The recent U.S. election has been one of the tensest and most unpredictable in American history. Suffice it to say that, for the first time since 1920, the race for the Oval Office took place with a global pandemic as its backdrop. Back then, the Spanish flu took the lives of over 600,000 Americans, and this played an important role in Republican Warren Harding defeating Democrat James Cox. The GOP boosted its ratings by criticising the passive stance taken by the Woodrow Wilson Administration and the entire democratic elite, who had failed to make the promised progress in reforming the healthcare system. This year, during the Republic Administration’s tenure, 238,000 Americans had already died from COVID-19, which is the world’s highest number of deaths in absolute figures. This situation by default provided the Democrats with ammunition for their guns as they built their strategy on the Republican leadership having ignored problems in healthcare for four years and having developed no clear plan of action for emerging from the crisis. Over the last year, the number of Americans displeased with the measures the White House used to combat the pandemic has grown exponentially. Joe Biden’s presidential campaign only had to construct the technical part of their broad anti-Trump propaganda shrewdly.
Another distinctive feature of this race is its racial backdrop. Two major waves of discontent had swept across the U.S. during Donald Trump’s presidency. The first included fighting against the remaining Confederate monuments and flags. Unbridled though it was, it was mostly localised in Southern states, with a high percentage of the Black population. Protesters attempted to put forward demands, but the President responded rather harshly: he called on the protesters to respect the symbols of American history and not to politicise them. After that, the public and human rights organisations secured the support of the biggest media and launched a broad campaign painting the President and his administration as crypto-racists and white supremacists. The second wave took place after the death of George Floyd, who was killed by a police officer pressing a knee on his neck during his arrest. A wave of “Black Lives Matter” mass rallies swept across the U.S., accompanied by pogroms carried out by African Americans and radical left-wing activists. Democrats had great experience of using such a situation in their favour (John Kennedy in 1960 and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964), and they immediately seized this highly valuable electoral agenda. Donald Trump’s only response was statistics showing that his presidency marked the lowest growth rate of Black unemployment. Yet all the pragmatic figures were predictably drowned in well-organised propaganda campaigns.
Clearly seeing their inevitable defeat in COVID-19 and racial unrest cases, Republicans attempted to find some damaging information about Joe Biden in the Ukrainian case. The attempts themselves and the hullaballoo surrounding them did, for a while, slow down the growing popularity of the former vice president, who was alleged to have used his position to lobby his family’s business interests on the Ukrainian market. The famous “Burisma case” did not, however, produce the expected results. On the contrary, Donald Trump’s pushy manner turned against him. After dismissed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified in Congress, the President was forced to cease his attacks and go on the defensive. To be fair, we should say that the Democrats’ elite launched the anti-Trump campaign on the first day of his presidency. The unique feature of the state systems devised by the founding fathers is that the presidential race is not a race between two persons but between elite systems proposing a particular philosophy for the future and appropriate mechanisms for putting it into practice. Groups and clans who used to be rivals now united to suppress the Trump-led Jacksonian revolt, and they poured huge financial, human, technological and media resources into achieving their goal.
Technically, Joe Biden has secured the requisite number of electors to become the 46th leader of the U.S. and the second (after Kennedy) Catholic president. Even so, Donald Trump’s campaign is insisting on recounts in several states where the incumbent claims elections might have been rigged. The Republican’s behaviour shows that he is unwilling to concede defeat and do down without a fight. This situation is creating additional tensions and deepening the rift in the country. Consequently, we cannot rule out both candidates’ supporters holding more rallies throughout the country and new confrontation lines emerging. The future course of events will largely depend on the Republicans’ regional leadership and their leadership in Congress. Their united front in support of Trump will mean they are ready to stand to the bitter end even if this means a second civil war. This scenario is only possible if the Supreme Court agrees to consider the possibility of vote-rigging and makes the decision to recount votes. Otherwise, the incumbent will eventually have to acknowledge defeat and transfer power peacefully. During his tenure, however, Donald Trump managed to provoke the dislike of many influential fellow Republicans, which makes the Republican elite less willing to undertake such grave risks for his second term in office.
Be it as it may, Joe Biden has essentially been elected, and the main question now is his policies for the next four years. He hails from one of America’s oldest political clans: one of his paternal ancestors was William Biden, among the richest capitalists in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware; on his maternal side, he comes from the once politically influential Blewitt family, who had for a long time been the backbone of Pennsylvania’s political and financial elite. Joe Biden’s great-grandfather, Edward Blewitt, is believed to have been the founder of the Irish Catholic lobby and a key figure in the Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, who assisted Irish immigrants and strove to have their representatives in all important public and political areas. With time, the organisation became an important mechanism for balancing the excessively powerful Celtic Protestant groups (Ulster Scots, Scotch-Irish), and the Bidens and the Blewitts played an important part in that respect. Throughout his career, Joe Biden had close ties with the U.S. Irish Catholic elites and enjoyed their support, particularly that of the Kennedys and the Fitzsimmonses. So it is unsurprising that, when he left the office of the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2008, he handed on the vacant post to his closest comrade-in-arms, the Irish Catholic John Kerry; during Barack Obama’s second term, Joe Biden lobbied Kerry’s move to the office of State Secretary.
Personnel decisions Joe Biden made in the Senate and in the Obama Administration show that the notional Irish factor will become a principal element in forming the future cabinet. In domestic politics, the new President will face several fundamental difficulties. Even though the Democrats have retained their majority in the House of Representatives, the party rift will become more obvious under the new administration since, over the last four years, the Democrats’ iron party discipline and their unity stemmed from their mission to prevent Trump from being re-elected. This goal has been achieved. Now individual special interest groups (ranging from neo-socialists to moderates) will fight tooth and nail to advance their own agenda and initiatives on the most topical issues, the most pressing being combating the coronavirus pandemic (a reason to reform the healthcare system). Joe Biden’s principal trump card is his extensive experience in working within the legislation as a senator and with the legislation as vice president. Additionally, Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker (an Italian Catholic) will also directly lobby Biden’s line on Capitol Hill; over the last two years, Pelosi has become quite influential among various narrowly partisan groups.
Another problem is the difficulty of completely rolling back all of Trump’s economic policies and those initiatives that are already being actively implemented throughout the country. Of course, as far as rhetoric is concerned, he will stress the importance of boosting social programmes by raising taxes and cutting military spending and by going back to the globalist model, which entails re-launching talks on Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic projects. During a first term, however, being an experienced politician well-versed in the rules of the game, the new president is unlikely to become locked in open conflict with the military-industrial lobby, the energy sector, the intelligence, and particularly with farmers and industrialists. The last two categories are the backbone of the Republic and Trumpian electorate for whom Joe Biden should become one of their own, otherwise overcoming the painful rift will be virtually impossible. Unlike the inexperienced Donald Trump, Biden knows that a re-election campaign begins the day after the election and it depends for its success on the ability to build the correct balance of power between all actors in social and public life: from public workers to billionaires. So, in 2020–2024, Biden should not be expected to take any radical economic steps. On the contrary, he is likely to keep in place many of the protectionist measures instituted by his predecessor.
Many American analysts predict that Joe Biden’s foreign policy will continue Barack Obama’s neo-Wilsonian line. This forecast, however, is hard to agree with. In his first four years, Obama largely relied on his State Secretary Hillary Clinton, who, through internal struggle, succeeded in dampening the influence of neoconservatives such as Robert Gates (Defense Secretary until 2011) and Leon Panetta (CIA director until 2011 and Defense Secretary until 2013). Even so, many of her initiatives failed and the Libyan Benghazi fiasco seriously hurt her influence among her fellow party members, forcing Barack Obama to distance himself from Hillary Clinton. At that time, the experienced Joe Biden preferred to hover on the sidelines and influence the President through National Security Advisors James L. Jones Jr. (2009–2010) and Thomas Donilon (2010–2013), whose appointments he had lobbied. He also used his influence with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by his long-time protégé John Kerry. This leverage was very important, given that all appointments from top positions to ambassadors go through this committee. During Barack Obama’s second term, Biden solidified his standing: he promoted John Kerry (Irish Catholic) to the office of State Secretary, Chuck Hagel (an Irish Catholic who later converted to Protestantism) to the office of Defense Secretary, and Denis McDonough (Irish Catholic) to the office of the White House Chief of Staff.
