Tag Archive for: Kamala Harris

The US presidential debate: ASPI responds

Overview—Justin Bassi, executive director. 

The debate was heavily focused on US domestic matters—even when questions were on international affairs, both candidates sought to bring the issues back to domestic politics and policies.  

Of most relevance to Australia was the lack of interest in this region. Other than passing references—in heavily political contexts—neither the media nor the candidates raised China in any meaningful way. Notwithstanding the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, China is the most significant issue globally. 

Without China being prioritised by the two candidates or media today, we can only hope that the next administration will be struck by the realities of Beijing as the pacing military and technological threat to our livelihoods and way of life. Australia and partners like Japan, the Quad and NATO, will need to work together to ensure the next administration is focused on competing with and countering China, and does so by viewing China as a strategic rival first and not as an economic partner. 

Given the next president will immediately face a world in conflict, a further debate that is limited to foreign policy and held before the November election would be best for both US voters and America’s partners. 

 

On China—Bethany Allen, head of program for China investigations and analysis, and Daria Impiombato, analyst 

While the moderators never asked about China, the topic came up unprompted within the first few minutes of the debate with Harris accusing Trump of inviting ‘trade wars’ but then adding the former President ‘sold us out’ to China. In a sense this focus was not surprising because the Trump administration’s tough turn on China was one of the most significant and controversial foreign policy shifts of his term. The Biden-Harris administration has also made competition with Beijing a key platform. 

More surprising was that, other than brief references, the issue of how to manage China strategically and in the context of potential flashpoints such a Taiwan and the South China Sea did not come up at all. 

Harris and Trump went on to spar over tariffs, microchips and the pandemic response, with Harris accusing the Trump administration of allowing the sale of chips to China that served to modernise the People’s Liberation Army. Trump’s retort that the US ‘barely make any chips anymore’ and that it is Taiwan instead that’s selling them to China again demonstrated the economic lens with which he views these issues.  

This is in line with his latest stances on Taiwan, as he has repeatedly stated that the island should pay the US to defend it, and that they have ‘stolen’ the chip manufacturing business from American companies. Harris, instead, opted to focus on the CHIPS Act and her intention to win the competition with China especially on technology and artificial intelligence. 

 

On Alliances—Eric Lies, analyst 

What stood out, in particular for US allies the world over, was Trump’s refusal to answer the question as to whether he believes Ukraine should win in the war against Russia. Instead, he repeatedly stated that he would end the war as president-elect. A key element of deterrence is convincing potential adversaries that if they choose violence, they will be met with resolve. Responses like Trump’s, which put Ukraine and Russia on a false equivalence, corrode that confidence in US security promises and will likely make allies in the Indo-Pacific nervous, while emboldening China’s revanchist activities. 

In contrast, Harris unequivocally stated her support for allied efforts within Europe, and how she intends to continue those efforts should she be elected. It meant that a clear foreign policy difference came through between the two candidates—a more isolationist, transactional foreign policy on the one hand and an alliance-driven policy on the other.  

 

On Ukraine and China—Malcolm Davis, senior analyst 

On Ukraine, Harris clearly demonstrated that she understood the potential implications of a Russian victory in Ukraine. Noting that if such an outcome were realised, ‘Putin would have his eye on the rest of Europe’. This is an accurate interpretation of the stakes at play. In contrast, Trump failed to deliver a convincing response, simply saying ‘he’d get on the phone to Putin and Zelensky’. 

The risk is therefore that a second Trump Administration could reduce support for Ukraine and increase the likelihood of delivering Putin a decisive strategic victory. 

On China, both candidates avoided any real discussion of the defence and national security implications of a rising China. Instead, they focused on trade relations. Whichever candidate wins in November, however, there is a chance that they will be confronted with a major crisis with Beijing over Taiwan. This is an issue that is far more important to the United States than tariffs. 

Generally, the debate avoided any real discussion on critical and emerging technologies and the importance of maintaining US leadership. In fact, as the ASPI Critical Technology tracker shows, China now holds a dominance in high-impact research that was once held by the US. Both candidates should have dealt more with this important issue and will need to do so as president. 

