It has always been my hope that I…

Peter Dutton, unopposed. We need a girly thing to be Deputy to win…

Dutton is not what this country needs, even…

If Peter Dutton is the best the Liberals can offer as an…

Morrison reaped what he had sown

Writing this a couple of days after the most important election in…

Reality bites

By 2353NM   Every political commentator in the land has their own personal opinion,…

Why We Should Ignore Women And Greenies!

Let me imagine that my wife tells me that she's leaving me…

And so it came to pass

And so it came to pass that truth persisted, hope survived and…

Election 2022: Prospects for a New Multidimensional Era?

By Denis Bright   Election 2022 is more than a Labor victory. It opens…

The Great Teal Tsunami: Arise Australia’s Independents

Rarely in Australian history has a governing party suffered such loss in…

«
»
Facebook

In Search of Shallow Doctrines: Joe Biden and Trumpism Shorn

The US presidential doctrine is an odd creature. Usually summoned up by security wonks and satellite personnel who revolve around the President, these eventually assume the name of the person holding office. They are given the force of a Papal bull and treated by the priest pundits as binding, coherent and sound.

Much of this is often simple mythmaking for the imperial minder in the White House, betraying what are often shallow understandings about global politics and movements. Clarity and details are often found wanting. Variety in such doctrinal matters, the Soviet Union’s veteran diplomat Andrei Gromyko noted in casting his eye over the US approach, meant that there was no “solid, coherent and consistent policy” in the field.

In the case of President Joe Biden, any doctrine was bound to be a readjustment made in hostility to the Trump administration, at least superficially. But in so many ways, Biden has simply pulled down the blinds and kept the US policy train going, notably in its approach to China and its unabashed embrace of the Anglosphere. There remain smatterings of nativism, doses of protectionism. There is the childlike evangelism that insists on enlightened democracy doing battle with vicious autocracy. This was, according to Foreign Affairs, the “everything doctrine”.

Such an approach would barely astonish. Former US Defense Secretary Bob Gates did claim in his memoir with sharp certitude that the current President’s record, prior to coming to office, was patchy, proving to be “wrong on nearly every foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

At the time, a stung White House demurred from the view through remarks made by National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden. “The President [Barack Obama] disagrees with Secretary Gates’ assessment – from his leadership on the Balkans in the Senate, to his efforts to end the war in Iraq, Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time, and has helped advance America’s leadership in the world.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter, writing mid-November last year, suggested that the world was finally getting a sense of “the contours of” Biden’s foreign policy, which was a veritable shop of goodies. “He has,” she claimed in reproach, much along the line taken in Foreign Affairs, “something for everyone.” For the China bashers, he has pushed “the QUAD” of India, Australia, Japan and the United States and created AUKUS, “a new British, Australian, US nexus with the … submarine deal, no matter how clumsily handled.”

A throbbing human rights narrative has also taken some shape, an approach neither convincing nor commanding. Again, China features as a main target, being accused of genocide and grave human rights abuses, though Beijing can be assured that the sword of US military power will be, at least for the moment, sheathed from attempts to protect them. What remains less certain is whether the same thing can be said about Taiwan.

The liberal internationalists can cheer the boosting rhetoric of international institutions: the gleeful nod towards the World Health Organization, the recommitment of the US to pursuing goals to alleviate the problems of climate change; the revitalisation of NATO, an alliance derided by President Donald Trump.

From Chatham House, we see the view that Biden’s “pragmatic realism,” which eschews sentimentalism to traditional allies while still respecting them, took European partners “off-guard” with Washington’s energetic focus on the Indo-Pacific.

Slaughter has charged that, if all are recipients of something, a doctrine remains hard to “pin down.” She remains unconvinced by the stacked pantry, wishing to see a more concerted effort that embraces “thinking that shifts away from states, whether great powers or lesser powers, democracies or autocracies.” Embrace, she commands, “globalism”, with an emphasis on cooperation irrespective of political or ideological stripes. “From a people-first perspective, saving the planet for humanity must be a goal that takes precedence over all others.”

