The outcome of the US presidential election is of profound importance not only for the nation but for the broader global community. As Martin Griffiths, a seasoned conflict mediator and former UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, succinctly puts it, the united states wields unparalleled influence in shaping the direction of global politics—not just through its military and economic power, but also through its potential to lead with moral authority on the world stage. Given the current turmoil across multiple regions, including the Middle east, the need for principled leadership has never been greater.

Griffiths believes that a victory for Vice President Kamala harris could bring a more responsible and consistent approach to US foreign policy. In stark contrast, he warns that another term for former President donald trump, marked by isolationism and unilateralism, would only deepen global instability. The question then arises: can President Joe Biden meet the expectations for humanitarian leadership that Griffiths and other experts believe the world demands?

Biden's Hesitation and the Middle east Crisis

Biden and harris have data-faced significant pressure in their response to the escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza following the october 7th attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas. While they have consistently condemned the attack and called for increased aid to the region, critics argue that their actions have often fallen short of what is necessary to alleviate the suffering in Gaza and Lebanon. The Biden administration’s calls for more aid to flow into Gaza have made some impact, but the scale of the crisis—coupled with the diplomatic complexities—has tested the limits of their approach.

Griffiths, while recognizing Biden’s efforts, is critical of the administration’s hesitancy in confronting the humanitarian disaster more decisively. The administration’s cautious stance, particularly in withholding certain military aid until after the US elections, has been viewed by many humanitarian organizations as insufficient. In this regard, Griffiths and others have expressed frustration that more proactive measures were not taken sooner to prevent the deepening suffering of civilians in Gaza, where a dire humanitarian emergency continues to unfold.

Trump’s America: Isolationism and Unilateralism

In stark contrast, during his first term in office, donald trump pursued a distinctly isolationist foreign policy. He significantly cut funding to several UN agencies, including the World health Organization (WHO), and largely disengaged from multilateral efforts aimed at addressing global crises. Trump’s "America First" approach meant that global humanitarian concerns were often relegated to the background, with his administration consistently withdrawing from international agreements and reducing the US’s role in the international aid system.

Trump's decisions to cut US funding for key global institutions, and to pull out of agreements like the WHO, had a profound impact on global stability. In particular, Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the global health crisis. Griffiths argues that a return to such policies would further erode the global order, leaving critical humanitarian efforts without the backing they need to address the mounting crises in places like Gaza, Lebanon, and other conflict zones.

The Indispensable Role of the US

Despite his criticisms of the Biden administration’s pace and priorities, Griffiths remains steadfast in his belief that the united states is an indispensable global power, especially in times of conflict and uncertainty. “In a time of global conflict and uncertainty, the world longs for the US to rise to the challenge of responsible, principled leadership," Griffiths says. "We demand more. We deserve more. And we dare to hope for more.”

This call for responsible leadership underscores the expectations placed on the US as the largest donor to the UN system. In 2022, the US contributed a record $18.1 billion (£13.9 billion) to global humanitarian and development efforts. While Trump’s tenure saw significant cuts to this funding, Biden’s administration has restored some of that support, even as critics argue that it has not been enough to address the scale of current crises. The US, as the single largest donor to the UN, continues to play a pivotal role in global humanitarian responses—though the effectiveness of its leadership is increasingly under scrutiny.

Conclusion: The Stakes of US Leadership in a Fragile World

As the US election approaches, the stakes could not be higher. The world is looking to America not just for financial support, but for a return to moral clarity and leadership in the data-face of rising global instability. While Biden and harris have made some strides in reasserting America’s role on the global stage, the criticisms of their hesitancy in addressing the crisis in Gaza reflect broader concerns that the US could do more. Meanwhile, a potential return to Trump’s isolationist policies would likely exacerbate the already fragile global order, further diminishing the US’s role in addressing the most urgent humanitarian needs of our time.

In the data-face of escalating conflicts, climate disasters, and a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, the US has a moral obligation to lead—not just with military or economic power, but with a commitment to human rights and global cooperation. As Griffiths aptly concludes, the world is waiting for the US to rise to the challenge of principled leadership. The question now is whether it will.