Despite
US President Joe Biden’s affinity for the “
rule-basedinternational order” established after World War II, his foreign policy is hastening
its demise. In fact, there is an ever-widening gulf between his
administration’s homilies on internationalism and its approach to defending it.
اضافة اعلان
Consider
the evidence. Last October, the Biden administration announced
a raft of export controls designed to curtail Chinese companies’ access to advanced
microchip technology. It was an historic overreach, and marks an expansive use
of export controls ostensibly for national security reasons. Even as the Biden
administration has gone to great
lengths to
dispel the notion that a new Cold War is upon us, its actions are reminiscent
of the Soviet-US rivalry.
Since
the end of the Cold War, economic sanctions have been based mostly on trade
disputes, human rights, or amid substantial global consensus that a state’s
actions have imperiled the international order. China has trampled this notion,
and now the US is following its lead.
China
often weaponizes trade to punish countries that anger it. In 2010, China
suspended salmon imports from Norway after a Chinese dissident won the Nobel Peace
Prize. Beijing has also subjected South Korea and Australia to similar
treatment, and recently unleashed a torrent
of economic sanctions on Lithuania after Vilnius opened a Taiwan Representative
Office.
It
is hardly a model worthy of emulation for countries invested in using trade as
a catalyst for peace, prosperity, and greater understanding.
America’s
toxic and polarized politics, a feature of its particular brand of democracy —
as well as a by-product of the inbuilt flaws of liberal democracy — have caused
a chasm between what its politicians say about international cooperation and
what they do.
America’s toxic and polarized politics, a feature of its particular brand of democracy — as well as a by-product of the inbuilt flaws of liberal democracy — have caused a chasm between what its politicians say about international cooperation and what they do.
A
classic example of this is the Biden administration’s signature industrial
policy initiative – the somewhat misnamed
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
– which earmarks billions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits to incentivize
renewable energy companies and electric vehicle manufacturers to “re-shore” to
the US.
The
IRA now threatens to cause
substantial deindustrialization in Europe, imperiling the EU’s post-COVID economic recovery.
The economic dislocation will also lead to the rise of populist forces in
European politics that could complicate European unity at a time when
Washington needs it most. While French President Emmanuel Macron has called for
a European
response to the IRA, the fear among economically weaker EU members is that only
wealthier states like Germany and the Netherlands will be able to match
American subsidies, further weakening internal EU cohesion.
Emerging
powers like Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, and Brazil will have drawn the
right conclusions from the contradictions inherent in Biden’s foreign policy.
It is no surprise, then, that almost every country, including those that are in
a military alliance with the US (Turkey), pursuing closer strategic ties with
the US (India), or look to America as a net guarantor of security (Saudi
Arabia), are pursuing their own economic and foreign policy self-interests.
For
example, Indonesia’s economic
nationalism vis-à-vis its nickel exports would have been extraordinary under a
global order that truly adhered to free markets. Yet, given how America has
barely moved in offering even friendly countries greater access to its domestic
market, Indonesia’s actions are understandable.
Mostly
for domestic reasons, and partly due to the need to distance himself from his
predecessor, Biden has made democracy versus autocracy the
organizing principle of his foreign policy. But not only is this an oversimplification, the president’s
actions have rendered his words hollow.
In
response to rising global energy costs, the Biden administration has quietly
allowed American energy majors to re-enter
Venezuela —
even as the Maduro regime has done the bare minimum to democratize Venezuela’s
politics.
In
2021, when the Biden administration hosted a “Summit for Democracy,” it did
not invite Bangladesh,
a raucous (albeit flawed) democracy of 165 million people that is also one of
the world’s largest Muslim countries. Washington then imposed sanctions on Bangladesh’s
paramilitary force for alleged human rights violations.
The (Biden) administration seems to have a tamer approach to the new Netanyahu administration in Israel, whose policy plans threaten to take a sledgehammer to Israeli democracy, further violate the human rights of Palestinians, and imperil Palestinian statehood.
Yet,
the administration seems to have a tamer approach to the new Netanyahu
administration in Israel, whose policy plans threaten to take a sledgehammer
to Israeli democracy, further violate the human rights of Palestinians, and imperil
Palestinian statehood.
Within
the US, a
politicized Supreme Court that
pronounces judgments in alignment with right-wing
extremist ideology (the overturning of a 40-year precedent on abortion rights
last year for example) will make it difficult for the US to lecture other
countries on human rights.
Perceptions
of American perfidy will not only weaken the prevailing global consensus over
the international order but will reawaken past and extend misgivings about
American neo-colonialism masquerading under the guise of liberal democratic
discourse. This is particularly true for the post-colonial Global South.
The
consequences of this are already before us: Greater pursuit of plurilateral
security and trade agreements between countries regardless of their political
systems; increased economic nationalism under which free trade suffers; less
focused global action over international crises like climate change; an overall
deterioration in human rights around the world; and increasingly militarized
solutions to interstate conflicts.
The
Biden administration can say what it wants about upholding the global international
order, but it can’t have it both ways.
Dnyanesh Kamat is a political analyst who focuses on
the Middle East and South Asia. He also consults on
socio-economic development for government and private-sector entities.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