This view is far from spanking in its novelty. With every change of the guard in Washington, opinions such as those of Slaughter become resurgent, often messianic urgings that claim to make things anew and see the world afresh. In her case, there is a recycled One World quality to it, with the US, of course, as central leader. As a presidential candidate in 1992, Bill Clinton insisted that it was “time to put people first.” In accepting the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1996, he spoke of building “that bridge to the 21st century, to meet our challenges and protect our values.”

How fine a vision that turned out to be, with the US ensuring its position as the sole superpower, with an amassed military able to strike, globally, any part of the planet with impunity and, as Clinton himself showed, frivolous, criminal distraction. Washington continued to bribe and coddle satraps and client states, seeking janitors to mind the imperium and keep any power that might dare to challenge the status quo in stern, severe check. Little wonder, then, that Beijing threatens such self-serving understanding.

The transcendent, humanity-driven view will not sit well in the Bidenverse, which remains moored in a brand of power politics that is Trumpism shorn, with a range of other antecedents. The “America First” ideals of the previous president have been retained, though the howling about the risks of a complex world has simply been delivered in another register. The open question, and one yielding a potentially troubling answer, is how far US military power will be used to shore up a shoddy, shallow doctrine that shows all the signs of the old.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

 48 total views,  2 views today

6 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Phil Pryor

    No one has yet commented on a sound, thoughtful, prodding article. Perhaps it is because we “think” (hah) that Biden will fumble and juggle on, that Trump and his -isms will be too unsettling and unpredictable. Putin has another decade potentially, the Germans are not predictable as Scholz is quite unknown, while the voluble Macron is not a guide to future settled certainties. China and USA relations seem to be the leading consideration, but a peaceable breakthrough could, just, sneak through with more enlightened higher diplomacy. Will India and Japan feature more in international affairs? A more modest, sensible, reflective, educated USA public affairs life seems unattainable. So, whither bound??

  2. Michael Taylor

    Phil, Dr Binoy pushes out some outstanding articles on foreign issues which sadly don’t often attract much discussion. Nonetheless, I enjoy his articles. He covers topics generally ignored by the Australian mainstream media.

  3. Canguro

    Fair suck of the sauce bottle, Phil, but you’d know as well as anyone that AIMN is a busy busy place, and local politics trumps the offshore stuff. Understandable, just as the Yanks don’t often think about Oz unless it’s something spectacular to grab their ten second’s worth of attention, like Docko-what’s-his-name getting the bum’s rush by the boys in black at the border gates getting headline news on all the MSM.

    re. Biden; George Packer’s 2013 book, The Unwinding, examines the state of the union over the previous 35 years through a biographical relating of the experience of a number of individuals, including one Jeff Connaughton, a staffer for Biden for nine years (1987-96). The insider’s perspective… not a pretty picture at all of the current president, and hardly surprising given the general degree of delusion and insanity that prevails in the Great Satan nation, where money trumps all and without it you’re nothing, where power plays dominate politics above all else, where enemies have to constantly be created and conflated, where the big swinging dicks just have to out-dick each other in order to feel as if their days are meaningful… and Biden is amid that, and part of that madness.

    Another commenter wrote on this website after Biden’s ascension that America would now be a better place and that healing and regeneration would naturally flow. I disagree… the country’s basically rooted; the only questions are by how much and how long will the total dissolution take?

    Two documentaries and a movie viewed over the last 24 hrs: the 2010 IMAX Hubble doco and the just-released Webb Telescope doco – both extraordinary testaments to the ingenuity of science and the capacity of humans to cooperate in search of fundamental understanding, as well as the welcome reinforcement of the fact that ALL OF US live on a tiny planet in an unimaginably huge universe, and the 1983 film The Last Day, which postulates a nuclear war with Russia, sad beyond belief and something that ought to be compulsory viewing for all American politicians and military types.

    It’s hard to be optimistic though, faced with the constant evidence of stupidity all around, though I take some solace after reading Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly… we’ve behaved thusly forever.

  4. Canguro

    Correction: the 1983 movie, The Day After.

  5. Phil Pryor

    We took our year twelves to see “The Day After”. It remains a lesson and warning. Let us continue to consider international events of concern.

  6. corvusboreus

    Phil Pryor,
    There were 2 British film on similar subject done in pseudo-documentary form, The War Game (1965), and Threads (1984).
    Both, the former in particular, make The Day After feel a bit like an upbeat popcorn disaster flick.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: