The Past, Present, and Future of U.S Foreign Affairs: A Debrief of Joe Biden's Recent International Trip
Written by Ella Stillion Southard
Graphics by Wendy Lan
The mainstream media obsessed over President Biden’s first international trip weeks before the wheels going up on Air Force One, but -- what’s the big deal? While it is in the nature of the media, no matter its bias or “unbiased” orientation to excessively emphasize the political weight of events, even the Pod Save the World guys, Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes (former aides to President Obama), were amped up about this; they are typically not ones to fabricate positive feelings towards politics. Since following the events of the eight day trip and observing pundits’ commentary, I have concluded that I was admittedly missing essential parts of the narrative, but I was also correct in my gut feeling that the build-up and speculation are much more exciting than the outcome of the excursion. Nonetheless, no amount of pride should ever block myself or you, the reader, from educating ourselves on essential, potentially world-altering information. So here’s what you need to know and take away from Biden’s trip -- and the gravity of foreign affairs in relation to the future of the existence and prosperity of the world.
The reason this trip specifically, by a U.S President, was such a huge deal is because of the U.S’s recent askew position on the world stage. Former President Donald Trump did not look fondly on cooperating with other nations who did not share the same interests as him or could not give him an upper hand in a given situation. Therefore, some critics argue that his abrasive approach to foreign affairs withdrew the U.S’s historic position as a respectable world leader. The Atlantic cleverly writes that “Trump saw the world in terms of power, not values...Biden sees the world where democracy must be defended.” While this statement is charged with opinion, and Biden has three more years to live up to such an assertion, it is true that Trump’s foreign policy reflected a tendency to appeal to those with power; those who could help his ambitions and our nation’s economy. After the G7 Summit in 2018, for example, Trump pulled out of the joint statement made by all of the other six countries (Italy, Germany, UK, Japan, Canada, and France) which emphasized the need for “free, fair, and mutually beneficial trade” between the world’s most mighty economies. This message, designed to prevent countries from acting out of economic self-interest, was exactly what the then President of the United States intended to do. He pulled out of the statement because of a conflict between US steel and aluminum tariffs with Canada’s tariffs that were supposedly hurting American farmers and companies, according to President Trump.
Now, is it true that President Biden also wants to protect American economic interests with tariffs? Yes, incredibly so! He has long pledged to bring more American jobs to the nation, and how does one create more jobs? You create more opportunities for production because American products are in high demand. In a sense, Trump’s actions of protectionism are not at all new or going away. What was different about his approach to foreign affairs, however, was his tone, or lack of thought into his tone. Notoriously, the news outlets love to comment on a President’s tone in all situations. During Covid-19, some outlets were saying, ‘Is this a new, serious tone we are seeing from the President? It appears he recognized the danger of the virus - are we going to see stricter lockdowns?’ Every President has a forever evolving, yet distinct tone, or so the public reads in the news. Therefore, Trump’s tone held the same weight as every other Presidents’, so when he called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “very dishonest and weak” at the G7 Summit in 2018, it stuck. Abiding to his gravitation towards those in power, at that same G7 Summit, Trump suggested that Russia be readmitted to the G7, even though they were thrown out in 2014 because of annexing the Crimea. Every leader disagreed, producing the famous photo of German Chancellor Angela Merkel leaning over a desk, almost towering over then President Trump, while he sits crossing his arms, clearly displeased. Conclusively, the people who did not like Trump’s approach to foreign policy are the same people who are delighted about Biden’s trip. Without Trumps’ contestable past, there would have been less excitement for Biden to do the basic duties of a U.S President.
The hype around Biden’s trip was not purely because he’s not Trump. It was also because Biden had some large campaign promises to fulfill, which were very much intersected between domestic and international affairs. In fact, on his campaign website, in regard to foreign policy, Biden pronounced that he would first “reinvigorate our democracy and strengthen the coalition of democracies that stand with us,” then “equip our people to succeed in a global economy with a foreign policy for the middle class,” and, “renew American leadership to mobilize global action on global threats.” Under every one of those broad goals details some type of domestic policy that our nation needs to take in order to lead the world by example because “‘at the end of the day, domestic policy and foreign policy in the Biden administration, really are one of the same.’...’right, and it all boils down to democracy,” Historians Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman say. Although in recent history this idea that foreign and domestic policy are extremely intertwined has been absent, it is not a new phenomena. At the birth of the United States, domestic policy was foreign policy. Protecting the existence of this new, fragile Democratic Republic against the worlds’ most powerful monarchies, one of which the colonies had just separated from, was the number one priority in the new nation. George Washington famously warned in his Farewell Address, beware of “entangling alliances,” also known as, don’t kill the nation because you want to take a stance on the French Revolution. Domestic political arguments ensued for years because of this foreign issue. Abraham Lincoln himself also noted the intersection of domestic and foreign policy, he said, “shoring up our democracy is a foreign policy imperative, otherwise, we play right into the hands of adversaries and competitors, like Russia and China, who sees every opportunity to sow doubts about the strengths of our democracy.” Later on in the late 19th century, President Theodore Roosevelt advocates for war with Cuba because he believed, according to History Professor Heather Cox Richardson, that “it would help to rebuild democracy, it would make men, men again, it would make Americans care again about something other than money and start to care about morality and humanity.” Evidently, Biden’s ideas on how to relate with other nations and participate as a global leader in the world is strikingly similar to how U.S history has wrangled foreign affairs, which is with democracy at the core. Yet, Biden can not ride the tailcoats of these former politicians, he has to prove himself.
With such goals in mind, Biden set off on his anticipated trip. This included the G7 Summit, a NATO meeting, and a meeting with Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin. The first stop, the G7 Summit, aligned right with one of Biden’s foreign policy ambitions, to “strengthen the coalition of democracies that stand with us.” Based on the responses from other world leaders, and considering there were no ugly fights between the leaders (publicly at least), some steps were taken towards this goal. French President, Emmanuel Macron, said that the U.S is definitely back, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson reported that the Biden administration is a “breath of fresh air.” Substantively, the seven world leaders also agreed on some key issues. President Biden, attempting to move towards that goal of foreign policy that works for the middle-class, rallied for everyone to sign on to a 15% minimum corporate tax rate, as well as pledging one billion dollars worth of vaccines to battle global health inequality and 100 billion dollars to low-income countries to help them contribute to their fight against CO2 emissions. The seven nations also agreed to finance their own respective nations’ environmentally cleaner energy-producing options, which involves cutting funding for unabated coal power. Central to the substance of the G7, however, was China. Their expanding human rights violations, autocratic government, and the Belt and Road initiative were at the forefront of Joe Biden’s agenda, and thus the entire summits’ agenda. The Belt and Road Initiative, which began in 2013, is the Chinese Communist Party’s investment in infrastructure, which will connect the region economically. The United States, and many other Western countries, criticize this plan because it appears that it’s encouraging China to shy away from international economic cooperation, instead creating a “sinocentric” world. The nations in the G7 agreed they needed to counteract this ambition, but the details of such a project are vague. Italy and Germany want to take a more moderate approach to addressing China, while the U.S and the UK are increasingly concerned about their autocratic influence, and want to act immediately. While several other discrepancies emerged from the summit between the leaders, like the timeline of halting coal emissions and halting economic participation in China’s forced labor camps, the President reportedly walked away from the summit with no doubt in his mind that America was back.
Similar sentiments in regard to China arose at the NATO meeting a day after the conclusion of the G7 Summit -- it even made it into the final communique of the NATO meeting. However, again, European NATO members wanted to make it clear, just in case Biden’s tough-on-China narrative was confusing spectators, that NATO is not “a club hostile to China,” said French President and is still our partner, German Chancellor Merkel reassures.
Arguably the most anticipated stop on Biden’s trip was Geneva, Brussels, where President Putin was waiting. When Biden announced he would meet with Putin, many were shocked. On his first trip? After the G7 Summit? Yes, which makes sense, considering that on one of his first days in office, Biden gave Putin a call. The expectations for this meeting were a lot different than the ones in Cornwall at the previous summit. AP News summed up the expectation perfectly: “‘Practical Work’ Summit for Biden, Putin: No hugs or hugs.” The bar was so low, CNN notes, that Putin could merely show up, and it would be on par with what was expected. Fortunately, the two leaders did more than just show up, they agreed upon some decisions, like to restore their respective ambassadors and set up a task force to defeat cyberattacks. Despite this agreement, there is still a fundamental disagreement between the two nations on the origin of the last major cyberattack in the U.S., as well as the basic morality of human rights violations and how to conduct elections. Essentially, the two leaders separately, but simultaneously, agreed that relations between Russia and the U.S are exactly where they were prior to the meeting, but it was a fundamental step in acting in the interest of global security and peace.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it quite plainly, “look, the election of Joe Biden as U.S President doesn’t mean the world no longer has problems.” This is true. There is still the impending threat of the world burning up because of fossil fuels, and with it lies the threat of China’s rising ambition and power (although when has that not been a threat to the West), and most importantly, the threat of doing nothing solidifies more and more in our children’s history books every day. President Joe Biden’s trip was incredibly important, yes, but the mounting build-up prior to the trip matched with the conventional results is a reminder that the United States left wing is still recovering from the Trump administration. The smaller steps taken this first trip are paramount, in the respect that it will hopefully lay the foundation for the future of the United States, the world, and democracy. However, let’s not forget the reality that incrementalism is real and alive, and the U.S’s big hopes and dreams for the world will not be possible without clear leadership, effective messaging, and an active, grassroot push for a safer and more free world.