Francine Lacqua
Hi, everyone, and welcome to Chatham House. So, I don’t know how much sleep everyone’s had, but it’s been quite an eventful day to say the least. I’m Francine Lacqua, an Anchor for Bloomberg and I’ll be your Chair over the next hour. It’s been a long day, Donald Trump is President-elect within the US presidency for a second time. So, the GOP has also taken control of the Senate, but the fate of the House is still undecided. So, over the next hour, we’ll talk about foreign policy, some of the policies on economics and finance. I could not be more delighted to speak to the following: Bronwen Maddox, Director and Chief Executive of Chatham House; Dr Leslie Vinjamuri, Director in US and the Americas Programme, Chatham House, Simon Fraser, Chair of Chatham House, and Bruce Stokes, who’s joining us from the US, Associate Fellow, US and the Americas Programme.
So, before we get started just a couple of housekeeping rules. First of all, the discussion is on the record, it’s being recorded and livestreamed and I would encourage everyone to tweet, live tweet, Instagram, X, whatever platform you want to use. The hashtag is #CH_Events and @Chatham House. And then we’ll move after half an hour to audience questions. So, if you’re joining us online, you can do that through the laptop. There’s a Q&A session, otherwise you can raise your hand.
Alright, what a day. I mean, it’s been – Leslie, maybe let’s start with you for the dynamics of the US. I mean, Donald Trump has won, he’s won in a big way. It’s almost like a sweep. Not many people were expecting it. Why has he done so well?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So first, I would say thank you for doing this and thank you, everybody, for being here. I did not predict this. I think I was quite open. I’m not a prediction person, but my estimation of what the result would be was that Harris would win. I thought if Trump did win, it would be very narrow, that it could potentially be contested and that we certainly wouldn’t know by today. So, for me, it was a surprise.
Why did he win? The basic reality is that we actually don’t know. We have multiple hypotheses about why he may have won. Some of those have to do with it was a clear choice between two very different candidates, that’s number one. Two is, you know, a lot of people are locked into who they vote for, so there was a certain part of the map that we know was fixed. We suspect that there’s – there are key dividing lines. Women turned out, but they didn’t turn out like we thought they would be, in support, resolutely, of Kamala Harris. Hispanics didn’t turn out resolutely, and especially Hispanic men, in support of Kamala Harris. So, there are a number of demographic groups that behaved differently than I think a lot of people anticipated that they might, but this is a whole art and also a bit of a science, the polling.
And I thought John Stewart was brilliant. If you haven’t watched him, watch it, and he says, “You pundits are going to say a whole lot of things about why we have this result, and the fact of the matter is we don’t know yet. It’s going to take us a while before we know.” And my strong suspicion is there are lot of different things that come together in shaping why people vote the way that they do, but what I would say is, this is a resounding decision. Donald Trump has won the popular vote – set to win the popular vote, by a decent margin by American standards, certainly for a Republican candidate in contemporary American politics. He has done extremely well in the electoral college. It is not an aberration; it is not a happenstance. I had somebody in my home from the media this – early this morning, who turned to me and said, “Disinformation?” and I said, “You know, there’s lots to be said about disinformation, but this goes beyond that. This is a very significant fact and reality that cannot be worked around, it must be engaged with, that is there in American politics.”
And I guess I’ll just close this opening comment by saying we also know that there are more than 65 million Americans who voted for Kamala Harris. And we tend to say this on the other side, we tend to say, you know, Donald Trump was defeated 2020 and had 70 million plus votes. So, there is a reality in America that it is a sweep by American standards, and for me and for many people, a very unexpected one, but it is still a country that wants very different things and sees these two candidates very, very differently.
Francine Lacqua
I mean, Bruce, again, this is a different candidate from last time, because he’s a convicted felon. There was, you know the riots on January 6. Is this the most extraordinary political comeback of all times?
Bruce Stokes
Well, I think that we haven’t had that many political comebacks in the United States, frankly. Walter Mondale didn’t come back, or other people who lost did not come back. I think that it says something about the American people and how dissatisfied they were with the direction of the country. Whether that dissatisfaction was based on their lived experience, which I think for many of them it was, but it’s also, I think, based on people’s lack of information, a lack of willingness to, kind of, delve into what the reality of this country was. We know from polling data that people believed the economy was in recession, when it hasn’t been in a recession since 2020. They believed that inflation was going up when it was going down. They believed that the stock market had gone down under Biden, when it was actually at record high levels.
And, you know, the Washington Post has a motto, “Democracy dies in darkness,” and I think we have to also say that democracy dies in ignorance. And why so many people are so out of touch with reality is a question, I think, that it’s not about disinformation, it’s about belie – the fact that the Trump movement is a cult. It is not a political movement, and whatever they are told in that cult-like atmosphere, they believe, and that cult is probably bigger than we thought.
Francine Lacqua
So, he was able to capture something, right? And again, we have to be careful in breaking it down, but he was able to capture, you know, youth, even with Hispanics and Latinos, Blacks. So, what made him actually get this far?
Bruce Stokes
Well, I mean, with Latinos, I think the issue is, for Latinos, especially young Latinos, they want more economic advantage, and he’s a billionaire supported by other billionaires. They would like to be billionaires themselves, and that they somehow believe that he will open doors for them to have those opportunities. Bear in mind that the unemployment rate among Latino males is exactly what it was three years ago. I mean, not three years ago, six years ago, and so, we can’t really just ascribe this to economic interests. I think it has somewhat to do with the machismo among all young men in America, and men in America in general. I don’t think we can dismiss the fact that we’ve now rejected two women candidates for presidency, when other countries have chosen women leaders. What that says about men in America and to a certain extent, many women in America, I think is something we need to reflect upon.
Francine Lacqua
Bronwen, can you – if you look at the policies, again, he’s been pretty clear. I mean, if you take him at face value, this is more tariffs, you know, fighting for trades, it’s America First, it has implications for climate change, for peace in the Middle East and in Ukraine.
Bronwen Maddox
There’s lots and lots of policies there, but I just want to start where Bruce has taken us, because I was listening to you Bruce and recoiling a bit from this description of the voters as giving in to a ‘cult’. And I get uneasy when we talk about voters being ‘ignorant’ and making a big mistake on this kind of scale. I very much take Leslie’s point as well, we don’t know at this point, but it seems to me what Trump tapped into is even if people did know those numbers in some sense, they didn’t feel it.
