Continued support in security and continued scepticism of globalisation: What Kamala Harris’ nomination might mean for the EU

Over the last few weeks, the world has been holding its breath watching the unfolding drama of the US presidential race, which led to President Joe Biden withdrawing his candidacy and endorsing his Vice President Kamala Harris. As recent poll conducted by the New York Times shows that Harris has narrowed the gap that was growing between Biden and the Republican candidate Donald Trump, with 47% of Americans saying they would vote for her if the elections were held today, experts are making predictions on whether that’s good news for Europe. While publicly, officials in Brussels welcomed Biden’s decision, there were also some sceptical comments referring to Harris as being “invisible” on the foreign policy front and not a strong enough candidate to be the ally the EU needs amid the large-scale war on the continent. Studio Europa Maastricht spoke to Dr Roberta Haar, Professor of Foreign Policy Analysis & Transatlantic Relations at Maastricht University, about the potential impact of Harris’ nomination on Washington’s relations with the EU.

Sexism and scepticism from her own party

According to Haar, even Democrats who pleaded for Biden to quit the race are not all happy with his choice of replacement, but that might have more to do with sexism and racism than Harris’ professionalism: “There is a lot of negative talk about her, not only from the foreign policy realm but in general. I think Democrats tend to be critical of their own leaders, while Republicans seem to be better at realising that if you want to capture political power, you have to consolidate quickly and be coherent behind the current leader, whether that’s Trump, whom many traditional Republicans are sceptical of. Nevertheless, they support him. Democrats are more focused on integrity and wanting things from a particular candidate than on the fact that coherence is the pathway to power. I also heard some very sexist remarks about Harris. In fact, I heard that from people who are very strong Democrats. There was research done in 2020 about sexist comments on female candidates, especially candidates of colour, and it showed that among 13 female candidates, those of colour received more sexist remarks. In particular, Kamala Harris—78% of sexist comments were directed at her.”

“ I think she’s generally been, like all vice presidents, a little bit undervalued and not as much in the media.”

Harris has also been accused of not being present when it comes to foreign policy, but that might not be particularly fair: “Although she took on some controversial topics like migration and issues at the US border, which are never easy, she also made some mistakes in her interviews. I think she’s generally been, like all vice presidents, a little bit undervalued and not as much in the media. She’s not been the partner that, let’s say, Al Gore was to Clinton or Cheney was to George W. Bush, but I think, nevertheless, she was more active than most people give her credit for,” Haar explains.

But that invisible image is changing quickly: “It seems to me that after Biden endorsed Harris very strongly, she hit the ground running. In a very short time, she secured all the delegates for the nomination, and on the first day alone, she raised over $80 million for her campaign. That might reflect the fact that many people were just waiting to see who would run instead of Biden, but it does mean she’s doing quite well and is capable of gathering support. Plus, she has come out very forcefully attacking Trump, pointing out that she’s been a prosecutor in California and that Trump is now a convicted criminal. So, I think those sorts of things point to the fact that she might run a good campaign against him, although it’s still early days,” says Haar.

Good news for Ukraine, bad for China

When it comes to foreign policy, Harris will likely have a very similar stance to Biden, which would be a positive thing for European security but not necessarily for its economy, believes Haar: “Harris will continue a very strong support on the political, security, and defence side of the Transatlantic relationship. She will definitely continue to raise strong support for Ukraine in defending itself against the war launched by Putin, which would be very positive in general for Europe. What I think Europe could be more sceptical and unhappy about is that she will also continue Biden’s approach towards economic multilateralism, which means promoting policies for the middle class in America. Biden’s administration was very supportive of something I labelled in my own research as a flexilateral approach, i.e. very strong support in security and defence but very sceptical of globalisation and economic institutions like the WTO.”

While restoring relations with Brussels, which were shattered during Trump’s presidency, Biden followed his predecessor in enforcing protectionist measures against China, which Harris is expected to follow. Haar explains why it’s not a positive trend for the EU: “This includes protectionist policy and support for green energy or the technology sector, especially in chipmaking. Of course, the EU is not so happy with that. Ursula von der Leyen talked about these things not being good for the EU, and French President Macron has also been very critical of the US positions on economic multilateralism, saying that the United States has changed the playing field on economic multilateralism and that Europe has to respond to this, possibly with its own protectionist measures and subsidies, also in the tech and chipmaking sectors. I heard that in the Netherlands, there are going to be new subsidies for the chipmaking sector, and the new government will support academic research and development in the chipmaking sector. So, there is a mixed bag there. In some regards, like economic multilateralism, the EU will be not so happy and will have to figure out a response to an America that is thinking about China. Certainly, I don’t expect the Harris administration will be less critical or less worried about the rivalry with China, especially in the emerging technology sector.”

“All the last administrations in the United States, even under Obama, have emphasised that Europeans have been too complacent about their own security and defence.”

Europe needs stronger security, no matter who wins

Reflecting on what the EU leaders should prepare for in case Trump wins the elections, Haar emphasises the need for a strong security and defence strategy: “I’ve been recently writing about a new isolationist wing that exists within the American political spectrum. That would definitely be emphasised if Trump wins, and the EU should be ready for that. Brussels should think about ways they can build their own security and defence infrastructure. I think Putin will welcome a second Trump administration, and Europe should be ready for what that might mean for their security. They can no longer be complacent about their own security and defence. They have to think about how they can pay for it, how they build a defence industry that is capable of long-term security and defence, how they build armies—maybe they have to think about conscription. There has to be manpower but also technology-driven defence.”

But even if, on November 5, the Democratic candidate wins, Europeans still need to think about becoming more independent when it comes to their security, says Haar: “All the last administrations in the United States, even under Obama, have emphasised that Europeans have been too complacent about their own security and defence. They need to start thinking about how to be honest with their own publics about the need to prepare their security and defence in a much better way than they have been. I think European leaders have been dodging the need to be realistic about how these things need to be prepared, both in economic and political terms, but also in terms of domestic public perception. There are nationalists who support Putin and lean towards more nativist rhetoric. They need to find ways to offset that or educate the public about their civic responsibilities, their duty to their fellow Europeans, not only within their own countries. And the only way Europeans can defend themselves is by acting together. So, bashing the EU and other such sentiments need to be rethought. European leaders have to think about how they work together and how they convey this in a rhetoric and narrative that is more convincing for all Europeans.”