President Joe Biden used his recent European visit to codify a foreign-policy vision he'd been alluding to throughout the first six months of his administration - namely, the challenge of being prepared for an inflection point in a twenty-first century struggle between a democratic model for the world to aspire to and an autocratic one:
On his recent trip to Europe, President Joe Biden hammered home the defining theme of his foreign policy. The U.S.-Chinese rivalry, he said, is part of a larger “contest with autocrats” over “whether democracies can compete . . . in the rapidly changing twenty-first century.” It wasn’t a rhetorical flourish. Biden has repeatedly argued the world has reached an “inflection point” that will determine whether this century marks another era of democratic dominance or an age of autocratic ascendancy. Tomorrow’s historians, he has predicted, will be “doing their doctoral theses on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy?”
His current stance seems to have resulted from the geostrategic view that has been made available to him in his position as president:
Biden hasn’t always seen the world this way. In 2019, he mocked the suggestion that China was a serious competitor, let alone the leading edge of an epochal ideological challenge. But his claim that the central clash of our time is the contest between democratic and authoritarian systems of government appears genuine—and has profound implications for U.S. foreign policy and geopolitics.
He's not (currently) wrong that the autocrats aren't playing around. Consider Chinese president Xi's recent rhetoric:
XI JINPING has warned foreign nations will "get their heads bashed" if they attempt to interfere with China.
The Chinese premier made the comment during a speech on Thursday to mark the centenary of the ruling Communist Party (CCP). Addressing a crowd of people at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, Mr Xi condemned foreign powers that are trying to “bully” his country.
“Only socialism can save China, and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China,” he said.
“We will never allow anyone to bully, oppress or subjugate China.
“Anyone who dares try to do that will have their heads bashed bloody against the Great Wall of Steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.”
He added: “No one should underestimate the resolve, the will and ability of the Chinese people to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Xi wasn't indulging in impulsive swagger. He sees his policy stance as being rooted in the Chinese identity forged by the now-72-year-old Communist revolution:
In his hour-long address, Xi said the CPC had helped China overcome "subversion, sabotage and armed provocation by imperialist and hegemonic powers."
The party was central in dismantling the "old world" and building a new one, he added. It was a callback to the famous Mao Zedong-era slogan that he would later also repeat: "Without the Communist Party, there would be no New China."
"Only socialism could save China. Only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China," Xi declared.
China's Communist Party chairman referenced the contributions of notable former leaders, including Mao, Deng, Jiang Zemin and his immediate predecessor Hu Jintao.
Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is likewise confident that the autocratic moment has arrived:
PUTIN has taunted the US, saying their world dominance is “over” and threatened to strike back if any “boundaries are crossed”.
The Russian president issued the stark warning during a televised Q&A on Wednesday, during which he also boasted that even if Russia had sunk HMS Defender it would not have caused World War Three.
Putin boldly claimed his navy could have attacked the ship in the Black Sea because the West knows "full well that they can't win in that war".
During his annual “Direct Line” call in show, in which citizens can submit queries for the president, he spoke of how the “period of unipolar world is over”.
“No matter what sanctions are imposed on Russia, no matter what the scaremongering, Russia is developing and in some respects our country has surpassed the European countries and even the US,” he said.
While Putin said the nation would not be taking steps that would be harmful to themselves, he said if boundaries were crossed, they would find “asymmetrical ways” to respond.
“I hope the United States will change this attitude not only towards us, but also towards their other allies,” he said.
Putin went on to say that the world was “changing dramatically” - something he said the United States understood.
Here's the problem. For Biden to move forward on the basis of the vision he outlined in that European address, there has to be an America capable of unity on levels beyond the military and strategic. A United States that is going to lead a coalition of countries identifiable as members of a democratic bloc (I daresay we could keep alive the term "Western"; Israel, Japan and South Korea have enough experience with institutions such as orderly elections, balance of powers between three governmental branches, and some degree of free-market economies to qualify, it seems to me.) has to demonstrate unity on at least some broad cultural level.
We don't currently have that. Far from it. One of our major political parties is driven by identity-politics militancy and climate alarmism - up to the level occupied by the above-discussed President Biden - and the other had become a cult that worships an incoherent "America First" mindset embodied by one figure but embraced by a horde of worshippers in elected office. We've completely jettisoned the underpinnings of our claim to a superior model for the world to follow. Our foundation is no longer one of a Judeo-Christian orientation, an approach to science based solely on objectivity and reason, and a common understanding of what a vibrant and humanity-affirming culture looks like.
With what is Biden going to mount an effort to assure that the democratic bloc prevails over the autocratic bloc? If the above-mentioned levels are not overtly part of the strategy, we'll be looking at an undertaking confined to a military and intelligence class that seems far removed to the brunt of the country's populace. That sucks the very purpose of the whole enterprise right out of it.
If it sounds like what I'm saying is that Biden would have to abandon what his party has become and assert principles that had been time-honored until five minutes ago, you're getting my gist.
And, as I say, the other party is so fatally infected with its desperate cling to a charlatan who insists on self-glorification that it is in no position to offer what is needed. This is true no matter how many fund-raising emails say that that party is dedicated to providing an alternative to leftist radicalism. Really? Do Matt Gaetz and the Arizona auditors Jim Jordan and Ted Cruz have the requisite stuff to bring post-America back together for the grand task of convincing the world that the democratic vision outshines the autocratic one?
So, count LITD as encouraged that Biden has at least a tenuous grasp on the current lay of the land, but discouraged that he is ill-equipped to act on what he has said is going to be necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment