Kamala Harris on Foreign Policy
Democratic candidate for President (withdrawn); California Senator
HARRIS: With all due deference to the fact that this is presidential debate, Donald Trump got punked. He has conducted foreign policy out of a very fragile ego that fails to understand that one of the most important responsibilities of the commander-in-chief is to concern herself with the security of our nation and homeland. And to do it in a way that understands that part of the strength of who we are as a nation is not only that we have a vibrant military, but that we are respected because we keep to our word, we are consistent, we speak truth, and we are loyal.
Q: But would you make concessions to North Korea to keep talks going?
HARRIS: Not at this point. There are no concessions to be made. Trump has traded a photo-op for nothing. Trump has compromised our ability to have a check on North Korea's nuclear program.
A: It's Donald Trump. You want to talk about North Korea, a real threat in terms of nuclear arsenal, but what does he do? He embraces Kim Jong-un, a dictator, for the sake of a photo op. Putin--you want to talk about Russia? He takes the word of the Russian president over the word of the American intelligence community when it comes to a threat to our democracy and our elections.
A: Part of the failure is that this president and administration have failed to understand that we are stronger when we work with our allies on every issue, China included.
Q: China is an ally?
A: No, meaning working with our allies to address China, in terms of the threat that it presents. This president has a preference for conducting policy by tweet. It is a display of a president who thinks that unilateral action is better than working with friends. It puts us in a weaker position.
"What we have seen recently is a president who is conducting foreign affairs by tweet. On Day One, I would make it very clear that I value the importance of diplomacy. I value relationships. And that doesn't take any strength from us, any power from us--it gives us power," she said.
California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris said in an interview that she opposed the GOP measure because it set up an "untenable" system. Beyond the current 18-to-24 month vetting process, it would have required top federal officials to certify that individual refugees pose no threat. She recalled a heart-rending photo of a drowned Syrian toddler, part of a refugee family torn apart while trying to escape: "We can't allow the images of the tragedy of what happened in Paris to blind us to the image of a 3-year-old child who washed up on a Mediterranean beach." She said, "There is a drum beating, that the way to keep us safe is to keep outsiders out. That scares me. Ask native Americans: We are a country of immigrants." But, she added, "there's no question that we have to be vigilant."
Foreign policy has become an unusually prominent issue heading into the 2016 election cycle. President Obama has made a strong effort to avoid labeling the terrorism carried out in the name of religion "radical Islam." When asked for her take on that, Harris echoed President Obama saying "there are extremists who are using religion as a cloak to commit terror and terrorist acts. And I think it would be a mistake for any of us to mistake the religion for the terrorists. They can be distinguished. And they should be in our language as well as our policy approach."
She prefaced her remarks by pointing out the need to talk about Israel "because it is our strongest ally in the Middle East. And so we have to take that seriously and be guided by that reality, as it relates to issues that impact the Middle East."
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'The U.S. Should Continue to Support and Stand with the Nation of Israel Against her Enemies' The Christian Coalition notes, "You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives."
Congressional Summary: S.Res.6/H.Res.11 objects to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which characterizes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and demands cessation of settlement activities.
Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, Dec. 19, 2003): In principle, separation seems the best answer to stop the killing. For this reason, a security fence makes sense--if it actually separates Jew from Arab. Unfortunately, to protect a number of disparate Israeli settlements erected in the midst of Palestinian communities, Israel currently is mixing Jew and Arab and separating Arab from Arab. Thus are sown the seeds for conflict. After 36 years of occupation, the land remains almost exclusively Arab. The limited Jewish presence is the result of conscious colonization. The settlements require a pervasive Israeli military occupation, imposing a de facto system of apartheid. Separation offers the only hope, but separation requires dismantling Israeli settlements.
|Other candidates on Foreign Policy:||Kamala Harris on other issues:|
Kevin de Leon
Tom Del Beccaro
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I)
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Mooney(R) vs.
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.
AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.
DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Carter(D)
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Greenfield(D)
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Harris(D) vs.Jordan(D)
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D)
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Pierce(D)
MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Gideon(D) vs.
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D)
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.Tucker(R) vs.
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R)
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Workman(D)
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Romero(R) vs.Perkins(R)
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Tinubu(D) vs.Harrison(D)
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Borglum(R) vs.Ahlers(D)
TN: Alexander(R,incumbent) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Hagerty(R)
TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D)
VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.
WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D)
WY: Enzi(R,incumbent) vs.Ludwig(D) vs.Lummis(R)
Senate Votes (analysis)