Throughout his prosperous career, Joe Biden has never displayed an overly ideological approach to foreign policy. On the contrary, he might be called a classical realist who has always had a nose for topical trends and has endeavoured to minimise his involvement in undertakings that were obviously doomed to fail. Given his cautious attitude to war as a means for achieving external goals, he will primarily stress the philosophy of soft power and collective responsibility (via allies in Europe and Asia, too). Once again, no radical changes should be expected: the trade war with China is hard to stop quickly and painlessly and regaining control over Venezuela is equally difficult (yet support for the opposition will continue). Democrats and Joe Biden consistently accused Trump of liking Russia and of having ties with President Vladimir Putin. Consequently, Biden has, by default, to step up the anti-Russian policies (increased sanctions). Clearly, in some cases, including the Ukrainian one (which Biden supervised under Obama), Russia and the U.S. have certain red lines that, in themselves, are likely to keep the parties from arriving at fundamental agreements. The U.S. Administration’s stance on Russia’s domestic developments and on Russia’s interests in the post-Soviet space has always been an important indicator for the Kremlin. Open support for non-mainstream opposition forces and complete disregard for Moscow’s opinion on, for instance, the Ukrainian question, were the principal causes of the acute cooling-off in the bilateral relations.
In the near future, the Belarus matter, to which Russia is highly sensitive, and the Nord Stream II problem may become the most urgent issues. Joe Biden has dwelled much on these subjects and frequently stated that Lukashenko’s rule and Europe’s remaining energy dependence on Moscow are inadmissible. Being, however, a pragmatic Democrat, he will do everything possible to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. For instance, in the Obama Administration, Biden opposed selling lethal weapons to Ukraine, and they were provided during Trump’s presidency. Moreover, Joe Biden was always rather critical toward Kyiv and he repeatedly noted the Ukrainian authorities’ inability to succeed in fighting corruption and democratising their country. The scenarios involving the parties going back to the problem of dismantling the fundamental treaty framework that both played an important role in bilateral relations and served as a global security foundation (the INF Treaty, nuclear arsenal reduction, etc.) are quite possible. At the same time, as regards Joe Biden and his future Administration’s potential approaches, it is important to remember that a determinedly harsh policy toward Russia is based on a bipartisan consensus. Congress has always approved sanctions and other anti-Moscow measures virtually unanimously, which is very rare for them.
As for the Middle East, Joe Biden, as one of those who had lobbied the Iranian deal, will attempt to revive it. If Democrats succeed in January in taking the Senate away from Republicans, there is every chance of rapid developments in that area. Much will depend on Tehran itself being willing to resume the dialogue. Pro-Israeli lobbyists will have little influence on the White House, but Biden is unlikely to abolish Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and to recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. At the same time, Israel should be getting ready for the new administration to put major pressure on it regarding the West Bank settlements. Some changes will certainly be seen in U.S. relations with the Gulf monarchies and with Turkey: the White House will certainly demand results in protecting human rights and it will also create new mechanisms for limiting the influence their lobbyists have in Washington. The Turkish opposition has been greatly inspired by Donald Trump’s defeat and has even congratulated Biden on his victory, while Recep Tayyip Erdogan has adopted wait-and-see tactics. The Turkish leader realises that Biden will certainly want to use the Fethullah Gülen (Erdogan’s principal opponent currently residing in the U.S.) factor and the mounting discontent with the current regime in Turkey itself to put pressure on Ankara on several strategic issues, including the purchase of Russian S-400s.
In general, Joe Biden’s victory should not be seen as a precursor of inevitable radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. The new President and his Administration will have to devote a significant chunk of their time to searching for formulae that would enable them to overcome the deep rift in American society. The record voter turnout also evidences a highly politicised nation, which is a marker of deep-running systemic problems. As a rule, heightened expectations do not materialise (as Barack Obama’s story clearly demonstrates), while many problems remain unresolved. The dilapidation of today’s political system (particularly the party system) is so obvious that no president, no administration will be able to introduce fundamental changes without revamping the system first. Only time will tell whether Joe Biden sets himself the task of going down in American history as a president who launched an in-depth transformation or whether he will become another top manager for the executive branch mired in the Washington swamp. One thing is certain: this election showed how serious and dangerous the crisis of state and national identity in the U.S. is.
From our partner RIAC
Trump Lost, Biden Won. Is Joe Biden’s presidency a signal towards Obama’s America?
