What the Harris-Trump debate hints about U.S. foreign policy

Home > Opinion > Columns

What the Harris-Trump debate hints about U.S. foreign policy

Published: 23 Sep. 2024, 20:09

Michael Green
The author is CEO of the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney and Henry A. Kissinger Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Most voters and journalists watched this week’s first and probably only presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris with an eye to who might break the dead heat in the race right now. The public and media consensus was that Harris won handily and might move her support up in key swing states ahead of Donald Trump. She appeared Presidential and was on the offense most of the time. Trump was usually on defense as Harris successfully baited him into long rambling tirades by mocking the size of his political rallies or his lack of toughness on the world stage. There were some questions on foreign policy but almost none on the Korean peninsula. Still, reading between the lines one could discern quite a few hints about how Trump or Harris would approach issues important to Korea.

First and foremost was the mettle of the two candidates. As Vice President, Harris has been in Joe Biden’s shadow and played a relatively small role in foreign affairs despite a several trips overseas. The Trump campaign had wanted to portray her as weak and vacillating, praying on possible voter doubts about her ability as a woman to stand up to dictators and foreign leaders. Harris went a long way towards dispelling any such doubt with her debate performance. As a former public prosecutor, Harris knows how to look tough on bad guys, and it really came through in her performance. She dominated Donald Trump throughout most of the debate, calling him weak and saying world leaders laugh at him. Trump’s signature brand is supposed to be his toughness, but while he grew angry, he did not look in control. Trump wanted to look like a successful businessman who could negotiate a deal with the likes of Vladmir Putin or Kim Jong-un, but Harris deflated that by portraying him as gullible. Putin will “eat you for lunch,” she said as Trump squirmed. Coming after Trump had fallen for Harris’s baiting on his insecurities, the comeback was powerful. Harris looked like a President and Trump looked like Trump — his supporters liked that, but not the undecided voters he needs to win. One could see that Harris would be tough on the world stage after all.

The other interesting aspect of Harris attacking Trump for being weak towards dictators, was that it showed how hard she is trying to win Republicans who voted for Nikki Haley against Trump in the Republican primaries. Those numbers were only 20% and Haley has since endorsed Trump, but if Harris can get even half of those Republican Trump-skeptics in key swing states, she wins. CNN and Washington Post focus groups after the debate suggested that her performance worked with those moderate Republicans. In the Democratic National Convention and the debate, Haley evoked the icons of Republican internationalism such as former Senator John McCain and she seized the banner of “freedom” from Trump by arguing that his extreme social conservative policies would deny Americans basic personal freedoms that Democrats are now better positioned to defend. She also attacked Trump for mocking the U.S. military and promised that the U.S. military will be “the most lethal force in the world.” These are not the usual hawkish tones of a Democratic presidential candidate, but they could add to her vote tally and eventually shape how she runs national security and who she puts into key positions at the NSC, State, and Defense.

The China exchanges were predictable but also noteworthy. Trump tried to get the upper hand by pledging massive tariffs on China. Polls show that this resonates in some key parts of Pennsylvania or Michigan but that the broader public is very wary of a trade war. Rather than praise free trade, Harris attacked Trump’s competence for inviting a trade war with China while sending the country valuable chips when he was President. She also mocked Trump for thanking Xi Jinping on Twitter during Covid. The themes here say a lot about how China policy will unfold. Both Trump and Harris would maintain the current tough line on China unless Beijing changes course (which is unlikely). They would continue strengthening export controls on semiconductors and other advanced technology — which polls well politically with the public. And despite Trump’s love affairs with Putin and Kim Jong-un, he will likely remain politically cautious about “falling in love” with Xi Jinping.

The Ukraine exchange told us a great deal as well. Harris was robust in her defense of Ukraine and criticism of Putin, asking pointedly how the 800,000 Polish Americans in Pennsylvania would view Trump’s readiness to surrender to Putin. Trump’s advisors say he would negotiate a peace deal by putting pressure on both Kyiv and Moscow. However, Trump refused to say that he does not want Moscow to win, which revealed a deeper affinity for Putin and hostility towards Zelensky than his advisors would like.

Indeed, many of Trump’s positions in the debate varied from what his campaign claims would be his positions on issues. This was noteworthy with Ukraine. It was also noteworthy in the way he praised Hungarian strongman Victor Orban as a great world leader. Where Harris gave indications that she would lean to the center and even the center right on foreign policy, Trump indulged the isolationist and authoritarian-loving memes of the far right and his Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance. The reassuring news is that a Trump administration would include very internationalist cabinet members like Senator Bill Haggerty at State or Wall Street supporter John Paulson at Treasury. But Trump’s frequent references to the darlings of the far right — like Victor Orban — indicate how much more that extremist and isolationist faction has influenced his thinking since he was last President.

Trump supporters complain that Harris was able to avoid answering hard questions aimed at Biden’s foreign policy record, but they only have Trump’s meandering and defensive answers to blame. Still, Harris never really addressed Iran, which has arguably been a failure for the Biden administration as Tehran continues to de-stabilize the Middle East. She never had to give any vision of her international economic policy, which remains a blank sheet aside from promising tougher export controls on China. Of course, ninety minutes of debate would always leave as many questions as answers. But on the whole, voters and the world did get a vivid contrast about how Trump and Harris would each move on the world stage if elected.