 

On Disinformation and Migration—Mike Copage, head of the Climate and Security Policy Centre 

As the world grapples with the prospect of AI driving mis and dis-information in democracies, the debate highlighted how vulnerable American political discourse has become to the spread of disinformation without it. Pressed by moderators that there’s no evidence to back claims by vice-presidential candidate JD Vance that Haitian illegal immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Trump responded that he knew it was true because he heard it from ‘people on television’. While ridiculous at face value, the real and serious consequences of a former President and current candidate repeating clearly false, racist and anti-immigrant claims cannot be ignored. The violence perpetuated following the spread of anti-immigrant misinformation in the United Kingdom demonstrates how far that can lead without responsible leadership. 

 

On the Media and China—Greg Brown, senior analyst, Washington DC 

Harris had a solid showing defined by poise without policy articulation. Her supporters will feel emboldened by the strategy to distance herself from the present Administration—noting during the debate that she was neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. 

President Trump had a weaker night—notwithstanding his zingers like ‘wake the President (Biden) up at four o’clock in the afternoon’—and appeared rambling at times. He missed opportunities to attack Harris effectively. 

As usual, the debate moderators (in this case ABC News) and voters were the losers.   

The lone foreign policy issue mentioned with any repetition was migration though with a heavy domestic lens. And neither candidate provided any sense of the drivers of, let alone policy responses to, the weaponization of mass migration. The passing references by both candidates regarding Iran, Ukraine and Russia were pedestrian. 

China, the ​supposed pacing challenge and threat, received little attention. Nor did we have a discussion of the Pentagon’s budget priorities, tariffs as tools of economic warfare, how to revive the US defence industrial base, let alone to US interests across the Pacific. 

 

On Asia-Pacific—Raji Pillai Rajagopalan, resident senior fellow 

While understandably focused on domestic issues, it was still surprisingly how little interest there was on foreign policy in the presidential debate. Considering the growing chaos the next president will have to deal with, that was unfortunate. 

America’s China and Indo-Pacific policy was not mentioned, nor were any other aspects of foreign and security policy in any detail. We heard only some broad outlines to which we were already familiar, such as a Trump Administration that will be suspicious of its partners because of the worry that America is being exploited, that will be more open to deal-making with adversaries such as Russia, China and North Korea, irrespective of the character of their behaviour and that will potentially raise tariff barriers with wide-ranging economic effects globally. 

On the Democrat side, Vice President Harris reiterated she would strengthen partnerships and stand up to authoritarian leaders, which is a more positive starting point, but all said without much detail. 

From a foreign policy perspective, it was clearly not a substantive debate. It ignored everything from narrow issues of nuances to nuclear policy to broad issues such as relative commitment to different theatres like Europe, Middle East and Indo-Pacific.  

US foreign policy in 2025

As the US presidential election draws near, many are wondering what it will mean for American foreign policy. The answer is wrapped in uncertainty.

First, who will win the election? At the beginning of the summer, polls showed Donald Trump well ahead of President Joe Biden. But now that Vice President Kamala Harris has become the Democratic Party candidate, polls show her with a slight lead. The problem, of course, is that if voter sentiments can swing so quickly, predicting where will they lie on 5 November is all but impossible. While Harris has demonstrated impressive political skill, democratic politics is full of surprises.

Second, foreign leaders and actors also have a vote, in the sense that their behaviour can suddenly change the US agenda and the probabilities of various outcomes. The modest foreign policy that George W Bush outlined during his 2000 campaign was nothing like the policy that he pursued after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Who knows what kind of surprise Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping might have in store.

Campaign statements do provide some hints about policy, of course. If Harris wins, one can expect a continuation of Biden’s policy, albeit with some adjustments. She seems to place less emphasis on promoting democracy, one of Biden’s biggest themes, and she says a bit more about Palestinian rights. Generally, though, she would pursue the same policy of reinforcing US alliances and promoting multilateralism.

Trump is more unpredictable. While all politicians stretch the truth, he is notorious in this regard. It is difficult to know which statements might become policy. His rhetoric about unilateralism and downgrading alliances and multilateral institutions tells us something about the tenor of his foreign policy, but it does not answer questions about specific issues.

