What a Kamala Harris presidency could mean for the world – and where she differs from Joe Biden
- Written by: Ava Kalinauskas, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney
Now that US Vice President Kamala Harris has sewn up the Democratic presidential nomination, she has a busy few weeks ahead of her. After she announces her vice-presidential running mate, the pair will campaign[1] in seven swing states in four days. Then comes the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, starting on August 19.
With her campaign revving up, many are starting to wonder what a possible Harris presidency could mean for the world if she beats Republican Donald Trump in November. And how might it differ from President Joe Biden’s time in office?
Rejecting isolationism
Biden is one of the most experienced foreign policy hands to have served as president. He spent 36 years in the Senate, including 30 years on the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He then had two terms leading critical foreign policy initiatives as Barack Obama’s vice president.
As president, Biden has deepened and broadened America’s engagement with its allies and partners around the world. This has included reaffirming US support for NATO and Ukraine, forging the AUKUS pact with the United Kingdom and Australia, and elevating[2] the Quad diplomatic grouping between the US, Australia, India and Japan to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
The Biden administration also launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework[3], an economic partnership involving the US and 13 countries in Asia and the Pacific. It seeks to re-engage the US economically in the region following Trump’s 2017 withdrawal[4] from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Harris, on the other hand, entered the White House with little foreign policy experience of her own. As vice president, she has learned on the job, particularly through her travels[5] to more than 20 countries and meetings with over 150 world leaders.
Harris’ foreign policy outlook appears to align with Biden’s internationalist approach, albeit with a more progressive inclination in some areas.
She views US-led post-war global institutions and norms as the country’s greatest foreign policy achievement, and has cautioned[6] against calls for the US to pull back from its commitments on the global stage.
For example, in her time as vice president, Harris has met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky half-a-dozen times[7]. She has stepped in for Biden at three annual Munich Security Conferences — one of the most important international security summits.
At this year’s conference, she pledged the US would support Ukraine for “as long as it takes[8]”.
According to reports, Harris also helped negotiate[9] the landmark US-Russia prisoner-swap deal during a closed-door meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at this year’s Munich Security Conference.
And more recently, Harris pushed back on Trump’s claim that he would pull the US out of NATO, describing it[10] as “the greatest military alliance the world has ever known”.
A firm commitment to US allies in Asia
Not surprisingly, Harris shares many of the same priorities as Biden, including his strong commitment to US allies in Asia.
As Biden’s second-in-command, however, Harris has carved out her own niche in foreign affairs. For instance, she has devoted time to America’s oft-neglected relationships in South-East Asia. She has stepped in for Biden at many regional summits including the East Asia and US-ASEAN summits in 2023.
Harris also stepped in for Biden at the 2022 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, meeting briefly with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Perhaps more importantly, on that same trip, she made a very visible show[11] of the United States’ commitment to the Philippines amid its heightened tensions with China.
Stopping on the island of Palawan, Harris said the US would stand by its ally to uphold “the rules-based international maritime order in the South China Sea”. It was a critical declaration given the two countries have a pact to come to each other’s defence if they are attacked.
On Taiwan, Biden has been explicit[12] multiple times in his presidency about the US coming to the island’s defence if it was invaded by China. He has taken a much stronger stance than previous presidents, though his aides have repeatedly tried[13] to walk back his comments.
Harris has stuck more to the script[14]. She has, for instance, stressed the US “will continue to support Taiwan’s self-defence, consistent with our long-standing policy”. She is unlikely to be prone to Biden’s gaffes on Taiwan as president.
Differences with Biden
Harris would likely differ from Biden in other ways, too.
For example, Harris has been described as having a more “empathetic[15]” approach to Israel’s war in Gaza.
Harris was one of the administration’s first high-profile voices to call[16] for an immediate temporary ceasefire in March. She has described the civilian death toll in Gaza as a “humanitarian catastrophe[17]”.
She has also reportedly[18] privately urged Biden to take a stronger stance against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
As president, Harris may demonstrate a greater willingness than her predecssor to publicly criticise Netanyahu. Biden has described himself as a Zionist[19] and defended Israel more stridently than progressive Democrats would have liked.
After meeting Netanyahu in Washington in late July, for instance, Harris said[20]:
We cannot allow ourselves to be numb to the suffering and I will not be silent.
Trade remains another area where Harris may differ from Biden. She has expressed scepticism about free trade dating back to her Senate run in 2016. During that race, she opposed[21] the Trans-Pacific Partnership — then a landmark accomplishment of the Obama-Biden administration.
Harris denied[22] she was a “protectionist Democrat” during her 2020 presidential campaign. However, she said[23] she would not have voted for NAFTA and felt the TPP failed[24] to adequately protect American workers or environmental standards.
A Harris administration may not be as divided on trade issues as the Biden administration has been[25]. The future of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework has been in doubt, for instance, due to Democratic concerns it would hurt American workers — echoing Harris’ criticisms of other trade agreements.
Though Harris started with a thin foreign policy CV, in her three years as Biden’s loyal deputy she has quickly gained on-the-ground experience. But stepping into the role of US chief executive would be an opportunity for her to stamp her own mark on foreign policy and America’s standing on the global stage.
Nevertheless, if Harris wins in November, the world can expect to see more continuity than change.
References
- ^ campaign (www.politico.com)
- ^ elevating (www.cfr.org)
- ^ Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (theconversation.com)
- ^ withdrawal (uy.usembassy.gov)
- ^ travels (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ cautioned (www.whitehouse.gov)
- ^ half-a-dozen times (www.politico.com)
- ^ as long as it takes (www.politico.com)
- ^ helped negotiate (www.wsj.com)
- ^ describing it (www.whitehouse.gov)
- ^ visible show (www.npr.org)
- ^ explicit (www.reuters.com)
- ^ tried (www.wsj.com)
- ^ has stuck more to the script (edition.cnn.com)
- ^ empathetic (thenationaldesk.com)
- ^ call (www.youtube.com)
- ^ humanitarian catastrophe (www.timesofisrael.com)
- ^ reportedly (www.washingtonpost.com)
- ^ Zionist (www.timesofisrael.com)
- ^ said (www.reuters.com)
- ^ opposed (www.politico.com)
- ^ denied (www.washingtonpost.com)
- ^ said (x.com)
- ^ failed (www.cfr.org)
- ^ has been (www.politico.com)
Authors: Ava Kalinauskas, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney
