Biden’s Flawed Foreign Policy

America’s foreign policy need not be directed by opinion polls. However, it should at least be guided by the actual current needs and general philosophy of the nation.

In the face of massive and growing external threats, combined with mounting economic challenges, a nonpartisan foreign policy does not appear out of reach. The basics are clear. Discourage armed assaults on the U.S., its allies, and interests by maintaining superior armed strength, diplomatic influence, and economic resources. Ensure that the commerce and supply required for prosperity is maintained. Secure the borders to prevent hazardous problems from infiltrating. Deal as much as possible with nations that respect freedom and human rights.

The Biden approach does not reflect this. Instead, it appears geared towards projecting support for his internal political base, motivated not by achieving security and prosperity for the country but by appeasing the left wing of his own party. Given the financial relationship now being made clear following the confirmation of the information found on the Hunter Biden laptop, it is not inappropriate to question whether Biden family finances play a role as well.

The problem can be seen in the current White House approach to several issues. Many have been deeply disappointed at the very low-key response the Administration has had to the horrific human rights abuses seen daily in the headlines about China and Iran. It was observed in the reluctance it had to take steps to discourage Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. (The billions now spent by the West, and the lives lost by so many Ukrainians, might have been saved if Biden had telegraphed its determination to counter the Kremlin’s plans.)

It is also noticeable in the comparatively conciliatory attitude it has had towards Venezuela, as the Administration seeks Caracas’ help to mask the energy problems Biden has created.

Massive lockdowns of whole communities provoked widescale outbreaks of protests throughout China, despite the severe repercussions the participants face. The situation became so intense that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been forced to at least partially back down. Despite obvious appeals to U.S. sentiment by Chinese activists, including quoting from American Revolutionary War sayings, Biden’s response has been, at most, low key. It did not prevent a planning meeting between Biden and Xi, or, apparently, become a major issue at the gathering. There is no expectation that the U.S. would directly intervene in the matter; that would hand a propaganda victory to the CCP, which habitually labels any dissent as foreign inspired. But it would have been a welcomed and rewarding move for the White House to be more emphatic in condemning the CCP’s repression. Think of the dramatic impact of President Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech. It is difficult to cite a legitimate reason for Biden’s reluctance

A very similar argument could be made about the unspeakable repression now occurring in Iran.

While paying less than necessary attention to the devastation of human rights in China and Iran, the Administration has been intensely enthusiastic about concentrating on LQBTQ+ issues overseas. Secretary of State Antony Blinken authorized American embassies around the world to fly the Gay Pride flag on the same flagpole as the American banner. This plays well with the activist wing of the Democrat Party that Biden desperately curries favor with. It’s an easy publicity stunt that looks good in leftist journals, and deflects attention away from the Administration’s lack of substantive support for freedom fighters, including oppressed gays, in Iran.

The Biden Administration’s domestic missteps play a role that should not be ignored. The inexplicable destruction of American energy independence explains why the White House has cozied up to the criminal regime in Venezuela. It also describes why, after harshly condemning Saudi Arabia, the President has now gone hat-in-hand to that nation’s rulers begging for oil favors. His Administration’s incompetence in that region may lead to further dire consequences. The massive Trump-era Middle East gains could now being replaced by Chinese advances, thanks to Biden’s missteps.

Most fundamental to any international policy is the control of one’s own borders. For reasons that have never been explained, the Biden Administration has rejected the practice of meaningful border control. Chinese-made, Mexican Cartel-wholesaled fentanyl devastates the U.S., a foreign policy crisis utterly ignored by Biden.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.