Brookings
Experts Analyse President Biden’s First Foreign Policy Speech
On
February 4, in his first major foreign policy speech as
president, Joe Biden declared: “America is back. Diplomacy is back at the
center of our foreign policy.”
Below, experts from
Brookings Foreign Policy react to what the president said on Russia, China,
refugees, and more, as well as the general tone of his remarks and how they
might be interpreted in foreign capitals.
Pavel Baev, Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center on the
United States and Europe: In the foreign
policy priorities outlined in President Biden’s
back-to-the-business-of-leadership speech, Russia was granted a remarkably
prominent position. President Vladimir Putin might find perverse pleasure in
earning a place ahead of China, but he hardly learned anything new. The tough
tone had been expected, and the extra-quick deal on extending the New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) matters more to him than any amount of
reproach. He heard demands from Biden and the U.S. State Department to release
Alexei Navalny and to stop police violence against peaceful protests at least
three times, and each time he opted for escalation of repressions.
Biden’s point about
raising the costs of transgressions for Russia doesn’t become more convincing
with repetition, and Putin believes that the repertoire of sanctions is
essentially exhausted. He also assumes that Biden’s pledge to work closely with
allies in charting a common course vis-à-vis Russia would work in his favor,
knowing how little appetite there is among the Europeans for tightening the
sanctions regime. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for
foreign affairs and security policy, is actually paying a visit to Moscow this
weekend, and the Kremlin is inclined to see it as a major success, whatever
polite words of criticism might be uttered.
Diplomacy is back and
it works, asserts Biden; Putin is content with the former and challenges the
latter. Biden’s team is set to conduct a thorough review of Russia’s behavior,
but Moscow will not wait for this prudent policymaking to deliver a measured
punishment.
Célia Belin (@celiabelin), Visiting Fellow in the Center on the United States
and Europe: In his address, President Biden insisted
on the need to strengthen America’s alliances. “Alliances are our greatest
asset,” he said, quoting several countries. But alliances to do what?
The
United States will find eager partners in Europe. Not only has the European
Union already provided a list of topics on
which to engage, but all major European leaders have expressed a desire to work
together.
One
of them, French President Emmanuel Macron, participated in
an Atlantic Council event a couple of hours before Biden’s speech, where he
made the case for “result-oriented multilateralism.” In Macron’s view, Western
powers have lost ground to China due to their inability to deliver results,
such as an efficient vaccine distribution for the international community. So,
if the U.S. is committed to regain credibility on the world stage, making the
multilateral system work should be a priority.
Macron
also reiterated his plea for “a new consensus,” echoing an op-ed, penned with
global leaders, that promises to work towards an inclusive multilateralism that
addresses global challenges (the pandemic, climate) but also democratic
challenges and inequalities, since “many need to be reassured about the
benefits of globalization.” As Biden promises to advance a “foreign policy for
the middle class,” the United States should remember that friends and allies
around the world share the same challenge. “Foreign policy for the middle
class” should not be a means to simply promote a “buy American” protectionism,
but an opportunity to work with world leaders towards a fairer, cleaner
globalization that lifts all.
Federica Saini Fasanotti, Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Security,
Strategy, and Technology: Italy
has suffered greatly from the diplomatic absence of the United States in the
Mediterranean: Europe does not have a single strategic position with regard to
immigration or Libya, so more muscular and systematic diplomatic action from
Washington could help mediate between the European powers. The Trump
administration’s absence in Libya meant that a void has been filled, with
force, by Russia and Turkey. President Biden’s speech was marked by the words:
“America is back.” No one expects that everything will simply go back to the
way it was before, but there is hope that Biden’s words will be followed by a
strategy, not only by more limited tactical actions (such as actions the
Department of Defense has taken in Libya’s Fezzan desert and in the Sirtica
area against isolated al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and ISIS jihadist cells).
A long-term strategic vision for Libya is needed.
