Follow us on social

A more humble foreign policy: can this Biden team deliver?

A more humble foreign policy: can this Biden team deliver?

A restoration of global dominance and intervention is the wrong antidote for the sickness afflicting the country today.

Analysis | Washington Politics

President-elect spent the last week announcing his foreign policy team. Among other nominees, Antony Blinken has been tapped for Secretary of State; Jake Sullivan as national security adviser; and career foreign service officer Linda Thomas-Greenfield has been asked to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. 

All three individuals are consummate professionals who have long lived in the weeds of the policymaking process — for example, Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state, has been Biden’s top foreign policy adviser for over a decade.

More important than the personalities, however, are the policies, and what we can expect from the incoming administration over the next four years.

While Trump’s decision-making process was anything but ideal, one can’t pin the poor record of U.S. foreign policy on a lack of professionalism alone. The bigger problem is that liberal hegemony continues to serve as the engine for how Washington approaches the world at large. The notion that the U.S. should leverage its diplomatic, economic, and military muscle to dominate every region, no matter how strategically insignificant, is burrowed deep into the Beltway’s muscle memory. Competent staffers are great — but a more humble foreign policy enveloped in realism and restraint is even better.

Can this team deliver?

Biden will enter the White House with a large “to-do list.” But to get foreign policy on the right track, he will need to exploit diplomatic opportunities when they arise; avoid supplanting the U.S. national interest with those from other countries; and defuse tensions with adversaries and competitors.

Ties between Washington and Moscow are in sore need of tension reduction. For Biden and his national security team, this may come as a nuisance. The President-elect called Russia an “opponent” of the United States during the presidential campaign. His skepticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin is deep and well-known. But that doesn’t mean Washington should write off diplomatic engagement. Russia may not be a peer competitor, but it remains a great power thanks to its large nuclear weapons arsenal, regional influence, and U.N. Security Council veto. Russia can’t be ignored or sanctioned into submission.

A Biden administration will have to approach Russia with a cool-head and a clear understanding of what is and isn’t possible. A grand deal with the Kremlin is unlikely — U.S. and Russian interests diverge on too many issues for a “Reset 2.0” to be even remotely realistic. But on issues of mutual concern such as trade, arms control, and counterterrorism, cooperation can and indeed should be pursued to the fullest extent. As a starting point: the New START treaty capping the number of deployable U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads should be immediately extended without conditions before it expires next February.

On Iran, Biden will need to replace a policy of maximum pressure with de-escalation. U.S.-Iran relations, never especially productive in the best of times, have arguably plunged to a nadir since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Biden is on record supporting U.S. reentry into the Iran nuclear deal. Iranian officials have indicated that they are interested in renewing discussions. The Iran nuclear deal could be the most available mechanism to anchor U.S.-Iran relations with more predictability. The name of the game is eliminating a maximum pressure strategy of sanctions and diplomatic pressure that has not only failed to net a single positive outcome, but also made conflict between the two more likely.

However, no change is possible if Washington continues to tie itself down in expensive, costly wars of choice that serve no purpose other than to perpetuate a failed status-quo. As vice president in the Obama administration, Biden was the chief skeptic of the 2010-2011 U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan. The reality since then — tens of thousands of U.S. casualties and as much as $1 trillion in direct war costs — has vindicated his reticence. Much like Trump, Biden campaigned on a pledge to end the very same “forever wars” the American public are largely opposed to. Actually removing troops from Afghanistan instead of merely talking about it would be the biggest foreign policy achievement of the Biden administration's first months in office.

This list is by no means exhaustive. How to manage China’s rise will be the most consequential U.S. foreign policy debate for the next few decades. The ability to concentrate on China will in turn depend in large part on the willingness of Washington to encourage burden-sharing and burden-shifting with its allies, particularly those in Europe.

A restoration of global dominance and intervention is the wrong antidote for the sickness afflicting U.S. foreign policy. What Washington needs — and Joe Biden can deliver — is a foreign policy more realist in its outlook, more pragmatic in its objectives, and more prudent in its approach.

Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State-designate makes remarks at the event where US President-elect Joe Biden announced his nominees to foreign policy and national security posts on Tuesday, November 24, 2020. Photo by Biden Transition via CNP/ABACAPRESS.COM|Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State-designate makes remarks at the event where US President-elect Joe Biden announced his nominees to foreign policy and national security posts on Tuesday, November 24, 2020. Photo by Biden Transition via CNP/ABACAPRESS.COM
Analysis | Washington Politics
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

QiOSK

This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his starkest warning yet about the need for new military aid from the United States.

“It’s important to specifically address the Congress,” Zelensky said. “If the Congress doesn’t help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.”

keep readingShow less
South Korean president faces setback in elections

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol casts his early vote for 22nd parliamentary election, in Busan, South Korea, April 5, 2024. Yonhap via REUTERS

South Korean president faces setback in elections

QiOSK

Today, South Korea held its quadrennial parliamentary election, which ended in the opposition liberal party’s landslide victory. The liberal camp, combining the main opposition liberal party and its two sister parties, won enough seats (180 or more) to unilaterally fast-track bills and end filibusters. The ruling conservative party’s defeat comes as no surprise since many South Koreans entered the election highly dissatisfied with the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and determined to keep the government in check.

What does this mean for South Korea’s foreign policy for the remaining three years of the Yoon administration? Traditionally, parliamentary elections have tended to have little effect on the incumbent government’s foreign policy. However, today’s election may create legitimate domestic constraints on the Yoon administration’s foreign policy primarily by shrinking Yoon’s political capital and legitimacy to implement his foreign policy agenda.

keep readingShow less
Could the maritime corridor become Gaza’s lifeline?

A tugboat tows a barge loaded with humanitarian aid for Gaza, as seen from Larnaca, Cyprus, March 30, 2024. REUTERS/Yiannis Kourtoglou

Could the maritime corridor become Gaza’s lifeline?

Middle East

As Gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepens, a small U.S.-based advisory group hopes to build a temporary port that could bring as many as 200 truckloads of aid into the besieged strip each day, more than doubling the average daily flow of aid, according to a person with detailed knowledge of the maritime corridor plan.

The port effort, led by a firm called Fogbow, could start bringing aid into Gaza from Cyprus within 28 days of receiving the necessary funding from international donors. The project would require $30 million to get started, followed by an additional $30 million each month to continue operations, according to the source.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest