Tomorrow, American citizens will elect their president. It is difficult to predict the results of the election, except this one: the diplomatic, nuclear and climate orientations of the country, whoever wins, are likely to have a negative impact on Europe.
First, what we can guess about the next president’s diplomacy should be a source of concern. The interest of Europeans is in the calming of international relations, particularly on the margins of the continent (Eastern Europe, Middle East). However, neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris made a speech along these lines. And this while independent voters, those who will choose the next president, want it: they are getting closer to the Republicans on the Ukrainian issue (support for a compromise peace, a point of view shared by two thirds of Americans) and to the left of the Democratic Party in criticizing unconditional support for Israel.
Trump, far from being anti-war
Pro-Trump people presented their candidate as “anti-war”. An absurdity, when we take into account his record: he supported the war in Yemen, he pursued a very hostile policy towards Iran, destroying any possibility of détente with this country. And he lies when he says he opposed the war in Iraq. As for Kamala Harris, we know that she will inherit a militarist vision of international relations if she is elected: the American military budget remains the largest in the world (840 billion euros in 2024, three times more than China, more than the sum of the nine largest military budgets after theirs).
And if we are to believe their speeches, the two candidates have the same main enemies: Iran (Kamala Harris went so far as to present Tehran as “the greatest enemy of the United States”), which means a risk of regional conflict in the Middle East; and China, whose rise in power must be countered to preserve American predominance. These two priorities raise fears, for Ukraine, of an Afghan-style scenario: a disengagement in the name of American national interests, whether immediate (Trump option) or a little more distant in time (Harris option).
Favorable to nuclear weapons
Then, Washington began a program to “modernize” the entire arsenal of more than 3,700 nuclear weapons, at a constantly increasing cost of 1,700 billion dollars (1,559 billion euros) over thirty years. ; the president alone can decide to use nuclear fire, and neither candidate has considered calling these policies into question. The record of the last two administrations (Trump and Biden) is in fact comparable in this area, continuing a policy begun under the Obama presidency.
However, it is now established that factors not reducible to control were necessary to prevent unwanted nuclear explosions in the American arsenal in the past and that current leaders are renewing this bet. To professions of faith according to which a member of the chain of command would disobey in the event of a crazy order from the president and only in this case is added the proposal to introduce AI systems into the chain of command and control of nuclear arsenals, or a possible loss of control in the name of credibility through the automation of the response. While we remain blind to the effects of climate change on nuclear arsenals and current politics continue to rely on luck, the next four years may prove decisive for Europe.
Ecological policies incompatible with Europe
Finally, none of the candidates is proposing a policy compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, which remains an objective for Europe. Despite promises to protect the environment, Joe Biden gave the green light to a large-scale oil extraction project in Alaska in 2023 whose scope was later reduced, and the Democratic candidate changed her position opinion on shale gas and said it would not ban it.
Even in the absence of changes in this area, there are today 28 projects in the United States whose completion would result in releasing a total of more than 150 gigatons (Gt) into the atmosphere, knowing that the estimated carbon budget by the IPCC to not exceed 1.5°C of global warming is 420 Gt from 2017 for the entire planet. The Carbon Brief institute has established that Donald Trump’s program would result in the emission of 4 additional Gt. Knowing that the tipping points of global climate change will only be known retrospectively and that all its effects on other critical infrastructures are poorly or not known, said tipping points can be crossed during the mandate of the next head of state. American.
Failing to speak with one voice on diplomatic or nuclear issues, it is conceivable that Europeans would at least do so on the climate emergency. Especially since, on this subject, if Europe speaks with one voice, it will also be able to speak on behalf of the youth of the United States: 46% of Americans aged 18 to 29 are concerned about climate change. one of their main security priorities. We can therefore only call on European capitals to coordinate at least on this subject.