Sadie Frank, Project Manager and Research Assistant in the Energy
Security and Climate Initiative, and David Victor, Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Energy Security and
Climate Initiative:
President
Biden’s speech, promising engagement and leadership internationally, was welcome
news to allies that have been questioning what we can do in a period of global
turmoil. Most significant, though, was the tone of the mission — his emphasis
on how the “whole of government” inside the country is essential to an
effective foreign policy. Foreign policy starts at home.
In the area where we
work, climate change, President Biden didn’t say anything new. What he did do,
however, was articulate how the rest of the world should evaluate our
commitments. The first big test of this approach will come later this year when
the U.S. issues its new “nationally determined contribution” under the Paris
Agreement — the rest of the world expects a lot from the U.S., but what we can
deliver reliably is probably a lot less. Over the past four years, the world
has seen the impacts of climate change become increasingly visible, requiring
more urgent action. Building a new foreign policy by starting at home means
that the country will need to rely on places, financial regulation, and
security strategy, where U.S. action at home is most credible because it can’t
be quickly undone in the future and isn’t mired in contentious action in
Congress. By integrating climate goals across all of its own diplomatic
efforts, the United States will “up the ante” on other large emitting nations
and encourage ambitious global action. The rest of the world, meanwhile, is
upping the ante on us too.
James Goldgeier (@jimgoldgeier),
Robert Bosch Senior Visiting Fellow in the Center on the United States and
Europe: President Biden and Secretary of State
Antony Blinken expressed strongly yesterday that domestic affairs and foreign
policy are linked. The president persuasively explained why acting against
discrimination at home — for example by ending the Muslim ban or promoting
LGBTQ rights by lifting the ban on transgender individuals serving in the
military — will have positive effects on America’s ability to lead abroad. In
doing so, he repeated his mantra: “We will lead not merely by the example of
our power but by the power of our example.”
When it came to
specific issue areas, however, the connection between domestic politics and
U.S. foreign policy grew murkier. President Biden condemned those who carried
out the military coup in Burma, expressed his opposition to the war in Yemen,
and decried the Russian government’s actions against the recently arrested
opposition leader Alexei Navalny and Russians peacefully protesting his jail
sentence. But the president failed to make clear how American diplomacy will
matter to citizens of the United States. After four years of a president not
caring whether people abroad were oppressed, tortured, and victimized, Biden
will need to draw more clearly for Americans how issues like these affect them.
If his administration is serious about developing a foreign policy for the
middle class, which was a major campaign theme, then the president’s speeches
should make even more clear how events abroad shape the lives of Americans and
how efforts to rebuild democracy at home redound to America’s advantage
overseas.
Ryan Hass (@ryanl_hass), Senior Fellow in the John L. Thornton China Center
and the Center for East Asia Policy Studies: President Biden’s treatment of China in his first
foreign policy address signaled that he views China as a central challenge, but
not a burning issue that eclipses all other concerns. Biden embedded discussion
of China within his survey of risks and opportunities on the international
horizon. Biden emphasized that China poses significant challenges to America’s
interests and values. To respond effectively, Biden argued, America will need
to rebuild leverage, e.g., by pursuing domestic renewal, investing in
alliances, reestablishing U.S. leadership on the world stage, and restoring
American authority in advocating for universal values.
Such an approach marks
a departure from the previous administration’s framing of U.S.-China relations
as an ideological and Manichean good vs. evil struggle. Biden clearly has no
qualms about pushing back firmly against China, but he signaled that he intends
to do so purposefully, with an eye toward advancing American interests. This
includes cooperating with competitors when it is in America’s interests to do
so. Even as it will take time for this shift in approach to take expression in
specific policies and actions, there should be little doubt that President
Biden and his team have their own views of how the United States can outcompete
China. Much of their work will focus on efforts at home, with allies, and on
the world stage. The shifts may be subtle and may not generate daily headlines.
But with Biden’s speech, a course correction on China policy appears to be
underway.
Biden clearly has no qualms about
pushing back firmly against China, but he signaled that he intends to do so
purposefully.
