Harris's Foreign Policy Dilemma: Balancing Rules and Realpolitik

In the realm of U.S. foreign policy, a stark contrast has emerged between President Joe Biden's focus on the global contest between democracy and autocracy, and Vice President Kamala Harris's emphasis on promoting a "rules-based order." This divergence in rhetoric highlights the complexities and potential inconsistencies in America's approach to international relations.

The concept of a "rules-based international order" has been a cornerstone of global diplomacy since the end of World War II, with the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 serving as a pivotal moment in this framework. However, the implementation of this ideal has often been fraught with challenges and contradictions.

Harris's inclination towards discussing a "rules-based order" is attributed to her background as a prosecutor and the pragmatic recognition that many U.S. allies do not fit the mold of democratic governance. This approach, however, does not shield the administration from accusations of hypocrisy, particularly in light of Washington's continued support for Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Israel.

The situation in Gaza serves as a stark example of this dilemma. While the U.S. provides approximately $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel annually, the Israeli military's actions in Gaza have been met with widespread international condemnation. Several Western nations, including the United Kingdom, have taken steps to limit arms sales to Israel due to concerns over potential violations of international humanitarian law.

The challenges to democracy posed by autocratic regimes, such as those led by Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin in Russia, underscore the importance of a cohesive and principled foreign policy. However, the Biden administration's approach of building alliances that include autocratic leaders, such as Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, has raised questions about the consistency of its commitment to democratic values.

The legal implications of U.S. military aid to Israel are significant. The Leahy Law, enacted in 1997, prohibits assistance to foreign security forces involved in human rights violations. Moreover, the broader Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 restricts security assistance to countries engaged in consistent patterns of human rights abuses.

"The Court orders Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip."

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Harris faces the challenge of articulating a foreign policy vision that addresses these contradictions. While her current role as Vice President may limit her ability to diverge from Biden's policies publicly, there is growing anticipation for her to outline how her approach as president might differ.

The debate surrounding U.S. foreign policy extends beyond partisan lines. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, sets forth principles that all nations should aspire to uphold. However, the realities of geopolitics often lead to compromises and inconsistencies in the application of these ideals.

As Harris prepares for potential presidential debates, she must grapple with these complex issues. The world is watching to see how she might reconcile the promotion of a rules-based order with the practical challenges of international diplomacy. Her ability to address these concerns could significantly impact her political future and the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy.