It is one of Washington’s open secrets that Kamala Harris thinks that President Biden has not been tough enough with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu
By Tom Arms
Foreign policy analysts are sifting through documents and speeches and even casting a few runes and studying used tea leaves to determine what foreign policy directions a Kamala White House may take.
It is still a bit murky. Constructive ambiguity, is one of the buzz soundbites of 21st century diplomacy and is heard often in the Harris camp. But outlines are appearing, especially in contrast to a Trump foreign policy.
The transactional diplomacy favoured by the former president is out. Gone—and hopefully forgotten—will be days when American support was tendered only when Washington could point to easily quantifiable successes negotiated along narrow obvious channels of self-interest. Aka transactional diplomacy.
Instead, expect a move towards consensus building and closer work with allies. This implicitly means closer relations with America’s oldest allies—NATO—who since 2016 have lived in constant dread of an American pull out. A Harris Administration would be pro-NATO which in turn means very pro-Ukraine. Perhaps more so than Biden
The Asian Pivot, however, is still very much on the cards. But it is expected to be based more on alliance-building than military ship building, specifically with Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, the Philippines and India. America cannot afford a two-front war and will need to shift some of its regional military responsibilities onto local shoulders. The Biden Administration has already started the ball rolling. Harris is expected to push it further down the road.
At the same time, a Harris Administration, will also want to continue to attract more businesses from China and the Asian tigers to American shores. Harris is opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership and wants to continue tariffs ranging from 25% to 100% on $18 billion of Chinese exports. Trump, on the other hand, proposes a 60 percent blanket tariff on $551 billion of Chinese goods. Economists fear that a Trump Administration would push up inflation in America and create deflation in China.
South of the border—or at least America’s southern border—is a diplomatic Achilles heel for Kamala Harris. She has been unfairly dubbed “border Tsar” and blamed for high immigration figures. In fact, in 2021 President Biden gave her the task addressing the “root causes” of migration from Mexico and Central America. These were such things as corruption, violence, drug trade, and poverty. As a result, the Biden Administration has allocated $4 billion to address those problems and set up a program to encourage businesses to invest in the region, create jobs and give wannabe immigrants a reason to stay in their homelands.
This plus an executive decree speeding the processing of asylum claims has led to immigration figures dropping for five consecutive months. In August 57,000 illegal immigrants were stopped by border patrol compared to 250,000 in December.
She said: “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.”
The perpetual problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, the war in Gaza, will be a major priority for a Harris Administration. The issue is particularly difficult given the divisions within the Democratic Party. The younger members are increasingly pro-Palestinian while the old guard backs Israel.
Ms. Harris tried something-for-everyone in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. For the traditionalists she committed herself to defending Israel’s right to existence. She said: “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.” For the party’s growing pro-Palestinian wing she expressed support for the Palestinians “right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.”
It is one of Washington’s open secrets that Kamala Harris thinks that President Biden has not been tough enough with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. She underscored her opposition to the man by boycotting his recent address to a Joint Session of Congress. In this regard she is being led by her national security adviser Philip (Phil) Gordon and his deputy Rebecca Lissner.
Philip Gordon has served in foreign policy roles in three Democratic administrations (Clinton, Obama and Biden). He was a keen supporter of the Iran Nuclear Deal and has told friends that he bears the scars of countless negotiations with an Israeli government that was perpetually changing the goalposts.
Read: Observations of an Expat: Kamala v. Donald
61-year-old Gordon has specialized in the Europe and the Middle East. He is known as a bit of anglophile, possibly because he is married to a British woman. He is being tipped for the job of National Security Adviser in a Harris White House, although he might also be moved to Foggy Bottom to become Secretary of State. He and Rebecca Lissner are more or less in lockstep on four priorities: 1- Work with allies. 2- Defend sovereignty. 3- Ensure the free flow of capital and 4- fight for human rights.
All laudable goals and, as usual, the devil is in the detail. In this case a lot of the detail involves the methods to achieve these goals. The Gordon-Lissner duo want to move away from trying to build democracies through the barrel of a gun or to make peace by force of will power. That is not to say that they rule out military force. But expect less shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy and more of an emphasis of examination of the consequences before taking action.
They also want to step away from simple solution thinking. In a 2016 article for The Atlantic, Philip Gordon, said: “What I’m suggesting is the need to bring a certain humility to the notion that is some simple solution to big challenges. It would be very surprising if, in fact, there were right answers to Iraq, Libya and Syria and … successive administrations just applied the wrong ones to the wrong issues.”
World Review
In a month it will be first anniversary of the start of the Gaza War. There is no end in sight.
The two sides – Israel and Hamas—have two diametrically opposed positions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin says he will accept nothing less than the total destruction of Hamas. He might reluctantly accept a temporary ceasefire if the Israeli Defence Forces or Mossad manage to assassinate Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. That would enable him to retrieve at least some of the hostages. But once those hostages are returned expect the attacks to resume.
Hamas leader Sinwar is holding out for nothing less than a permanent ceasefire. This means that at least a Hamas remnant would remain intact for Palestinians to build on. Netanyahu would regard such a result as failure.
The American, Qatari and Egyptian negotiators meanwhile are trying to bridge these apparently irreconcilable positions with a diplomatic agreement couched in terms of “constructive ambiguity” which allows both sides to claim concessions, if not total victory.
The cost of failure is high. At stake is not just the plight of millions of Gazans and the future security of the state of Israel. Hanging over the talks is the threat of a wider regional war. A slight misstep by Israel, Iran, Hezbollah or the Houthis can easily set off a major conflagration.
Ironically, escalation can work to the advantage of both Netanyahu and Sinwar. From the point of view of the Hamas leader, a full-throated Middle East conflict would draw Israeli forces away from Gaza to attack Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon. There is also the possibility that an escalation could pull the Arabs off the fence and onto the Palestinian side.
Looking at the advantages of escalation through Israeli eyes, Netanyahu has been pressing the US for some time to join him in a direct attack on Iran which he sees as the fount of all of Israel’s problems. The Israeli prime minister was explicit in stating that goal in his recent address to a joint session of congress.
In the meantime, Netanyahu is no nearer to reaching his goal of the total destruction of Hamas and Yahya Sinwar is no nearer to admitting total defeat.
___________________________
There is a new forest of placards at Trump rallies: “Mass Deportation Now!” The same cry is being heard in Spain at Vox rallies. In France when the National Rally gathers. It is barked by some members of Britain’s Reform Party. In Germany The far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (Afd) has this week managed to gain control of the East German Lander of Thuringia.
And it is not just the far-right that is pushing the anti-immigrant line. Joe Biden’s tough new executive orders have dramatically reduced the number of illegal immigrants crossing America’ southern border. Stefan Lofven The leader of the Center-left, previously pro-immigrant Swedish Social Democrats recently reversed party policy to declare: “The Swedish people can feel safe in the knowledge that Social Democrats will stand up for a strict immigration policy.”
The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Serbia, the Czech Republic… Virtually all of the Western world has turned anti-immigrant. Opposing immigration wins votes. Backing deportation is a bit iffy, but the debate is moving in that direction. The problem is that mass deportation is wholly impractical.
Let’s start with the world’s richest country where Donald Trump has promised “the largest deportation of illegal immigrants in American history.” Just how large is still being discussed. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that there are 11.3 million illegals in the US. Trump running mate J.D Vance has said: “Let’s start with a million and go from there.” Trump talks about booting out up to 20 million.
Imagine trying to round up 20 million people; forcing them onto buses; into detention centers; pushing them onto planes and then finding countries that will take them back. Imagine the economic impact of taking 20 million workers out of the economy—most of them taxpayers. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that to deport each illegal immigrant from the US would cost taxpayers $14,000. That means one million would cost upwards of $14 billion and Trump’s estimate would cost the government a staggering $280 billion and trillions to the economy in terms of lost work hours.
The financial outlay in Europe is likely to be much, much higher as Europeans tend to be less hard-hearted and more legalistic than their American counterparts.
Then there is the added problem that the migration problem is not going away. There are roughly 35 million immigrants in Europe and America and untold millions more pushing up behind them. The UN High Commission for Refugees recently reported that the number of displaced people in the world has reached a staggering 108 million. They are fighting for survival and for them the dangers of a small boat crossing are nothing compared to what they are fleeing.
In Sudan alone, ten million have been displaced in the past year by a civil war between rival warlords. An estimated 60 percent of those gathering in Calais refugee camps are Sudanese. In America, Venezuelans flee the regime of Nicolas Maduro, the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, the gang warfare of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and the human disaster that is Haiti. They will continue to come until they no longer have a reason to do so.
_______________________________
Russian President Vladimir Putin this week told the state broadcaster Russia Today (RT) that he backs Kamala Harris for the presidency of the United States. Unfortunately President Putin’s message is failing to reach Russian propagandists working on the ground in America.
This week the Departments of Justice, State, and the Treasury announced sanctions against 10 individuals and 2 entities, and criminal charges against two employees of RT, who allegedly funded a company in the U.S. to hire right-wing social media influencers to push Russian propaganda before the 2024 election.
The Russians have allegedly financed a Tennessee-based company called Tenet Media. The indictment says that the registered owners—Liam Donovan and Lauren Tam had received at least $10 million from RT to pump out Russian propaganda.
Contrary to Putin’s claims of support for Ms. Harris, virtually all of the propaganda supported Donald Trump. According to seized Russian documents, Tenet Media was instructed “make maximum effort to ensure that the Republican point of view, first and foremost, the opinion of Trump supporters, wins over US public opinion. This includes provisions on peace in Ukraine in exchange for territories, the need to focus on the problems of the US economy, returning troops home from all over the world, etc.”
The target audience of the campaign was “Republican voters,” Trump supporters, “Supporters of traditional family values,” and “White Americans, representing the lower-middle and middle class.” The focus was in particular on “residents of swing states” who’s voting results impact the outcomes of the elections more than other states.
Separately, the Department of Justice seized 32 internet domains that “the Russian government and Russian sponsored actors” have used to influence the 2024 election. In a malign influence campaign called “Doppelganger,” these domains produced fake articles that appeared to be from major U.S. news sites, to which influencers and fake social media profiles on Facebook, X, Truth Social, and YouTube then drove traffic.
The Russians directed their U.S. employees to emphasize the following “campaign topics”: “Encroaching universal poverty. Record inflation. Halting of economic growth. Unaffordable prices for food and essential goods”; “Risk of job loss for white Americans”; “Privileges for people of colour, perverts, and disabled”; “threat of crime coming from people of colour and immigrants”; “Overspending on foreign policy and at the interests of white US citizens”.
____________________
Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and is currently updating his “Encyclopaedia of the Cold War.” He is also the author of “America Made in Britain.”
