This article explores the perspectives of global South experts on how the upcoming US presidential election and government transition will impact countries in the global South.

These views do not believe that the United States' policy towards the global South will undergo significant changes.

At the same time, the new U.S. administration has the opportunity to correct Washington's past mistakes and overcome ignorance of the global South's autonomy and its efforts to improve the international order and strengthen its own initiatives.

The US presidential election is expected to have a significant impact on the international community. The foreign policy outline of Vice President Kamala Harris remains unclear; if former President Donald Trump is elected, foreign policy experts anticipate the US will withdraw from global governance and adopt a more nationalistic approach.

Given the overall continuity of U.S. foreign policy over the past few decades, scholars from the Southern Hemisphere believe that regardless of who is elected, the interactions between the United States and Southern Hemisphere countries will not undergo significant changes. However, they view the U.S. election as a contest between support for multilateralism and opposition to multilateralism.

Although the United States may continue to focus its efforts on countering China and fostering a worldview of "West versus East," many Southern countries perceive the division of the world as a split between the "Global North and Global South."

This perspective is built on long-standing and deeply entrenched global inequalities and injustices, which continue to create divisions between Western powers and the majority of countries.

Many people in the Global South believe that there is little substantive difference between Trump and President Biden in terms of supporting their issues, and they perceive the actions of both administrations as mostly rhetorical and symbolic.

In this context, many political and intellectual leaders from the Global South no longer rely on the United States to reform global governance. Instead, they seek new partnerships and alternative multilateral forums to help advance their interests and ensure international development and climate financing.

Contrary to the prevailing Western view, these actors seek to advance the universality of international norms, in sharp contrast to the U.S.-led "rules-based order." A minority imposes this order on the majority, often disregarding these rules when their actions apply.

This dynamic rooted in colonial history underscores the necessity of establishing a fair system that truly embodies the perspectives and aspirations of the global South.

The United States must alter its foreign policy in the Middle East, or it will once again lose the Global South.

For most Southern countries, American foreign policy and its shaping of the modern international order are characterized by double standards and continuity. Regardless of who is the president, the West ensures its dominance in any way.

The core of this dominance is the "rules-based order" as espoused by the American establishment, which is in reality an amorphous "tacit understanding" that most benefits the West and is an illusion, whatever it means at any given time for the United States and its followers to want it to mean.

The U.S.-based rule-order stands in sharp contrast to an alternative order grounded in international law and the UN Charter. For decades, countries in the Global South have been striving to make this alternative order more universal and equitable.

Global South countries are well aware of the inherent double standards and opaque criteria in the rules-based order espoused by the United States.

For instance, it notes how the United States easily invokes international law to illegitimize Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and then deliberately undermines or attacks the same law when defending Israel's various invasions, occupations, and war crimes.

As a senior G7 diplomat told the UK, Western support for Israel's attacks on Gaza means we have completely failed in the Global South... All the work we have done with the Global South (on the Ukraine issue) has been in vain...

Forget the rules, forget the order of the world. They will never listen to us again.

From the perspective of the Middle East, the United States continues to dominate the international system through a rules-based order, relying for a long time on bipartisan, unquestioning support for Israel, regardless of the damage it causes to the U.S. position and international law, as well as control over Gulf oil resources.

Protecting Israel and oil resources traditionally has led American leaders to actively support and arm governments in the region, and to continuously wage "perpetual wars" to enforce American hegemony and ensure massive profits for American companies.

Previous U.S. governments have assisted in suppressing the public sentiments and movements in the region, and have attacked international law provisions and institutions when they impede the so-called interests of the United States.

From this historical and bipartisan context, it is not difficult to understand why the Biden administration seamlessly shifted from human rights moral rhetoric to appeasement and arms sales to Arab governments, much like the Trump administration.

This administration has shifted from calling for Middle East peace to actively supporting Israel's horrific war on Gaza, halting funding to UN agencies that support desperate Palestinian refugees (as did the Trump administration), and attacking landmark cases against Israel at the International Court and threatening the International Criminal Court (as did the Trump administration).

Therefore, many Arab countries now view the United States as the greatest threat to stability and security, with nearly % of Arab nations disapproving of Biden's steadfast defense and provision of weapons to the most right-wing and extreme government in Israeli history during its massive violent actions in Gaza.

In this sense, Trump's "America First" rhetoric against multilateralism and Biden's (along with Vice President Kamala Harris) ostensibly supportive "America is back" slogan do not appear significantly different in the Middle East and the Global South.