The cost of living, whether it’s in Nevada or somewhere else, it felt rotten. This pitch of both America First and looking after the left behind people, people who’ve felt they were left behind, was very powerful. And we could see right through the campaign, that even though Joe Biden has poured these huge sums of money, still continuing, into the economy, and even though the stock market, driven to incredible heights by the huge tech companies, who are the ‘Magnificent Seven’ as the markets call them, they, kind of, the admiration and envy of the rest of the world, but that wasn’t what a lot of Americans were feeling. We could feel that through the campaign.
I think it is a deeply interesting election result, though we don’t really have a feeling for it, you know, all the granularity of it, yet. But it’s clear that this polling saying Americans, many, 70% or whatever, thought the country was going in the wrong direction, that Trump has managed to tap into that unease. And I think it’s bigger than just people didn’t know what level the stock market was at. They’re really – they’re not feeling confident, they’re not feeling rich, they’re not feeling part of the richest country in the world, the generator of these extraordinary tech companies who have changed the whole planet for everyone, forever. So those are the kind of things I’ll be talking about. I haven’t completely ducked your question. Normally, I’m in that seat, so I stop people ducking questions. I completely ducked your question about the policies.
Francine Lacqua
Is that right? I mean, is it – do they buy into his policies, which were basically America First, or was it that they liked the personality, because he said, “I will take care of you, America”?
Bronwen Maddox
I think they bought into – as far as we can tell at the moment, I think they bought into the promise that is behind those policies. Whether they bought into the particular ones, I’m not sure, but it is the feel of that, the America First, the no more wars, the “I want a strong army, but I don’t want it to do anything,” “I want Europe to pay up,” all these things, I think, give a comforting tone to it. Whether many Americans sat down and thought that policy is going to make a difference to my life, I’m not sure, but again, the buckets of words he poured over the question of migration and the – you know, clearly that resonated. But I’m not sure – I mean, I very much agree with Bruce, I’m not sure people were unpicking the particular policies and saying, “That one has tipped my vote.”
Francine Lacqua
So, in terms of policies, and Simon, I’ll get to you in a second in terms of foreign policy, but Leslie, what does the President-elect go for first? Does he go after immigration? Does he, you know, pick a bigger fight with China? Does he negotiate with NATO?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I’m going to answer that. I’m going say one more thing on this first question first, ‘cause it is a huge moment that we’re in, let’s be clear. This is a very significant moment for a lot of people in the audience, virtually, as well as in person. And I just want to emphasise something that’s, sort of, been said and just draw it out again. People don’t vote in a vacuum. They – you know, I remember my ballot. I went upstairs to fill out my ballot. I said to my son, “I’ll be back in five minutes,” and it took me a long time, actually, ‘cause there’s a lot on every ballot. And everything is a choice between alternatives and trade-offs, and so, people aren’t just saying, you know, “Trump.” They’re saying, “Harris and Trump,” or they’re saying, “Trump and Harris.” Everything is a choice and an alternative. So, it is also – you know, the vote, it’s not necessarily – not every vote was a vote for Trump, and not every vote was a vote for Harris. A lot of votes were votes against something, too.
I also think that it’s really important, the comment that you made, Bruce, about – and my sister said this to me, she said, “A lot of” – her hypothesis, “A lot of Indians, Americans, won’t vote for Harris, even though she’s half Indian, because they don’t want a country that is going to let them keep their money and get rich, ‘cause you go to America to do well.” You don’t go to America to be taxed, have your money redistributed and bring, you know, the bottom up or the middle out. You go for the dream, and the dream is if you work hard, and boy, do Indian Americans work hard, the wealthiest demographic in the United States of America. I think it’s twice what white American families earn, but it is the wealthiest, singular most wealthy demographic. So there a lot of – there’s a lot going on there and again, I just think it’s really, really complex, and I wouldn’t see it as a downer. I think that people do – some vote for the inspiration and also, some people like Trump’s version of fun and some people liked Kamala’s version of fun, and we don’t have the same versions of joy and fun in our polity.
On the policy, I – and I’ll be really brief, ‘cause we have to go to Simon, but I’ll say, I think that – immigration and tariffs. And I hope and I pray, if you’re listening, Donald Trump and all the people that are going to go in and support him, and I mean it seriously, please don’t make it nasty, because it – the burden is now on the Republicans to pursue a unity agenda. For the last four years, we’ve said the burden was on the Democrats to listen to those who didn’t win, to bring them into the fold, and I believe that and I believe it on the other side, too. If you win, your burden as an American President is to bring everybody into your fold, to govern for everybody. So, I hope, if the immigration agenda is pursued, it’s a serious, legitimate concern that people on both sides of the aisle have. Let’s pursue it in a serious, humane, rigorous fashion, not one that seeks to dispossess certain people from the possibility of having a good life in the United States legitimately.
So, I think immigration is going to come very quick, and I think the tariffs are going to come very, very quick, and I would have the same plea on the question of tariffs. Let them be rational, listen to the Economists in the room, don’t pursue inflationary policies, be thoughtful about how you do this.
Bronwen Maddox
But the tariffs are inflationary.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yes, they are…
Bronwen Maddox
And…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So, listen to the Economists at Chatham House and maybe don’t do them, or maybe wait. That would be my plea, and listen, listen is the key thing.
Francine Lacqua
Simon, does this change, actually, you know, foreign policy, economic policy, for the US in, you know, a big way?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, the first thing I want to say, actually, is, listening to the conversation, I really think it’s important that Chatham House conversation isn’t the liberal establishment in denial. And there’s a slight tendency in some of our comments to, sort of, find all sorts of reasons why things have happened, but not to, sort of, take responsibility for why things have happened. And I think, you know, whether it’s the Democrat Party in the US, which doesn’t – in my opinion, hasn’t handled this election particularly well, or if it’s the rest of us in Europe. You know, we’ve been through experiences in Europe, in this country and recently, on continental Europe. The world is changing, people’s attitudes are changing, and we need to really think about that and not find reasons to explain why they’re wrong and why we’re not responsible for that. Otherwise, we are really facing really difficult potential issues. So that’s the first thing I want to say.
On the broader, sort of, issue about how we respond to this, I mean, this – look, European government – I’ll talk about Europe. European governments, including the UK, they’ll never say this publicly, but they were hoping that Harris would win, because they would see her continuing the, sort of, pattern of international relationships and policy which they are used to. And, you know, she hasn’t won and they’ve done the obvious and right thing, which is to reach out to Trump and say, “Right, we want to work with you.” And that’s what they should be doing, and we’ve got to, sort of, work really hard to make that happen. But if you look at the agenda, there are four or five really key issues which we’re going to be concerned about. The first is obviously Ukraine and European security and the implications of a Trump administration for Ukraine, but also, for the broader question of how we look after NATO and the security of countries in Eastern Europe. So, that’s the first thing.
Second, tariffs and trade. I mean, Donald Trump has said he’s going to impose at ten to 20% across the board tariff on exports from Europe to the United States. That will encourage retaliation by the European Union, it will have to, unless we can negotiate incredibly carefully to avoid it. That will ratchet up political tension between Europe and America, and we’re going to have to, sort of, deal with that. That will be exacerbated by potentially, even higher US tariffs against China, which the Europeans will be under pressure from Washington to align with. They won’t all want to align with that, and Bronwen has pointed out to me earlier, there are already divisions in Europe about policy towards China, so you can see that feeding through.
I won’t talk about the Middle East, but the other thing that I’m concerned about is in Europe itself, the fact that Donald Trump has won this will give leverage and probably increase support to populist parties across Europe. We have a very delicate political situation in Germany and in France, with very important elections coming next year and the year after, and I think we need to, sort of, think about the feed across there.
So, there are a lot of issues that we’ve got to get to grips with, and the way to get to grips with that is not to say, “This is a catastrophe.” The way to get to grips with it is to try and identify our vulnerabilities and minimise them and to engage in a hard-headed but constructive way with the incoming administration. That’s our challenge.
Francine Lacqua
Simon, what’s the right way for Keir Starmer to actually deal with Trump? So, first of all, what does the UK need from the US, and if Donald Trump expects full loyalty…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Francine Lacqua
…then maybe the policy also with China and other places needs to change in the UK?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah, well, the UK’s in a particularly, sort of, potentially, a tricky position, because the two pillars of our – of the foreign policy – or two of the main pillars of the foreign policy of this government are to have a strong relationship with the United States. That is always a pillar of British foreign policy, and to reset the relationship with the European Union in a more positive direction. And I’ve just described how tension between the European Union and the United States is quite likely to rise on a number of issues, and that will face the United Kingdom, potentially, with some choices, some trade-offs. If Donald Trump comes to us and says, “You can have a trade deal,” or, “I’ll give you a carve-out from tariffs if you do the following things,” how is the British Government going to respond to that? I mean, the Labour Party…
Bronwen Maddox
It’s a problem we would love to have. I’m not sure it’s going to happen.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, it may not happen but, I mean, it’s an example of the sorts of pressures that may – I don’t think we’re going to get the trade deal, no, but I think there will be a lot of – let’s frame it a different way. There will be a lot of people in the British economy who will be pressurising our government to seek for exemptions of tariffs, if they can, if tariffs are imposed on the EU. And Labour will have – there will be no choice about whether we – whether our alignment with the United States is compatible with the reset agenda with the European Union, and that’s going to be something we are going to have to manage quite carefully.
Francine Lacqua
How will Donald Trump deal with Ukraine? I mean, he said, you know, day one, when he gets in office, he’ll find a way to get a peace deal. What does that mean of doing that with Russia?
Bronwen Maddox
I think this is the difficult one. I mean, the UK is already struggling to improve its relations with the EU, for reasons on both sides, but Trump brings only a bit more complexity to that. I think Ukraine is the immediate one. The UK has been under previous recent Prime Ministers and Keir Starmer, absolutely forthright in saying, “We’re behind Ukraine.” And that is not what Trump is saying. He’s not saying, and he was quite clear about this on the campaign trail, he was not saying, “Pull out of NATO.” He is saying very clearly, “European countries must now pay their way. The American taxpayer is fed up, after all these years, of paying for European security.” Europeans could turn around and say, “Look, you get it cheap. We actually expand your American values, you know, and help you,” but that isn’t the argument that plays in the Trump group.
And so, what it means for Ukraine is very possibly, American pressure, meaning “Respond or we’re going to turn off the tap of weapons that are heading your way. We’d like to freeze this conflict where it is, pretty much, with the frontline where it is.” And the question to me is whether Trump gives Ukraine any kind of security guarantee and so, gives Europe any kind of security guarantee. It’s not something, in my view, that Europe can offer Ukraine on its own, without the US, enough support, enough arms to keep Russia at bay now and in the future. With the American guarantee, yes. It would make – it would be more credible a deal if it was with China, as well, I think, because doing a deal with Putin is – I mean, Putin has broken all kinds of deals. Would this one stick? There is no particular reason to think that it would, beyond the point where it suited Russia to start fighting again. But I think there will be pressure to do something about that.
Whether the Trump administration will have the bandwidth to do the rather careful negotiation for that, I’m not sure, but we know it’s very high on their priorities, and I have more confidence in that yielding something that I do on the Middle East.
Francine Lacqua
Leslie, how do you see the…?
Bruce Stokes
Could I inter…?
Francine Lacqua
Yeah, Bruce?
Bruce Stokes
Could I add some data points here? In the most recent, one of the most recent polls, by two-to-one, American voters believe the US should push for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. And half of Republicans believe that we already give too much money to Ukraine. And bear in mind that this Republican Congress we’re going to have, and I think they will gain control of the House as well as the Senate, that Republican Congress will have to pass that aid bill to Ukraine if there’s going to be one, and it took six months for the Congress this year to pass an aid bill. So, I don’t think there’s any aid coming from Congress and the public wants a negotiated settlement. So, Donald Trump’s instincts will be backed by a large portion of the American public.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Can I just add one thing to that?
