The fallout over US President Joe Biden's foreign policy with American voters was exemplified this week by pro-Palestinian protests outside Vice President Kamala Harris' hotel residence in Chicago, where the 2024 Democratic National Convention is taking place.
The protests demonstrate that for the average American voter, foreign policy is gradually becoming an important consideration ahead of the November 2024 presidential election.
When it comes to international relations, Harris has positioned herself as the opposite of former President Donald Trump, her Republican contender in the race. But is she really that different? Let's take a look:
The Harris doctrine
As Biden's vice president, Harris is expected to continue to follow in the footsteps of the current administration's foreign policy.
Her previous visits as vice president to 21 countries and meetings with 150 leaders are indicative of her beliefs of adopting a more collaborative approach to international affairs. This translates into a commiting to "transatlanticism" or stronger relations between North America and Europe; strengthening NATO; shoring up the Indo-Pacific alliance with ASEAN and India as key players; and continuing to see China as an economic and strategic rival.
Conversely, Donald Trump's "America First" approach means he is sceptical of US alliances such as NAFTA and NATO. He has also taken a relatively milder approach toward Russia over its war in Ukraine.
Far apart on Ukraine and Russia
In fact, the biggest foreign policy difference between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump appears to be Russia.
Harris views President Vladimir Putin as a foe over the latter’s perceived aggression in Ukraine, and has openly sided with Kiev. Her representation at the Summit for Peace in Ukraine in June and her pledge to safeguard Ukraine's security and freedom at the Munich Security Conference in February signals she would carry over the Biden administration's support for Ukraine against Russia.
If this remains the case, and Harris continues to unequivocally back Kiev through arms transfers and diplomatic support, there will remain little incentive to urge Russia to initiate dialogue and work toward deescalation.
This directly contrasts with Trump's approach towards Russia and Ukraine. Trump is more friendly toward Putin because of his historical admiration for strongman leaders and desire to secure commercial interests in Russia which he has pursued since 1987.
Trump has stated that if elected, he would work toward ending the war and end prolonged US funding for Ukraine. Notably, his ability to convince Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to agree to terms remains questionable.
But a decision by Harris to continue the status quo at the expense of possible dialogue with Russia could ensure that the Ukraine conflict continues.
Eye-to-eye on the Middle East
Meanwhile, both Harris and Trump appear to share the same unequivocal support of Israel, albeit expressed in different ways.
Harris has adopted a softer tone on Palestine to placate widespread anger within the Democratic party about Biden's support for Israel. But it is unrealistic to believe that this will translate into the suspension of arms transfers.
Despite her comments on the need to end Palestinian suffering after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington last month, Harris does not support an arms embargo on Tel Aviv.
And though she says she supports a two-state solution and is working toward Palestinian independence, she is bearing the brunt of criticism from pro-Palestinian advocates and US voters who are unconvinced that US policy on Israel would shift under her tenure.
Trump's policy toward Israel is more predictable. His aversion to pro-Palestinian protestors and his support for Israel is well known, as demonstrated by his 2017 decision to shift the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
However, as with the war in Ukraine, Trump has called for a resolution to the conflict and believes he has more sway over Netanyahu than Biden due to his support for illegal Israeli settlements, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and as the architect of the Abraham Accords which helped Israel normalise relations with certain Muslim countries in the region.
Elsewhere, heavy militarisation of the Middle East would be expected to continue under Harris, as US Strike Carrier Groups have been deployed in the Mediterranean and Red Sea since the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran. With Trump there will also be a greater push towards militarization with the possibility of assassinations taking place of figures such as Qasim Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Notably, Harris's previous support for the US-Iran 2015 nuclear deal does not necessarily mean that her administration would decline to come to Israel's defence if escalation occurs between this ally and Iran and its numerous proxies.
Trump on the other hand pulled the US out of the JCPOA during his tenure as president and would similarly come to Israel's aid in the event of an attack by Iran.
China is a mixed bag
There is little doubt that Trump's foreign policy toward China was an aggressive and confrontational one. Decoupling from China by weakening trade interdependence between the two countries and imposing tariffs of up to 60 percent on imports from the country has been part of the Trump doctrine.
If Harris is elected president, the world can likely expect US foreign policy to remain similar to today. A Trump presidency could portend more overt populism, unilateral policy making and uncertainty.
Harris meanwhile has previously chided Trump for damaging the US economy while she served as attorney general. However as AG she adopted legislation promoting human rights in Hong Kong while also calling for Taiwan's self-defence, moves that China sees as a challenge to its sovereignty.
Thus, US relations with China would likely not improve under Harris, as Hong Kong and Taiwan are major red lines for China. Also, engagement with Beijing under Harris does not mean that rivalry and competition with the two largest economies in the world would cease.
US economic ties with China would likely continue in the presence of disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
If Harris is elected president, the world can likely expect US foreign policy to remain similar to today. Though both candidates see eye-to-eye on Israel and China, a Trump presidency could portend more overt populism, unilateral policy making and uncertainty.
For Harris, expect more international engagement and predictability. The playbook on Israel, Iran and China however, would pretty much be the same.
