Joe Biden and Trumpism Shorn

American presidential doctrine is a strange creature. Usually summoned by security guards and satellite personnel who revolve around the president, they end up taking the name of the person in office. They are given the strength of a papal bull and are treated by expert priests as obligatory, consistent and sane.

Much of this is often mere myth-making for the Imperial Guardian in the White House, betraying what is often a superficial understanding of world politics and movements. Clarity and detail are often lacking. Variety in such doctrinal matters veteran diplomat of the Soviet Union Andrei Gromyko Noted by looking at the American approach, meant that there was no “solid, coherent and coherent policy” on the ground.

In the case of the president Joe biden, all doctrine was doomed to be a readjustment made in hostility to the The Trump administration, at least superficially. But in many ways, Biden has simply lowered the blinds and kept the American political train going, especially in his approach to China and his shameless embrace of the Anglosphere. There are still scraps of nativism, doses of protectionism. There is childish evangelism which insists that enlightened democracy fight against vicious autocracy. It was, according to in Foreign Affairs, the “doctrine of everything”.

Such an approach would hardly come as a surprise. Robert gates, former US Secretary of Defense, claimed in his memoirs with the certainty that the record of the current president, before taking office, was uneven, proving “false on almost all matters of foreign policy and national security during the last four decades”.

At the time, a stung White House objected to the view by remarks made by National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden. “President [Barack Obama] disagrees with Secretary Gates’ assessment – from his leadership on the Balkans in the Senate to his efforts to end the Iraq war, Joe Biden has been a key statesman in his time and helped advance American leadership in the world. “

Anne-Marie Slaughter, writing in mid-November of last year, suggested that the world finally had a sense of the “contours” of Biden’s foreign policy, which was a veritable gift shop. “He has,” she said in a reproach, very much in the foreign sense, “something for everyone.” For the China bashers, he pushed “the quad»From India, Australia, Japan and the United States and created AUKUS, “a new link between Britain, Australia and the United States with the agreement on submarines, no matter how awkwardly it is treated”.

A compelling human rights narrative has also taken shape, an approach neither convincing nor authoritative. Once again, China is the main target, accused of genocide and serious human rights violations, although Beijing can be assured that the sword of US military might will, at least for now, be in the spotlight. shelter from attempts to protect them. What remains less certain is whether the same can be said of Taiwan.

Liberal internationalists can applaud the energizing rhetoric of international institutions: the cheerful nod to the World Health Organization, the re-engagement of the United States to pursue goals to mitigate the problems of climate change; the revitalization of NATO, an alliance derided by former President Donald Trump.

From Chatham House we see view that Biden’s “pragmatic realism”, which eschews sentimentalism towards traditional allies while respecting them, has caught Europeans “off guard” with Washington’s energetic focus on the Indo-Pacific.

Slaughter accused that while something is intended for all, a doctrine remains difficult to “pin down.” She is still not convinced by the stacked pantry, wishing to see a more concerted effort that embraces “thinking that is moving away from states, be it big or small powers, democracies or states. autocracies “. Embrace, she commands, “globalism,” with an emphasis on cooperation, regardless of political or ideological stripes. “From a human perspective first, saving the planet for humanity must be a priority over all others. “

This view is far from being spanked in its novelty. With every change of the guard in Washington, opinions like Slaughter’s are reborn, often messianic exhortations that claim to do things again and see the world again. In his case, there’s a recycled One World quality, with the US, of course, as the central leader. Bill clinton, as a presidential candidate in 1992, insisted that it was “time to put people first”. By accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1996, he was talking to build “this bridge to the 21st century, to meet our challenges and protect our values”.

What a beautiful sight that turned out to be, with the United States securing its position as the only superpower, with a massed army capable of striking, on a global scale, any part of the planet with impunity and, as Clinton himself has shown it, a frivolous and criminal distraction. Washington continued to bribe and pamper satraps and client states, seeking janitors to deal with the imperium and keep any power that dared to challenge the status quo under stern and severe control. No wonder then that Beijing threatens such selfish understanding.

The transcendent, humanity-focused view won’t fit well in the Bidenverse, which remains grounded in a sort of power politics that is shorn by Trumpism, with a range of other track records. The former president’s “America First” ideals have been kept, even if the howls about the risks of a complex world have simply been delivered in a different vein. The open question, and one with a potentially troubling answer, is to what extent U.S. military might will be used to underpin shoddy, shallow doctrine that shows all the signs of the old.

If you are interested in writing for International Policy Digest – please email us via [email protected]

Brandon D. James