The “World Politics Review” (WPR) has recently carried out an interesting review of the changing dynamic in the manner in which the Biden Administration has been carrying out his foreign policy ahead of the impending US election later this year.
As expected, reference is being made to what emerged when President Joe Biden took office with an ambitious U.S. foreign policy agenda summed up by his favorite campaign tagline: “America is back.” Above all, that meant repairing the damage done to America’s global standing by his predecessor, former President Donald Trump.
It may be recalled that there was a general feeling that during his four years in office, Trump strained ties with America’s allies in Europe and Asia, raised tensions with adversaries like Iran and Venezuela, and engaged in a trade war with China that left bilateral relations in their worst state in decades. Many felt that Biden would be able to restore some equality in inter-active engagement.
Strategists noted that, in principle, Biden’s agenda was rooted in a repudiation of Trump’s “America First” legacy and the restoration of the multilateral order. That was reflected in his early moves to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords and the World Health Organization, and to reestablish U.S. leadership on climate diplomacy.
The COVID-19 pandemic also offered Biden an opportunity to reassert America’s global leadership role and begin repairing ties that began to fray under Trump.
However, in practice, some of Biden’s priorities appear to have borne a close resemblance to Trump’s agenda. His “foreign policy for the middle class,” which ties U.S. diplomacy to peace, security and prosperity at home, has been labelled as a similar version of Trump’s emphasis on putting U.S. interests above its global obligations.
It also needs to be remembered that Biden travelled the same path followed through by Trump’s deal to withdraw from Afghanistan without consulting or coordinating with Washington’s NATO allies. In its own way this resulted not only in the collapse of the Afghan government but also a chaotic evacuation that followed. Similarly, on some other issues- like his approach to immigration and border policies- Biden has demonstrated little urgency to make immediate changes. In the same manner, Biden has taken time to only belatedly lift controversial tariffs on European steel and aluminum imports as well as the most draconian of Trump’s sanctions on Cuba.
All these factors tend to connote that despite the rhetorical commitment to repudiate Trump, Biden may find it difficult to fully restore a pre-Trump status quo. Countries may no longer be willing to follow the U.S. lead on democracy promotion after the erosion of America’s democratic norms during the Trump era. In particular, Europe appears to have recalibrated its relationship with the United States and may no longer be willing to align with America’s approach, particularly the hardening of relations with China.
Nevertheless, as the war in Ukraine has highlighted, there is still high demand among allies, partners and other countries around the world for decisive U.S. leadership in times of crisis.
Geo-strategic analysts from different countries in Europe, Asia and Africa are however now asking several significant questions. These include- (a) Will Biden maintain a tough approach on China, and at what cost? (b) How will his Administration handle ties with Iran in the likely event the nuclear deal is not revived? And (c) Will the war in Ukraine prevent Biden from shifting the geographic focus of U.S. foreign policy to the likely centers of global challenges and opportunities in Asia and Africa?
Amid the debates over U.S. President Joe Biden’s foreign policy, one thing is clear: Biden is an internationalist trying to keep the U.S. engaged as a globally important actor.
However, the question that is surfacing all the time as to whether it is in the United States’ place to be highly engaged in the world? Or would the U.S. and the world be better off if Washington sat some things out?
This significant emerging aspect about diplomacy and multilateralism has also drawn attention to what Biden stressed on when he took office- pledging to pursue a foreign policy rooted in a renewed commitment to values such as democracy, human rights, the rule of law and international cooperation.
Some analysts are however not quite agreeing with the manner through which the United States Biden Administration has been handling the exercise. Some are saying that in practice, the course of action has mainly amounted to a narrative framing, with little real effect on his conduct of foreign policy.
However, there is general agreement that, while Biden has been pursuing his path, at the same time, Biden has recognized how intertwined U.S. foreign policy is with domestic growth. Consequently, while he has disavowed Trump’s “America First” approach, Biden’s promise to rebuild at home still ultimately guides his multilateral engagements. This has been particularly addressed by the WPR recently.
In this context within the geo-political matrix, one of Biden’s first tasks appears to have focused on beginning the rebuilding of trans-Atlantic relations.
It is clear that his early efforts to shore up the partnership suffered from an apparent divergence in geopolitical ambitions—particularly when it came to articulating a collective approach to China. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine appears to have catalyzed consensus and unity within NATO not seen since the end of the Cold War. However, mending relations with Washington’s existing Asian allies, as well as deepening new partnerships such as the so-called Quad, have proven to be easier tasks for Biden.
In this regard one also needs to note that Biden’s recent moves to choke off China’s access to high-end technology as well as his rapid and robust punitive sanctions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have left little room for doubt that he is willing to take a tough stance with Beijing and Moscow.
Nevertheless, his determination to compete aggressively with U.S. rivals as well as his stated commitment to democracy promotion are certain to bump up against the need for practical cooperation to address shared global challenges, especially with regard to China.
It needs to be noted here that following the unpredictable and varying foreign policy of the Trump Administration, Biden was in a position to make some expressive shifts in bilateral relations with a range of partners. This does not appear to have happened in that manner. His Administration, as we have observed in Bangladesh continues to face some familiar limits. Though Biden has pledged to make human rights and democracy central planks of his foreign policy, in practice he has often continued to put U.S. interests first. With his “foreign policy for the middle class,” Biden has promised to focus on how to reorient U.S. engagement abroad to address middle-class economic concerns back home.
When it comes to trade, that means making sure U.S. policy contributes to domestic economic renewal. But that’s increasingly becoming a recipe for protectionism.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialized in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance, can be reached at [email protected]