By Thobile Jiwulane

Now that the ‘eat pets’ debate in the US presidential race is over, it has become clearer how each candidate’s foreign policy thrust will look like when the winner takes office in early January 2025.

Last week’s debate has revealed what each candidate stands for domestically and internationally. During the televised public debate both Vice President Kamala Harris of the Democrats and Republican Donald Trump have outlined their positions pertaining to the three key issues on which the US foreign policy revolves – the attitude towards Russia and China, US support for Israel, the immigration question and trade policy.

As incumbent VP and aspirant US president Harris is set to mostly continue with the status quo – she has little room to manoeuvre outside the Biden Administration’s foreign policy approach as she is already part of it. She already displayed a Biden-like attitude towards Russia with regards to its ongoing military operation in Ukraine and towards China versus Taiwan.

Indications were that in her administration, if she won, Harris would continue to pump even more lethal military weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia and with the support of UK prime minister Keir Starmer, who has approved the use of US-made long-range missiles against Russia, the White House has been emboldened to ensure Putin is confronted militarily.

While the UK and France were amenable to the use of their long-range missiles to directly attack Russia with Starmer speaking boldly about confronting Russia despite a stern warning from Putin about possible nuclear war if that happened, America is reluctant to approve sending long range missiles to engage Russia directly, unlike the UK and the Europeans, that had already used the US-made F-16 jet fighters against Russia. While a known war-monger, Joe Biden is wary of a direct war with Russia, fearing the consequences – a definite provocation of a nuclear war and the Third World War.

Although Harris was expected to back Israel in the Gaza conflict, many believe she wouldn’t give Tel Aviv a blank cheque in its continued bombardments in Gaza, where it continues to kill innocent civilians including women and children. Rather she is expected to put forward firmer conditional backing Israel than her boss, Biden who openly embraces Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who continues the killing spree in Gaza while also Washington is pursuing a ceasefire.

Harris’ decision to excuse herself from meeting Netanyahu during his recent visit to Congress was a clear indication that Israel wouldn’t have it easy from her administration. Her boycott of Netanyahu prompted Trump to accuse her of being anti-Israel. She appeared to harbour some personal sympathy towards the plight of the Palestinians although she had yet to made that clear.

She might emphatically demand a ceasefire and avoidance of targeting of civilians by the Israel troops than the luck-lustre ceasefire call by Biden. The difference in approach towards Israel by Harris and Biden would be on emphasis for a ceasefire and the need to give peace negotiations between Israel and Hamas a fair chance. Under Harrist ceasefire is likely to be taken more seriously than the continuation of the conflict.

But one thing for sure, whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, a support for Israel would have to be maintained somehow as it was about guarding various US interests in the entire Middle East especially in the Gulf. Securocrats and Pentagon in particular dictate Washington’s security direction and they would never allow any dropping of guard that would make Israel vulnerable. The bigger picture is the maintenance of the US hegemony in the world.

From the American perspective, there is little trust for Israel’s Arab neighbours especially Iran and military groupings in the region including the Beirut-based Hezbollah and Yemen-based Houthis, both backed by Tehran. The question of US access to oil fields and Israel security would always remain the biggest points of departure in the US foreign and trade policies in the region.

Harris’ domestic and international trade approach would be anything opposed to the way Trump does things – he was likely to continue with his previous administration’s strict import tariff restrictions and restricted movement on the Mexican border and control of immigrants in general. Trump made his stance clear on migration once more hence he referred to the Haitian immigrants whom he claimed “eat cats, dogs and pets” in Springfield, Ohio, a claim that was universally dismissed as baseless and without substance. But for sure, if given a chance the business tycoon, would vigorously pursue an anti-immigrant policy as in the past.

During the debate, Trump reiterated his statement that he would end the war between the Ukraine and Russia early or even before he was sworn in as President, if he succeeded to beat Harris. He always brags about being able to make a phone call to Vladimir Putin and within no time the war would be over. On China, Trump would prefer a trade war than a military confrontation with China. China posed the biggest threat to the US world economic dominance and was touted to overtake US to become number one economy in the world in less than a decade now.

Taiwan, would prefer a Biden or Harris in office because they promise some action to assist Taipei should Beijing act on its threat to invade Taiwan than Trump who was unpredictable about the ongoing tension in the Taiwan Strait.
Whoever would win in the 5 November Presidential Election, would have done more on a personal level than the party he or she belongs to sell themselves to the electorate in the current election campaign.

The personal influence in the US election campaign was explained during a virtual debate on the Democratic National Convention and its significance in the US presidential election campaign. During the virtual discussion by former congressman, Jason Altimore with fellow former lawmaker, Rodney Davis (Republican) jointly organised with the US Embassy in South Africa, the two former lawmakers emphasised that it is an individual candidate’s charm that brings votes and not necessarily policies in the US system.

Harris seemed to have charmed the audience in the “eat pets” debate against Trump in addition to leading in the this week’s polls (47% to 42% according to Reuters/Ipsos poll). But the US election results are unpredictable and can be miraculous. In the US terms, the winner of a debate may not be the winner of the election and the winner of the election may not enter the White House unless college system votes favour him or her ultimately.

According to respected US political scientist, John Mearsheimer, strange developments had been unfolding in the US politics in the last several years where unwanted leaders often emerge as candidates in the US presidential elections – from primaries right up to the Oval Office. He attributed this to what he calls “broken American political system and this was caused by deep-seated dissatisfaction among the American public.

Mearsheimer, speaking in an interview with online outfit, Strategist, says Harris, Trump and even Joe Biden were not heavyweights or qualified to become US presidential candidates. “Any system that produces Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is in serious trouble. The fact is there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in this country and that dissatisfaction had manifested itself in the rise of Donald Trump and also the rise of Bernie Sanders,” Mearsheimer says.

The scholar says Sanders was guaranteed of victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 and in 2020 against Biden in the primaries but was prevented by the Democratic elders from becoming their candidate. That intervention was deliberate to prevent a disaster that would have been brought about by Sanders and that saw Biden being put in as a “stop gap measure”.

In the 2020 election, the US public did not want neither Trump nor Biden to run for President and in the current race, Harris was widely unpopular because people believe she was not properly well qualified to become president.

Mearsheimer strongly argues before Biden’s fate of deteriorate state of health which caused to withdraw from the race and replace with Harris all of a sudden, due to her unpopularity, nobody thought Harris would ever become a candidate unless Biden died in office. Now two unpopular candidates, Harris and Trump, are vying for the White House, it means once more an unsuitable President would walk into the Oval Office, come January 2025.

Mearsheimer says that the likes of Trump and Sanders would do well at all is indicative that “US political system does not work well for a lot of people”. Such a broken system is bound to produce a wrong US President again with a victory by either Harris or Trump in November.