In his latest Wall Street Journal column Walter Russell Mead speculates about what the foreign policy of a Biden Administration might seek:
There will certainly be changes. One will be on climate policy. While moderate liberals may not embrace the entire “Green New Deal†agenda that featured prominently in the Democratic presidential primary, a strong climate program is central to Democratic thinking these days. Mr. Biden’s America would not only return to the Paris agreement; it would put U.S. diplomatic weight behind a stronger, faster push to reduce global emissions.
There will also be surprises. Those looking for a Biden administration to return to the free-trade agenda that presidents from George H.W. Bush through Mr. Obama prioritized should brace for a shock. It isn’t only Republicans like Mr. Trump and Sens. Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley who have broken with the free-trade orthodoxy of past decades. Jake Sullivan, a former top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and national security adviser to Mr. Biden in the Obama White House, published an article this February calling for significant changes.
He and co-author Jennifer Harris (another Obama veteran) argue for a fundamental shift away from what they call the “neoliberal†agenda of recent presidents. “Policymakers must move beyond the received wisdom that every trade deal is a good trade deal and that more trade is always the answer,†they write. A “postneoliberal†agenda would promote industrial policy (large public investments in green energy and other climate-friendly technologies as well as funding to match China’s support for tech). It would include the reshoring of strategic manufacturing capabilities, “a laser focus on what improves wages and creates high-paying jobs in the United States,†and aggressive campaigns against firms taking advantage of low-corporate-tax havens like Switzerland and Ireland.
A Biden administration would likely share Mr. Trump’s position that China is America’s major geopolitical competitor, but it will pursue that competition in a different way. While the current president views existing international architecture with suspicion, Mr. Biden would likely see it as an indispensable element in building an effective international approach to Beijing. A Biden administration would not share Mr. Trump’s willingness to disrupt relations with both European and Asian allies, and it would attempt to smooth relations with important U.S. allies like Japan, South Korea and Germany. But Mr. Biden’s White House would likely combine any friendliness with a new emphasis on human rights and a skepticism about the value of trade—which could lead to some interesting conversations with regional powers including Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand and even India.
On Iran, most Democratic foreign-policy experts regret Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, but there is less consensus on what to do going forward. So many things have changed since 2017 in Iran and the region that simply returning to the status quo ante Trump is unrealistic. The unilateral sanctions the Trump administration imposed on Iran may not have brought Tehran back to the bargaining table on the president’s terms, but a Biden administration might not want to give up the leverage those sanctions provide without receiving something from Iran in return.
much of which sounds pretty good to me which makes me suspicious of it. How much is based on VP Biden’s published statements and how much on wishful thinking? Is it mostly the latter?
A President Biden would need to protect his left flank so I have little doubt that climate change will figure in his foreign policy as it has not in President Trump’s. In the face of a global depression which is exactly what will happen if the U. S. doesn’t come back online quickly, pursuing U. S. carbon emissions as a major focus of foreign policy will look increasingly surreal.
Indeed, unless the U. S. economy recovers more quickly than seems likely at the present, I doubt that President Biden will have the time to take much of an interest in it at all.
But all of this is getting far ahead of ourselves. At this point we can’t be sure that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee let alone whether he will be elected.
Biden‘s campaign theme is restoration. Foreign policy is part of that.
So some combination of showy but ineffective multilateral initiatives, continued skepticism of Russia, and a status quo approach to China. A separation of trade from foreign policy.
From looking at Bloomberg; WSJ; NYT; climate change is not disappearing as an issue. Many see the crisis as chance to implement the Green New Deal.
What would a President Biden’s foreign policy be? That all depends on what his VP and handlers want it to be. Biden, if he wins, will be nothing more than a progressive placeholder, a convenient figurehead to anchor a far left agenda in place.
I think that Dr. Mead’s point may be that, while Biden may run on restoration, he’s unlikely to use it as a governing principle. I’d like to see a little more evidence (other than the obvious point that you can’t step in the same river twice).
