American presidential elections – event that dictates world trends. Can the rematch between Trump and Biden really change the World and how will it affect the Balkans?

We can frequently hear that the world is at one of the most dangerous moments in history. The war in Ukraine has been raging for full two years without any hope of truce, the conflict in Israel and Gaza has ignited Middle East that has been on fire for too long, Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea disrupted global trade, mass demonstrations block a different European country every couple of days, and polarization keeps creating additional divisions in society…

Despite all these problems that require urgent solutions, when the most powerful people in the world meet, as was the case at the World Economic Forum in Davos, none of these topics are the main ones. The talk is primarily, or even exclusively, about whether former President Donald Trump or the current head of the White House, Joe Biden, will win the US elections in November.

“In 2024 there will be around 50 elections worldwide. However, everyone talks about one: elections in America,” said Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister and diplomat.

In 2024 there will be around 50 elections worldwide. However, elections in America attract the most attention.

Elections are uncertain, the consequences are not

Bearing in mind that those elections decide on the first man of the world’s most powerful country, and that the voting will be more than uncertain once again, this does not come as a surprise. What is surprising is the fact that both the world’s elite and ordinary people on the streets expect the result of the rematch between the two oldest presidential candidates in American history to change the world, although they played the same match four years ago.

Yes, some have a huge antipathy to the idea of the return of Donald Trump and his unconventional policies, others hope that this return to the White House will solve the world’s biggest problems. Some fear that he will leave Ukraine in the lurch and without the help of allies, while others hope that he will fulfill the promise of establishing peace in that country in 24 hours. Some are afraid of his unwavering support for Israel, others trust in that support.

Some fear that Donald Trump will leave Ukraine in the lurch and without the help of allies, while others hope that he will fulfill the promise of establishing peace in that country in 24 hours.

However, both sides seem to forget that fighters in the ring, even the political ring, are judged by their performance in the match, and not by what they say before the bell signals the start of the first round.

What does it mean? Quite simply, politicians, especially those who have already spent years running the White House, which is the case here, should be judged by what they did during that time, not what they said they would do. For example, when boxing experts analyze controversial fights, they have one advice – turn off the sound, forget about fans, exclamations and applause, watch only what happens in the ring.

The same principle can be applied to analyzing the foreign policy of both presidential candidates – look at what they did, not how others interpreted their moves.

Promises and actions

From the moment the businessman and reality TV show host entered the presidential race from the golden escalator of Trump Tower in 2015, Donald Trump has not stopped shocking the world. Repeating the motto “America First”, he announced in simple and understandable language that he was going to build a giant wall towards Mexico and that he was going to make them pay for it, that he was going to pull America out of NATO, and ban the entry of Muslims into the USA… However, during four years in the White House, Trump did not do these things. He fulfilled some of the promises – he pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership… Although his rhetoric was drastically different from what the world is used to, in four years in the White House he did not do anything that would drastically change the world.

For example, although many in Russia hope that his return to power would mark the end of American military aid to Ukraine, they forget that it was in Trump’s first year in power that the decision was made to send armed aid to Kiev.

Similar to his predecessor, Joe Biden, who served as the Vice President under the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2017, announced major changes in foreign policy in the election campaign. But those changes never came to be. Yes, he got the US back into the Paris Climate Agreement and revived the kind of rhetoric America’s allies were used to, but that is about it.

Here we see the reason American diplomat and former President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, was right when he said: “Three very different Presidents – Obama, Trump and Biden – are leading the USA in the same direction.” Joe Biden has dramatically changed the words he uses to describe foreign policy and now claims that the world is between democracy and authoritarianism. That is clearly different from Donald Trump. But what’s not so different is the actual foreign policy,” he explained to NPR. 

Southeastern Europe and the White House

The principle of a continuous approach to foreign policy, regardless of who is at the head of the American administration, can be applied to Southeast Europe and Serbia as well. However, many from our area have high expectations for a possible change in the White House, and are probably rooting for Trump to win. The situation may not resemble the euphoria of 2016 when Belgrade was flooded with billboards and posters with the message: “Trump, you Serb”, and when it was rumored that the new head of the White House could give Kosovo back to Serbia, but it is not too different either. Nevertheless, the meeting at the highest level in the White House in Washington in September 2020 opened new hope and strengthened the influence of the USA in the Balkans.

The principle of a continuous approach to foreign policy, regardless of who is at the head of the American administration, can be applied to Southeast Europe and Serbia as well.

As for the approach in the performance and talks related to the Kosovo issue, there have been no fundamental differences in recent decades, except perhaps in the organizational approach. During the Trump administration, despite the Western Balkans being the purview of the State Department’s envoy, the White House’s envoy, i.e. the President, had greater influence on the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina It creates an incorrect impression that there is a difference in general approach and attitude, but the truth is that the American administration has its own continuous direction and it does not change regardless of the change of President. 

What is good for Serbia? The fact that Washington wants Serbia as a partner and ally in the Western Balkans and Southeastern Europe.

Belgrade needs to recognize that Washington wants Serbia as a partner and ally in the Western Balkans and Southeastern Europe and take its future steps accordingly, showing an open, interested and pro-active attitude towards the USA.

Belgrade needs to recognize this and take its future steps accordingly, showing an open, interested and pro-active attitude towards the USA. American politicians dealing with the Balkans expect and want to hear as many voices as possible from Serbia, proposals, analyses, elaborated plans and a general vision for strengthening the partnership between the two countries that have cultivated diplomatic relations for 140 years.In this sense, in the face of the election of the new president of the most powerful country in the world, it is necessary to think constructively, not only in terms of politics related to the solution of the problems of Belgrade and Pristina as an overarching topic, but also about general cooperation that includes economic exchanges, work on innovations, student exchanges and experts, culture, s