krauss53_MELINA MARAPOOLAFP via Getty Images_bidenpelosiharris

أمريكا أولا على طريقة بايدن

May 5, 2021 Melvyn B. Krauss

ستانفورد- إذا كان حلفاء أمريكا يشعرون بالقلق إزاء ما صرح به الرئيس جو بايدن، في خطاب ألقاه أمام الكونغرس في 28 نيسان/أبريل، بشأن السياسة الخارجية، فلهم كل الحق في أن يكونوا كذلك. إذ على الرغم من أن أجندة بايدن الاقتصادية المحلية تشبه إلى أقصى حد تلك التي اعتمدها ترامب، والتي تتمثل في فرض ضرائب أعلى على الأثرياء وتوسيع كبير لنطاق شبكة الأمان الاجتماعي، لم تكن السياسة الخارجية التي أوضحها مختلفة تمامًا عن عقيدة "أمريكا أولاً" القديمة التي اتبعها سلفه .

وقال ريتشارد هاس، رئيس مجلس العلاقات الخارجية، مؤخرًا، "هناك استمرارية في السياسة الخارجية بين بايدن وترامب أكثر مما تراه العين من الوهلة الأولى ... لا تزال سياسة ترامب تلوح في الأفق". لذلك، كان خطاب بايدن غريبًا؛ إذ جمع بين الصفقة الجديدة لفرانكلين دي روزفلت وتلميحات قوية عن القومية الترامبية.

عندما تحول بايدن إلى السياسة الخارجية، كان تركيزه على الصين والولايات المتحدة، كما لو أن أوروبا لم تكن موجودة، وأن الولايات المتحدة بوسعها أن تفوز بهذه المنافسة دون المشاركة النشطة للأوروبيين. وبالنسبة للآذان الأوروبية، يبدو هذا بالطبع قريبًا جدًا من سياسة ترمب الازدرائية. إذ لم يكن بوسع الولايات المتحدة أن تكسب الحرب الباردة بدون حلفائها الأوروبيين، ولن تتفوق على الصين بدون التعاون الأوروبي. ونقلت المستشارة الألمانية، أنجيلا ميركل، بأسلوبها اللطيف جدا، تلك الرسالة إلى بلدها قبل تولي بايدن منصبه مباشرة من خلال دفع الاتحاد الأوروبي إلى التعجيل باتفاقية الاستثمار الشاملة بين الاتحاد الأوروبي والصين.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading and receive unfettered access to all content, subscribe now.

Unlock additional commentaries for FREE by registering.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen May 11, 2021

Melvyn B. Krauss maintains Biden’s foreign policy sofar seems to be a continuation of Trump’s. Although Biden opened his first foreign policy speech on February 4 that "America is back," and that "Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy," he has not “lifted his predecessor’s tariffs on imports of EU steel and aluminum, originally imposed on dubious national security grounds. And there has been no reconsideration of Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”
The author urges Biden to bring back the America that is “dynamic” and “open to the world, not Trump’s anxious America, suspicious and contemptuous of others.” The recasting US foreign policy in a mold of diplomacy and professionalism, has been welcomed by the international community. But until Biden “offers a bold gesture to exorcise the spirit of Trump from US foreign policy, his hopes of restoring American global leadership are likely to be disappointed.”
Biden’s remarks on foreign policy in his address to Congress on April 28, may have unsettled America’s allies. His “domestic economic agenda could not have been less Trumpian – higher taxes on the wealthy and a substantial expansion of the social safety net.” But the foreign policy he “outlined was not all that different from his rococo predecessor’s ‘America First’ credo". Biden’s speech “was a strange brew: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal mixed with powerful hints of Trumpian nationalism.”
In foreign policy Biden’s “emphasis” was on China and the US, “as if Europe did not exist, and the US could win this competition without the active participation of Europeans. To European ears… that sounds a little bit too close to Trumpian contempt. The US could not have won the Cold War without its European allies, and it will not outcompete China without European cooperation.” It may explain why Angela Merkel pushed the EU “into fast-tracking the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, just before Biden took office.”
The author also takes aim at Biden’s vaccine nationalism amid the ravaging pandemic across the globe. His “refusal to send COVID-19 vaccines to important European countries in dire need…..has made his claim that ‘America is back’ sound very doubtful in many European capitals.” Emmanuel Macron is facing a formidable rival - Marine Le Pen - in next year’s presidential election. While France was grappling with a sluggish vaccine rollout two months ago, Biden did not send “excess vaccine supplies” over to help one of America’s oldest and “most reliable” allies.
If Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally wins, it will be a “disaster for the EU and the transatlantic alliance”. A pro-Russian president at the Elysée will be boost for Putin, who met Le Pen while she was in Moscow ahead of the 2017 presidential election in France. She is said to have taken loans from Russia since 2014. Putin has been funding far-right parties in Europe hoping to revamp his revanchism. It is in Biden's interest to help “block the Kremlin’s efforts to weaken, divide, and ultimately destroy the EU.”
Biden has said the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a bad deal for Europe. The author lashes out at Merkel’s Merkel’s stubborn indifference to the geopolitical consequences of the project," while blaming Biden for failing “to mitigate its potential damage amounts to foreign-policy malpractice.” Hope is placed on Germany’s Green Party to derail the project if they win big in the September Bundestag election.
If the current trend persists, there is reason to believe that the Greens are likely the “kingmaker following this autumn vote.” They strongly opposes the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. As one observer recently concluded, “the Greens are more closely aligned on the controversial issue of the pipeline with the US and Germany’s eastern neighbors, such as the Baltic states and Poland, than with [Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union].”
Merkel has been too beholden to big businesses in Germany, putting national interests ahead of other EU member states'. It explains why many Europeans look forward to seeing her departure. On the other hand, she has also contributed much to holding the EU together. As it is still unclear who will succeed, the US is also facing an uncertainty in its transatlantic relationship.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matthew McCarthy May 6, 2021

First issue is clear thinking about the current state of affairs.

For example the momentum behind NordStream2 is based on denuclearization of Germany. As Germany decommissioned nuclear power it started pushing France to supply base power to its electrical grid until they said no. Then it started building coal plants to make up for the lack of base power, and now it is building gas fired power plants which it will need to fuel. All because the variable power available from wind and solar will never be base power and will never make the quantities required. This is Germany not California, voters won't accept "it must be someone else's fault" when the power goes out. They don't have a choice about needing access to fuel for their electric power grid. It has nothing to do with Trumpism and the EU can't do anything about it.

Second example: Trans Pacific Partnership. Maybe this could be a weapon to put pressure on China, but if so, don't expect Biden to make it happen. China has already bought the man, so he does not have the leverage to do that until it is compatible with Chinese goals. Yes we are supposed to accept the story that businesses give folks millions of dollars for no reason when it is the Biden's since the NYT told us so, but realistically that's not how it works. Hunter Biden did not get a 10% ownership of a $2billion fund for no reason when he flew in to Beijing on AF2. Biden makes a move to pressure China and some additional evidence that his drug-addicted son left somewhere will show up and Biden will be out of political capital before the ink is dry. He will not take the chance.

Pretending the current state of affairs is all due to Trump is as bad as assuming that Biden has flexibility that he doesn't have. Placing them as the foundation for this article makes it weak.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.