WITH While the Western mainstream media is fixated on the US presidential election, it is overlooking profound changes in the unprecedented turmoil shaking the major players in geopolitics and the US-dominated world order.

The Group of Seven (G7) forum of advanced economies, which has coordinated world politics for 50 years and acted as a stooge for American economic and foreign policy interests and agendas, is in a desolate state.

Italy has a newly elected president from the far-right camp, and the wave of nationalist conservatism, anti-incumbency and anti-immigration sentiment, and electoral volatility have sent aftershocks across the continent.

Today, in France and Germany, the leading European nations, the power of the established parties has not only been challenged but even significantly loosened.

For the next three years, Emmanuel Macron will be a virtually powerless president with limited powers in domestic and foreign policy.

A similar fate awaits Olaf Scholz. Although he is not facing a leadership challenge in the near future, Scholz is at the head of a coalition government that has moved even further to the right and become more fragmented in the recent European elections.

Meanwhile, in Japan, Prime Minister Kishida Fumio has resigned from his leadership position in the government and his party.

Faced with a weakening economy, numerous political and financial scandals, and an equally unpopular government and opposition parties, Japan is stuck in an impasse for the foreseeable future as its weak, non-factional leadership lacks strong majority support.

Japan is leaderless domestically and has become increasingly dependent on the United States in foreign policy. This is reflected in the move away from a more pacifist foreign policy towards one in which the country has announced record spending on the military by 2024 and is expected to increase it even further by 2027.

In addition to moving closer to the policies of the United States and its allies in Asia aimed at containing and combating China, the Japanese government is also currently easing export restrictions on the supply of lethal weapons and ammunition to other countries.

What happens after November

Regardless of whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris wins the presidential election, he or she must – as with the G7 malaise – give priority to the domestic problems that divide the country and that their respective parties and political leaderships have been unable to deal with.

Better jobs, inflation, immigration, race, abortion, health care, the Supreme Court and judiciary, crime and gun control – the mix and interplay of socio-cultural, economic and political homegrown problems and concerns have become mainstream.

They have also become increasingly toxic and intractable. Whoever wins, however large the margin, and whatever the feel-good cheerleaders in the media and think tanks have to say in the aftermath, American society will remain polarized and divided after the election, with Republican and Democratic politicians and voters firmly and uncompromisingly on opposite sides of key domestic issues.

Meanwhile, polls of Americans’ trust in government, dating back to 1958, are at or near record lows. In April, an overwhelming 22 percent of Americans said they trusted the government in Washington to do the right thing “almost always” (2 percent) or “most of the time” (21 percent).

Last year, 16% said they trusted the government almost all or most of the time, one of the lowest figures in nearly seventy years of opinion polls.

It is also telling that there is little trust in most major U.S. institutions. Whether it is the presidency, Congress, the judiciary, the health care system, the church and religion, banks, police, public schools, newspapers and television news, etc., the American public’s trust in the institutions that are the hallmark of their way of life has sunk to levels similar to those of the “failed” states that U.S. admirers like to refer to when criticizing countries.

If US leadership is unable to inspire trust in its institutions and instill confidence in its own people, what can we expect from it to inspire and instill confidence in its allies and the rest of the world?

In the meantime, one should not be under the illusion that the United States – thanks to the enormous resources, reach and dominance of its military, industrial, commercial, media and academic complex (MICMA) and the support of its deputies in allied countries – will continue to be the main instigator and perpetrator of wars, military conquests, gunboat politics, unequal treaties, economic exploitation, sanctions and other dirty tricks.

We can assume that it will be business as usual for the American MICMA and its junior members, which now include Japan, especially when it comes to arms sales. Unfortunately, other countries are now joining the lucrative arms market.

Pay, otherwise

However, for members of the G7 and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), there will be an important difference resulting from the outcome of the US presidential election.

Whoever wins will insist that member countries pay significantly more money in light of the dramatic US national debt, which recently hit a record high of US$34 trillion (RMB160.48 trillion), and the huge annual deficit of over US$1.5 trillion so far for 2024.

According to a report by Le Monde, “Why did Donald Trump accuse NATO members of not paying?” Trump stated, “I said, ‘You haven’t paid, you’re in default. No, I’m not going to protect you. In fact, I would encourage (the Russians) to do whatever they want.'”

The British Guardian quoted him as saying: He (Trump) reported a conversation with an unnamed NATO member in which he said: “You haven’t paid? You’re in arrears? No, I wouldn’t protect you. In fact, I would encourage you to do whatever you want. You have to pay. You have to pay your bills.”

Trump’s running mate JD Vance was equally blunt, declaring: “No more free riding for countries that betray the generosity of American taxpayers.”

He also warned: “We will only send our children to war if it is absolutely necessary.”

It is more than likely that if Harris’s administration wins the election, it will take the same position as Trump and demand that NATO and other US allies pay significantly more to secure the “privilege” of American protection.

Citizens of the G7 and NATO may take comfort in the fact that the US claim that they will no longer be NATO’s main paymaster may have a positive counter-effect on their foreign policy loyalty and dependence on the US.

This could even represent a first step towards ending the war in Ukraine and helping to bring real peace and security to the continent.

Asia-Pacific leaders should also be aware of this development. What G7 and NATO members will have to deal with from fiscal year 2025 onwards will be reflected in the defence budgets of Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, where some of the more than 750 US military bases worldwide are located.

They will discover – as Australians are belatedly discovering with Aukus – that the price they will have to pay for serving as deputy sheriffs of the United States will be exorbitant for them and for the generation to come, and that does not even include the consequences of participating in a war over which they have no control and in which there will be no winners.

Lim Teck Ghee’s “Another Take” aims to demystify social orthodoxy. Comments: [email protected]