An Open Letter to Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 29 Jul 2024

Richard Falk | Global Justice in the 21st Century – TRANSCEND Media Service

An earlier version of this Open Letter to Kamala Harris was published by CounterPunch on 23 Jul 2024; so many developments have occurred in recent days as to make this longer version seem justifiable.

26 Jul 2024 – These is every reason to be glad that Joe Biden finally acted responsibly by withdrawing his candidacy for a second term. It should have happened weeks earlier. To consider this overdue act ‘brave’ and ‘courageous’ is to rob those precious words of their proper meaning. Withdrawal was a pragmatic move forced upon Biden by mounting pressures from the leadership of the Democratic Party and the insistence of a large majority of potential voters.

It is certainly true that Trump and his Republican base repeatedly lie about their achievements and the failings of their opponents, yet it is time to admit that the exaggerations and selective self-congratulations of the Democratic Party are only a degree less deceptive from the perspective of meaningful political communication in self-respecting democracies. Exaggerations are best understood as ‘soft lies’ and are integral to the style of post-truth political discourse.  They should not be excused by such phrases as ‘that’s the way of politics.’

Biden, and so far, Kamala Harris, neither defend nor apologize for a foreign policy that has repudiated diplomacy in the Ukraine context and made no secret of its complicity in supporting Israel’s violent assault on the entire civilian population of Gaza that much of the rest of the world views as a transparent and severe instance of the crime of crimes, genocide. And this seems also reflects the implicit views of the International Court of Justice, including the American judge, in its preliminary and interim responses to the well-presented legal arguments of the South African team in The Hague on why Israel is violating the Genocide Convention and needs to be stopped.

Against this background, should not Democrats, and Americans generally reasonably expect more forthrightness from Harris before heeding unity pleas tied tightly to urgent pleas for yet more campaign donations? What Biden and Harris said in their comments on Biden’s decision to withdraw and call for support of the current VP is worth reflecting upon. This is especially so in view of the foregrounding of controversy during Netanyahu’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress, which were highlighted by bipartisan standing ovations with the hallowed halls, while on the streets near the Capital large hostile demonstrations led by Jewish Voices for Peace were seeking Netanyahu’s arrest for crimes rather than for applause for the world to witness.

At least, Harris absented herself from the Congressional appearance of Netanyahu, and limited herself to a private courtesy meeting in the White House entire separated from Biden’s welcoming of Netanyahu.

##

Biden’s words in his official letter announcing his withdrawal are best reflected upon in this wider political framing:

“My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats—it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

This statement is pretty much boiler plate for such occasions, although it would have been better appreciated if it had included some affirmation of Kamala Harris as having a bold independent, intelligent, compassionate voice that made her counsel so valuable during these past four years. Instead, Biden leaves a dominant impression that Harris performed so admirably because she did such a good job in implementing his policy agenda. Now all Americans will have an opportunity to listen to what Kamala Harris has to say on her own behalf. She is unquestionably an outstanding experienced public servant but to earn broad support beyond her appeal as not being ‘not Trump’ (or Vance) depends on expressing her vison of what presidential leadership should aspire to be at this critical stage in the country’s evolution. The Harris/Trump epic contest this November is shaping up to be one of the most vitally important presidential elections in the country’s 248 years of existence.

In accepting Biden’s endorsement and committing herself to seeking the presidency Kamala Harris’s words are for my taste too much in the spirit of presenting herself to the voting public as Biden 2.0: Of course, this is what a vice president is supposed to do while in service, but at this stage, Harris is uniquely challenged to be simultaneously Biden Vice President until his term ends in January 2025 and to make a distinct case for herself as the next leader of the country. In effect, this amounts to asking Harris to give strong hints as to her views on foreign policy, especially if they significantly different from those of Biden is to be in an impossible position. It is not to be expected that Harris makes explicit note of such differences as that would be divisive given

the circumstances associated with having been Biden’s loyal junior partner during these four years of his presidency.

Her words on accepting Biden’s endorsement of her candidacy are probably neither better nor worse than could be expected given such he sensitive situation.

“I am running to be President of the United States.

“It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside our Commander-in-Chief, my friend, President Joe Biden – one of the finest public servants we will ever know. And I am honored to have his support and endorsement. [emphasis in original]

“And I am eager to run on the record of what Joe and I have accomplished together. We built our country back after our predecessor left it in shambles – making historic progress in upgrading our nation’s infrastructure, fighting climate change, and more. We are stronger today because we took action – together – to invest in America’s future.”

The language is a gracious expression of her experience while serving as VP, but also again it manages nothing revealing about Harris’ worldview beyond her embedded commitment to carry on the work as VP during the remainder of the Biden presidency, which is to be judged as compiling a record to be assessed by its positive impacts on the lives of Americans, conveying an image of US foreign policy being so bipartisan that is not worth talking about, or more truthfully because both its defense and critique would be divisive. The Democratic Party is badly split with regard to its attitude toward complicity with the Israeli perpetrators of criminal policies and practices in Gaza, including those that are parallel yet apart from the genocide issue, On July 19 the ICJ pronounced by a near unanimous majority of the 15 judges who issued a decision on Israel’s multiply wrongful occupation of Gaza and drew the legal conclusion that Israel should be required to depart from Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as quickly as possible. Although the decision is within the ICJ category of ‘Advisory Opinions’ it sets forth an authoritative determination of the international law issues and their consequences, including the ICJ insistence that Israel, all States, and the UN itself implements its extremely far reaching rulings. [“Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Isael in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Including East Jerusalem,” 19 July 2024].