Francine Lacqua
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
‘Cause it’s very interesting, ‘cause the reason that that package was delayed was because of the border security issue. If Donald Trump and the Republicans have a majority in the Senate and the House, they don’t have to fight against themselves. And as you know – I mean, I’m just, you know, playing devil’s advocate – as you know, there are many Republicans who – in Congress – who support, strongly support NATO, strongly have supported the defence of Ukraine. Wanted, and they told us this off the record, there was a CODEL that visited Chatham House last January, they said, “That bill’s coming through. Don’t you worry, we want that bill, people want that bill.” But we know that that was a battle between Republicans and Democrats which might not exist. So, it’s a very interesting…
Bronwen Maddox
What Bruce is describing is – I think he’s absolutely right in this, a powerful feeling among American voters, that has gone on for a long time. It is Joe Biden who took the US very suddenly out of Afghanistan, something the UK and many others didn’t want. And of all the, kind of, criticism you get, and you hear of the exit in the US, it seems to me there is not much of the decision to leave, it’s about the manner of it. And so, this is – what Bruce is describing, these are big numbers in terms of American opinion, and I think something that those in Europe looking at Ukraine have to remember.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But we also don’t really know what kind of relationship…
Bruce Stokes
Well, I think we have to…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Bruce, I was going to say, we don’t really know what kind of a relationship Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have. I mean, he’s never confirmed, but he’s also never denied, Trump, that he’s spoken to Putin since leaving office. So, where does that leave us on a possible deal on Ukraine?
Bruce Stokes
Right, ‘cause we have no idea what was in that – those conversations. I think that, more broadly, what Bronwen was just saying, I mean, when I was at the Pew Research Center, we periodically would ask people a question that showed that Americans for years now have believed that we do everything and the rest of the world does nothing. That we are the victims of the world. And this then feeds into all sorts of foreign policy questions, and it’s, you know, factually incorrect. Europe gives more money to Ukraine, for example, than we do. But it is, I think, one of those things where Americans are going to be retrenching across the board, not wanting to be involved.
I mean, one of the big themes of the Trump campaign in the end was, “Harris will take us into a Thir – a world war, I won’t, I’ll keep us out of war,” and that means, well, I’ll keep us out of the world. And I do think that this is one of the challenges we’re going to face going forward, for those of us who believe that the US has to be an actor in the world. And, you know, to further complicate matters, four in ten Trump voters support – only four in ten Trump supporters support compromise with allies. Most of them oppose compromise with allies. So, it’s going to be more American unilateralism when we do engage in the world.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
But I was going to – if I can just pick this very briefly. There’s an interesting point on this, because if there to be a deal on Ukraine, which I think is very difficult to achieve, it seems to me a part of that would have to involve the United States guaranteeing the future security of whatever, sort of, liberal – free Ukraine state there is. I mean, and I don’t see how that – how – otherwise how do we do it? I think Ukraine’s membership of NATO seems a very unlikely prospect for me, but the United States is going to have to play a role and have an engagement there, and of course, the European Union is going to have to have a very important role in underpinning the economic future of Ukraine, and presumably the United States will have to work with the EU on that. So, if there isn’t compromise with allies and collaboration with allies, getting these things sorted is going to be incredibly difficult.
Francine Lacqua
So, let’s talk about China, then the Middle East. What does it mean for China economically, but also, you know, does President Xi do – play around with Taiwan less because Donald Trump is in charge?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, I think, first of all, I suspect that President Xi – I haven’t actually seen whether he has messaged and sent a – made a public statement today. I meant to check that, but I think that he will react cautiously to this. He will probably see what signals Trump is sending. I think the vibes from China is that they don’t want to, sort of, antagonise the United States at the moment, but obviously, there is this very clear threat of 60% tariffs on all Chinese exports and 200% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. And if that was to be pursued, and I’m not saying it necessarily will in its full extent, obviously, China is going to have to respond in some way. So, the question is, how would China respond? And there are other ways of responding that aggression in Taiwan.
On Taiwan itself, I mean, I’m not an expert on Taiwan. My inclination is to be quite sceptical that China is going in the near future to attack Taiwan or take, sort of, really aggressive action there. But clearly, it’s a part of the whole dynamic of the relationship between the United States and China, which we have to take seriously.
Francine Lacqua
Bronwen…
Bruce Stokes
I think…
Bronwen Maddox
It would seem, though…
Bruce Stokes
…we need more…
Bronwen Maddox
…if something’s going to – go on, Bruce.
Bruce Stokes
We – no, I just – we know that, from polls, that two thirds of Trump voters support a major tariff on Chinese exports. So, if he doesn’t pursue what he’s said he’s going to do, and I think we have to assume he will, there’s strong support among his voters for that.
Bronwen Maddox
You know, so I think this is the first problem he’s got to face in – of his own making, because the kind of tariffs he’s talking about, say 60%, would, if purchasers of goods react in the way they normally do, produce an enormous fall in Chinese exports to the US, according to some estimates, almost down to zero in some categories. That isn’t going to happen. The US economy would really suffer and so would the living standards of the people who have voted for him. And it begins to have all kinds of effects immediately, on pushing up the dollar, on affecting American exports, on the cost of debt. These all sound very technical things. This is not the heartbeat that has got him to power, but it would give him really quite quickly something that was making his own voters feel pretty miserable, and that’s not what they voted for. So – but it would also not go down well in China.
And I think you’re absolutely right that they are cautious. They may still try, as they have been with the Philippines, to see how far they can push it with Taiwan, but they don’t know what the response would be. And this unique quality of Trump, he’s not just a Politician who’s a wrap around a set of policies, he is immensely unpredictable. On China, he went both ways in his first term. So, you never quite know what will happen, and while that is immensely undermining for allies, it is a, kind of, deterrent to enemies, as well. I’m not saying China is a full-blown enemy, but anyway, to those that are looking to do things that the US might not want.
Francine Lacqua
Maybe a question on the Fed, right, since we talked about economics, and then we go back to the Middle East. I mean, does it change the trajec – does a Trump presidency with tariffs and trade skirmishes change the trajectory of interest rate cuts?
