Alliance vs. Isolation: Harris and Trump’s Competing Views on Foreign Policy

The foreign policy approaches of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand in stark contrast, each with its distinct potential impacts on global stability.

Kamala Harris represents a more conventional, predictable, and stable foreign policy approach, while Donald Trump is known for his disruptive and unpredictable style.

Kamala Harris, as the vice president under Biden, is assumed to have similar foreign policy positions to President Biden. She is considered a conventional center-left Democratic foreign policy thinker and is expected to largely continue the Biden administration's foreign policy, which emphasizes rebuilding relationships with allies and upholding the international rules-based order.

Peter Baker suggests that Harris would represent a much more stable way of looking at the world, which gives other leaders a much better sense of where she stands on issues. In contrast, Donald Trump is described as a disruptive force in international affairs and takes pride in this role. He believes other countries, including allies, take advantage of the United States in trade, economics, and security arrangements. His approach has often involved antagonizing U.S. allies, casting doubt on long-standing commitments, and embracing authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, creating a sense of uncertainty and instability.

Harris is expected to largely continue the Biden administration's foreign policy

Harris is anticipated to continue the Biden administration's policy, with an emphasis on empathy for suffering such as the Palestinians, potentially leading to a tougher stance on Netanyahu than Biden's. When it comes to China, Baker suggests Harris would adopt a traditional, less confrontational approach, maintaining economic measures like tariffs while fostering the semiconductor industry within the U.S. to reduce reliance on foreign supply chains.

The candidates' differing foreign policy styles could have significant implications for America's global influence and ability to lead on key international issues.

Harris's approach would likely restore a sense of reliability and predictability in U.S. foreign policy

The conversation implies that Harris's approach to China, and by extension to other international issues, would be more of a scalpel than a hammer, indicating a more precise and predictable U.S. foreign policy. Baker mentions that the Biden administration, of which Harris is part, seeks de-risking rather than decoupling from China. This aims to minimize dependence without completely cutting ...

As the candidates' views on the conflict in Ukraine surface, it becomes evident that their differing stances could dramatically impact the future of European security and the global order.

Both candidates agree that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a violation of international law and that Ukraine has a right to defend itself, but they differ significantly in their proposed approaches.

Peter Baker reflects that a Harris administration would likely uphold the current U.S. strategy in response to the conflict in Ukraine, continuing to provide military, economic, and diplomatic support while reinforcing the international rules-based order. Kamala Harris is deeply invested in this policy, having met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seven times. She denounces what she views as Trump's capitulation, labeling it a "proposal for surrender."

Conversely, Trump has offered a starkly different approach, suggesting he could "end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours." However, he has not disclosed the specifics of his plan. Baker notes that Trump's inclination to settle the conflict swiftly is seen as highly unrealistic by experts and is inconsistent with the typical U.S. stance of not compromising with belligerence.

A Harris administration's continued support for Ukraine would help maintain pressure on Russia and uphold principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, while a Trump administration's retreat could embolden Putin and encourage further aggression.

If Harris is elected, her administration's resolute support for Ukraine would likely persist in maintaining pressure on Russia, thus championing the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, if Trump is re-elected, his reluctance to condemn Russia and ambiguous plans for conflict resolution raise concerns of a potential withdrawal of U.S. support for Ukraine. Such retrenchment could strengthen Putin's hand and possibly encourage further aggression, altering the power dynamics in Europe and beyond.

The candidates' divergent views on the Ukraine conflict could have far-reaching consequences for the f ...

In the context of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict and broader regional tensions, the two political candidates present differing approaches and responses that could significantly impact regional stability and peace prospects.

Both candidates recognize the threat posed by Hezbollah and Iran's malign influence in the region, but they differ in their emphasis and proposed responses.

Harris emphasizes the need for diplomacy and restraint

Kamala Harris has voiced strong support for Israel's right to defend itself while also expressing empathy for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. This suggests that she may push for Israel to exercise restraint and pursue a negotiated solution involving a two-state format that would secure self-determination for Palestinians and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. She further emphasizes the importance of rebuilding Gaza, indicating a policy approach that includes empathy for Palestinian struggles and a push for diplomatic resolutions.

Trump stands firmly with Israel’s actions

Donald Trump, conversely, boasts to Jewish-American voters about his unmistakable support for Israel. He claims that voting against him would betray Israel. His actions include moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, closing the Palestinian office in Washington, and cutting off aid. During the war in Gaza, Trump has spoken sparingly, focusing on the impact on Israel's reputation rather than casualties, and indicating that he would not support humanitarian aid for Palestinians as much as the current administration. There is also an implication that Trump may not favor an extended war in the Middle East and that his support for Netanyahu may have waned.

The candidates' contrasting approaches to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict could have significant implications for regional stability and the prospects for a lasting peace.

A potential shift towards diplomacy under Harris

A Harris administration may engage in tough diplomacy to de-escalate tensions and pursue a two-state solution. Statements from Harris and Joe Biden reflect this sentiment, asserting that the killing of Hezbollah's Nasrallah was a form of justice, yet they concurrently advocate for diplomacy to de-escalate th ...