Greek statesmen, Pericles once said, “Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean the politics won’t take interest in you”. The same is the case of United States politics which knowingly or unknowingly has an impact on world politics. That is why the result of the US elections are of great interest to states across the world. Although, for the United States, the goal is to maintain American primacy, to see a world in which the United States can use its predominant power to get its way, regardless of what others want. However, it is a fact that the political landscape of the United States has mostly been dominated by two parties, Republicans and Democrats, who not only differ in their ideas, policies, priorities but also in their approaches towards addressing the key issues facing the country.
Comparing the two, we see the Republicans are more conservative in their approach as compared to the liberal Democrats. Therefore, the recent election in the US (2020), with Biden (Democrat) won and trump (Republican) lost is also a signal towards a changed approach in many issue areas The focus is to see, whether the new President, Joe Biden who remained the 47th vice president during Obama’s administration for eight long years is going to follow the same lines as Barack Obama and whether he going to reverse the policies of Donald Trump?
Looking at first the climate change issues, President Joe Biden’s plans to tackle it seems more ambitious than any of the US presidential candidates so far. Biden during his presidential campaign proposed $2trillion over four years to significantly escalate the use of clean energy in transportation, electricity and building sectors. His public health and environment platform planned the establishment of a climate and environmental justice division. He further intends to make the US electricity production carbon-free by 2035 with achieving net-zero emissions by middle of the century. Apart from all these, the most noticeable is President Joe Biden’s promise to reverse Trump’s plan to exit from the Paris climate agreement that was signed back in 2016 under Obama’s administration.
As Joe Biden in response to the former President, Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the agreement on 4th-Nov 2020, tweeted “Today, the Trump Administration officially left the Paris Climate Agreement. And in exactly 77 days, a Biden Administration will rejoin it.” He further stated“Reversing the decision would be one of my first acts as president”. This is exactly what happened as Joe Biden’s first act in the Oval Office was his signing an executive order to have the United States rejoin the Paris climate agreement. Thus, while Trump has taken a strident anti-climate approach, President Joe Biden decision shows his intentions to bring back the policies of Obama towards climate change.
Considering the health sector, we again find difference in approaches of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, yet similarity between Biden and Obama. As, President Joe Biden in his presidential campaign speech in Lancaster on June 25, 2020 defended the first American healthcare law also known as the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare that was initiated by Obama’s administration. He stated, “I’m proud of the Affordable Care Act. In addition to helping people with pre-existing conditions, it delivered vital coverage for 20 million Americans who did not have health insurance”. This depicts President Joe Biden’s plans to restore Obama’s health care policies.
America is known as the land for all, a land of cultural diversity, but we have seen with Donald Trump coming to power, the immigration rules became very strict as he imposed restrictions on foreigner’s visits to the US. An example of this is Trump’s first Muslim travel ban announced on January 27, 2017, whereby five Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, were banned from traveling to the United States. Trump stated, the act is needed for national security and to save the country from terrorism. However, this discriminatory act was opposed by ex-President Obama, who in 2016, stated: “America was a country founded on religious freedom. We don’t have religious tests here”.
This is what President Joe Biden also believes in, as he called Trump’s actions on immigration a pitiless assault on American values. On November 8, 2020 during the presidential campaign, he said,“My administration will look like America with Muslim Americans serving at every level,” and “on my first day in office I’ll end Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban.”So, President Joe Biden did what he said, as on his first day in office he signed 17 executive orders, memorandums and proclamations, including orders to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord and end the Muslim ban.
Then racism that increased in the US under former President Donald Trump is now challenged by President Joe Biden as he came up with a very different idea just like Barack Obama’s notion of “A more perfect Union”. Example of which is Kamala Harris, who became the first black Asian America woman vice-president in American history. More can be seen by Joe Biden giving credit to African Americans for helping him win the election. So, his presidency is seen as a sign of hope to end racism in the country.
Moving further, we know globalization has cut the long-distance short, it has made countries more interconnected in all aspects, especially economic. To name a champion of globalization, obviously no other than the USA comes into the mind of every single person. Under the administration of Obama, we have seen the US convening the G-20 summit, introduced macro-economic policies, signed Trans pacific partnership, and much more. However, the question is, whether the US is going to retain this all under Joe Biden’s presidency? What would be his approach towards the ongoing US-China trade war?
