How the candidates see America’s place in the world

FOREIGN-POLICY wonks often complain that their field only rarely affects American presidential elections, and then usually in times of war. But in 2016 the sharply contrasting world views of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and her Republican rival, Donald Trump, have become symbols of much larger divides, revealing much about the candidates’ values. How do the two contenders approach geopolitics?

© AP Photo, Patrick Semansky

Advisers and former colleagues say that Mrs Clinton shares a traditional view of America: as a force for good and with a special duty to guarantee global norms. Yet they caution against assuming that Mrs Clinton will be much more hawkish in her actions than Barack Obama—not least because some intractable problems will dominate her in-tray, starting with Syria. In presidential debates the Democratic nominee talked of pushing for a no-fly zone and safe havens in Syria. But in a leaked speech that she gave to bankers in 2013, she noted the risks of creating a no-fly zone, which would require destroying Syrian air defences, some in heavily populated areas; a big and risky task. In Asia Mrs Clinton will have to address North Korea’s aggressive moves to develop its nuclear arsenal. The Democrat has backed tougher sanctions on North Korea and building elaborate anti-missile defence systems with Japan and South Korea—all steps that alarm China. In contrast Chinese leaders were quietly pleased when the presidential campaign saw Mrs Clinton forced to disavow an ambitious free-trade pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), that would bind 11 Asia-Pacific nations, not including China, more closely with America. President Hillary Clinton’s relations with Russia’s autocratic leader, Vladimir Putin, would begin in a glacial state—not least because the Clinton campaign, backed by American spy chiefs, accuses Russia of trying to meddle in the presidential election by stealing and leaking e-mails from top Democrats.