With the U.S. presidential one day away, former American Ambassador Thomas Miller cautions that Europe could face significant changes in American foreign policy, depending on who wins the White House.
“A lot is at stake,” Miller told To Vima, highlighting the stark differences between the candidates’ global perspectives.
Miller outlined how a new administration might affect U.S. positions on critical issues like Ukraine, the Middle East, and China.
While heexpects Greek-American relations to remain steady regardless of the election’s outcome, Miller emphasized that shifting U.S. priorities could redefine America’s role on the world stage and influence European stability and interests.
Ambassador Miller, as the world focuses on the U.S. presidential election, what’s at stake, and should Europeans be concerned about the outcome?
Well, I think a lots at stake, and I would like to say something optimistic, but I think the Europeans should worry, because you have got two very, very different candidates with different outlooks and perspectives on the world.
How might this election impact Greek-American relations, depending on the result?
I think Greek -American relations are excellent. They have been excellent for a long time. I don’t think the outcome will have a big impact on Greek-American relations. The Greeks, under Prime Minister Misotakis, have a very solid foreign policy. They have an excellent diplomatic corp. The ambassador here is one of their best. And so, I don’t think it will have a big impact on U.S.-Greek relations. It’s solid and it’s good.
In terms of American foreign policy, what key differences could we expect between a Harris administration and a Trump administration?
I would say three things, Ukraine, the Middle East, and China, and each of those is massive. Trump has talked about trying to make a deal with Ukraine and Russia, and it doesn’t sound good to me that it would go well for Ukraine, whereas if Harris gets in, I think we’ll continue our support.
The Middle East is a mess. Is a real mess, not because of the U.S. or not because of the Europeans, it’s because of the actors in the Middle East, and again, this takes hard day-by-day diplomacy to work the problems of the Middle East.
And China is the most complicated of all. The Chinese basically don’t buy into the idea that the West should write the rules of the world, and they want to have a different perspective, and I think both candidates actually agree more on China, particularly Chinese trade, and the problems we have with Chinese trade violations, intellectual property rights, and other stuff.
So, I don’t think that would be a big difference between the two candidates, but on the first two there would be a major, major difference.
