Selecting Kamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate, Joe Biden would appear to have given himself flexibility to shape his foreign policy vision without major influence from his No. 2.
Unlike his prospective choice of Susan Rice, Harris lacks foreign policy credentials and comprehensively developed positions.
The foreign policy section of Harris’s campaign website is rather fluffy and generalized. Still, we do have some evidence for her positions. Biden’s former challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination is in favor of defense spending cuts and was one of only 10 senators to vote against the 2018-2019 defense bill. Expect the Trump campaign to use Harris as a new pivot to present the Biden campaign as weak on defense.
Harris might also leave Biden open to new attacks on his China policy.
The senator from California has not articulated a comprehensive China policy in the way that other senators such as Mark Warner, Marco Rubio, and Josh Hawley have. Harris has asserted the need to engage China on climate change issues and confront its grotesque human rights record but hasn’t explained how she would hold the highly deceptive Beijing to its word.
That said, perhaps Harris will offer team Biden a more concerted line of attack against President Trump, who hasn’t shown much interest in China’s human rights abuses. But as I say, Harris’s overall China record is pretty thin. Her primary contribution to addressing the China challenge appears to have been her Senate resolution discouraging references to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” or “Wuhan virus.” Considering the rapidly escalating tensions in the U.S.-China relationship, especially in the South China Sea, Biden could be described here as taking a risk.
Harris’s Russia record perhaps offers Trump another opening for criticism. While Harris has robustly condemned Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine and his 2016 election antics, she will have earned the Kremlin’s positive regard for her positions in other areas. Her call for a ban on fracking, for example, is music to Putin’s ears. Harris’s opposition to nuclear forces modernization is also problematic in the face of Russia’s new strike platforms.
Harris is well within the Democratic Party mainstream on Iran, believing the United States should return to the 2015 nuclear agreement as soon as possible. It also seems clear that, should Biden-Harris be elected in November, U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia will become less friendly. But with Iran greatly weakened by the reimposition of U.S. sanctions, Biden-Harris might find it hard to justify giving Tehran a major bailout without addressing the structural flaws of the 2015 deal. Even the European Union recognizes that the agreement needs to address Iranian ballistic missile research if it is to be credible.
Ultimately, this choice reflects Biden’s decision to give himself foreign policy freedom of action. Had he chosen Susan Rice, it would have presumably signified an interest in her foreign policy expertise, especially because she is not really a politician. Harris, however, is known for staking out positions on domestic issues, not so much on foreign affairs.
