Main Edition
US
FR
October 25, 2024 - 2:00pm
As the 2024 presidential campaign enters the final stretch, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have sought to underline their foreign policy differences. Some of the distinctions are clear. Harris, for instance, promises “unwavering” support to Washington’s treaty allies in Europe and East Asia, whereas Trump frequently criticises them for free-riding on American largesse. Then, of course, there is Ukraine, where Harris’s “stay the course” preference runs counter to Trump, who would like the war to end immediately even if it entails Kyiv having to agree to painful compromises.
That is as far as their differences go, however. Indeed, both candidates remain firmly attached to the idea of American hegemony. Take Trump: the former president promises to bring back a “peace through strength” doctrine, which ensures Washington remains atop the world hierarchy. For instance, when the European Union sought to build an independent military capability outside the US-dominated Nato framework, the Trump administration issued a letter to Brussels threatening consequences. And despite all the talk during his first term, Trump did not reduce US defence commitments in Europe, and in the end called for the redeployment of only 12,000 troops — many of whom would have moved from Germany to elsewhere in Europe.
Harris, meanwhile, is a liberal interventionist and an Atlanticist who has doubled down on America’s Nato commitments. She has represented the Joe Biden administration in various European security conferences with a consistent message in her back pocket: Washington is fully invested in the transatlantic alliance and wouldn’t dare leave European allies in the lurch.
The truth is that Trump and Harris have been frustratingly vague when it comes to the specific policies they would pursue abroad if elected. The former president casts himself as someone who will keep the United States out of war, even though he has flirted with bombing Mexico to take on the cartels, deepening US involvement in the Middle East by backing Israel unconditionally, and confronting China through exorbitant tariffs.
Based on what little she has said, Harris’s foreign policy looks nearly identical to her current boss, President Joe Biden. Despite her roots on the Left of the Democrats, she is pro-Israel; in Asia, she has been a strong supporter of multilateral groups such as ASEAN while favouring strong export controls to lock in US tech dominance. Although Trump was more sceptical of multilateral groupings in Asia and tended to disregard them as a waste of time, his policy on China shares the same aims as Harris’s.
Primacy has always been costly, but with new peer and near-peer competitors, the cost is rising further. Maintaining a global network of hundreds of military installations in 70 countries with well over 200,000 forces deployed at any given time is an expensive enterprise. When the goal is global dominance, every crisis becomes a priority, extending limited US military, economic and diplomatic resources around the world on behalf of allies and partners who eventually grow accustomed to the support and expect it to continue indefinitely. Add in the costs associated with developing advanced weapons systems and it’s no wonder defence spending is likely to reach $1 trillion in a few years.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHarris can say whatever she likes, but in terms of foreign policy, not only will she be dictated to by powers behind the scenes (not just Obama) but will have no heft on the international stage.
There’s only one candidate with a track record in projecting the interests of the US with other major world powers, and doing so successfully; it ain’t Harris.
Yes, it’s the man whose admin negotiated the Afghani withdrawal with the Taliban!
Yes, we should have stayed – because every mediaeval tribesman will eventually become an Islington feminist if you shoot at him enough, eh?
Did that negotiation include the promise to leave $80 billion in military equipment and the death of 13 soldiers?
The problem was not in the withdrawal, but in how to do it.
Feel the difference, please
Big difference between the negotiation and the actual execution thereof.
The current administration is leaking classified Israeli information to Iran, and supports Iran financially. Pretty sure that won’t happen with Trump.
I yes, I found this article poor on many levels.
What the candidates say is not meaningless, but it’s not very meaningful. Carrying out foreign affairs is like playing chess. You can’t plan ahead more than a move or two in advance. You have to see what your opponent does, and then respond.
Donald Trump has shown mastery of the process. With Kim Jong Un in North Korea, where he defanged his opponent through a years-long series of careful moves (although leaving him still a threat). And with Ukraine, where he refuses to say what his plan is (unlike more foolish people like his running mate JD Vance) except to say that he will meet with Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the war.
That’s smart. Having a plan, especially one that you make public, is dangerous, both because few plans work and because you don’t want your opponent to know your game plan. Better to leave yourself room to change your plan to adapt, giving up on things that don’t work and pushing ahead with things that do.
Why, yes they are very different. One creates opportunities for peace, the other arranges for millions of illegal immigrants to invade America.
Terrible essay. The world’s most incendiary region – the Middle East – is ignored. Trump defeated ISIS, put the fear of Allah into the Iranians by snuffing Soleimani, put the squeeze on Iran’s oil revenues, and put in place 3 peace treaties between Israel and her neighbors. Harris/Biden gave Iran billions and released Iran’s oil trade, leading directly to Oct 7th.
One is heroic, the other is shambolic.
It’s a pretty safe bet that China will invade Taiwan within six months of a Harris victory. Unlikely to happen if Trump wins.
“Are Trump and Harris really so different on foreign policy?” Yes and not just for all the reasons outlined above. Trump’s policy is amoral. He would do whatever he considers best for the US. Harris’ policy is immoral. She will do whatever the military-industrial-intelligence complex tells her.
Yes, policy is almost the same, but there is a small difference.
The foreign policy of Obama, Biden, Harris can be described by the slogan “F.ck up everywhere”
.
I can’t say the same about Trump. He, like Truman, is guided by the motto: “The buck stops here!”
Israel will always be protected as it is a vital listening post in a strange, hateful place towards the Western world. All it needs is another nutter, with a shout of Ah Loo Ackbah, to wreak an atrocity on US soil. Then, both parties, will continue their wariness of the Arab world. The Democrats are hamstrung atm. and will revert to their base after Harris loses to Trump. The Republicans foreign policy, will continue as is, Trump notwithstanding, but will be more central to the protection of the US rather than keeping Civil Servants in the UN, NATO or the UN in a BMW of their choice.
Trump will hand Ukraine to Putin.
Trump had prevented Eussia from invading. Trump will bring peace out of this disaster of a money laundering scheme caused by Putin, Boris, Macron, Joe, etc.