wins. Philippine officials expect Harris to continue supporting mutual defense commitments against Chinese aggression, particularly within the contested areas of the South China Sea. Meanwhile, India expresses confidence about continuous collaboration, viewing stable U.S.-India relations as fundamental for countering China.
Similarly, the broader ramifications of these policies extend to how they impact corporate America and trade dynamics. Experts from the business sector underline the potential for economic disruption under Trump’s leadership. Amid tariffs imposed during his previous term, estimates show significant job losses resulting from such economic measures. This eventuality suggests not only repercussions for U.S. labor markets but also broader consequences for international relations.
Meanwhile, the looming specter of increasing tensions with China raises questions about U.S. global presence. If Trump chooses to withdraw from commitments like NATO, as some speculate, China might exploit the vacated space for enhanced global influence, complicate regional dynamics, and may even alter the U.S.-China competitive contours significantly.
Experts point to how, under either candidate, the U.S. maintains its ambitious aim to compete with China. Yet, there’s palpable trepidation within Asia about how aggressive stances or diplomatic reticence under Trump and Harris will play out post-election. Will both powers find common ground amid competition, or will the rift deepen?
Both candidates carry expectations and limitations; Harris is viewed as less abrasive, focusing on international collaborations, whereas Trump might spark confrontational tactics leading to unpredicted hikes and economic stagnation. Despite their differing styles, obstacles lie before either pathway.
So, with Harris potentially at the helm continuing the course of established diplomacy, versus Trump’s tumultuous historical brand of leadership, Asia’s fate hinges precariously on November 5. What shape the future takes under this political mantle remains to be seen, yet the stakes have never been higher for international relations and the quest for stability with China.