Observers often try to improve their predictions by looking at the candidates’ advisers. Harris’s top foreign policy hand is Philip Gordon, a pragmatic, highly respected centrist who handled European and the Middle Eastern affairs in prior Democratic administrations before becoming the vice president’s chief foreign policy adviser.

By contrast, it is difficult to identify a comparable figure in the Trump camp, though the press sometimes mentions Robert O’Brien, Trump’s last national security adviser. What we do know is that Trump regrets having appointed traditional Republicans to key roles during his previous term, since they duly curtailed his freedom of action and made his policies more moderate than he wished.

It is also worth noting some similarities between the two candidates. Most important are their positions on China. There is now a broad bipartisan consensus that China has not played fair on trade and intellectual property issues, and that its assertive behaviour in the East and South China Seas is threatening American allies such as Japan and the Philippines. China has said many times that it would not rule out the use of force in seizing Taiwan. In many ways, Biden continued Trump’s China policy, and Harris would likely do the same, with some adjustments.

A second similarity between the candidates is their rejection of neoliberal economic policies. During Trump’s presidency, the US abandoned the traditional (Reagan-era) Republican approach to trade, increased tariffs and downgraded participation in the World Trade Organization. This was all done under the guidance of US trade representative Robert Lighthizer, who remains influential in Trump’s circle.

Trump also spurned the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Barack Obama had negotiated, and Biden then did nothing to rejoin that agreement or to remove Trump’s tariffs on imports from China. In fact, Biden went further by introducing new technology-focused export controls against China (billed as erecting a ‘high fence around a small yard’). With her own ties to the US tech industry as a Californian, Harris is unlikely to lower the fence. And Trump, if anything, will expand the yard.

Moreover, both Trump and Harris have pledged to increase American hard power—militarily and economically—through investments in the defence budget and the defence industrial base. Both also can be expected to continue the current nuclear weapons modernisation program, and to promote the development of new weapons that use artificial intelligence.

One of the biggest differences concerns the candidates’ positions on Europe. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, have made it clear that they have little interest in supporting Ukraine and NATO. Trump claims that he would end the war quickly through negotiations, and it is difficult to see how this could be done without weakening Ukraine dramatically.

In the Middle East, both candidates have pledged to maintain Israel’s security and its right to self-defence, though Harris also speaks of a Palestinian right to self-determination. Both probably would urge Saudi Arabia to proceed with normalising relations with Israel, and both would take a tough line on Iran. But whereas Trump assigns low priorities to Africa and Latin America, Harris could be expected to pay more attention to those regions.

The most dramatic difference concerns American soft power: the ability to secure desired outcomes through persuasion rather than coercion or payment. During his presidency, Trump opted for an America First unilateralism that led other countries to conclude that their interests were not being considered. He also openly rejected multilateralism, most dramatically by withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization. Biden reversed those moves, but Trump would probably reverse the reversal, whereas Harris would maintain American participation. She also would be more likely than Trump to issue statements promoting human rights and democracy.

In short, there will be large areas of continuity in US foreign policy no matter who wins the election. But the differences between the candidates’ attitudes toward alliances and multilateralism are significant—and that could make all the difference.

Biden–Harris win could bring US foreign policy reset—but not on China

For much of the world, the possibility of a new United States administration led by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris offers the promise of a foreign policy reset.

America’s European alliances would be strengthened, not disparaged. Partners in North Asia, like Japan and South Korea, and in Southeast Asia would be reassured that there will be no American military withdrawal or retreat. Relations would be mended with neighbours Mexico and Canada, and Central America would be seen through more than just the lens of illegal immigration. Biden and Harris would likely re-enter the Paris Climate Accord and rejoin the World Health Organization and other multilateral bodies.

With a black American woman as vice president, African countries would no longer be derided as, in President Donald Trump’s words, ‘shitholes’. And Harris, whose mother was an immigrant from India, would also become the highest ranking Asian American ever to hold high office in the US, and would help cement India’s affinity with the United States.

But a change in Washington would not offer any respite for one county: China.

A Biden–Harris administration would likely continue with Trump’s tough-on-China policies, even if the tenor and tone improve.