Bruce Jones (@brucebrookings), Senior Fellow and Director of the Project on
International Order and Strategy: China;
Russia; authoritarianism; support for democracy, alliances, and multilateralism
— all the expected themes of Biden’s foreign policy were laid out in the first
moments of his first foreign policy speech. The speech was more memorable for four
things: the sharp words employed for the damage done to America’s standing by
former President Trump; the frank denunciation of white supremacy in our own
politics; the Executive Order to advance LGBTQ issues internationally; and the
far-reaching language on climate change. It seemed mostly truly Biden’s own
policy at the end — in impassioned words on how expansive international action
redounds to U.S. “naked self interest” and the American worker. A joint State
Department-Department of Defense review of global force posture will be a
critical place to translate all those ambitions into outcomes.
Kemal Kirişci (@kemalkirisci),
Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe,
and Sam Denney (@samddenney), Senior Research Assistant in the Center on the
United States and Europe:
In his speech at the State Department, President
Biden’s promise to reinstitute America’s traditional refugee readmission
programs and reinvigorate U.S. moral leadership was very welcome — and echoed
a piece we wrote
in August 2020. His announcement that the United States would “defend the equal
rights of people the world over” as part of its commitment to human rights in
the United States is the antithesis of his predecessor’s worldview. As
President Biden rightly mentioned, protecting refugees long enjoyed bipartisan
support in the United States, and the United States long set the example for
the rest of the world in its approach to refugees. But because of this history,
the United States must do more.
Today,
the international regime to protect refugees is broken, as more and
more refugees find themselves in protracted situations without durable
solutions in the form of voluntary return, resettlement, or local integration.
In 2020, 85% of the 26
million refugees in the world are hosted by developing countries, an especially
unequal burden that has been exacerbated by COVID-19.
In
addition to increasing resettlement, the Biden administration should also help
refugees where they are, by endorsing the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR).
Endorsing the GCR and mounting a diplomatic campaign to put its policy ideas in
action would send a clear message that America is back. But more importantly,
it would also send a message that America is willing to shoulder more of the
burden to address both the problems of today and tomorrow.
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Europe
Visiting Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Europe
Senior Research Assistant - Foreign
Policy, Center on the United States and Europe, The Brookings Institution
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy,
and Technology
Research Assistant - Foreign
Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, The Brookings
Institution
Robert Bosch Senior Visiting Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Europe
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy
Studies, John L. Thornton China Center
The Michael H.
Armacost Chair
Interim Chen-Fu
and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies
Nonresident
Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School
Director - Project on International Order
and Strategy
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy
Studies, Center for Security, Strategy,
and Technology
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Europe, The Turkey Project
Federal Executive Fellow - Brookings
Institution
Lieutenant Colonel - U.S.
Air Force
Nonresident Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Europe
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy,
and Technology, Center on the United States and
Europe, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Initiative
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Global Economy and Development, Center on the United States and
Europe
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Europe
Fritz Stern Chair
on Germany and trans-Atlantic Relations
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Europe
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Artificial Intelligence and
Emerging Technology Initiative
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Energy Security and Climate
Initiative
Nonresident Fellow - Foreign Policy, The India Project
Daniel Magruder, Federal Executive Fellow in the Center for Security,
Strategy, and Technology: With
regard to our adversaries and competitors, the takeaway from this week’s speech
was: Cooperate when we can, but compete when we must.
Giovanna de Maio (@giovDM), Nonresident Fellow in the Center on the United
States and Europe: Similarly to his
inauguration address, Biden’s foreign policy speech pushed back on
sovereigntist and populist narratives. Aside from important, yet expected,
comments on the restoration of alliances and American posture around the world,
two messages were particularly striking: 1) the interconnection between
domestic and foreign policy, 2) the refugee issue. First, Biden explained how
and why U.S. engagement in the world is beneficial to its political, economic,
and security interest. Second, in line with the measures he has already taken
to reunite the children with their families separated at the U.S. border with
Mexico and changing the legal language from “alien” to “non-citizen,” Biden
stressed the importance of taking concrete steps to admit and integrate
refugees.
By using the language
of solidarity and leadership by example, and by stressing the firmness of the
U.S. commitment to a safer world where human rights are protected, Biden does
not need to provide any justification to these policies in economic terms. This
is quite striking at a time when refugees have been seen as a cost by
sovereigntist parties around the world.
