The news outlets are full of reports that Joe Biden will appoint Antony Blinken as Secretary of State. I don’t have any comments on that other than to observe that Mr. Blinken does not seem to be a Susan Rice or a Samantha Power. As far as I can tell he’s more a realist than than they and not a proponent of the “responsbility to protect” which I see as a license for unending unjust war.
On the one hand his appointment will bolster the argument that the Biden Administration will be driven more by competency than the Trump Administration has. On the other his appointment probably will not satisfy the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And he’s clearly a member in good standing of “the Borg” as some term it.
Comments? I mean other than the obvious comment about chickens and hatching.
I’m really glad it was not Powers or Rice. I can’t say I’m thrilled at the likely pick for Defense – Flournoy.
So the three rumored picks are Blinken for State, Jake Sullivan for NSA, Fournoy for defense.
To me its mixed. None of the 3 are as abrasive as Rice (I have a separate comment which goes into Biden’s foreign policy with an observation on Rice).
Blinken’s Wikipedia entry says he was “a key player in drafting Syria policy”, “pivotal in the formulation of the Obama administration’s response to the 2014 Crimean crisis”, “helped craft U.S policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Iranian nuclear program”.
Sullivan was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and director of policy, and played a key role in the Iranian nuclear deal. It also states he played a key role in Libya, Syria.
Flournoy’s wikipedia entry says she was under secretary of defense for policy during Gates era, and “helped persuaded Obama to intervene militarily in Libya”.
So all key players in some of the highlights (or lowlights?) of the Obama era. What matters now is what they think of those decisions; and the process and incentives that got them there. One can figure it out by googling what those 3 have said in interviews and policy think-pieces since 2017.
This also a comment about a Biden foreign policy.
I start with a piece from Taneer Greer, explaining Susan Rice’s terrible reputation in Asia.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/susan-rice-is-asias-worst-nightmare/
The killer quote in the piece — “The disgust Rice generates in Asian diplomatic circles was expressed with unusual frankness earlier this year by former senior Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan. In response to rumors that Rice was a leading candidate in Biden’s search for a running mate, the former diplomat waxed undiplomatic: “Susan Rice would be a disaster. She has very little interest in Asia, no stomach for competition, and thinks of foreign policy as humanitarian intervention. … [with Rice at the helm] we will look back on Trump with nostalgia.—
Now the piece lays a lot of the issues on Rice, but in truth, she was a not good implementer of policies that was written by Obama, Biden, and many of the Obama alumni being tapped for office.
And here is a Japanese official explaining how they think of Obama’s policies and strategies. Here is the key quote (emphasis mine), “The Trump Administration’s implementation of its confrontational policy with China, however, has caused considerable confusion, especially among the broader public…. So, do we want, if possible, to go back to the world before Trump? For many decision-makers in Tokyo, the answer is probably no, because having a poorly implemented but fundamentally correct strategy is better than having a well-implemented but ambiguous strategy.”
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/04/10/the-virtues-of-a-confrontational-china-strategy/ (well worth a read on the intricacies on dealing with China, and also the difference in perspectives in Asia vs Western Europe. Also, one has keep in mind the Japanese interest in a more aggressive American posture wrt to China)
I suspect this is a common sentiment among countries not ill-disposed to the US outside of Western Europe (i.e. Latin America, East Asia, SE Asia, South Asia, Middle East).
That’s the challenge for Biden and his staff. They will be more successful if they can acknowledge that Trump got a lot of foreign policy more right then they did during the Obama years — and smooth the rough edges. i.e. be a good implementer of a fundamentally correct strategy. It requires some measure of (private) humble pie which may be very hard to do.
If Biden and staff go in thinking the world wants more of what they
and Obama were selling 4 years ago, I suspect Biden et al are going to get a lot headaches from bashing their heads against the wall.
I don’t think that’s the way things went during the Obama presidency. I think that President Obama mostly gave very high level, from 50,000 feet as it were, directives. “Send me a stimulus bill and I’ll sign it.” “Sent me a healthcare reform bill and I’ll sign it.” I don’t really believe he was greatly interested in foreign policy at all. I think that Clinton then Rice were largely on their own.
They won’t have the headaches at all; we will. One of the lessons of the last ten months should have been we’re not all in this together.