Grading Biden's Foreign Policy
After a bit of a hiatus, Realism and Restraint is back. Below my colleague Yohanes Sulaiman and I analyze and evaluate U.S. President Joe Biden’s foreign policy after two years in office. Both Yohanes and I give Biden good reviews, though we also agree that he has room for improvement and quite a bit of work ahead in his remaining years as POTUS.
Brad Nelson: What are your overall thoughts on Joe Biden's foreign policy at the midpoint in his term in office?
Yohanes Sulaiman: Biden's foreign policy is pretty much overshadowed by the Russian war, which has sucked all the oxygen from the room, a situation that’s similar to what Bush's experience during the Iraq War. As a result, it seems that Biden doesn't pay that much attention to the rest of the world except for China, which is America’s main competitor. This ends up framing U.S. relations with other countries, making it difficult to engage with them on their own merit.
In general, I am satisfied with Biden's policy on Russia, though I hoped for more assistance earlier in the game, not this late. Tanks and longer-range HIMARS would have destroyed Russia military power far more effectively had the U.S. sent them last year. In the case of China, I like Biden's low key engagement.
BN: I totally agree with your statement that the war in Ukraine has sucked the air out of the White House. U.S. foreign policy these days is all about the war. Everything is about selling weapons to Ukraine, maintaining bipartisan support for the war, and keeping a united Western front against Russia. The war is important, so as to demonstrate that territorial conquest doesn't pay in the 21st century, but it's not an existential war for the U.S. And Ukraine isn't a treaty ally. Team Biden has to do a better job at keeping the war in perspective, balancing the demands of the war with other foreign policy issues that are just as if not more important.
Additionally, by giving so much aid to Ukraine, despite not having forces directly in the fight, Biden now owns the war. His administration bears some responsibility for the war, and domestic audiences will judge him in this way going forward. With a presidential election on the way in less than two years, Biden might well feel an incentive to sink ever deeper into the war in order to "win" it before November 2024. Should that happen, the U.S. would be squarely involved in what will likely be a protracted quagmire, with grave risks that Putin could escalate Russia's use of force to match America's growing investment. Of course, Republicans could act as a brake on Biden, preventing him from giving Zelensky a blank check to wage perpetual war, but so far they're backing the war. I hope that instead of drifting deeper into the war, Biden pushes Zelensky to settle for a diplomatic resolution to the war, preferably by the end of this year. Publicly, though, Biden has said he doesn't want to dictate to Ukraine how long it should fight and what outcomes it should accept.
YS: I wonder what kind of diplomatic resolution is possible with Russia and also palatable to Ukraine. At this point, Russia has thrown everything to Ukraine except its nukes, which I believe will be a bridge too far. And Ukraine, in response, has hardened its position so much that the only condition for peace is a return to the pre-2014 status quo, which Putin obviously refuses to contemplate, seeing that he has integrated four of Ukraine's provinces into Russia. And there is no way Ukraine is going to trust Russia.
BN: American pro-Ukraine hawks were irked when news reports indicated that the U.S. has been telling Ukraine to do what it can on the battlefield as soon as it can because the spigot probably won't be free flowing forever. Don't say that, they argue, as that could embolden Russia. Perhaps, but the U.S. is being truthful, which is what Zelensky needs to hear. All of the military aid packages delivered to Ukraine so far have come with Democrats in the House writing the checks. The problem is that the GOP now has the House and House Republicans are getting restless about the war. Moreover, the latest polling data on the war from the AP show that American support for the war/Ukraine has dipped under 50% for the first time. And as the GOP race for the nomination heats up, you'll hear Trump (and maybe others) banging away at Biden and other Ukraine supporters for being reckless, wasteful warmongers. Sometime in the not-too-distant future supporting the war is going to be a political negative. I know this is purely anecdotal, but you and the readers should know that I teach roughly 60 students this spring semester, and well over half of them, who live in dark blue Illinois, want the U.S. to begin the process of scaling back aid to Ukraine. They see reports of billions and billions of dollars of war aid to Ukraine and that alarms them. Put very simply, the clock is ticking on Zelensky.
What political settlement would be palatable to Zelensky? Well, what he wants—a fully reunified Ukraine, with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine brought back into the fold—probably isn't going to happen. What he's probably going to get—a settlement that likely reflects a little more or less the status of the war right now on the ground—won't make him happy. But he needs to be convinced that fighting off the Russians, saving the country, and preserving his political system are all major victories, given the power and size disparities between his nation and Russia. Unfortunately, that might only happen when/if the U.S. begins to seriously think about drawing down support for the war. I do think Zelensky would be extremely angry if Ukraine isn't given a fast-track path to both the EU and NATO. I think EU membership is more likely in the near-term than NATO membership, because allowing Ukraine into NATO would provocatively extend America's security commitments right up to Russia's doorstep on two fronts, and I don't think that's something the White House—regardless of who occupies it—wants.
Of course, the other issue involves Putin. What kind of political settlement would he find acceptable? Or is he content to leave the situation as a protracted low-intensity frozen conflict? And what, if anything, can the U.S. do to help Putin save face?
YS: I see that this will end up becoming a long low-intensity conflict, not dissimilar to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia from 2014 to 2022, when Russia decided to ratchet up the scale of conflict in order to tire the west, hoping that it will lead to public fatigue or perhaps a friendlier administration in Washington in 2024. This, however, is a strategy not without a risk. At the rate of current battlefield casualties, Russia is going to start losing soldiers much faster than it can mobilize them. In the long run, the economy will be damaged. And there are signs that Putin's health is failing. And also don’t rule out further popular discontent and intra-elite squabbles, with the Wagner Group becoming an independent powerbase. The question is who will fold first—Putin or Zelensky?
BN: Let's shift gears. How do you assess Biden's Middle East policy?
YS: Biden has been dealt bad cards all over the place. The Saudis dislike him, as they prefer to work with Trump, who is more pliable. They also rebuffed him last year when Biden asked them to increase oil production. And Netanyahu is back in Israel, and he keeps causing headaches all over the place. In my view, Biden does not pay that much attention to the entire region, focusing mostly on Iran.
BN: You're getting at something here. Biden has maintained Trump's Middle East policy (defend and try to expand the Abraham Accords, contain Iran, re-enter the Iran nuclear deal only when Tehran grants concessions, cozy up to the Sunnis, go after ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria, etc.), even though some of the major players in the region prefer Trump over Biden. Keeping Trump's Middle East policy is probably the smart thing to do since it was a fairly solid approach and offers the prospect of continuity for the U.S. and its regional partners.
Pursuing this policy has been costly for Biden, however. It has made him look weak and desperate, because he's had to grovel to and protect the Saudis who aren't fans of his, as you point out. And if that's not bad enough, Biden hasn't gotten much from his efforts. Biden tried to sideline MBS and work with the King and his staff, but that backfired. Biden begged the Royals to up their oil output and was denied. He promised a review of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, but nothing about that has ever been mentioned again—it's possible that talk about a policy review was more about feeling slighted and humiliated than an actual review of U.S. policy on Saudi Arabia. And while Biden scrapped offensive arms sales to the Saudis, for fear they'd be used in Yemen, he has threatened to veto legislation that would halt arms sales to them. Meantime, the Saudis are getting closer to China, haven't sided with the US in the war in Ukraine, and haven't ended hostilities in Yemen.
At this point, I'm sure Team Biden is hoping that nothing bad happens in the Middle East in 2023, because the U.S. is already stretched thin as a result of Russian and Chinese activities. Regrettably, as we've privately discussed, I do expect trouble in the region in ’23. Netanyahu back in office makes the Middle East especially combustible. Already, Israel has been accused of a drone attack on an Iranian weapons facility, with Tehran promising retaliation. Moreover, rumors are heating up once again about Israel targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Sure, that could be the usual tough talk, threats designed to deter Iran from upping the ante on its nuclear program. Nevertheless, I do see the Middle East as being more difficult this year, and it will be interesting to see how the White House handles the region given all that's on its plate these days.
BN: One last question. How would you grade Biden's foreign policy at the midpoint in his presidency? What's the verdict?
