Biden's Foreign Policy: A Scorecard
Biden's national security team may be the best in over a generation. Their wins far surpass their failures.
The Best Foreign Policy Team in Over a Generation
David Rothkopf is a noted national security expert, having written ten books on the subject, including one on the National Security Council. A staunch Democrat and Biden booster, he recently posted on Elon Musk’s ever evolving creature now called “X”:
I respect the Biden national security and foreign policy teams immensely. They are the best in my lifetime. That said, int’l relations often involve x-factors beyond any one country’s control. Ukraine has gone well in part because Zelenskyy’s govt & the Ukraine military has done so well, been a reliable partner. The embrace of Israel depends heavily on what kind of partner the Netanyahu government will be. It is undoubtedly not only the right move but the only possible move. . . I can’t think of a team I’d rather have handling this for us in the USA. But nonetheless, I worry.
As a squint-eyed equal opportunity critic, a political independent and nearly 25-year denizen of the U.S. government’s national security apparatus, I have to agree. Many liken President Biden’s national security team to that of George H. W. Bush’s, led by the late General Brent Scowcroft as National Security Advisor and James Baker as Secretary of State. They managed U.S. foreign policy when communism imploded in Eastern Europe, the Berlin Wall fell and Germany reunited and, last but not least, the Soviet Union collapsed like a house of cards. I served in European affairs at the State Department in those years — and, yes, that team, from President Bush on down, was brilliant. President Biden and his team are on a par, possibly even better.
Personalities matter in these situations. Some leaders inexplicably encourage or tolerate rivalry and contention among their underlings, as in the Reagan and Trump administrations. Others stress collegiality, such as Barack “No Drama” Obama. President Biden clearly favors the latter model. In fact, a number of the members of his national security team had served under Obama. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for example, each served as Vice President Biden’s National Security Advisor. They are friends who work out policy differences in a collegial, usually behind the scenes manner. Blinken has described his relationship with Sullivan as “a friendship, partnership” whose differences are largely “tactical, rarely fundamental in nature.”
Having worked for him previously, Blinken and Sullivan, by all accounts, have good rapport with their boss — who occasionally surprises even them by coming out publicly with a new initiative or twist on foreign policy. Not one given to broad theories on statecraft or widely held truisms, Biden, based on his many years of dealing with foreign policy in the Senate and for Obama, is driven by instinct and experience.
So, their record?
A Scorecard
The respected journal, Foreign Policy, consulting with experts, has come up with its handy scorecard on the Biden administration’s foreign policy:
Russia, A-: kudos on forming a multi-nation in support of Ukraine; low marks on the administration’s ultra-cautious decision-making on providing increasingly effective arms and munitions.
China & Indo-Pacific, B/A-: Biden deserves credit for maintaining focus on increasing competition with China while simultaneously supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia. Experts fault the administration on trade matters.
Alliances, A-: the administration has been deft in nurturing and supporting alliances vis-a-vis Russia and China. Criticisms center on slow weapons and munitions provisions to Ukraine and the U.S.’s chaotic pull-out from Afghanistan.
Defense Policy, B-/C-: the administration has admirably resourced its military aid for Ukraine and defense of Taiwan. At the same time, there is a serious discrepancy matching budgets with threats. Criticism is also directed at putting emphasis on big ticket weapons systems at the expense of less costly, yet effective, systems.
Economic Policy & Geopolitics, B-: while the White House has made progress in forging new trade frameworks with European, Latin American and Asian countries, and is pushing ahead with tying the domestic economy closer to foreign economic policies, it gets criticized for accomplishing virtually nothing on trade liberalization and for taking a hostile stance toward the WTO.
Climate & Energy, B+/A: Biden’s infrastructure bill, which directs billions of dollars toward clean energy and resilient infrastructure, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which makes the single largest investment in climate action in the country’s history, generally receive high marks.
Democracy & Human Rights, C+: democracy and human rights critics fault Biden for lending rhetorical support while not backing it up with actions. Specifically, Biden catches flak for his dealings with autocratic human rights violators ranging from Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Vietnam, India and some African governments. His sanctions against China and Russia, however, warrant approval.
Global South, B+/C-: the Biden administration has engaged in intensive outreach to the Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America in a series of summits. While this is welcome, some fault it for inadequately matching symbolic actions with concrete follow-through. Parsing through which leaders are anti-democratic with those who are pro-democracy is difficult given all the grays.
Middle East, D/B-: FP’s article was published well before current events in the region. That said, criticism centered on the administration basically having a hands-off approach to the region, from failing to resurrect Iran nuclear negotiations to promoting a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians.
Immigration, Incomplete: while no legislation has been able to be passed in these polarized times, at the same time, the Biden administration appears to many to be feckless in getting a grip on out-of-control mass migration to the southern border.
The White House on Its Goals
I highly recommend that readers take time to study a lengthy, yet highly informative article by Jake Sullivan that appeared this week in Foreign Affairs. It lays out comprehensively, yet concisely, the administration’s foreign policy goals. One paragraph, in particular, sums it up in a nutshell:
We have to ensure a Ukraine that is sovereign, democratic, and free. We have to strengthen peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. We have to advance regional integration in the Middle East while continuing to check Iran. We have to modernize the United States’ military and defense industrial base. And we have to deliver on infrastructure, development, and climate commitments to the global South.
And, the ambitious and somewhat nebulous: we must “harness the domestic sources of national strength” — “there can be no doubt that Washington needs to break down the barrier between domestic and foreign policy and that major public investments are an essential component of foreign policy.” This constitutes the administration’s “foreign policy for the middle class.” Specifically, Biden aims to focus on how to redirect U.S. engagement overseas to tackle middle-class economic concerns at home. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act and Inflation Reduction Act all tie into this goal.
In my view, where the administration has made some impressive strides is in what Sullivan describes as a “latticework of cooperation,” a series of often intersecting alliances, partnerships and cooperation agreements aimed at deterring Russian and Chinese aggression, strengthening economic cooperation and addressing climate change, strategic materials sourcing, diversifying energy supplies, etc.
Notable among these are NATO expansion; reinforcing strategic cooperation among Japan, the U.S. and South Korea; trilateral security partnership among the U.S., Australia and the UK (AUKUS); a defense cooperation agreement with the Philippines; a comprehensive strategic partnership with Vietnam; reviving the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) — the “Quad” — among Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. to address increasing Chinese power projection; and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity — a 13-member group to pursue supply chain resilience, the clean energy economy, and anticorruption and tax cooperation.
On Ukraine, the administration has had success in getting allies in Asia to support Kyiv, and allies in Europe to also support peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
Criticisms
For their part, Republicans assert that Biden’s foreign policy weakens the country in the global arena. They point to the messy Afghanistan pullout, the president’s ongoing communication with Chinese President Xi Jinping and his (pre-Gaza) effort to revive the Iran nuclear deal as emboldening U.S. adversaries.
Biden comes in for special criticism from liberals and conservatives alike for his handling of lethal assistance to Ukraine — specifically dithering on whether to supply certain advanced weapons systems, ranging from M1 Abrams tanks to F-16 jet fighters to longer-range ATACMS missiles. Often described as “paralysis by analysis” and “no-no-no-yes” decision-making, critics complain that, in delaying the inevitable, the administration is needlessly hobbling the Ukrainians. For its part, the administration is ultra-attuned to the need to avoid an escalation of hostilities with Moscow to a point that could risk World War III.
My Take
As I stated at the beginning of this article, I hold the Biden national security team in high regard both for its deftness in handling an array of thorny issues and for its foresightfulness and conceptual approach to foreign policy.
While not without their faults, Biden et al. have acted very effectively on Ukraine — in organizing broad support among allies and others, providing needed military assistance, sanctioning Russia and building and maintaining support in Congress and among Americans. Some slam the administration for not “having a strategy” or “not formulating an exit strategy.” In my view, these are unfair criticisms. Biden’s stated strategy may sound simplistic, but it is clear and succinct: “help the Ukrainians in their fight to defend their freedom and sovereignty for as long as it takes.”
As for President Biden’s cautiousness in approving advanced weapons systems, it is easy for armchair quarterbacks to fault him. But they do not sit in the Oval Office having to worry that given policy actions could spiral out of control and trigger a third world war with nukes. The same criticism is sometimes levied at the president’s go-slow approach on NATO membership for Ukraine. Trouble is, invading Russian troops are already occupying 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, automatically triggering Article 5 (an invasion of one member is an invasion of all). Washington’s giving Ukraine bilateral security guarantees minus an Article 5-type provision — in other words, the “Israel model” — is a smart alternative for now.
In contrast to the president’s overall approval rating (38 percent), nearly two-thirds of voters (65 percent) think supporting Ukraine is in the national interest and 76 percent think supporting Israel is in the national interest, according to a Quinnipiac poll this month.
With events in Gaza still ongoing, the jury is out on the administration’s handling of this volatile issue. The Muslim world, in particular, will be judging Washington on its evenhandedness, or lack thereof. For this analyst, no light will be at the end of the tunnel until there is a firm commitment to a revived peace process leading to a two-state solution.
Finally, a note on style. First, Biden, as with Obama, has filled key national security positions with highly qualified technocrats for whom the interests of the nation trump ego. Jake Sullivan is a veritable bureaucratic and policy wunderkind. Antony Blinken is an able manager of U.S. diplomacy who explains issues in terms the average citizen can grasp. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is understated yet steady and firm in carrying out defense policies. CIA Director William Burns, a career diplomat, wins high praise from intelligence professionals for his low-key and balanced stewardship over his agency and effective pursuit of highly sensitive initiatives.
Second, Biden places priority on personal rapport with foreign leaders, recognizing that, in the words of Sullivan, “all foreign policy is personal, that personal relationships with leaders really matter.” Biden’s aides estimate that he met face-to-face last year with around 80 percent of the world’s leaders.
Third, credit must be given to these players on how they manage their people. Washington is notorious for self-centered, cutthroat careerists who pay scant attention to the welfare of the troops. The effect often is a disincentivized, demoralized workforce whose members may not invest themselves fully in their agency’s mission. Recently, Sullivan and his deputy, Jonathan Finer, took time out to hold a town hall with NSC staffers to ask them how they were faring working under constant stress and for feedback on work conditions overall. Aware there were a number of staff members who disagreed with the White House’s stance on Israel-Gaza, they also discussed with them their concerns openly. Blinken is admired among State employees for similarly exhibiting interest and empathy. Showing humanity reflects maturity of leadership and goes far in incentivizing employees, thus optimizing mission outcomes.
All administrations catch flak on any number of foreign policy issues. Biden, for example, warrants an “F” on his handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, but an “A” on support for Ukraine, in my book. It is important therefore to stand back and gauge the whole over its individual components, or, as Jake Sullivan puts it, “what matters is the sum of its actions, not winning a single news cycle.”
The opinions and characterizations in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent official positions of the U.S. government.