Compared to Joe Biden, a seasoned foreign policy veteran, Kamala Harris is not a traditional foreign-policy wonk. This means that, unlike conventional experts, Harris is not constrained by the forceful idealism often seen in recent Democratic presidents and high-level officials. As America’s first black female vice president, Harris’s identity allows her to extend her liberal feminist approach – shaped by her experience as a minority – from domestic politics into foreign affairs. The very fact that Harris has revealed little about her personal take on China suggests she is crafting a strategy distinct not only from Biden, but also from Hillary Clinton, who once stood poised to become the first female U.S. president.
Some might argue that Harris’s feminism will resemble that of Hillary Clinton, but this is unlikely. As a white woman from a wealthy background, Clinton’s feminism aligns with what some scholars refer to as “imperial feminism.” This form of feminism primarily addresses the concerns of women in the upper socio-economic class who are relatively less powerful than their male counterparts, often perpetuating existing class hierarchies and neglecting the broader spectrum of women’s experiences.
The hierarchical nature of Clinton’s feminist approach is evident in her response to women’s rights issues in non-Western countries: loud silence. While she has been vocal about women’s rights in the West, her relative quiet on these issues in non-Western contexts is striking. Her lack of substantial support for Saudi women’s rights campaigns drew criticism from local feminist activists. She also seemed unperturbed by U.S.-manufactured bombs devastating women in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq. Moreover, she showed little remorse for her role in the humanitarian, fiscal, and strategic catastrophe following her support for the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Clinton’s brand of imperial feminism maintains a clear division between “high politics” – military and economic interests – and “low politics,” such as climate change and human rights. When necessary, the former is prioritized over the latter in the name of defending U.S. interests, reflecting a broader pattern of U.S. imperialism.
While Clinton consistently condemned human rights violations in China, her approach to addressing the issue was, in essence, a modern form of imperialism. Her 1995 speech declaring “women’s rights are human rights” in Beijing was undoubtedly inspiring, but her belief in the inevitable collapse of the Chinese system – reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s view of the Soviet Union – restricted her willingness to pursue more nuanced diplomatic strategies. Rather than engaging in dialogue, negotiation, or rights-based, gender-sensitive assistance programs, as seen in the feminist foreign policies of Sweden and Canada, Clinton often opted for a confrontational stance. This approach was further embodied in her “pivot to Asia” strategy, which prioritized projecting power in the Indo-Pacific and underscored her preference for addressing “low politics” issues with “high politics” methods.
Clinton’s inability to grasp the institutional structure of Chinese society – where the most basic human rights are often defined by fundamental needs like food and clothing – reduced her policy, despite its feminist gloss, to a top-down imperial strategy that relied on the doctrine of “peace through strength.” Consequently, such an approach often provokes a strong, assertive response from a “masculine” China that similarly values demonstrations of power.
In contrast, Harris’s brand of liberal feminism gives her a better chance of understanding China. Liberal feminism advocates for working within existing structures to push for change – a subtle way to reform the system without provoking backlash. Growing up as a black child in an era of overt racism, Harris understands the importance of fighting the system not just hard, but smart. She has learned how to integrate herself into the system without losing sight of her vision for change, as seen during her tenure as a prosecutor in California.
Because of her finesse in advancing her agenda, Harris’s liberal feminism may be implemented more effectively without falling into the imperialist trap. Thus, her approach is more likely to bring about systematic change within the current international hierarchy. During her time at the White House, she launched the Global Initiative on the Economic Empowerment of Women, committing over $1 billion to empower women in Africa. While Harris’s approach is initially government-led, her plan to incorporate non-state actors with local knowledge has the potential to dismantle the Western-centric hierarchical framework of feminism, offering women in Africa a pathway to bottom-up empowerment – something Clinton neither achieved nor envisioned.
But how can a liberal feminist foreign policy be applied to China, the United States’ largest strategic competitor? What is needed is a genuine bottom-up approach – something that seasoned politicians like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have lacked the resolve to pursue. A liberal feminist like Harris, however, could bring this vision to life. Liberal feminism emphasizes the importance of working within existing systems to foster change. Thus, Harris’s China policy could start with domestic American politics, particularly by earning the trust of the Chinese American community, who seek fair treatment and recognition of their complex China-related identity.
Let’s not forget Harris’s Asian heritage. Her adoption of a Chinese name – whether driven by political strategy or genuine interest – is unprecedented for a presidential candidate, signaling the extra attention she has given to the Asian American community, which has long been marginalized in American politics but is now gaining significant political influence. Compared to other ethnic groups, Asian Americans are less likely to view China as a threat. Incorporating this often-overlooked perspective would give Harris a more nuanced understanding of China through the lens of Asian Americans, potentially reshaping U.S. policy toward China from the inside out.
Nevertheless, this does not mean Harris would lean toward appeasement regarding China, as her record of criticizing China’s human rights abuses demonstrates. She knows how to strategically frame U.S.-China competition in areas like space and artificial intelligence – a less confrontational approach compared to Clinton’s more aggressive stance on economic issues. She recognizes that to genuinely implement her liberal feminist approach toward China – without falling into the same imperial feminist trap as Hillary Clinton – she needs a deeper understanding of China. This is where her running mate, Tim Walz, comes into play.
Walz, who taught in China between 1989 and 1990 during the Tiananmen Square incident and still speaks Mandarin, is keenly aware of China’s human rights record. He also spent over a decade on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, a body dedicated to scrutinizing China’s human rights abuses. Given this background, it seems natural to label him a China hawk.
However, Walz himself rejects such a label, even though embracing it could bring potential political benefits in an era of heightened U.S.-China tensions. He acknowledges the complexity of Chinese society that many China experts overlook. In contrast to the black-and-white perspectives often seen in imperialism, he advocates for “fostering cultural exchanges” as a meaningful solution to U.S.-China issues, resisting the simplistic dichotomy of being a China hawk or dove.
Walz’s inclination to genuinely engage with people from China is rare among American politicians. His profound understanding of China, coupled with his progressive outlook, could provide Harris with valuable insights into how ordinary Chinese citizens might respond to U.S. policies. This, in turn, could enable Harris to engage China more effectively at the grassroots level, blending her inside-out strategy with his outside-in perspective.
Anyone who argues that a Harris administration’s China policy would merely replicate Biden’s or Clinton’s approach overlooks the transformative potential of liberal feminism in today’s political climate. They also underestimate the growing disillusionment with the toxic realism and imperialism that have shaped U.S.-China relations over the past decade.
With its hands-on knowledge and politically driven determination, a Harris administration is uniquely positioned to redefine America’s approach to China through a liberal feminist perspective. This approach offers the potential to balance moral convictions with practical considerations, enabling a nuanced strategy that could lead to a meaningful, bottom-up transformation of the U.S.-China relationship.