Biden and Harris are both foreign policy traditionalists from the Democratic Party’s mainstream centre-left, and both are strong internationalists more likely to build multinational alliances against the perceived threat from a resurgent and belligerent China. A Biden–Harris administration would be tough on trade imbalances. They would seek to hold Beijing to account for its spying, its interference in American elections and its human rights abuses, while at the same time keeping the dialogue between the superpowers from degenerating into name-calling and angry tweets.

This was largely the consensus from China experts on a recent panel I moderated at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Hong Kong, as well as from other China watchers and experts. ‘The assessment of the challenges that China poses to America and the world would be the same’, said Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. But, she added, China ‘would not be seen as an existential threat’.

Lingling Wei, a Wall Street Journal China correspondent and co-author of a new book called Superpower showdown: how the battle between Trump and Xi threatens a new cold war, agreed. ‘If Biden is president, the tone will be better.’

One of the reasons for the likely continuity in China policy is Americans’ growing negative perception of China and its leader, Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping. A recent survey at the end of July by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 73% of Americans had an unfavourable view of China, and 77% had little or no confidence in Xi to do the right thing.

Those assessments were largely driven by negative views of China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, with 78% blaming China’s initial mishandling of the virus for causing a global pandemic. More Americans now see China as a competitor, not a partner.

The souring of American views on China is new, though it predates the coronavirus. As recently as 2011, during President Barack Obama’s first term, a majority of Americans had a positive view of China. But that began to change as more Americans began to see China as an economic threat and a military challenge.

One thing that has changed is the attitude of the American business community, which for years provided both the ballast and the jet fuel propelling Sino-American relations. Whenever relations went bad between Washington and Beijing, American businesses could always be counted on to soothe the tensions, particularly with their Republican allies in the US Congress.

No longer. In recent years, American business has increasingly cooled towards China, particularly under Xi. China has repeatedly reneged on promises to liberalise its controlled economy and open it up to more foreign competition. US firms continue to feel disadvantaged, forced to share their technology and blocked entirely from key sectors. And Beijing became more aggressive, raiding the headquarters of foreign companies ostensibly for tax reasons.

An American businessman friend of mine, who has been working in China for three decades, was recently haranguing me about how awful Trump was as president, from his racism and divisiveness to his denigration of longtime foreign allies. Then he paused, looked over his shoulder around the crowded bar and whispered, ‘But I love what Trump is doing to China!’

That attitude is widespread. Even Democrats who loathe Trump believe the time for a reckoning with China was overdue. In many ways, Trump is merely giving voice to long pent up frustration with China as an economic rival that ignores established rules, a belligerent competitor and a malign actor on the international stage.

Since President Richard Nixon’s diplomatic opening in 1972 and through China’s ascension to the World Trade Organization in 2001, the establishment wisdom on China—the so-called Washington consensus—was that as the country engaged with the West and became more prosperous, so too would it become more open and democratic. That was what happened in other authoritarian Asian countries like South Korea and Taiwan, where economic liberalisation created middle classes that eventually fuelled demands for more political openness.

But the theory failed in China. The country did open economically and became enormously prosperous. China in 2010 surpassed Japan as the world’s second largest economy, and now rivals only the United States as an economic power as measured by gross domestic product.

But a wealthier China has also become more repressive. The CCP under Xi has cemented its control, quashing all dissent and creating an alternative political and economic system to rival the West. And China has also become more belligerent militarily, using its navy to enforce its claims in the South China Sea and threatening the self-governing island of Taiwan. Xi’s ‘Made in China 2025’ plan aims to make the country a leader in high technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and clean energy—all at the expense of American primacy.

A Biden–Harris administration, if it comes to pass, would inherit a vast array of overseas challenges, from whether to restart the Iran nuclear deal to how to handle North Korea and the ongoing instability in places like Syria and Yemen. Most of America’s international relations will be easy to repair, as Trump’s term in office would be seen as an unfortunate aberration.

But on dealing with China, a new Democratic team in Washington is likely to find a rare bipartisan consensus for more confrontation. That, more than anything else, might be Trump’s most lasting legacy.