Steven Pifer (@steven_pifer),
Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe: In his State Department speech, President Biden
sharply broke with his predecessor regarding Russia. While President Trump
seemed incapable of criticizing Vladimir Putin or Kremlin misdeeds, Biden took
Moscow to task for the jailing of Alexei Navalny and crackdown on protesters,
said the days of “rolling over” to aggressive Kremlin actions were done, and
pledged to work with like-minded partners for a more effective response to the
Russian challenge.
At the same time, he
made clear his readiness to engage Russia when doing so was in the U.S.
interest, citing the U.S.-Russian agreement to extend New START for five years.
Biden’s policy will combine pushback against egregious Russian misbehavior with
dialogue where U.S. and Russian interests coincide. Many in Moscow seem to
assume his presidency will mean continued deterioration in relations. Perhaps,
but four years of Trump’s approach produced nothing of consequence that was
positive for the U.S.-Russia relationship. Biden will not launch a reset.
However, he will be open to guardrails, such as arms control, to manage the
adversarial aspects of the relationship; he understands that difficult problems
cannot be solved in a one-off meeting but require time and process; and, when
he does meet with Putin, he will be prepared and ready to engage in a serious
conversation. That approach will not turn things around overnight, but it might
help chip away at some of the problems that currently burden relations between
Washington and Moscow.
Biden will not launch a reset.
Douglas Rediker (@dougrediker), Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center on the
United States and Europe: The
most important, and likely overlooked, part of President Biden’s speech at the
State Department was when the president turned to Secretary of State Antony
Blinken and reminded everyone watching that the two had worked together for
over 20 years. And then he stated the most important words a president can say
to a cabinet official. Biden told Blinken that countries around the world
needed to know that “when you speak, you speak for me.” Diplomacy only works if
countries believe diplomats speak for the country they represent. Under
President Trump, even the most senior foreign policy officials lacked
credibility. How many times did Secretaries of State Mike Pompeo or Rex
Tillerson assert a position only to find President Trump tweeting something
entirely different and making them look foolish?
Biden’s speech was
preceded by a more targeted one for State Department officials, where he told
them that they were empowered, trusted, and that he had their backs. But those
words would not be enough if the secretary of state himself were not seen as
personally empowered. The close relationship between the two will provide
enormous leverage, allowing the entirety of the foreign policy team to speak
for the country under Blinken’s leadership. Trump was not the only president
who failed to empower his secretaries of state. When President Obama reversed
course on military action against Syria for breaching the “red line,” he let it
be known that he had alerted his secretary of state after he had made his
decision. John Kerry’s international credibility was never the same. In foreign
policy, presidential authority is largely unencumbered by Congress. That makes
the message that Secretary Blinken is fully empowered to speak for this country
on the world stage the most powerful message Biden delivered today.
Constanze Stelzenmüller (@ConStelz), Senior Fellow in the Center on the United States
and Europe: Some in Europe have been heard to opine
that post-Trump America ought to engage in some humble introspection before
laying a claim to global leadership again. President Biden’s foreign policy
speech this week did both. Biden said his administration was “ready to take up
the mantle and lead again.” But he also explicitly acknowledged systemic racism
and the “scourge of white supremacy,” making clear that repairing American
democracy at home makes America a “much more credible partner” in defending
democracy abroad. Your turn, Europe.
Angela Stent (@AngelaStent), Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center on the
United States in Europe: President
Biden’s speech promised the return of professional diplomacy as it should be
conducted. It should serve as a morale booster to the many foreign service
officers who were often overlooked or sidelined during the Trump
administration. By committing the U.S. to reinvigorate relations with
traditional allies and promising to halt the troop withdrawals from Germany,
Biden sought to reassure the Europeans that the transatlantic alliance still
matters. Biden’s message to Russia was tough — the U.S. will work with Russia
on issues that are in America’s national interest but it will no longer “roll
over” in face of malign Russian actions.
For those watching
from the Kremlin, his speech confirmed what they have suspected since November
3 — that a Biden administration will have a unified, tough policy toward Russia
and that any talk of a reset is off the cards. Apart from arms control, where the
Biden administration will continue to work with Russia, there will be limited
areas for engagement. Climate change and the Arctic could offer possibilities
for cooperation. After the administration’s review of Russia policy is
completed, and depending on what is uncovered about the Solar Winds hack and
2020 election interference, more sanctions may be coming. The Kremlin
anticipates that U.S.-Russian relations in the next four years will largely be
adversarial — and Biden’s speech confirmed that.
Christopher Thomas, Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Artificial
Technology and Emerging Technology Initiative: Going forward, technology policy and foreign policy
will be intertwined and interchangeable. 5G, artificial intelligence,
standards, batteries, semiconductors, enterprise software, advanced materials,
cloud, and more are the new global battlegrounds. Coherent policies that drive
U.S. leadership in technology and align our allies with the U.S. technology
ecosystem will be as essential to America’s foreign policy success as its
military strength, diplomatic skills, and moral leadership. The president’s
speech did not touch on this reality, nor lay out the compelling case for the
benefits of an American-led technology ecosystem (as opposed to a
Chinese-centric alternative). However, his policies on China, on Europe, on
trade, and on national security will need to do so in the future.
Constantino Xavier (@ConstantinoX),
Nonresident Fellow in the India
Project: Despite being the world’s largest democracy, India is
likely to have mixed feelings about President Biden’s foreign policy focus on
values and human rights. Common values have facilitated India’s convergence
with the United States but also led to differences in the past, for example on
Syria, Ukraine, or Sri Lanka. While New Delhi and Washington share a strategic
interest in a more democratic world, they often disagree on the best means,
including the utility of sanctions.
The
rise of an authoritarian China has raised Indian comfort to define democracy
as a foreign policy interest, but Biden’s values-centric agenda may create
tensions. This week’s exchange of statements on
Indian farmer protests shows that New Delhi is concerned about falling under
America’s liberal scanner, for example on Kashmir, press freedom, and minority
rights. Biden’s harsh reference on Burma will also be seen with concern in New
Delhi. As with Sri Lanka, India tends to privilege engagement over
pressure in order not to increase these neighbors’ dependence on China.
On
the other hand, Biden’s speech could also be the harbinger of a closer
U.S.-India partnership for of a free, open and democratic Indo-Pacific.
President Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi could revive the Community of
Democracies and the United Nations Democracy Fund. The United States and India
could also cooperate on joint economic assistance to support democratic
governance in developing countries that are increasingly exposed to China’s
authoritarian influence. India’s role at the Summit for Democracy will clarify
whether foreign policy values will be a source of tensions or lead to a closer
strategic alignment.
RELATED
CONTENT
Around
the halls: How leaders and publics around the world are reacting to events at
the Capitol
Madiha Afzal, Ranj Alaaldin, Marsin Alshamary, Célia Belin, Charles T. Call, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Lindsey W. Ford, Ryan
Hass, Kemal Kirişci, Suzanne Maloney, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Bruce Riedel, Natan Sachs, and Constanze Stelzenmüller
Friday, January 8, 2021
Around
the halls: Brookings experts on defense react to the nomination of Gen. Lloyd
Austin
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Bruce Riedel, Tom Stefanick, and Caitlin Talmadge
Thursday, December 10, 2020
Around
the halls: What should the Biden administration prioritize in its climate
policy?
Samantha Gross, David G. Victor, Sadie Frank, Addisu Lashitew, Nathan Hultman, Jenny Schuetz, Adie Tomer, Joseph W. Kane, Christina Kwauk, Barry G. Rabe, Amar Bhattacharya, and Sanjay Patnaik
Monday, November 23, 2020
Upcoming
Stronger:
Adapting America’s China Strategy in an Age of Competitive Interdependence
By Ryan
Hass
2021
·
Upcoming
To Rule
the Waves: How Control of the World’s Oceans Determines the Fate of the
Superpowers
By Bruce Jones
2021
·
By Tanvi Madan
2020
No comments:
Post a Comment