Bronwen Maddox
Very possibly. I’m expecting interest rate cuts but all the kind of pressures – and we saw the dollar going up today – on this news, and all the kind of things we’re talking about, particularly with tariffs coming in, but also the, kind of, lack of concern for debt that his policies represent. All those kind of things are inflationary and would lead you to expect interest rates not being as low as they might be otherwise and again, that will rebound on voters and on America’s wider ability to manoeuvre. You know, of all the things that have changed in our world, we assume that one hasn’t, which is the ability of the US to keep issuing debt and the world to keep buying it. At some point, that gets real. Not yet, but at some point, it might, and it is possible that Trump, inadvertently and in this, kind of, headiness, starts doing some of the things that bring that point sooner.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I actually want to take the liberty to come back to something Simon said at the beginning, ‘cause I think it raises the question for the UK and for Europe. So, clearly, as Chatham House’s independent thinkers, one of our goals and ambitions, as Bronwen has said, is to analyse the policy, to try and understand it and to try to influence policy in the direction we think is productive for, you know – and then you choose for who. But I think that the UK, you know, we, kind of, bracket America’s democracy and the big part of the agenda that really drove many Americans on all sides of the aisles towards the vote that they chose. But for the United Kingdom and for Europe and for the rest of the world, America’s democracy is a foreign policy question. And one of the things that British leaders, European leaders, leaders around the world, are going to have to decide – and it isn’t going to be a blanket decision, but it is going to be something that people weigh up all the time. American leaders weigh this up all the time – about when to comment or try to influence or to intervene. I mean, America does it more than any other power, right? The internal affairs of another state on questions associated with their values and their interests.
And so, it is clear to me that your position is right. It’s why I started by saying, “This is a fact, we have to take is seriously, as well as the voters.” But from a policy perspective, I’m not convinced that this calculation has been seriously thought through. What are the comments? What are the policies? What are the things that will happen domestically within the United States that a British government would like to, would not like to weigh in on? Are there red lines? Is it complete silence? This is a big set of questions…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
And I think…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…in the next four years, this is always a big set of questions.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…it has been thought through because it’s a very recent development…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Well, but we’ve seen this coming…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…but I mean, it is a very interesting question.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
We’ve seen this coming as a possibility.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
But think about the dynamics in politics, for example, in this country. I mean, one of the things that I think you’re going to see now is Nigel Farage is going to have a stronger voice, or feel he has a stronger voice, probably more influence on the Conservative Party. And that will be another dynamic in terms of pressure on the Labour Party, and if the Labour Party starts making comments on US policy, you can – they’re going to have to manage a very complex domestic, political environment is all I’m saying. So, I think you’re right, we can’t ignore things which we don’t agree with, but the reality of the international relationships are that, you know, we’re going to have to – they’re going to have to dose that and think carefully about it.
Francine Lacqua
We’ll just ask about the Midde East. Bronwen, I mean, I think Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the first leaders, if not the first leader, to congratulate Donald Trump.
Bronwen Maddox
There was a sort of trio of Zelenskyy, Starmer and Netanyahu, all getting their congratulations out.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And over…
Bronwen Maddox
And all that, yeah, I felt – anyway, all kinds of – yes, Netanyahu is pleased, though that doesn’t mean that Trump has always liked Netanyahu. He likes Israel, but not always this particular Prime Minister. But it seems to me he could make the situation between Israel and the Palestinians much worse, or he could just make it better. He could make it worse if he sides with not only Netanyahu and those – but those in his cabinet who see this as a moment when they can really get rid of the idea of a state for the Palestinians completely, whether by things like annexing the West Bank or just taking control of Gaza, or just trying to get that idea permanently off the table. I would be surprised, though, if he backed more Israeli action against Iran. I would think that there may be some pressure to, again, take the heat out of this conflict by the time that Trump has been in power for a few months.
The one where he could make it better is by encouraging Israel to explore the deal with Saudi Arabia that still hangs there and is, in my view, a route to greater stability in the region and normalisation of all kinds of relations with Israel and other countries, but I think that looks pretty slender. It looked pretty slender anyway, and I’m not sure either Israel or Trump are inclined that way. I think you’d get these fanciful things of, like, he really, really wants a Peace Prize. Would he be really motivated to try to do some kind of deal there? But the Middle East burns up decades of people’s lives trying to get deals, and I don’t know that Trump can find a quick way to a deal. But he – anyway, there are different visions depending on how he decides to react, and we should get a clue pretty soon.
Francine Lacqua
So please, a show of hands if you have questions, and I also have some great questions here from the audience online. So maybe we start with the gentleman in the front row, yeah.
Bernard Herrmann
Thank you. Bernard Herrmann, a member of Chatham House. One of the determinants of American politics is the ethnic or religious voting blocs. Now, Donald Trump appears to have fundamentally changed that in this election, with two exceptions, namely the Black and Jewish ethnic groupings, which still continue to overwhelmingly support the Democrats regardless of whatever Trump seems to do. My question is why do these two groups within the American political system not support the Republican Party? Why is President Trump incapable of getting them onboard?
Francine Lacqua
Who wants to take that question? It’s – Bruce?
Bronwen Maddox
It’s to you, Bruce. We’re all looking at you, Bruce.
Bruce Stokes
Well, I mean, I have not seen data on the Jewish vote, and we have to bear in mind that’s a very small percentage of the overall electorate, compared to, say, Hispanics or Blacks, or even Asian Americans. And the real inroads that Trump has been able to make and the losses the Democrats have made are among Latinos, and again, it’s a bit inexplicable. They voted for a man who has threatened to deport at least 11 million of them, and there doesn’t seem to be a recognition that the only way you could deport 11 million people would be to round up every brown-skinned person on the street and sort out their nationality when you’re – while they’re in camps. But that doesn’t seem to have scared off the Latinos or – yeah, especially men, who are moving towards the Republican Party.
Blacks have stayed pretty loyal to the Democratic Party. I think there was some ebbing of that support, but small, in this election, and again, it was mostly Black men, not Black women. So, why Republicans don’t – can’t appeal more to that ethnic group, I think, may have to do with perceptions of the Republicans not being supportive of Blacks’ civil rights and voting rights in recent history. But it is ironic, of course, that until the Depression, Blacks were a mainstay of the Republican Party, and it was only under FDR and afterwards that Blacks became strong Democrats.
Francine Lacqua
So, I have a couple – there’s, yeah, a show of hands maybe here at the front, and whilst you give the lady at the front there the microphone, I have a question from Arnab saying, “Does Trump 2.0 mean a serious effort to decouple from China as opposed to derisking? And what do you expect China to do, try to negotiate in good faith or retaliate?” Simon?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, I mean, I think if he pursues the policies that he claims he’s going to pursue, that is a policy of decoupling, as opposed to a policy of derisking. Now, Bronwen rightly points out that there are, sort of, practical considerations which will cut into that, but, you know, that is the direction of travel of the policy. And that isn’t the point I’m making in terms of – I was making earlier, about the potential tension, then, with the European Union. Where although there are differences of opinion in the European Union the overall trend is derisking rather than decoupling, and that is the reality of the international economy, after all. And the cost to us all of decoupling would be phenomenal, but, you know, that is one of the big questions that we’re going to have to explore and think through.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
There’s so many contradictions, as we all know, in most leaders, but certainly, especially, I would argue in Donald Trump’s policies. And one of the big contradictions on China is if you look to who supports Donald Trump, one of his most powerful donors has been Steve Schwarzman, who has a very close relationship with China. Who seeded, created, supports, is deeply passionate about the Schwarzman College in – on Tsinghua campus in Beijing, who I don’t think has any interest in decoupling, let alone anything else from China. Who’s seen himself, I think, as somebody who’s really helped to negotiate and keep that relationship robust.
So, you know, it’s very difficult to, kind of, separate out what becomes policy, what becomes constraint. Donald Trump wants America to do very well economically. Probably nothing else matters as much as knowing that the country is thriving under his watch economically. So, you know, to what extent are some of these, sort of, threats, which would clearly have a backlash in terms of, you know, material outcomes, things that he would walk back from? We just don’t know, and I think it’s very unsettling for a lot of people, because there is a narrative and a rhetoric which doesn’t, probably, match reality.
On the ethnic group question, and you talked about the Hispanics, I think a lot of people just tune that out. It’s been…
Bronwen Maddox
What do you mean?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…some of the rhetoric, which is what explains the vote. It’s not that they’re unaware of their interests, although they might be unaware of some of the details.
Bronwen Maddox
Quite a bit of it…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s not that they just dismiss – they take Donald Trump as, sort of, having a certain kind of rhetoric but actually delivering something that perhaps is not nearly as radical as what he might say on certain platforms. And I think that there is a – there are many Americans who have been willing to, kind of, set aside the rhetoric and think through the alternatives and what they think the policies will be. And that’s a very delicate calculation that we just can’t really estimate.
Bronwen Maddox
I think I – I’m still unwilling to buy into a picture of voters who set loads aside or are ignorant in some way.
Francine Lacqua
Just coming back with…
Bronwen Maddox
I’m distracted by one thing Bruce said on this particular thing, that if Latinos are voters, then they can’t themselves be deported, can they? They’re citizens, and it doesn’t – so, the question is whether or not they vote for more immigration or not of their, perhaps, compatriots. But the actual Latino vote, these are American citizens.
Francine Lacqua
A question – yes?
Bruce Stokes
I mean, we have a history in the United States of each immigration group wanting to pull up the ladder behind them. And I think we can’t dismiss the fact that Latinos who are in the country and are citizens are worried about the impact of illegal immigration, no doubt about that. My point only was most Americans do not have a ready proof of what their citizenship is, and how you round up 11 million people who you think are undocumented without rounding up a lot of people who are citizens, but can’t prove that they are citizens in the immediate moment, I think is part of the police state that might face us if he follows through on that policy.
But on China, I wanted to point out to you, if Xi is smart, he will invite Trump to a massive military march and display in Tiananmen Square, because this is a President who met with the Head of North Korea three times, got nothing out of it except a good photo op, and he was pleased with it. So, I do think that Trump is malip – manipulatable on relationship with China.
Francine Lacqua
Alright, question from the front row.
Dr Christine Nadeau
Dr Christine Nadeau, Consultant with the US military here in the UK. I’m not going to comment on military issues. I want to bring the conversation back around to understanding the election and why Donald Trump won, and I think the issue comes down to the Democrats’ failure to read the room. Number one, that they didn’t understand that Latinos are conservative Christians and they have – many of them, and they will swing for Trump. I think the Democrats made some strategic errors, 2016, when incumbent Vice President did not run. I think that was a policy choice of the Democratic Party.
The second one would be having prime time January 6th hearings. The American electorate has a long memory. They did not forget the public – what they called a kangaroo court going on every night in their living rooms. It kept Trump relevant, kept him up there, and fired up his base. Lastly, this whole decision about, you know, deciding that an older President who’s struggling, the decision to, you know, have him try to run and then replace him with a candidate that was not vetted through a primary. So clearly, I think, the Democrats are not reading the room well. And what I ask the panel is, how should they be reading the room, or what advice would you give as they start retooling for the next election?
Francine Lacqua
I have many questions on that same issue, saying, “What should the Democrats do in the wake of this defeat?” And I even have one question online saying, “Should Kamala Harris run again in 2028?” Who wants to take that?
Bronwen Maddox
I haven’t got that far in thinking that far ahead. That is a good one. I think you put it extremely well of the kind of things they need now to think about. I would start, myself, with – it’s not so much the economy but the feelings about the economy that people have. And I think Kamala Harris didn’t really address those, nor did she address migration, which obviously, was pinned on her in a particular way, maybe a bit unfairly, as she only had responsibility for a, kind of, rather difficult roots policy. But she didn’t address those things, and she tried to fight on other issues, and I think that didn’t work and that appears, as far as we can tell, some hours in, to be the, kind of, heartbeat that moved the dial on this, if that’s not mixing metaphors. Not quite, but anyway, I thought you put it very well.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s a really hard question and it’s a really important one. It is a little bit unknowable. I agree with you that there’s a problem with reading the room. I do think that there is an ongoing perception that the Democrats are powerful and elite and rich and tight amongst each other. For some reason, President Biden – I mean, I think we can imagine the reasons, through knowing him, that he was able to cut through that and turn some of those Republican – those rural areas, towards the Democrats. I mean, the other thing that we’re really going to watch, we saw it on the map, we want to get the full data, is the rural/urban divide. It – we’re right back into it, right? We’re right back into it. There was always a question about suburbs, but that rural/urban divide is so phenomenally entrenched in the United States and a lot of that is, you know, the urban elite, and there is a perception of that. Never mind, you know, what Donald Trump, what his background actually is, he has managed to connect with the rural – with rural Americans across the board, and that is a very powerful thing in our country and in – with our electoral system.
You take those two things together. I grew up in Nebraska, it split its vote. Omaha, Ne2, went for Kamala Harris, and the rest of the state, obviously, it’s red. Imagine if every – if we had an electoral system where the states split like that. We’d get different outcomes in every single election, but we don’t. So that, the – you know, the elite – I mean, I feel it, you know. I’m a very privileged person at this stage of my life. I didn’t grow up that way, and so, I feel – I can see and feel what people feel. You still read things through your – you know, through multiple parts of one’s history, and we feel the elitism of the Democratic Party. It is a fact. I don’t know how the Democrats get around it, but if they don’t get around it, it’s going to be very hard to be re-elected.
Bronwen Maddox
Some of the figures from northern Pennsylvania…
Bruce Stokes
Can I just jump in here one second?
Bronwen Maddox
…are really striking, kind of, it – some of the numbers from northern Pennsylvania, I was saying, Bruce, are really striking. These rural, white, working-class districts are overwhelmingly for Trump.
Bruce Stokes
Right.
Francine Lacqua
Bruce?
Bruce Stokes
Well, I come from Butler, Pennsylvania, and basically, they have voted for Trump by two-to-one three times in a row, and – but I wanted to say, I mean, yes, I think Democrats have to become – they have to read the room better. But I think there’s a broader problem here, is that America has done a very poor job, and I think Europe has, too, as well, in helping our populations in this transition to the – a new world, the kind of society that has evolved. We in America certainly don’t have a social safety net, as you do in Europe. We have not been sensitive to, because we don’t know how to handle the fact that many men in America are uneasy with the growing role of women in the society. They are very uneasy with the growing diversity of American society. White people in general are losing, not only demographically, but they feel they’re losing their position in society, both economically and politically and socially. And there’s all these other social changes that have taken place. You know, gay people are out of the closet. There’s this – the Republicans hammered this transgender issue, which is, you know, it was inconceivable, I think, as a political issue, but they hammered it.
And I think that the Democrats need to figure out how to better help people with those changes in their lives. But the society in general has to, because what Donald Trump promised people was, well, we’ll return to some other era where none of this was happening. And I think that is obviously not in the cards, and – but it will pose a problem for the society going forward, no matter what.
Francine Lacqua
Leslie, and then we have a question.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
In one sentence, and then you take that feeling of being on the back foot that many white Americans feel, certainly working class, and then you add it to the fact that actually, what is it, Bruce? 70% of the American electorate is white and around…
Bruce Stokes
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…80 to 85% of the electorate in the, you know, the three main swing states that we talk about, the Rust Belt, are white.
Bruce Stokes
That’s right.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So very empowered electorally and feeling very disempowered. That is a very difficult combination.
Bruce Stokes
…point, very good point.
Francine Lacqua
We only have six/seven minutes, so I’m going to take two questions at a time. Yeah, go ahead, and then…
Member
Well, thank you very much, [inaudible – 53:05] Consulting Fellow at Chatham House. So, it seems that identity is not only an important factor in unifying the US, but also, it’s an important factor in defining how passionately we discuss the US elections. The question is, for Europe the number one challenge still remains Russia. For Trump it is the China, and recently the NATO has become more European and more global at the same time. Global meaning that now it’s focused more and more on China, as well. Do you see a scenario in which the Trump focus with – on China, with the Europeans’ focus on Russia, can be reconciled within the framework of NATO?
Francine Lacqua
Thank you so much, and then a second question there, and then I’ll go all the way at the back. So, we’ll answer two at a time and I’ll try to get as many as a I can.
Michel Remmes
Michel Remmes, member of Chatham House. How important will it be what the composition of the team will be? Mike Pompeo was visiting RUSI a few months ago, here, and if we listen to what he said, massively pro-Ukraine, massively anti-Iran, acting against the Houthis and – but acting against Iran to make them stop, and all these things. The outcomes will be very different then if Elbridge Colby, who you had here, would be in a very key position. How important is it going to be and who do you expect to get in these positions?
Francine Lacqua
Great, so two great questions. Bruce, do you want to start, or Leslie, with how he – how Donald Trump builds his team, and then a question on security, and then we’ll move it along? Bruce?
Bruce Stokes
Oh, okay. Look, I think the jockeying for positions will have already begun before the election. It’s certainly in full blast, now. Look, I think the single most important lesson that Donald Trump learned from his first administration is he will not surround himself with adults, and the kinds of people who had those key positions as Secretary of Defence, Chief-of-Staff, even Secretary of State, are not the kind of people that are likely to end up with those jobs this – in the second administration. And that means, in part, we won’t know who they’re going to be and second, that they will be yes men or women, and I think that’s what we have to be worried about.
Francine Lacqua
Bronwen, do you want to – yeah?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s okay. I was just going to add to that quickly, to kind of qualify it, maybe to translate it for our audience. Because what we do know – I mean, to say ‘not adults’ is, it’s harder for people to understand, kind of, where you’re coming from. In Project 2025, which we know the Trump administration has distanced itself from, but was clearly very much a part of, it is said, it is not a made up fact, they’re very explicit that there will be a loyalty test. That they’re – this is part of the deep feeling from the start of the Trump – first Trump administration was that the – and we had Paul Dans, who’s chair of Project 2025 explain this to us in a session here at Chatham House, when he said, “There is a liberal establishment state that – the federal bureaucracy, that does not – that should be serving the agenda of the elected President and doesn’t, and hasn’t for years and this is a problem for the President. If Donald Trump becomes President we will have, you know, a set of tests that you have to go through so that there’s a – you know.”
And you can read it how you want to read it, okay? But it’s clearly set out very clearly in Project 2025 as a set of loyalty tests. So, you know, if you go back to the first Trump administration, Jim Mattis we always talk about, and Mark Esper, there’s all sorts of people who had been in other Republican administrations, who I don’t think would have even agreed to take such a test. So, there is a concern now as to what that means, and if you’re coming at it from the point of view of what is perceived by some people to be a very legitimate critique of the American bureaucracy, then, you know, this is the way forward.
But the only other thing I would say on Pompeo is he’s deeply ideological about China, very different from Donald Trump, who I think is much more pragmatic. And when Pompeo was in position, America’s policy began to go from being about China to being about the Chinese Communist Party. He was very clear on this and the push – and it separated out from Donald Trump – and the push was, you know, moving in the direction of things that people outside of America get very nervous about because they start to sound like a policy that, in effect, supports regime change. That is not where Trump has bent, and so I – you know, who knows? I’m sure Pompeo will wind up somewhere, I have no idea, but it will be something…
Francine Lacqua
Quickly on security and then I have two more questions.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I mean, on the oth – look, I mean, my view is that actually the biggest strategic challenge for Europe is not Russia, it’s China, and it’s the United States’ relationship with China, and it’s Europe’s relationship with the United States and China in that triangle, and that is very important. However, the most immediate and pressing security issue we face is Russia, of course. We have an aggressive Russia, and it is on the borders of Europe and therefore, it’s very immediate. Europe does need to take more responsibility for that. I think Trump has a fair point, frankly. You know, if we expect to be under a nuclear – well, a nuclear and a broader security guarantee with the United States, then, you know, we’ve got to take more responsibility for it, so fair enough. But also, it’s in the interest of the United States, in my view, to understand that it too has an interest in that. And that’s where I’m not sure that Trump does actually identify with Europe in that position.
But my own personal view is that we mustn’t allow the sense that the major industrialised democracies of the West have divergent interests to take hold. We have to – I believe we have to fight that, and it’s the responsibility of the Europeans to engage effectively on that agenda.
Francine Lacqua
I have time for two more questions. I’m sorry – and then, someone’s suggesting that you do another panel on the implications for law and democracy next time. So, the gentleman right there at the end.
Member
Hi, so thank you very much. So, it was nice to see Nancy Pelosi here a few weeks ago. She was speaking about, sort of, a Republican clique in the House of Representatives, and you know, the outcome of a potential Republican sweep at the election. So, I was just interested to see, you know, your remarks, potentially, on Russia and the possibility of a thawing of relationship with Russia under a Trump presidency over the next few years, essentially.
Francine Lacqua
Thank you so much, and then there’s a gentleman there, the third from the right here, on this side actually, ‘cause I haven’t focussed so much on the middle there, and he’s been very patiently – yeah.
Robert Moikowa
Yeah, thank you very much. I’m Robert Moikowa, a Visiting Fellow from Sierra Leone. Allow me to bring in the Global South, because my concern is what the Trump presidency means for Africa or the Global South in general, especially against the background of this scandal of January 6th. Thank you.
Francine Lacqua
Okay, thank you very much. So, maybe a comment from – I mean, Bruce, do you want to kick us off and then, I’ll just give one or two minutes each to wrap it up?
Bruce Stokes
Well, I mean, I think there will be a rapprochement with Russia, because Donald Trump has said he would end the War in Ukraine on day one, if not before the inauguration. Now, that may not happen, but I think that – and I guess I would disagree with the earlier comment that you can’t have a Ukraine deal without a security assurance by the United States. I’m not so sure that Donald Trump believes that.
And as for the Global South, I mean, there have been a number of initiatives by the Biden administration to try to develop projects in the Global South, to begin to counter China’s influence in the Global South, and it’s not at all clear that the Trump administration would pursue those. There certainly – there’s been no discussion off that in the election. But we should bear in mind that, for example, the free trade agreement the US has with African countries is up for renewal under the Trump administration. Will that happen? We don’t know.
Francine Lacqua
Right, thank you. Bronwen?
Bronwen Maddox
Sure. On just one element of the Global South, I think the relationship with India may well develop considerably under Trump. They’ve got quite a lot in common, a lot strategically. COP coming up and a lot of Global South countries have wanted some explicit promises on climate finance. That less likely over the long year to the big Brazil summit, COP30. A lot of that will be dominated by China.
And we never answered your online question, “Should Kamala Harris run again?” In my view, in my book, no.
Francine Lacqua
That’s also another panel. Simon, do you want to go next and then…?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, just on the Global South point, I mean, it’s very interesting. I hadn’t really thought about it, but – in detail yet, but I mean, one of the reasons that it seems that the West is losing traction with the Global South has been this perceived inconsistency between our policy on Ukraine and our policy towards the Palestinians. And I think the Biden administration got – took quite a hit on that. Actually, Donald Trump cares about the Palestinian issue much less, I think, than the Biden administration, probably, so I’m not quite sure how that will play through. On the other hand, he’s quite a, sort of, imposing and dynamic figure, and I could imagine that he might have some, sort of, different type of traction internationally with different parts of the world, which you need to think through, and I haven’t yet addressed that issue in detail.
Francine Lacqua
Finally…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s a very important question. The US takes over the leadership of the G20 after – in 2026, so the second year of the administration, after four successive years of leadership by the Global South off the G20. That’s something that, I think, is an opportunity. I am concerned, but it’s, you know – the other reason – the other thing that the US has fallen behind on is just investments, foreign aid, investments in infrastructure. China’s done far better. It hasn’t been perfect by a long stretch, but the US knows it’s behind. It’s tried under Biden, hasn’t gotten very far. The CODEL that came here last January said, “We haven’t a Global South strategy.” That was said by a Republican. On January 6th, it’s a very important point, and I think it’s in that bucket of the rhetoric and some of the things that the Former President, soon to be future President, has said are very diminishing of people in the Global South, of leaders in the Global South. It is a problem.
We took a team to Brazil just recently, in September, and Brazil’s very worried about a Trump – they made it very clear, on multiple occasions, they are very worried – they were very worried about the possibility of a Trump presidency because they felt that it would unsettle their own democracy. They had their own January 6th, and so there are real concerns. And I do think it’s a good question to ask, you know, because a big part of America’s leadership, for better, for worse, for hypocrisy, for not, has been setting a standard that it always falls short of when it comes to democracy and the rule of law at home. Trying to articulate these values abroad, always falling short, but nonetheless, as somebody once said to me, “We like the hypocrisy. Can you go back with hypocrisy?” That was said during the global war on terror. Not clear where we land.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
One other point I just wanted to make on the Global South, which I meant to raise. He has pledged to withdraw the United States again from the Paris Agreement on climate change. We haven’t discussed that. If he does that, that’s quite a big statement of withdrawal from multilateralism, which should be organised in the interests of the Global South.
Bronwen Maddox
So, confounding these particular requests on climate finance.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Francine Lacqua
We need an extra panel, and extra – I mean, there are about 50 questions we haven’t even answered online.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So, yeah, could we…?
Francine Lacqua
And so many hands up. So, thank you all for joining us. Thank you so much for a spirited conversation, and I’m sure you’ll have many more of these. Thank you.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Thank you.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you.
Bruce Stokes
Thank you, all.
