The more US foreign policy changes, the more it remains the same
Expectations for dramatic alterations tend to rise based on the presidential candidate's campaign rhetoric, but these tend to remain unfulfilled.
THU, MAY 13, 2021 - 5:50 AM
THE legendary US statesman Zbigniew Brzezinski once compared American foreign policy to a massive and unstoppable aircraft carrier, the largest sea-going vessel in the world, which projects enormous military power in its ability to overwhelm anything that stands in its way.
But here is where the comparison with US foreign policy ends: under the right conditions, the 200-million-pound ship can go from one direction to the total opposite direction, in three to five minutes.
It takes years, however, if not generations, to make just a small turn, not to mention a complete 180-degree reverse in the opposite direction when it comes to managing American global strategy, argued Mr Brzezinski.
The impact of traumatic national events like the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 terrorist assault in 2001 can help to dramatically stir American policies in another direction. But in many cases, after the crisis is over, the tendency is to revert to the old status quo, in the way the US re-embraced isolationist polices after the military intervention in World War I. Or more recently, ceasing to do "regime changes" in the aftermath of the mess created by the overthrow of the dictatorships in Iraq and Libya.
There are many reasons for the resistance in Washington to radical changes in foreign policy, including the existence of a "permanent government" of foreign policy and national security government officials, aka "deep state", which is allied with interest groups and opinion makers (aka "the blob") that remain in positions of power and influence as presidents come and go.
Hence every time a new president and his advisers show up in Washington, expectations for dramatic changes in US foreign policy tend to rise, based in many cases on the presidential candidate's campaign rhetoric. Not surprisingly, these expectations tend to remain unfulfilled.
Which is exactly what has happened after the election of Democratic President Joe Biden, with pundits predicting that the new White House occupant would stir America in a totally new direction, very different from that of his predecessor.
This is the narrative that remains popular among the members of Washington's foreign policy establishment: former Republican President Donald Trump, bashed as isolationist and protectionist, was in the process of pulling the US out of its international alliances and trade deals and numerous multilateral institutions.
He was intent on disregarding America's commitment to promote liberal democratic values, on destroying the so-called post-1945 liberal international order, on launching a new cold war with China and military confrontation with Iran.
THE STORY VERSUS REALITY
And now according to the narrative, thanks to the internationalist President Biden and his multilateralist advisers, America would reaffirm its commitment to traditional military and trade regimes, to multilateral institutions, including those responding to climate change, and to standing up to authoritarian leaders.
It all sounds like the making of an uplifting storyline that imagines the victory of light over darkness that is driven by a dramatic transformation of US foreign policy under President Biden.
The problem is that while it correctly highlights former President Trump's inclination towards policy disruptions and bombastic rhetoric, this narrative seems to exaggerate the level of change that took place under his management of American global policy.
Let's remembers that during his presidency the US remained anchored in its existing military alliances, like Nato, which actually expanded under the "isolationist" president who revoked none of its international trade deals, and, in fact, revived the old North American trade agreement by renegotiating a new one, supported by the Democrats. There was nothing very protectionist about that.
President Trump did withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, which presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had promised to do and which President Biden isn't planning to revive.
President Trump's economic nationalist rhetoric and opposition to new trade deals reflected the anti-globalist sentiments around the country which have been shared by leading Democratic figures and members of the party's progressive wing.
Similarly, President Trump's call for reassessing US economic and national security ties with China mirrored an emerging bipartisan consensus in Washington as well as growing pressure from Corporate America. It is more likely than not that a similar re-examination of the Sino-American relationship would have taken place under a president Hillary Clinton.
From that perspective, the notion that under President Biden we would be facing a new day in US relationships with the world disregards the current reality under which the new president isn't rushing to launch new initiatives to liberalise international trade, and like his predecessor, espouses economic nationalist notions about the need to "Buy American", revitalise the country's industrial base, and prepare for a long period of global competition with China.
Indeed, if the proverbial Martian who had spent some time in Washington during the Trump presidency would be returning for a visit to the city this month, it is doubtful that he would be able to point to any major changes in the way Sino-American relations - the most important US foreign policy issue - are being managed by the White House.
Yes, President Biden, unlike his predecessor, sounds more presidential and less boorish and xenophobic, and he has pledged to work with American allies in confronting the challenges from China.
But if anything, on some issues, like human rights, President Biden embraces a tougher stand than President Trump vis-a-vis China. While President Trump's policy towards China seemed to be transactional in nature, aimed at correcting the trade imbalance between the two economies, President Biden is seen at times as promoting an ideological crusade against China.
Indeed, in some ways, President Biden's pledge to lead a global fight against dictatorships and authoritarian regimes by forming alliances of democratic nations that would not tolerate violations of human rights, could prove to be more of a threat to global stability than President Trump's mostly pragmatic approach to international relationships that was grounded in realpolitik considerations.
Take one policy issue over which President Trump was challenging the global status quo by withdrawing the US from the Paris climate accords: one of President Biden's first moves was to return to those accords and place the challenge of climate change at the centre of America's global agenda and its multilateralist strategy.
OF ALLIES AND NATIONAL INTERESTS
But the Paris accords are nothing more than pieces of paper, the point being that in the real world, the only way to avert a long-term climate catastrophe is through close cooperation between the United States and China, and to some extent, with India.
So how is that going to work, President Biden? Are you going to "punish" China for its repressive moves in Hong Kong and its mistreatment of its Muslim Uyghur minority, that your administration characterised as "genocide", and endanger the prospects for any collaboration with the Chinese on climate change? And what about India, whose adherence to liberal democratic values has also been questioned?
Another foreign policy matter over which President Trump proved to be disruptive was his decision to revoke the nuclear deal with Iran, signed by former President Barack Obama and supported by his then Vice-President Biden.
So now that President Biden and his aides seek to return to the deal, they are finding that it has ceased to reflect the balance of power in the Middle East, where its allies and powerful lobbies in Washington demand that the deal be renegotiated and to place restrictions on Iran's ability to destabilise the Middle East. A President Trump in his second term would be facing the same dilemmas.
And let us not forget that the Bidenists are not planning to reverse the Trumpists' other moves in the Middle East, including the relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or the Abraham Accords between Israel and four Arab states. Nor are they about to punish Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for his human rights violations.
Yes, President Trump was an embarrassment on a global scale for the US who wasn't familiar with the basics of conducting foreign policy. But like all his predecessors, he had no choice but to adjust to the realities of the balance of power abroad and at home.
President Biden may prove to be more effective in dealing with America's allies and in enunciating his nation's commitment to its historical values. But it remains to be seen whether he would be more successful than President Trump in protecting core US national interests - a mission that depends very much on his ability to project American military and diplomatic power.