YS: Biden is hard to grade, as the grade is skewed by Ukraine. I give him an A- on Ukraine. Biden has done everything correctly: maintained a low profile, built a strong coalition of the willing, tried to prevent war by diplomatic means, and supported Ukraine once the chips were down. At the same time, I have to deduct some points for being late in giving Ukraine weapons.
Asia: B+: Biden has focused on China, building alliances, and continuing some of Trump's better policies. But I do have to minus some points for not paying much attention to Southeast Asia.
Middle East: B-: I see weak U.S. leadership in the Middle East. The White House appears to lack direction in its regional policy, it’s more reactive than ahead of the game.
Africa: C: Is anybody in the Biden administration paying any attention to Africa?
Latin America: D: Biden is far more reactive than active in Latin America. And illegal immigration is a mess for the U.S.
BN: Below is my report card for Biden. It looks like we mostly agree.
War in Ukraine: B. Biden has done lots of good here, to be sure. NATO is united and strong, Ukraine and its democracy have been saved so far, and Russia is weakened and bleeding. That said, I do have concerns. I worry that Biden is overcommitting the U.S. to Ukraine, which isn't a vital national interest, and overpromising results to Ukraine and American citizens. I fear that the U.S. isn't sufficiently guarding against the prospect of Russia escalating its use of force as Putin becomes more desperate. And I certainly suspect that Biden is falling into an age-old American problem: He can't find a way out of the war that he opted into. The idea of another "forever war" makes me shake my head in disbelief, given that the U.S. has just come out of two forever wars.
China: A. The relationship with China isn't smooth or particularly stable, but that's to be expected, given that the U.S. is in the early days of a cold war with Beijing. Biden has been sufficiently tough on China, even tougher than I had anticipated. America's alliances in Asia are in good shape. I love the Semiconductor Act, which sets up the U.S. well to maintain its tech lead over China. Team Biden handled the balloon fiasco reasonably well—they showed toughness by shooting it down and pulling out of the meeting with Chinese officials, but refrained from inflating the threat from China and taking pot-shots at the Xi government, which could've made the situation much worse.
Europe: A-. U.S.-Europe relations have been repaired—yes, with some help from Russia, but Biden has done good work in putting the pro-Ukraine coalition together and maintaining its cohesion. The minor quibble is that Biden's "Buy America" policy has irritated European leaders, and could prove to be a bigger issue once the war in Ukraine ends.
Middle East: B-. Biden has kept Trump’s policy, which is fine, and he's held strong against Iran, but he's also gotten snubbed by MBS and just doesn't have any idea what to do about him. Biden's obsession with his domestic political capital gave MBS leverage in the relationship and he's used it to America's detriment. Sidelining MBS at the start of Biden's presidency, while understandable, eventually backfired, and now there's no going back to repair the damage.
Latin America: D. Drugs, gangs, and cartels run rampant throughout the Americas. I don't want to over-exaggerate those things, but they are happening. Border security is an issue. I see no progress on immigration reform. At bottom, I get the sense that because the GOP obsesses and complains about these issues, Biden doesn't want to touch them. It's as if they are partisan "red" issues. But those are national security issues that Biden needs to address.
America's southern backyard is a mess, filled with crime, violence, and weak governments. Even the most recent Summit of the Americas was a bust, especially for Biden, as the run-up to the event was plagued by political in-fighting and a number of nations, including neighbor Mexico, dispatched lower level officials rather than their sitting head of state. Put simply, what happens in America's backyard is a reflection of U.S. policies and priorities and leadership, and the U.S. isn't doing particularly well in its own neighborhood.
Africa: B. Africa always gets the short end of the stick in U.S. foreign policy. There are lots of reasons for that. I don't doubt that racism, or at least latent racism, has something to do with it. Fortunately, the U.S. is paying more attention to Africa these days because China has become a major player there through trade and its Belt and Road Initiative. Team Biden released its Sub-Saharan Africa Strategy last year and hosted a conference in last December with 49 African heads of state and the African Union in attendance. Honestly, the Biden administration is trying here, which is much more than what can be said about the previous administration.