Whom Do You Trust? Joe Biden, Trump, & U.S. Foreign Policy
We often take our relationships for granted. Why? Sometimes we forget about where that friendship was forged, or what common struggle we endured. Sometimes we forget the bread we once broke together. Othertimes, as often is the case, our relationships become reciprocal, straying far from the catalyst. And no matter how strong the bond, relationships are conditional. This conditionality is important because it creates trust, and trust, trust is the good stuff. And in foreign policy, trust is the most fundamental facet.
There’s a quote by Hemingway that goes: “the only way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.” I find this to be a bunch of malarkey, or rather, an oversimplification that doesn’t do the word “trust” justice. Yes, one must first trust, but such an application of this tender sentiment is built slowly, and wrapped in moments of tumult. Thus, what brings humans together is not always our own volition, but the volition of the events that whirl around us. The United States has found itself the benefactor of this whirlwind, and through it, we have forged formidable alliances.
The “world order” as we know it today, is a child, or rather a baby boomer, of the second world war. When Europe was suffering, the United States provided aid. This bond has all the characteristics of a strong relationship: built out of strife, and continually built up with mutual guidance and care. Yet, a relationship is still conditional.
President Donald Trump’s actions have put in stark clarity the conditionality of our alliances with our European allies. In many ways, Trump did this by not attending to his relationships (Macron, Trudeau, and Merkel). Instead, he’s cozied up with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. As a result, the worldwide perception, specifically by our “former” allies, has plummeted. Confidence in Trump to do the correct thing in foreign affairs is not just low, it’s nonexistent: in Europe a dismal 11% in France and 10% in Germany, compared with a score of 84% and 86%, respectively, for Barack Obama in 2016.
The opinions of these countries matter. The United States holds about a quarter of world GDP, but by accessing our network of allies, we can turn that small sum into 60% of world GDP. This is the kind of influence that China and Russia can not claim to have. Instead of utilizing the full capacity of our allies to solve global issues, Trump continues to praise Presidents Putin and Xi. It is clear that Trump’s foreign policy plan is nothing more than a narcissistic escapade.
Trump’s foreign policy, centered on throwing our weight around with little time to stop and think, has caused us to fade from the world stage. With little warning as to the direction of U.S. foreign policy, our allies have shunned us. It is now hard for U.S. diplomats and officials to be taken seriously abroad; they condemn kleptocracy while their own president does the same.
As a result, China’s power has grown immensely over a short period. China now leads the most committees at the United Nations (UN), including the Human Rights Council Panel. And yet, it is widely known that China has internment camps in Xinjiang for Uygur minorities. With China actively abusing human rights, the United States should have lobbied for a different head of the panel. Yet, Trump has been quoted as saying that what President Xi did to the Uygur population was “exactly the right thing to do.” Such statements garner no respect from allies, and indicate Trump’s inability to lead the most powerful country in the world.
Yet, the United States can still be a global leader. While some may scoff, suggesting that the United States can’t influence the political attitudes of countries across the pond, they ought to remember that the United States has acted as a political hegemon since 1945. Amidst and post-Cold War, we established a foreign policy and military precedent that the rest of the world followed. Despite our faults, our democracy has been a beacon of hope for much of the world. As we seek to solve issues of climate and conflict, this will matter more than anything. Foreign policy will be the bedrock that serves to solve climate change amidst a developing and divided world.
It will take more than a Biden administration to build back better on foreign policy; the relationships Trump killed were forged out of the second world war. These relationships have lost their glow. Yet, if Biden is able to rally around the global shared interest in the fight against COVID-19, then maybe, just maybe, he can save the United State’s reputation abroad. Maybe, he can establish a new era of trust, only this time built out of his predecessor’s plunder, and open to the entirety of the world, not just Europe. For if we seek to solve global issues, we shall need a global leader. One that embraces everyone, not just tyrants and the wealthy lot. And someone who takes breaking bread as seriously as talking business.
Gabriel is a senior from Bangor, Maine, majoring in politics. He is currently working on a senior thesis examining conditional and unconditional responses...
M. Diehl ('85) • Nov 20, 2020 at 1:23 PM
I have to question whether “soft power” has any real value for the vast majority of Americans. If it means greater taxes and loss of individual automony, greater employment instability, or lower wages, the answer would IMO be “no.” The answer is made more emphatic if the implication is that soft power rides on forward placement of hard power and entangling alliances.
I suspect the US could have marvelously sustainable economics and greater reliance of renewable energy if we just shaved half of the DoD budget and invested that in energy replacement. But for that to work – for the US to be some kind of economic beneficiary of an emerging market for better energy — there will be an immediate need to protect US intellectual property and to NOT offshore production.
And therein lies the rub. If one wants to make a case for economic globalism, then I suspect one needs to run not walk away from GDP as the metric of economic health and use more pertinent indices such as the basic statistical trifecta (mean, median, modes) household income, misery index, purchasing power per hour of labor, etc.
Gabriel Coffey • Nov 11, 2020 at 1:48 PM
You made some great points. I must concede that harkening back to a bygone era of trans-Atlantic partnerships is taxing and unnecessary, but to solve the greatest issue of the 21st century, climate change, we will need Europe, no question. Also, I’m not saying we should engage China with respect to military, but declare that we are the leader of the most pressing issues facing the world by, well, leading on climate change and human rights . That will effectively counter the authoritarian influence that China has over its Asian allies. I agree, any build up of the military to counter China is little worthwhile beyond defending the Taiwan straight, which we can effectively defend with our current military presence. The world order is decreasingly globalist in the era of Covid, and while that benefits certain domestic markets, it hurts cooperation on the most pressing issues or our time. Our selection, as the US, of what to stand for should be methodical, but all while targeted. We should not act like we will be the world leader forever, and thus with Europe, the leader in renewables, we have a present and future partner we can target and actively engage. On matters of war, I agree, our partnership with Europe was deleterious and the war in Vietnam, Korea, and through the Middle East is a product of bad diplomacy by George Kennan and company. Yet, if you ask them after the fact what the thought of containment policy they admit they were wrong. All the while, this doesn’t mean we can’t take what was good from the trans-Atlantic partnership and use it in this new age of comparative politics. Thanks for such thoughtful responses, which have certainly helped reorient my thinking.
M.Diehl • Nov 10, 2020 at 10:56 AM
The subtleties of language and discourse do indeed make it difficult to compact complex debates into short spaces. I’ll keep it brief and if there is a need for sustained conversation maybe there is some other venue?
By “cutting ties” I mean military ties. No isolationist, and I am not much of one, ever said “cut all ties.” Growing up in the sixties and seventies I, like everyone, was indoctrinated to view the Soviet Union as a clear and imminent danger and Europe as natural allies and partners. “Red pilling” does not describe, really, a realization that occurs over forty years: that the NATO alliance was the main reason why the US was ever at risk of nuclear war with Russia, and that absent same the US population would never have been at risk in the event of conflict between Europe and anyone else. (It is common to wish that US engagement in Europe prior to WW2 might have prevented that, but in my view that perception is both wrong and, had it been acted upon, might have caused much greater harm to the US than we experienced in the actual event.)
More to the point, the USSR was gone in 1990. Yet somehow NATO endured, primarily as a burden on American taxpayers (we spend about 500 dollars in defense costs to maintain deployable force for every dollar spent on American bases in Europe). It has produced no measurable “power” soft or otherwise in Europe. Soft power has meant the “privilege” of being subhect to EU trade protectionism while paying for EU’s defense costs, and having no military allies worthy of mention, in Europe, apart from the UK. In short, we spent a whole lot of money, a fair amount of blood, and most Americans did not benefit from same.
As to China, the flight of venture capital out of China is a good thing. We should encourage that. But it is a drop in the bucket among problems posed by the PRC. It is a hegemonic, imperialist nation that has essentially told the World Court of Arbitration to stuff it in re their claim to the entirety of the western Pacific as sovereign Chinese waters. Industrial espionage, IP theft, and trade protectionism are standard PRC mercantilist practices. US economic engagement in China has funded their military expansion … and now the same talking heads that used to raise fears of Soviet aggression call for the US to spend more, engage more militarily, and confront more, to curb the PRC.
It’s almost as if no one who sets US policy really wants World War Two to end. In my lifetime, TWO presidents have not started bombing people that the US was not theretofore bombing. President Carter and President Trump. It is remarkable that we learned nothing from Viet Nam or anything else.
Gabriel Coffey • Nov 9, 2020 at 5:46 PM
Hello! I’m certainly not saying that U.S relations with Europe are entirely a bi-product of Trump’s passivity. I wrote an article earlier this year, “Defund The Military, Fund Diplomacy,” where I link the fall of the diplomatic core with our weakening relations with European powers, and in doing so show that said decline cane pre-Trump, but was certainly exacerbated by him. What I was trying to get at here, and I apologize if it wasn’t clear enough, was that Trump has courted leaders that stand diametrically opposed to “western” values of liberalism by agreeing with president Xi on the topic of internment camps. All the while, China’s rise, wether or not Clinton supported it, does pose a threat to the United States, specifically the financial sector (VCs particularly), as they have been attempting to develop a parallel financial structure. The flight of American VCs from China can be seen as recently as January of 2020 per numerous articles in The Economist and Times. Yet, as a whole this article is intended to show a need revitalize the transatlantic partnership to help deal with climate change, and how we can seize the moment (Covid), much like what happened with respect to the Marshall plan and post-WWII alliances. You also propose cutting ties with European allies, but fail to mention the fact that we import 18% of all imports from Europe. Also, by “cutting ties” what do you mean? Are we talking about slight tariffs, or are you saying we should leave NATO, which rightfully so, European countries don’t pay enough into.
M.Diehl (alum) • Nov 9, 2020 at 4:54 PM
I have to say that as “opinions offered as analysis” claims yours seems to beg the question. You assume the deterioration of US foreign relations and the rise of China is ‘on Trump’ rather than making a logical case for the claim. US-European relations have been in a downward spiral for decades. That started when the Cold War ended, and was followed by escalating European trade protectionism, and the abandonment, by continental Europe, of any sense of *mutual* obligation in NATO. Likewise, China’s rise as an imperialist hegemonic power began with the admittance of China into the WTO during the Clinton administration.
Cutting US military ties with Europe is a desirable choice, in my view. Terminating globalist free trade agreements is another.