Biden Veep pick: who will be best for Britain?

Joe Biden is expected to make a decision on his vice presidential running mate in the next fortnight, ahead of the Democratic National Convention on August 17. Given the myriad of domestic issues he would have to tackle in the immediate post-Trump era, as well as the physical toll of long-haul flights, his vice president is widely expected to take on much larger international responsibilities than would usually be expected.

The next administration will have an almighty foreign policy task to fulfil. The European Union remains fragmented on how to deal with Russia, the western world doesn’t have a strategy to contain Chinese expansionism or to challenge its technological superiority, and coronavirus has rocked the confidence and stability of many of America’s traditional allies.

In taking on these troubled fronts, it is clear that the British government wishes to play a larger role on the world stage. This would require close cooperation with a potential Biden administration, with the vice president providing the most effective line of communication to a White House preoccupied with “healing the soul of the nation”. So who are the runners and riders, and how will they be perceived on this side of the Atlantic?

Officials in London would be most comfortable with the selection of Susan Rice, a close confidante of former President Obama. She has extraordinary experience in both foreign policy and national security, having served as Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, US Ambassador to the UN, and National Security Adviser to President Obama.

In the latter two of those roles Rice, who studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, worked closely with British officials in the two fields in which the UK excels: diplomacy and intelligence. On the question of Libya, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, then Britain’s representative to the UN, helped Rice organise and win key anti-Gaddafi votes in the Security Council. British RAF jets then provided the military force to put the votes into practice.

That background has shaped Rice into a traditional Atlanticist. The Anglo-American alliance in her mind is about more than warm speeches during state visits. Her hawkishness on Russia – which at one point led her to blame Putin for America’s coronavirus outbreak – will put her in lockstep with Boris Johnson, the most anti-Putin leader of the western European powers. On China, which Rice regards as America’s “most formidable and committed adversary”, she will find more support for a tougher stance in London than in Berlin.

It happened to be Rice who was charged with implementing national security contingency plans for the night that Britain voted to leave the EU.

“Ultimately,” she said, “the security implications are probably relatively few,” adding that “we will do all we can to make sure the areas in which we are cooperating – counter-terrorism – remain solid.”

It cannot be dismissed or ignored that Brexit is considered a net negative among almost every former Obama official as well current Biden campaign staff and much of the Democratic Party. But Rice’s experience with British diplomacy and intelligence may lend her to the view that London’s soft power assets are indispensable to the United States, and that Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab should be supported in their attempts to mould a unique and influential place for the UK on the world stage.

She would likely support London’s attempts to strengthen the Five Eyes alliance to combat Chinese expansionism and encourage Downing Street’s proposal for a “D10” alliance of democracies in Europe and Asia-Pacific.

The frontrunner whose foreign policy we know least about is Kamala Harris. The first black female District Attorney of San Francisco, and then the first black Attorney General of California, Harris is undoubtedly an expert on legal and judicial affairs, but this has come at the expense of knowledge or experience of foreign policy.

Her presidential campaign relied heavily on centrist advisers from Washington think-tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations. They tend to view the world in very broad and unrefined categories. Boris Johnson is analysed through the mistaken belief that he is the British Donald Trump, and so everything he does is a sign of either creeping authoritarianism or abject incompetence. If Harris takes their cues in office, then London is in trouble.

Harris’s foreign policy talking points on the campaign trail were vague and repetitive. “Part of the strength of who we are as a nation, and therefore an extension of our ability to be secure… is that when we walk into any room around the globe, we are respected because we keep to our word, we are consistent, we speak truth, and we are loyal,” she told numerous presidential debate audiences.

But what are her positions on specific issues? Well, mostly reactive. She is in favour of re-joining the Paris Climate Accord, supports the Iran nuclear deal, and anti-Putin. In short, she is for everything Trump is against. London agrees more with Harris than Trump on these matters, but it remains clear what she thinks of the Anglo-American relationship, because she scarcely discusses it.

Harris would need to climb a steep learning curve if selected. Indeed, her lack of foreign policy experience has been cited as a reason to be sceptical about her chances; Biden wants someone who can get on a plane and reach out to traditional allies on day one.

The candidate London would be most unnerved by is Elizabeth Warren, whose worldview does not sit comfortably with capitalist economies such as Britain’s. She believes that America should instead pursue an economic pathway of highly regulated markets.

On the European Union’s 2018 fines on Google, Warren said: “What it shows is that they are serious about antitrust laws. Europe is serious about anti-competition laws and the US is lagging, we were once the leaders in the world on this.”

When Jeremy Corbyn, whose left-wing economic views align somewhat with Warren’s, was defeated so heavily at the 2019 general election , she said: “Well, you know, I think that the Brexit part of that vote is a huge sway… but I think that the notion of left – I don’t think there’s any such thing as a problem of government that works too much for the people.”

Of all her positions, Warren’s protectionist stance on trade that would cause the most practical damage. Her presidential campaign unveiled a trade policy that set out requirements which would make a UK-US deal all but impossible. Downing Street would find it difficult, for instance, to agree that “negotiators will publicly disclose negotiating drafts and provide the public with an opportunity to comment.”

This would be a vice president who sees the City of London not as a financial asset for the western economic system but as a target ripe for heavy regulation and reform.

In Tammy Duckworth, the British government will see someone it can trust. The descendent of a proud military family whose members have served in every major American conflict since the Revolutionary War, she is a firm traditionalist on global affairs. As a former lieutenant colonel in her own right, Duckworth received a Purple Heart after her service in the Iraq War, which resulted in her becoming a double amputee. The Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by Iraqi insurgents.

Duckworth served alongside British troops in that war, which must have demonstrated in the most beautiful and most devastating ways the bonds that form the “special relationship”. In the years since, she has maintained a close relationship with military officials and think-tanks in London, including the Royal United Services Institute and Chatham House. In 2006 she stood up for General Sir Richard Dannatt in The Sunday Times after he came under pressure for criticising the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq.

In Congress, Duckworth has championed both veteran affairs and military spending. Just recently, she took on Bernie Sanders over his proposal to cut military spending for the next fiscal year.

While it is not clear where Duckworth stands on a broad spectrum of diplomatic issues, as vice president she would likely seek to enhance UK-US military cooperation and take a stern stance on the lack of security burden-sharing among some major EU economies.

There are several other candidates, such as Karen Bass, Val Demings, Gretchen Whitmer and Keisha Lance Bottoms, about whom there is very little to say with regards to foreign policy. Their selection would be a signal that Biden has opted to take full control of American foreign policy as president. It is after all an area to which Biden has devoted most of his political energy.

But underlying the anxiousness over his vice presidential selection, and therefore his presidency, is a simple if troubling concern: that Biden is too old, too mentally and physically unstable, to take on a world in disarray.