Zimpapers Logo

Gibson Nyikadzino

Zimpapers Politics Hub

Proposals by all countries to put an end to all forms of war around the world are welcome.

It however, seems the broader progressive and humane Global South world is now experiencing a ‘Palestinian-fatigue’.

There now appears, only in existence, messages of solidarity without the mass mobilisation of people to speak in unison against the ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza among many other key actions.

When it comes to Palestine, many believe Global South countries should put similar efforts as they did with the Russian and Ukraine conflict.

In June last year, six African leaders went to Moscow and Kyiv to have a first-end better understanding of the conflict and try to resolve it.

It seems nothing of the same measure has been done for Palestinians.

Could it be that people are being desensitised by constant media messages on the same issue?

The loud silence of Global South countries against a rising death toll of Palestinians in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank acts as a dangerous precedent, considering that most African countries got their independence from circumstances similar to what Palestinians are experiencing.

What makes the scenario a major challenge for Palestinians is that there is an interesting political discourse that is obtaining in the US over who is better between two leading November presidential candidates, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat, Kamala Harris.

Surprisingly, it appears between the duo, no one has a peace plan for the Palestine situation.

Following the first Trump-Harris presidential debate, what was outstanding is that of the pair, no one has a fleshed out foreign policy vision that supports their candidacies.

Regarding the Israeli-Hamas war, the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Iran’s regional dominance, a rising China, the BRICS+ group and the geopolitical changes in the Eurasia region, Trump and Harris have no definitive idea over the matters.

The world is watching the US presidential election closely as it will have significant implications for global governance.

 Views on Gaza

With less than two months to go to the US presidential election, the candidates’ opposing worldviews, objectives, and priorities speak volumes about what the world will countenance when it comes to Gaza.

A qualitative assessment of their views gives a conclusion that they have no power to stop the Israel-Hamas war, unless the Israeli lobby decides to.

Harris maintained that when it comes to the war, “Israel has a right to defend itself and how it does that matters”. On the right of Palestinians to exist, she said: “Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed, children and mothers. What we know is that this war must end.” In the end she proposed a “two-state solution”, an idea that successive US administrations have parroted without making any headways.

As for Trump, he only said “If I were president, it would have never started. If I were president, Russia would have never ever attacked Ukraine and there was no threat of it either by the way”.

Both candidates never said much about plans to end the war.

Nothing will change

Listening to both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, it is clear that from their perspectives, nothing is going to change on Gaza and Ukraine. Both candidates are likely going to maintain the status quo. They are both going to do towards Gaza and Ukraine what US President Joe Biden has done in his four years in the White House. Trump is not even a different matter.

According to Trump, the United States’ approach to Ukraine should change significantly. On one hand, Trump is significantly different from Harris in that he is talking about fundamentally altering US policy in relation to Ukraine, and not Gaza.

It is also critical to recognise that Trump is not discussing a shift in American policy towards China or the Middle East, rather, he is discussing Israel specifically.

Trump and Harris will ultimately keep things as they are in Gaza and, for example, Ukraine.

For the latter, losing on the battlefield would be the one thing that could alter the trajectory of the Ukrainian war and America’s relations with Ukraine.

In the event that Ukraine loses and Israel fails to defeat Hamas, both candidates are not going to be able to negotiate any settlements with Russia or the Hamas leaders, mostly because of the expectations that they would find difficult to meet.

It should be recalled that in his June 14 speech, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin made it quite evident that two requirements must be satisfied before he will even consider a truce and begin talks with the West and Ukraine.

One prerequisite is that the four territories in the Donbass region that Russia is administering, including Crimea, must be legally acknowledged by the West and Ukraine as permanent Russian territories.

Furthermore, the West also needs to acknowledge that Ukraine is not eligible to join NATO.

This means the West must announce that they would recognise Ukraine as a neutral nation. It therefore gives a conclusion that before President Putin even agrees to talk, either Trump or Harris needs to accept these two requirements.

In his June 27 debate with President Biden, Trump responded negatively when asked directly if he would accept those two requirements. Essentially, there will not be any talks or settlement if Trump refuses to comply with those two requirements. The same goes to Harris

Given the levels of Russophobia in the US, it is difficult to envisage that President Putin could get away with having the two prerequisites accepted.

In the same way, both Trump and Harris, if they are committed to peace, must be prepared to concede that Ukraine is never allowed to join NATO.

Donald Trump believes he can do that. As a matter of fact, he has on record said that he will solve the Ukraine issue if he is elected in November before he moves into the White House on January 20 next year.

It is difficult to believe that Trump will be able to shut down the Ukraine war because he has no power to do so.

When one looks at the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine conflicts, it would be too much to believe that either Trump or Harris is going to bring to closure these crises.

Their policy pronouncements are not stimulating any change, both candidates are cut from the same cloth.

As the November election nears, the Harris-Trump debate emphasised that immigration, reproductive rights, and the economy remain the three main themes guiding both camps. On the foreign policy front, it is a straitjacket affair.

The establishment will direct how they will implement and respond to foreign policy calls.

It is on the national policy front that they have differences. Although her rhetoric has since been criticised for lacking specifics, Harris stressed her “opportunity economy” agenda, which aims to raise the American middle class.

Trump on the other hand, is determined to continue in the path of protectionist measures that focus on economic nationalism, which includes tariffs meant to penalise China.