It is possible that Kamala Harris, who admirably acknowledged in declaring her candidacy that she must earn the nomination not merely inherit it as a Biden final bequest, will give a forthright speech to the American people that exhibits some measure of independence, and abandons the incredible stance of Democratic Party nominees to be silent this year about the world out there beyond American borders at a time when the US role has never been more controversially intrusive. Surely, Biden’s frequent claims that America is in the best position of any country to provide global leadership, a view widely contested outside the West, deserve either a reasoned reaffirmation or, more appropriately, a prudent modification that is sensitive to criticisms and failures as it is boastful about achievements.

Aside from her double identity as VP and presidential candidate, Harris has a great opportunity to speak in her own voice, and not just channel the Biden record, but will she seize it? Looking back at her autobiography, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, I was encouraged by the pride she took in being part of an activist family of color dedicated to progressive causes while growing into adulthood, including activist opposition to the Vietnam War and almost daily engagement in the civil rights movement. And even during her semi-obligatory downplayed meeting in the White House with Netanyahu, she seemed to distance herself from the mindless immorality of Israel’s behavior in Gaza since October 7. Since March she has been more forthright that Biden in supporting a war-ending ceasefire.

Also, encouraging are her rumored intention to replace the foreign policy team of Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan that have served as such mediocre Biden international ideologues, especially Blinken whose startling ignorance of international affairs and excessive embrace of Israel have not served well the country or the Democratic Party. Perhaps, Democratic Party incredible silence amid engagement in two controversial and dangerous wars was after all a clever tactical diversion of attention from the world scene to domestic realities.

Harris can bring enthusiasm to her candidacy by talking about reinvigorating US commitments peace and justice in the world. Her choice of a running mate, promised by August 7 will be one opportunity for a fresh start, particularly is she has the political and moral wisdom to pass over Josh Shapiro who has been in the Biden camp on Israel, and hostile to pro-Palestinian campus activism.

In closing, I should acknowledge that despite the deplorable prospect of a second Trump term made worse by an awareness that JD Vance would then be a heartbeat away from presidential leadership, I had substantive reservations about supporting Biden/Harris, despite appreciating much of their domestic record, because of their foreign policy. It posed for me, to put it bluntly, an unwelcome choice between a warmonger and a mentally unstable incipient fascist. I confess to nightmares that this is still my choice, or and not yet sure whether Harris will make the fundamental adjustments in governance that might at least restore US credentials as first among the world’s ‘liberal democracies.’

I should also add that I was disappointed by the domestic failure of the Biden/Harrris presidency to do more to protect the academic freedom of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses and elsewhere. and by the related refusal to take responsibility for protecting all its students, and not just Jewish students as beneficiaries of donor interferences with the integrity of America’s once proud centers of higher education. One result has been to lead such institutions to take punitive action against foreign, especially Muslim, students who dare express their pro-Palestinian sentiments by way of civic activism.

As many Americans are assessing the highly objectionable Netanyahu visit to Washington during this past week, it is a time to elevate the electoral dialogue not only at the presidential level but also in relation to the many important Congressional contests. This unfortunate display of perverse diplomacy will also test Harris’ composure in her role as Vice President, whether to exhibit politeness but refrain from an ideological embrace of a foreign leader with a scandalous record, and from early accounts she seems to have handled the political delicacies of the situation in an encouragingly skillful manner.

__________________________________________

  Prof. Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, at Queen Mary University London, Research Associate the Orfalea Center of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Fellow of the Tellus Institute. He directed the project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy at UCSB and formerly served as director the North American group in the World Order Models Project. Between 2008 and 2014, Falk served as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Occupied Palestine. His book, (Re)Imagining Humane Global Governance (2014), proposes a value-oriented assessment of world order and future trends. His most recent books are Power Shift (2016); Revisiting the Vietnam War (2017); On Nuclear Weapons: Denuclearization, Demilitarization and Disarmament (2019); and On Public Imagination: A Political & Ethical Imperative, ed. with Victor Faessel & Michael Curtin (2019). He is the author or coauthor of other books, including Religion and Humane Global Governance (2001), Explorations at the Edge of Time (1993), Revolutionaries and Functionaries (1988), The Promise of World Order (1988), Indefensible Weapons (with Robert Jay Lifton, 1983), A Study of Future Worlds (1975), and This Endangered Planet (1972). His memoir, Public Intellectual: The Life of a Citizen Pilgrim was published in March 2021 and received an award from Global Policy Institute at Loyala Marymount University as ‘the best book of 2021.’ He has been nominated frequently for the Nobel Peace Prize since 2009.

Go to Original – richardfalk.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.