When international law and institutions (and their representatives) conflict with what are deemed to be American interests, both the Republican and Democratic parties have attacked them.

There is no reason to believe that the presidential election will fundamentally alter this approach or challenge the long-term continuity of U.S. policy, especially if Trump wins.

Harris might at least adjust America's rhetoric or even its brinkmanship policies, as she understands that Biden's extreme pro-Israel stance is one of the reasons he is expected to lose to Trump, given that Biden's Gaza policy is highly unpopular among young domestic voters.

Can Harris's victory somehow better align the mercurial US-based rule-based order with the more universal order based on international law advocated by the Global South? Achieving this would require the US to fundamentally change its Middle East policy.

How does the US election result affect Africa?

The call from Africa for reform of global major governance institutions has reached a crescendo in recent years, decades after it first began. Last year, the African Union joined the G20 as a permanent member, and South Africa will take over the chairmanship of the forum later this year.

African countries have stepped up demands for their group to secure at least two permanent seats with veto power on the United Nations Security Council, as well as five non-permanent seats.

Against the backdrop of increasing debt burdens, rapidly escalating climate emergencies, and stalled progress towards achieving sustainable development goals, diverse voices across the African continent are calling for steps to reform the global financial architecture.

Biden pledged support for efforts to reform the United Nations and other international organizations, but this commitment has not been fulfilled. However, the next U.S. administration can and should support this effort.

Although conventional wisdom in certain circles suggests that the frontrunners in the 2024 US presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, represent starkly different views on multilateralism, this underestimates the bipartisan commitment in Washington to leveraging international institutions to advance US geopolitical interests.

For many countries and people in the Global South, the difference between Democratic and Republican administrations is clearly zero.

Nevertheless, the voices of Africa: governments, private sector organizations, civil society groups, and others; need to continue building connections with their counterparts in the majority of global countries to achieve valuable reforms in the global governance order.

The recommendations made by the High-Level Task Force on the Global Financial Architecture in the "Sarajevo Declaration" have received support from certain European circles and can be further developed on this basis.

As the United States seeks to convince African nations of its trustworthiness as an international partner, supporting the current and long-term development aspirations of the African continent would be a practical way to gain enduring support beyond the presidential term.

Trading with trust

A "perfect storm" and a "series of environmental, economic, and social crises" could devastate the strongest militaries and economies, and wipe out decades of progress in less developed countries.

In this crisis that is a matter of life and death, "countries will be tempted to turn inward impulsively," and the world must confront "minimalist multilateralism: what is the lowest common denominator of converging interests?"

In [Year] [Month], amidst the ravaging pandemic, the livelihood of the people, and the national economy, the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted into war. The Ukraine defense led by the United States and NATO demanded condemnation and sanctions against Russia with a stance of "either support us or oppose us," further dividing the world.

India pursues an independent foreign policy, and despite the warming relationship with the United States during both Republican and Democratic administrations, India calls for an end to hostilities, advocating for non-alignment.

Many countries have adopted similar stances, reflecting their growing aversion to being forced into chaos and their focus on their own priorities.

Today, in the year , the world is indeed at a minimum of multilateralism. At least countries (approximately billion voters) will hold elections this year.

Many election results have been surprising; the current focus is on the controversial U.S. presidential election in November. The world is speculating on how party ideologies will influence U.S. foreign policy and whether domestic needs will overshadow diplomatic wisdom.

At the same time, countries are establishing unlikely but strategically significant small multilateral organizations, creating new trade and monetary connections, and adopting new technologies and media strategies.

New leaders are emerging: China, with its diverse policies; Russia, isolated by the West; India, with its diplomatic orientation, led the way in achieving a broad and consistent leader declaration in 2023, involving the United States, the European Union, Russia, and China; and many regional powers.

Multilateralism after World War II largely depended on the economic reliance of various countries on the United States; at that time, the goals of individual countries aligned with global goals: financial stability, free trade, and global development... These conditions no longer seem to apply.

There is an urgent global need to reform the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) established in 1944 and their governance systems to serve the modern multipolar world transparently and equitably.

Therefore, the United States should redefine its leadership role in today's context: yesterday's conflicts need to give way to tomorrow's collaborative efforts.

Moreover, Washington should engage with allies and partners with trust and respect. It should view the world outside the United States as a multilateral tapestry that needs to be rewoven, with new collaborators, new threads, and an entirely new design.