US elections are closely monitored both domestically and around the world. However, the 2016 US elections may perhaps be the most monitored by the world. This is due to its controversial and polarized characteristics. At the center of this is the evaluation on the political and economic implications of the candidates, that is either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
The US is the most visible players when it comes to making and implementing decisions that pertains to global security. Clinton has hailed NATO is the most successful military alliance not only in the present times, but also in history. And she has pledged to support its mandate and growth.
Trump has been unforgiving about military alliances. He has stated that the US should not bear the burden of protecting the NATO allies- and if it will do so, it should be compensated for it. In addition to that, Trump has threatened not to honor NATO’s budgetary commitments, a move that might cripple the alliance.
In the past US elections, almost no candidate opposed free trade. However, the US 2016 election has seen both Trump and Clinton being jittery over free trade. For example, Clinton once supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership but is now opposing it. Trump has promised to bring steel back to the US. Both candidates have a great concern over free trade- it makes American workers vulnerable to losing their jobs.
The Relationship With Mexico
The reason why Mexico features prominently in the 2016 US election is due to geo-political factors- it shares a border with the US. Every year, many Mexicans set on a journey to “the promised land” in search of better economic activities. In turn, Americans employers, benefit from the influx of labor. Indeed, it is the Mexicans who do the jobs that Americans are not able or not willing to do, working in a farm for instance.
Along came Trump who started the campaign on a heated and controversial note by branding the Mexicans as rapists as well as criminals. No wonder, the Mexican Peso is highly dependent on the rating that Trump shows in the polls. When Trump has favorable rating, the Peso declines. When Trump slips in rating, the Peso improves.
Clinton has advocated for a more humane treatment of illegal immigrants. For example, she says that deportation should mainly be based on criminal activities. She is concerned about the separation of families through deportation. Clinton’s line of argument is, if an illegal immigrant is not involved in criminal activities, and he or she is making a positive contribution to the American economy, then the path to Amnesty is possible.
The Middle East is watching the 2016 election closely. Clinton has promised a robust collaboration with Israel. She has stated that within the first month, she will invite the Prime Minister of Israel for talks in order to discuss the various relevant issues facing the Middle East. She also intends to encourage Saudi Arabia to work hand in hand with the US for the defeat of IS. Most importantly, she is expected to bring some calm to Syria through maintaining a no—fly zone.
Both candidates have opportunities as well as challenges when it comes to the US interaction with the world. However, in Clinton’s case, her foreign policy is more predictable- she has served in the capacity of the secretary of state in Obama’s first term. Again, she has a clearer foreign policy. On his part, it is not clear what exactly Trump’s foreign policy will be like. Overall, the 2016 US election has a lot of implications to the world.