Harris vs. Trump - Decoding the foreign policy implications

As the US presidential election approaches, many people are asking what it means for American foreign policy. The solution is shrouded in mystery.

First, who is going to win the election? At the start of the summer, polls showed Donald Trump far ahead of President Joe Biden. However, now that Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged as the Democratic Party's nominee, polls show her with a slim advantage.

The sudden shift in polling numbers has sent shockwaves through both political camps. Harris's emergence as the Democratic nominee has energized the party's base, particularly among women and minority voters. Her campaign has been marked by a series of well-received policy speeches and debate performances, which have helped to consolidate support among key demographic groups. Meanwhile, Trump's campaign has faced challenges, including legal troubles and controversies that have dominated news cycles, potentially impacting his standing with independent voters.

The problem, of course, is that if voter views can change so quickly, predicting where they will stand on November 5 is nearly impossible. While Harris has shown excellent political talents, democratic politics is full of surprises.

Second, foreign leaders and actors have a vote, in the sense that their actions can abruptly alter the US agenda and the likelihood of different outcomes.

George W. Bush's modest foreign policy announced during his 2000 campaign was in stark contrast to the approach he adopted following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Who knows what kind of surprise Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping may have in store.

In recent months, global tensions have been on the rise, with several flashpoints threatening to escalate into larger conflicts. The ongoing situation in Ukraine continues to be a source of concern, with reports of increased Russian military activity along the border. In the South China Sea, China's assertive actions have prompted responses from neighboring countries and the United States, raising fears of potential naval confrontations. These developments serve as a reminder that unforeseen global events can dramatically reshape the foreign policy landscape for any incoming administration.

Of course, campaign statements contain certain policy implications. If Harris wins, Biden's program will likely be continued, albeit with some changes. She appears to place a greater focus on Palestinian rights than on democracy promotion, which is one of Biden's major themes.

In general, however, she would continue to strengthen US partnerships and promote multilateralism.

Trump is more unpredictable. While many politicians twist the truth, he is particularly known for doing so. It is difficult to predict which statements will become policy. His rhetoric about unilateralism and weakening alliances and multilateral institutions reveals something about the tone of his foreign policy, but it does not address specific issues.

Observers frequently seek to enhance their predictions by consulting the candidates' advisers. Philip Gordon, Harris' main foreign policy adviser, is a pragmatic, highly respected moderate who previously handled European and Middle Eastern matters in Democratic administrations before becoming the vice president's chief foreign policy adviser.

In comparison, it is difficult to find a comparable figure in the Trump camp, but the press occasionally recalls Robert O'Brien, Trump's former national-security adviser.

What we do know is that Trump regrets appointing traditional Republicans to important positions during his last term, as they limited his freedom of action and made his policies more moderate than he preferred.

The contrast in foreign policy teams between the two candidates is stark. Harris has assembled a group of experienced diplomats and policy experts, many of whom have served in previous administrations. This team's depth of knowledge and established relationships with international counterparts could prove valuable in navigating complex global issues. On the other hand, Trump's potential foreign policy team remains largely undefined, with speculation that he might rely more heavily on loyalists and unconventional advisers if elected. This uncertainty has led to concerns among some foreign policy experts about the potential for unpredictable or inconsistent decision-making in international affairs.

It is also worth noting certain parallels between the two candidates. The most crucial is their stance on China. There is now broad bipartisan agreement that China has not been fair on trade and intellectual property concerns, and that its forceful behavior in the East and South China Seas endangers American allies such as Japan and the Philippines.

China has often stated that it would not rule out the use of force to seize Taiwan, which it considers as a renegade province. In many ways, Biden followed Trump's China policy, and Harris is likely to do the same, with some changes.

A second link between the contenders is their opposition to neoliberal economic policies. During Trump's presidency, the United States abandoned the traditional (Reagan-era) Republican approach to trade, raising tariffs and reducing participation in the World Trade Organization. This was all done under the supervision of US trade representative Robert Lighthizer, who is still powerful in Trump's entourage.

Trump also rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Barack Obama had negotiated, and Biden did nothing to rejoin the pact or remove Trump's tariffs on imports from China.

In reality, Biden went one step farther, imposing new technology-focused export curbs on China (described as constructing a high fence over a small yard). Harris, a Californian with ties to the US tech industry, is unlikely to let down her guard. And Trump, if anything, will widen the yard.

Furthermore, both Trump and Harris have promised to strengthen American hard power, both militarily and economically, by investing in the defense budget and defense industrial base. Both are anticipated to continue the existing nuclear-weapons upgrading effort and to encourage the creation of new weapons based on artificial intelligence.

The focus on technological superiority and AI-driven defense capabilities has become a key battleground in the race for global influence. Both candidates have emphasized the need for the United States to maintain its edge in emerging technologies such as quantum computing, 5G networks, and advanced robotics. This push for technological dominance is not only about military applications but also about economic competitiveness and national security. The next administration, regardless of who wins, will likely face critical decisions about research funding, international collaboration, and ethical guidelines for the development and deployment of these cutting-edge technologies.

One of the most significant contrasts concerns the candidates' views on Europe. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, have made it apparent that they have no interest in aiding Ukraine or NATO. Trump promises that he would end the war swiftly through discussions, but it is difficult to see how this can be accomplished without severely damaging Ukraine.

In the Middle East, both candidates have committed to defend Israel's security and right to self-defense, with Harris also mentioning the Palestinians' right to self-determination.

Both would most likely encourage Saudi Arabia to resume regular relations with Israel, and both would be strong on Iran. However, whereas Trump places low priority on Africa and Latin America, Harris is expected to devote more attention to those regions.

The most significant distinction is American soft power: the capacity to achieve desired results through persuasion rather than coercion or cash. During his presidency, Trump pursued an America First unilateralism, leading other countries to believe that their interests were not being addressed.

He also actively opposed multilateralism, most notably by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization. Biden reversed those actions, but Trump is likely to reverse them, but Harris will continue American participation. She is also more likely than Trump to make statements supporting human rights and democracy.

In sum, regardless of who wins the election, US foreign policy will remain largely unchanged. However, the contenders' ideas toward alliances and multilateralism differ significantly, and this could be the deciding factor.