• How swing states determine the winner
• ‘Outcome will impact on African trade, development aid’
• Erameh: New president should boost Nigeria’s fight against terrorists
• Trump has African commercial strategy, says Erediauwa
There is palpable anxiety globally as the United States’ presidential poll closes today and Americans await the declaration of a winner in a neck-and-neck battle between the Democratic Party candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the Republican Party candidate, former President Donald Trump.
Whichever of the two emerges the winner will have far-reaching effects on international politics and America’s relations with issues of global concern. Both candidates have engaged in intense and divisive campaigns, and contrasting local and foreign policies, amid frantic efforts to woo voters in the seven swing states that are regarded as the battlegrounds that would ultimately determine the winner of the poll.
Till yesterday, both candidates made last-minute campaign appearances in these swing states in a desperate bid to sway voters. Trump and Harris held rallies in North Carolina, while Harris also spoke to supporters in Georgia, a state seen as the key to victory in an otherwise dead-even nationwide contest. Trump also added a stop in Virginia.
The rounds of high-stakes speeches before thousands of people at each stop continued on Sunday when Harris held multiple events in the swing state of Michigan and Trump rallied support in Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
Apart from being crucial to determining the winner of the election, swing states produce a significant number of Electoral College votes, which means that winning those states can swing the election outcome.
Texas has the highest number of electoral votes (38), followed by Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan and Florida (16) and North Carolina (15).
In previous swing states outcomes, Trump won Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in 2016; Hillary Clinton won Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Also, in 2012, Obama won Florida, Ohio, and Colorado, while Mitt Romney won North Carolina.
Interestingly, whoever emerges the winner in the keenly-contested election will make history. Harris, if declared winner, would be the first U.S. female president, while Trump would be the second president in history to win another White House term after losing a first attempt at re-election, and would have done so after being the first former president to be convicted of a crime.
This election is critical as the fate of America’s diplomacy and democracy depends hugely on it. Presidential Historian, Mark Updegrove said: “This is the most important election of my lifetime and probably the most important since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency and the fate of the country was in the balance.”
Updegrove attributed the historic nature of the race not just to Harris and Trump’s backgrounds, but to what is at stake for American democracy and diplomacy.
“I’ve never in my life, seen such a marked difference in what the candidates stand for and the policy positions they have articulated,” Updegrove said, adding that Trump’s approach to those issues is a stark departure from any other modern United States leader.
For instance, some of Harris’ campaign promises are on inflation, reducing food and housing costs for working families and raising the minimum wage. Trump, however, said more drilling for oil will lower energy costs. He also promised to deliver lower interest rates and added that deporting undocumented immigrants would ease pressure on housing.
In addition, he vowed to seal the U.S. border by completing the construction of a wall and enforcing deportations. Harris, however, said she would revive the immigration bill if elected.
Harris’s foreign policy would ensure America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century, advocate two-state solutions for Israel and Palestine, and continue to support Ukraine.
But Trump, however, wants America to disentangle itself from conflicts elsewhere in the world. He said he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours through a negotiated settlement with Russia. Although he supports Israel, he hasn’t given clear information on how he intends to end the war between Israel and Iran-backed terrorist organisations.
On trade, Harris is expected to have a more targeted approach to taxing imports, maintaining the tariffs the Biden-Harris administration introduced on some Chinese imports like electric vehicles, while Trump has made tariffs a central pledge in this campaign. He has proposed new 10-20 per cent tariffs on most foreign goods and much higher ones on those from China.
In fact, Harris wants to raise taxes on big businesses and Americans making $400,000 a year but reduce the tax burden on families by including an expansion of child tax credits.
In contrast, Trump proposes several tax cuts worth trillions, including an extension of his 2017 cuts which he said he will pay through higher growth and tariffs on imports.
He has also promised to entice companies to stay in the United States to manufacture goods, by giving them a lower rate of corporate tax. On healthcare, Harris has been part of a White House administration, which has reduced prescription drug costs and capped insulin prices at $35. She has also pledged to guarantee abortion rights for women. But Trump, who has often vowed to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, said he would only improve it, without offering specifics. He also called for taxpayer-funded fertility treatment and promised to stop abortion rights.
On law and order, Harris tried to contrast her experience as a prosecutor with the fact that Trump has been convicted of a crime. However, Trump has vowed to demolish drug cartels, crush gang violence and rebuild Democrats-run cities that he said are overrun with crime.
These campaigns have also come with personal attacks, intrigues, vitriolic and electoral fraud alarms by both candidates, especially Trump. Trump and his team had created a slogan, “too big to rig”, urging his supporters to vote en masse to “guarantee we win more than the margin of fraud.”
But Harris, who condemned those who “sow hate, spread fear and spread chaos” in a reference to Trump, is focusing on Arab Americans, young voters and women for the delivery.
As of yesterday, more than 78 million Americans have already cast their votes, according to a tally by the Election Lab at the University of Florida.This election is also important to Africa and the rest of the world, as the outcome will shape U.S. relations globally.
Speaking on the implications of Trump’s presidency in Africa, Senior Research Fellow and Head International Law Unit of the International Law and Organisations Division of Research & Studies Department, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Dr Chinyere Rita Agu, said potential impacts on Africa could include shifts in trade, foreign policy, military engagement, and development aid.
She added, however, that it would depend on how these policies are implemented and how African countries adjust to shifts in America’s approach to engagement.
Agu explained that on trade and economic policy, Trump has previously emphasised “America First” trade policies, which might lead to fewer trade incentives and stricter regulations for African imports.
“If policies are tightened or support diminishes, African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) benefits could come under scrutiny, affecting African exporters.
“United States foreign aid to Africa may experience shifts. Trump has been critical of foreign aid spending in the past, and a second term might bring cuts to various development programmes.
“These changes could impact health initiatives, agricultural programmes, and education projects that are partially reliant on American funding. “Trump previously expressed intentions to reduce U.S. troop presence globally, including in Africa, despite the ongoing threat of terrorism in regions like the Sahel. Less military support might mean African nations would need to invest more resources into local security or seek support from other global powers, like China or Russia,” she said.
For Agu, Harris’ approach might lead to strengthened diplomatic and economic ties with Africa, with a likely focus on human rights, climate change, and collaborative development initiatives.
She said Harris is likely to support Africa’s economic integration and growth, potentially by enhancing programmes like AGOA and expanding trade partnerships.
A Harris administration, she said, might advocate more equitable trade terms, possibly fostering technology and renewable energy sectors within Africa.
According to her, Harris would likely prioritise increased development aid, with a focus on healthcare, education, and women’s empowerment. Health initiatives, such as those targeting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and maternal health, could receive greater support, alongside funding for social infrastructure.
She, however, suggested that Harris could take a more inclusive approach to immigration, which might benefit African immigrants and foster stronger Diaspora ties.
“Visa policies could see adjustments to facilitate student exchanges, skilled labour immigration, and cultural partnerships,” she stated. The Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Movemeback, Charles Sekwalor, told The Guardian that while Harris appears to be the more pro-Africa candidate between the two at first glance, either presidency presents both positive and negative impacts on the continent’s future.
Historically, Trump’s “America First” agenda, he said, has the greater potential to push Africa towards self-reliance, fostering economic and political independence, boosting intra-continental trade, and strengthening leadership across African nations – which is ultimately beneficial in the long-term to the region.
“Additionally, the low favourability for Trump amongst Africans and African Americans increases the likelihood of American talent to flow towards Africa, whilst potentially slowing down the talent drain of Africans to the U.S.
“On the other hand, while decreased U.S. engagement might lead Africa to further diversify its global partnerships, it could also present challenges in terms of regional security and bargaining power with major players like China and Russia.
Conversely, a Harris administration would likely build on the current trajectory of US-Africa relations. Just last week, Kamala took steps to form a dedicated US-Africa relations team – a signal that, if elected, her administration might introduce major initiatives to strengthen political and security ties,” he explained.
According to Sekwalor, this could enable African nations to leverage U.S. interests alongside those of Russia, China, the EU, and the Middle East, strengthening their global negotiating position.
However, he noted that with a pro-Africa U.S. administration, Africa may miss the additional push toward self-led development that is needed to address its internal challenges sustainably.
“Also, strong US support for Africa could intensify the talent drain from the continent, as warmer US-Africa relations create more of a welcoming pull to Africans seeking international opportunities.
Regardless of the election outcome, US-Africa relations will remain vital in workforce development, climate initiatives and global security over the next few years,” he said, advising that Africa, however, should pursue its strategy of self-reliance and continent-led development, no matter who is in the White House.
Senior Research Fellow, NIIA, Dr Nicholas Erameh, said the relationship between both countries has experienced its highs and lows. He, however, said that whoever wins should think about how to strengthen relations with Nigeria in areas such as economic diplomacy.He explained that economic diplomacy is vital, especially with the springing up of new blocs such as BRICS and G-20, which provide alternative options for opportunities.
Erameh advised that the new administration should intensify support for Nigeria in security to tackle activities of terrorists and insurgent groups, adding that they should also amplify the voice of Nigeria seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
Senior Research Fellow, NIIA, Dr Adesuwa Erediauwa, said the prevailing consensus is that Harris would likely build upon the policies put forth by the Biden administration, taking into cognisance the increasing significance of Africa in the global geopolitical framework.
“With regards to President Biden’s 2022 ‘U.S. Strategy on Sub-Saharan Africa’, Harris is likely to deepen relations with the entire continent. Harris is likely to pursue a more open Africa policy that fosters tighter economic relations,” she said.
According to her, Harris may pursue a foreign policy that may forcefully support human rights, democratic institutions, anti-corruption efforts, and initiatives that enhance health, education and economic empowerment, particularly for women and youths in Africa.
She suggested that Harris is likely to intensify its focus on Africa to counter the efforts of global competitors like China and Russia. Erediauwa pointed out that Trump has an African commercial strategy, despite his crass disposition to Africa.
“In his previous tenure, he made efforts to promote American businesses in Africa, which is more sustainable and consequential.
“Nigeria stands to benefit more from the U.S. promoting business opportunities in Africa than being mere beneficiaries of aid packages. This is an opportunity to propagate Africa’s self-determinism, and push Nigeria as an economic giant,” she said. She, however, noted that the geopolitical contest for dominance in Africa, mineral extraction rights, and economic expansion will persist.
“There is an obvious super-power rivalry (geostrategy). Moreover, middle powers and emerging economies (India, Turkey, UAE, and so on) would position themselves economically to fill any gap created by a ‘Trumpian shenanigan’. Trump will not want to lose out on business opportunities in Africa and Nigeria to the Chinese.
The increasing influence of China and the resolve of Russia to counter Western dominance serve as a significant motivation for Trump to engage more actively and collaboratively with Africa.
“The trade partnership agreements established by the European Union with 41 African nations, which significantly disadvantaged American exports to the region, are potentially more detrimental to U.S. commercial interests in Africa than Russia or even China, even though Nigeria is yet to sign the agreement,” Erediauwa declared.