UNITED STATES: THE TEMPTATION OF WITHDRAWAL?

As the U.S. presidential elections in November draw closer, foreign policy doesn’t seem to be grabbing the attention of voters, except perhaps on issues related to Israel and the Gaza conflict. However, the whole world is watching this electoral campaign closely, as the influence of the U.S. remains predominant in international affairs. The key question remains: will the U.S. continue its global engagement or choose a strategic retreat?

After a successful Democratic convention in Chicago last week, Kamala Harris has given hope to her party, which had been lagging in the polls. Representing a multicultural and progressive America, Harris has made this campaign a referendum on Donald Trump, whom she called a “convicted autocrat” and “dangerous for the country.” With an agenda centered on women’s and minority rights, Harris represents a clear break from traditional elites. For the first time since 1976, neither a Clinton, Bush, nor Biden will be running for president or vice president. Another historic first: a woman of color, with African American and Indian heritage, is now on the verge of entering the White House.

However, one question remains: will the novelty of her candidacy be enough to persuade voters? Harris entered the race following Joe Biden’s forced withdrawal, but her qualifications, especially in foreign policy, are the subject of debate. Her background as a former prosecutor and brief senator has not prepared her for handling major international issues. During her three years as vice president, she played only a minor role, primarily focusing on immigration at the Mexican border. In terms of foreign policy, Harris has remained largely quiet, not addressing either the Afghanistan troop withdrawal or the war in Ukraine.

At the Chicago convention, she adopted Joe Biden’s positions, reaffirming the U.S.’s strong support for Israel’s security while also recognizing Palestinians’ right to a state. On Ukraine, Harris said she wanted to continue U.S. support against Russian aggression. On other key issues like energy, the economy, and trade relations with China, Harris has been vague, though this vagueness seems to be benefiting her: she has narrowed the polling gap with Donald Trump and even gained a slight lead.

Despite this momentum, the race remains highly contested. Harris will need to reveal more soon, especially during the crucial September 10 debate, eagerly anticipated by both allies and opponents. Her few statements on international politics are closely watched, as the U.S. grows increasingly divided between the beneficiaries and the losers of globalization.

A recent poll by the Chicago Foreign Policy Center shows the fragmentation of the once-bipartisan consensus that Henry Kissinger held dear. As the Republican Party shifts away from Reagan-era ideals, returning to its isolationist roots from before World War II, 54% of Republican voters now want the U.S. to disengage from world affairs, compared to 68% of Democrats who disagree. Only 13% of Republicans believe the U.S. has a responsibility to lead globally, while 57% support reducing international commitments. This divide also appears in opinions on support for Ukraine: 51% of Republicans oppose it, compared to 70% of Democrats.

In her Chicago speech, Kamala Harris wore a blue suit by French designer Chloé, perhaps a symbol of openness to international influences. But is that enough to overcome the temptation of isolationism?

Pierre Lellouche

Editorial published in VA, August 24, 2024