Pundits are feeding Americans a narrative about how different Biden is than Trump in dealing with U.S. allies. The narrative is mostly wrong, and understanding this sheds light on some of the major problems with U.S. foreign policy.
The establishment and mainstream angle is that Trump was awful for America’s international relationships, and Biden is attempting to repair the damage. The Associated Press wrote earlier this year that “Biden declares ‘America is back’ in welcome words to allies.” Foreign Policy is of the view that “America’s allies cautiously welcome Biden’s attempts to fix Trump’s damage.” The Los Angeles Times writes that“Biden assures NATO allies after Trump mocked alliance as ‘obsolete’”.
Thankfully, continues the narrative, Trump is no longer bullying European allies on trade and ignoring climate change. Yet if European allies aren’t completely on board again, that’s Trump’s fault -- he did so much damage and another Trump-like president could emerge, say the experts. “In particular, there is this sense among Europeans ... that maybe another Trumpian president gets elected in four years’ time. I think the shock of Trump, it's hard to forget that,” says international affairs expert Hans Kundnani, making a familiar argument.
On relations with adversaries such as Russia, the dogma purports that Trump ‘humiliated’ America and bowed to Putin, fueling “suspicious about the U.S. president’s loyalties.”
On Russia, there is a flipside to the mainstream narrative. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said Biden “gave Vladimir Putin a pass” at the two leaders’ recent summit. A chief criticism is that the United States under Biden has failed to sanction a Russian pipeline being built in Germany. National Review put out the headline, “Score a win for Vladimir Putin: Joe Biden Wimps Out on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 Pipeline.”
Much of this is madness. Sure, there was a difference in style between Trump and Biden, but both presidents wrongly kept liberal hegemony humming along, meaning that America will continue to use its power to bend the world toward Washington’s preferred ideology.
First, look at the facts. Trump’s pressure on European allies was meant to get them to spend more on defense, largely to confront Russia, as they pledged to do in the NATO treaty. He equally sought to get wealthy South Korea to pay more for America’s defense of that country. Trump actually increased U.S. troops in Eastern Europe, and expanded NATO twice (Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in early 2020).
Far from challenging these assumptions, Biden’s presidency is a continuity of many of these policies. Biden’s allowance of the pipeline is the only option that avoids America meddling in Germany’s energy policy -- otherwise, sanctions could be placed on Germany. But his administration is readying new sanctions against Russia nonetheless. Next, Biden probably won’t drop Trump’s demands to get European allies to up defense spending -- he just might be less vocal about it. Likewise, Biden got South Korea to pay more for defense, though the increased committment is much less than Trump had called for.
While both presidents appeared to want to pull American forces out of Afghanistan -- and Biden might actually accomplish this over the objections and intransigence of the security state -- American force numbers are hardly being tweaked elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa. Despite his campaign promises, Trump actually added a U.S. troop presence to Saudi Arabia, for example. Biden, just like Trump, is unsuccessfully trying to get wealthy European allies -- whose defense, and thus its welfare states as well, are subsidized by America -- to take a stronger stand against China.
Finally, step back a second. Instead of asking allies to pay more, why is the United States subsidizing Europe or South Korea’s defense in the first place? Why the bipartisan hysteria about Russia when Russia has an economy the size of Italy’s and a military budget less than a tenth the size of America’s?
What Russia does have is nukes, and lots of them. A rational foreign-policy media and commentariat would ask how we learn to live with the only other nuclear superpower, while neither bowing to nor needlessly provoking Moscow. A rational discourse might ask why America should fill the void if wealthy Germany doesn’t see fit to improve its defense capabilities. Finally, what is America’s role in the Middle East, and what has America accomplished for all the blood and treasure spent there?
Too often, critical questions like these that strike at the heart of Washington’s flaccid foreign policy assumptions go unanswered, while those trusted to expose the truth remain transfixed, spinning a narrative for mass appeal. That keeps liberal hegemony humming along, but it’s far from serving legitimate U.S. interests.
Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry. The views expressed are the author's own.
Read Full Article »