In his first vision of America’s engagement with the world. In its conventional combination of the stick of military power and the carrot of diplomacy, Biden’s address heralded a return to the status quo of the “a la carte multilateralism” that has characterized the global approach since the end of the Cold War.speech as , delivered at the State Department on February 4, 2021, laid out his
As insisting that force will be a “tool of last resort.”explained, engagement is based, first and foremost, on global power, “our inexhaustible source of strength” and “abiding advantage.” That power has historically consisted of military force, economic pressure and diplomatic engagement. Rhetorically at least, has favored a recalibration away from a reliance on the military,
Biden’s America Is the New “Middle Kingdom”
In practice, however,has adopted a more ambiguous position toward military power. Reflecting both budgetary concerns and public skepticism of America’s recent record of military interventions, the new has promised a global posture review of the military footprint overseas, which would likely lead to a redeployment rather than a radical reduction of American military power.
Biden’s early actions have reflected this cautious approach, endingsupport for offensive military operations in the Saudi-led war in Yemen but freezing some of the troop withdrawals his predecessor had instituted at the end of his term. Looking to the future, the has promised to phase out America’s “forever wars” but has also pledged to focus more on pushing back against other great powers, namely Russia and China.
Because the February 4 speech took place in front of an audience of diplomats,unsurprisingly focused most of his remarks not on the hard power wielded by the Pentagon, but the “smart power” of diplomacy. The pledged to renew alliance relationships that “atrophied over the past few years of neglect and, I would argue, abuse.” At the same time, he stressed the importance of diplomacy even when “engaging our adversaries and our competitors.”
In what marked perhaps the most significant break with the COVID-19 pandemic, cybersecurity, the refugee crisis, attacks on vulnerable minorities, racial inequality and the persistence of authoritarianism. Although the mentioned a few global institutions and agreements, notably the World Health Organization (WHO) and the 2015 Paris climate agreement, the emphasis was clearly on the reclaiming global leadership rather than leading “from behind,” as the administration famously said about its involvement in efforts against former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 2011.of his immediate predecessor, promised to restore the as a full participant, if not a leader, in working multilaterally to solve global problems. He identified those problems as global warming, the ongoing
In establishing the tone of his administration’s, didn’t enunciate a new doctrine. Rather, in what might be called an approach of “multilateral restoration,” he sought to repudiate the inconsistent, unilateral and anti-global positions of former , while placing his own administration in the comfortable, pre- mainstream that European and Asian allies have come to expect and that is embodied, for instance, in the Franco-German-led Alliance for Multilateralism.
Given Biden’s role as vice-represent 2.0, a resumption of the globally aware, generally predictable, but periodically unorthodox of the earlier administration.in the administration and his appointment to high-level positions of many policymakers from that period — Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, climate czar John Kerry, UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Indo-Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell — many observers believe that his presidency will
The world of 2021, however, is very different from the one thatand navigated across their two terms in office. New global problems have emerged such as COVID-19, while others have become more urgent, such as the climate crisis. The four years of Trump’s presidency weakened certain traditional elements of statecraft, such as arms control.
Given the persistence of American exceptionalism under puts it, “In all but name, the rallying cry of is here to stay,” reflected in the administration’s prioritization of domestic investments over new trade deals and his expansion of Buy American provisions in federal procurement. Whether represented as , MAGA Lite or even liberal internationalism, the conventional approach to multilateralism has been instrumental, as a means to the end of preserving global power., it’s difficult not to view his approach as MAGA Lite: making America great again with the assistance of partners rather than over their objections. As Steven Blockmans of the in Brussels
At the same time, the inconsistency of over the years — seesawing back and forth from Bill Clinton’s modified multilateralism to George W. Bush’s aggressive unilateralism to Obama’s cautious multilateralism to Trump’s anti-globalist posturing — has led both allies and adversaries alike to hedge their bets by investing their political capital either in other alliances or in more self-reliant economic and security strategies. The most dramatic examples of this hedging have been China’s establishment of rival multilateral economic institutions and the European Union’s investment into autonomous military structures.
The bringing the back into the WHO and the Paris climate agreement — has been welcomed in many of the world’s capitals. But it also confirms what many in the international policymaking community have long viewed as America’s overly volatile . The new administration’s reversals of policies extend to immigration, as has canceled the “Muslim travel ban” and ended funding for the largely unbuilt wall on the border with Mexico. He quickly hit rewind on the environmental deregulations of the administration and the previous president’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. In addition, the team has taken steps to reenter the 2016 Iran nuclear deal, has revived arms control negotiations with Russia and plans at least to mitigate the impact of the trade sanctions against China.administration’s rapid use of executive orders to reverse Trump’s positions — for instance,
But ifcould reverse Obama’s positions on all these matters, and with a stroke of the pen could do the same to Trump’s reversals, who’s to say that the next in 2024 will not perform the same U-turns?
Indeed, as it looks to engage more deeply on these issues, theadministration faces a number of obstacles to realizing even its modest multilateral restoration: congressional opposition, corporate lobbying, public indifference or hostility, the mistrust of allies and bureaucratic inertia. It also must deal with a set of interlocking crises on the home front, from the pandemic and the resulting contraction of the economy to crumbling infrastructure, endemic racial inequality, political polarization and rising poverty rates.
Finally, the administration must reckon with challenges within the multilateral project itself, including a democratic deficit and the problem of non-compliance. But on certain key issues, such as global health and environmentalism, progressives will have an opportunity to pushpolicy in the direction of greater equitable international engagement during the years. On a case-by-case basis rather than through a transformative agenda, then, the administration might alter — or be pushed to alter — the way the engages the world.
*[This article was originally published by FPIF.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.