Looking at the Biden website (https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/) FP is not going to be an important consideration for the campaign. What little there is consists of lots of vague platitudes that can’t easily be translated into concrete, achievable policies.
Overall, Biden is an establishment guy, but one who isn’t afraid to buck the establishment view. Two examples of this are his call to break Iraq up into three states about 15 years ago. It was a dumb idea to try that with a top-down approach, but the idea of it has basically become the status quo. He at least understood that Iraq with a powerful central government was not in the cards.
Secondly was his very vocal opposition to the “surge” in Afghanistan. His skepticism was right on the money but he was overruled by President Obama. That is something I respect him for as he was one of the very few people in Washington who saw that for the useless folly it turned out to be (and that many of us knew it would be).
Sec of Defense Robert Gates appraisal of Biden’s foreign policy savvy was that he got every decision wrong.
Environment: The economic collapse that Biden’s handlers would accelerate off COVID-19 will cause anthropogenic CO2 emissions to nosedive. However CO2 content in the atmosphere would likely continue their slow increase (I doubt he’s heard of methyl hydrates), which would lead to calls to double down on the Green New Depression.
Foreign Policy: America Bad, Russia Good, China very very Good. What’s my cut of taxpayer dollars from the Paris Agreement, Xi?
Governing Principle: Political expediency and F**k the rule of law, we are the experts and the experts are always right!
Cynical me could go on, but I see a Biden Presidency (for that matter any Democratic Presidency featuring any of the current lineup of notable ‘D’ politicians) as being all kinds of not good, not just for this country but the world.
“Sec of Defense Robert Gates appraisal of Biden’s foreign policy savvy was that he got every decision wrong.”
Gate’s record isn’t exactly stellar. And Biden was right about Afghanistan when Gates was clearly wrong.
Not that I’m a huge fan of Biden’s foreign policy. But I think a lot of the criticism from hard-core establishment figures like Gates is because Biden hasn’t consistently adopted the establishment view. Gates, for example, loved Hillary Clinton’s FP despite the fact that in hindsight she was wrong about almost every decision she had a hand in.
Tars, at the moment I see the dem party’s policies, goals and tactics as being the Darth Vader of the universe. Each day brings another, “I can’t believe it†inner exclamation point, upon hearing/reading about yet another deceptive/damaging maneuver the Dems are engaged in – from Obama Administration cover-ups, Pelosi’s insane governance in the House, overreach COVID responses, support of ballot harvesting, granny farming, mail in election formats which breed fraudulent voting…and on and on……
Here is two points that illuminate where I think Biden will go.
Has Biden commented where he thought Obama’s policy was most lacking and he will take a different approach?
Afghanistan does not really count because by Obama’s second term; Biden’s view of fewer troops but no withdrawal and no negotiations were the order of the day.
Nixon wrote before winning his desire to engage with China; a notable departure from the Eisenhower years.
On the staffing side; he has been staffing with Obama administration alumni. Staffing is policy.
Yep. That’s the basis of the notion that a Biden Administration will be a “restoration” of the Obama foreign policy. What would happen is that State would go back to autopilot. From my point of view that is not good news because State has been wrong about just about everything over the period of the last 70 years.
“– from Obama Administration cover-ups, Pelosi’s insane governance in the House, overreach COVID responses, support of ballot harvesting, granny farming, mail in election formats which breed fraudulent voting…and on and on”
Full on cult material there. Is it true the prayer rug must face Trump Tower?
Steve
I think I’d like to paint stump killer on the remains of the Obama Administration.
Root and branch.
Investigation and indictments shadowing them the rest of their days. But not the Messiah.
Leave Him in place like a neutered Tom to roam the speaking engagement circuit of liberal university’s , sucking the air out of any rising Liberal stars’ sails for the next 30 years.
Everyone knows that a Biden Administration is already staffed with the people and politics who were there five years ago.