Ger van Elk, Symmetry of Diplomacy, 1975, Groninger Museum
“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
– President John F. Kennedy, Inauguration Speech, January 20, 1961.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech last week was a tour de force. It was presidential; it was compelling; it demonstrated presence and power. But it provided no indication that she will address the weakest aspects of President Joe Biden’s national security policy, the failure to restore diplomacy as the central tool of foreign policy and to reestablish the primacy of arms control and disarmament.
Harris has a compelling personal story; she used the story effectively to introduce herself to the American public. Harris’s confidence and charisma allowed her to connect to her audience, and perhaps to impress independents and even some Republicans to take a second look at a political figure who was caricatured unfairly by the mainstream media from the outset of the Biden administration. She was so effective that it is difficult to imagine an incoherent and rambling Donald Trump sharing a stage with her at their debate that is scheduled for September 17th.
It is unreasonable to expect any vice president to deviate from the president’s foreign policy imperatives, but an opportunity was missed to at least introduce new aspects of foreign policy that were not addressed during Biden’s presidency. One possible indicator of a more pragmatic approach is the fact that Harris’s foreign policy advisor is Philip Gordon, whose writings suggest an awareness of the limits of American power and a willingness to negotiate with autocratic regimes.
As an official in the Department of State during the Obama administration and a White House advisor to Obama on the Middle East, Gordon worked on the Iran nuclear accord, the effort to reset relations with Russia after its invasion of Georgia, and advised against supporting regime change in Syria. The so-called reset with Russia contributed to the successful effort to remove chemical weapons from Syria. (Obama has been unfairly criticized for the failure to use force against the Assad regime in Syria, and the success of bilateral diplomacy with Russia has not been acknowledged.) According to the Financial Times, Gordon has been responsible for crafting Harris’s more sympathetic tone for the plight of the Palestinians.
Although Biden put great stock into personal diplomacy, his team demonstrated no willingness to open areas of dialogue with key adversaries. We have obvious differences with Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi, and Iran’s Ayatollah. But over the past several months, these leaders have demonstrated an interest in pursuing substantive discussions with the United States. It was encouraging that Harris did not personally mention these leaders and only singled out North Korea’s Kim Jong Un for criticism, although Kim’s interest in dealing with the United States is also apparent.
There is no sign of Harris’s positions on Biden’s policy choices that would suggest strong differences or alternative approaches to change the direction of U.S. policy. Harris at this point cannot deviate from President Biden’s key positions on sensitive issues, although Vice President Hubert Humphrey probably lost the election in 1968 to Richard Nixon because of a belated critique on U.S. policy in Vietnam. Biden’s unwavering support for Israel could ultimately hurt Harris in key states such as Michigan.
Harris acknowledged that she was the “last person in the room” on the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, and it was well known that she wanted to protect the Afghan women and children who would be most affected by the Taliban’s return to power. But Harris, like Biden, was “eager” to find a political solution that would allow the withdrawal of American forces, which was the correct position after two decades of military and political failure in Afghanistan.
Ironically, when Joe Biden was vice president, he took strong exception to President Barack Obama’s decision to increase the U.S. force presence in Afghanistan and even warned the president to avoid getting “boxed in” by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that were pressing for a large increase in military forces. Biden took the unusual step of sending a classified message to Obama to prevent any increase in the U.S. presence, and wrote a personal note for the record that he was “thinking I should resign in protest over what will bring his administration down.”
According to the Washington Post, Biden privately stated that protecting Afghan women was not a cause worthy of continued U.S. military intervention. (My personal view is that Biden has been unfairly pilloried for ending the “forever war” in Afghanistan, which cost the United States more than $2 trillion. It was one of Biden’s greatest achievements, refusing to prolong a war that made no sense and was never worth the cost after the initial success in 2001.)
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how Harris will handle two of Biden’s greatest failures: his continuation of Donald Trump’s failed policy toward China and his intense support for the illiberal and militaristic policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The pursuit of containment against China is a losing hand that must yield to more nimble strategies and tactics. Israel’s dangerous escalation in Gaza prevents any possibility of serious negotiations in the region, let alone a compromise for peace. The “alliance” with Israel is a shackle that chains U.S. policy to Israel’s dangerous illusions and aspirations. It must be addressed.
Harris’s speech ended with the usual tropes associated with presidential national security policy. She stressed that she would “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” and that she would “take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.” Her emphasis on “standing up for Israel’s right to defend itself” obfuscates the fact that Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza and the West Bank have nothing to do with defense.
Our policy of globalism has been overly dependent on support for military lethality, which led us into losing wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; our stress on terrorism led us into the “Global War on Terror,” which led to a wrongful expansion of U.S. power into the Middle East and even Africa. Our reliance on strategic superiority, which will require continued modernization of strategic forces, will be a costly liability in times such as these that require more stable and subtle policies. There is much work to be done and, at this point, no clarity on the shape and substance of future foreign policy.