Trump or Harris? In a crisis-hit world, diplomats resigned to either

In the corridors of the United Nations, amid the urgent whispers and brisk walks of diplomats navigating the latest global crisis, a resigned pragmatism hangs in the air. A question looms large over these stone-floored hallways, permeating discussions not just about policy, but also about the future leadership of one of the world's predominant superpowers: What difference does it make if the next US president is Donald Trump or Kamala Harris? According to insiders speaking to the BBC, the consensus is somewhat startling in its uniformity—they don't anticipate major shifts in the global political landscape regardless of who claims the White House next. This stoic expectation rests on a detailed understanding of international relations and the intricate ballet of diplomacy that defines the United Nations' daily rhythm. The organization, with its 193 member states, has weathered storms ranging from the Cold War’s chill to the more recent turbulence of climate change debates, pandemics, and wars that have redrawn borders. These diplomats, experts in the art of the possible, have seen US leadership oscillate between different ideologies, policies, and personas. Yet, their assessment of a potential Trump or Harris presidency reveals more about global politics than it does about either candidate. Why the lack of anticipated difference? It's a multifaceted predicament that sketches a portrait of contemporary geopolitics where the unilateral influence of the US, while still substantial, is perceived as increasingly tempered by other considerations. For one, there's the issue of policy consistency (