Well, we are definitely living in interesting times, at home and abroad. China, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, has adopted a nationalist assertiveness in the East and especially in the South China Seas. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, has been even more assertive, bringing the Crimea under Russian control again and undoubtedly supporting rebel forces in the south-east of Ukraine. Further, he has executed what has certainly been a highly successful intervention in Syria, re-establishing Russia as a major force in the Middle East. North Korea is detonating nuclear devices with increasing frequency and also working hard to perfect the missiles to carry them.

Syria has already been mentioned. But the terrible conflict there is only one of the cockpits of confrontation that roil the Middle East. There is also war in Iraq (closely related to that in Syria) and Yemen. The Israel-Palestine situation, even including sporadic clashes between Israel and the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip, is now the least important, least costly (in all senses) and least destabilising crisis in the region.

The war in Afghanistan continues. India and Pakistan remain at loggerheads, especially over Kashmir. While many African countries are much better off than they were 25 years ago, in terms of both peace and prosperity, a broad zone of conflict does extend from west to east – from the Sahel to Somalia.

It is against this background that the US Presidential elections will take place on November 8. Never in my lifetime (I’m 60) have the American people faced such an awful choice. The, er, limitations of Republican candidate Donald Trump are very well known and need not be repeated here. Unfortunately, outside the US, the equally great, if different, weaknesses of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton are not so well known. There is significant evidence indicating that she is arrogant, incompetent, “entitled” (believing and behaving as if the rules don’t apply to her), dishonest on an industrial scale, greedy and corrupt. In the US, these failings are well known, so making the choice between the two candidates much less obvious that it seems to South Africans. Moreover, Trump is no right-winger, which is why true conservatives in the US are so opposed to him. On some issues, such as healthcare, he is to the left of Clinton.

While opinion polls currently give Clinton the lead, no one knows how accurate they are anymore: there are too many imponderables in this election that the polling companies can’t capture. The British peer, Lord Ashcroft, has been running focus groups of likely voters in key American cities and states, and the results of these are more complex than, and divergent from, the picture being created by the polls. Thus, after the first Clinton-Trump debate, the US ‘elite media’ (for want of a better phrase) gave Clinton the victory. Ashcroft’s focus groups in Raleigh, North Carolina, agreed with that, but, in general, the impact on them was that the debate reminded them that Clinton was the establishment candidate and Trump was the change candidate, which was bad for Clinton. And, after the video of Trump’s lewd and aggressive remarks regarding women became public, Ashcroft focus groups in Philadelphia, composed (by fortunate coincidence) entirely of women, generally took the view that, as one of the women put it, “it was crude, but it was guys talking” and that there were, in another woman’s words, “more important things we need to talk about”. Don’t forget that Trump’s behaviour towards women is no worse than that of former President Bill Clinton – to whom Hillary is still married. There is, however, pretty much one constant in all these focus groups: the people dislike both candidates. One American political commentator has already observed that no one in this election is going to vote for someone; everyone is going to vote against someone – either Trump or Clinton.

Now, the US will survive four years of President Trump or four years of President Clinton. It’s the rest of us that have to worry! For everyone outside the US, a President Clinton would be the best choice, as she would generally continue the broadly bipartisan American foreign policy approach and so be a known quantity, concerned with global and regional stability, even if American interests were not directly engaged. Trump, however, has a long-established, clear and coherent foreign policy philosophy: he is a nationalist, protectionist and isolationist. If he followed through on this, he would disengage the US from all situations in which key US interests were not directly engaged. This would destabilise significant parts of the world.

Africa would certainly be affected. There are, of course, some in the alliance of the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions who would be delighted if Trump disengaged from Africa and closed down Africa Command. But there is an old saying: Beware of that for which you wish, for it may be granted to you. US disengagement from Africa would see the end of American specialist support – special forces, unmanned air vehicles, other intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance assets – for African countries battling extremists. Undoubtedly, France and Britain, and perhaps some other non-African countries, would seek to fill the gap. But, equally undoubtedly, South Africa would come under pressure from other African States to help as well. South Africa’s ability to do so is very limited, and being exposed as able to help in only a token manner would endanger the country’s status in Africa and the wider world. On top of this, a President Trump could very well terminate South Africa’s preferential access to the US market under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

To sum up: don’t fool yourselves – Trump could still win. I’m not saying he will. I’m saying he could. So, South Africa must have a Plan B in place to seek to persuade a President-elect Trump not to implement any policies that would damage this country and especially the economy. Develop Plan B now, and hope that it won’t be needed and that congratulations will be sent to a new President Clinton instead.