President Joe Biden from the very start has focused on rebuilding the domestic economy, as the slogan ‘Build Back Better’. Therefore, he clearly stated that the US will not enter any international trade deals unless the domestic concerns of labor and the environment are fully addressed. Moreover, looking at the US-China trade war, which started back in 2018 when the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Chinese goods worth more than $360bn, we don’t find much difference except the tactics. As Joe Biden too in his presidential campaign accused China of violating international trade rules, subsidizing its companies, and stealing U.S. intellectual property. He promised to continue with Trump’s heavy tariffs on Chinese imports, but while Trump did this all unilaterally, Biden would continue it together with the allies.
On issues related to national security, we again find President Joe Biden’s approach a bit different from that of Donald Trump. Considering the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or p5+1 deal that was signed between Islamic Republic of Iran and 5 permanent members of UNSC along with Germany. It imposed several restrictions on Iran in exchange for sanction reliefs and was achieved by Obama’s administration under his “constructive engagement policy“in 2015 But Trump smashed it by calling it a historical blunder and in 2018 under his “Maximum pressure policy” pulled the USA out of the deal and reinstated sanctions. Iran too after the withdrawal of US from JCPOA and upon Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) commander Qasim Sulemani killing by the US airstrike announced that it no longer adheres to the 2015 Nuclear Deal.
Now, the hope is President Joe Biden, as he stated in his presidential campaign that the “maximum pressure” policy has failed, emphasizing that it led to a significant escalation in tensions, and that Iran is now closer to a nuclear weapon than it was when Trump came to office. Therefore, he pledged to rejoin the nuclear accord if Iran returns to strict compliance. Here again it shows President Joe Biden’s intention to follow Obama’s approach of constructive engagement towards Iran.
When it comes to Afghanistan, Trump decided to end the endless war in Afghanistan by having a peace agreement with the Afghan Taliban, according to which the US will withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan. However, Joe Biden has not taken any clear decision on it yet. But he is under pressure as the Taliban wants the new president to follow the same peace accord achieved by the Trump administration. Yet, the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani has requested President Joe Biden to rethink the Afghan peace deal. Therefore, it is too early to say what Biden would do.
To sum up, the 78 years old Joe Biden who has smashed the election records by securing more votes than any presidential candidate in the history of United States elections, he has not only raised high expectations, but there are numerous challenges on his way as well. This is because his policies would now be a center of focus for many. In most of the issue areas, we see President Joe Biden reversing the policies of Donald Trump and following the path of Obama’s Administration. Something which he promised during his presidential campaign as he said to take the country on a very different path from what it has been in the past four years under former President Donald Trump’s administration. However, it’s just the start of a new journey for America and the future decisions by President Joe Biden will uncover a lot more
How Uncle Sam views the world by 2040
How the US is seeing the future world is revealed in a recent report, Global Trends 2040: A More Contested World, published by the National Intelligence Council of the US. This report of political, social and economic estimates is prepared through an integrated process for every incoming President of the USA. For Biden, the report was published in March this year. The world, its politics, economics and societies, is going to change under the forces stemmed in changes in demographic modalities, environmental fluctuations, economic preferences and technological transformations. These together are going to impact on societies, states and international systems which would end in sketching five different futures of the world. Uncle Sam seems to be shaking the world, and this time even more intensely.
Starting off how the forces will interact and intersect, it all begins with the changes in demographics. The developed economies are aging bringing a global slow economic growth whereas the contracting working age will weigh on the economies of these developed countries as Japan and South Korea will reach the median age of 53 and Europe the median age of 47 by 2040. On the other side, in developing countries the converse will be happening as Sub Saharan Africa will reach median age of less than 15 years whereas Pakistan, Egypt and Afghanistan will reach the median age of 30 years. This seems opportunity but these economies will be challenged to meet the demands of the growing working age populace in their economies with the slow global economic growth remaining constant dragging the societies into social volatilities while testing the performances of states too.
The forces of environment will leave no country unaffected especially the developing countries that lack in adaptations skills and technologies. The occurrence of heat waves, melting of Arctic, land degradation, water misuses, food insecurity, loss of biodiversity, rising sea levels and pollution will erode the ‘human security’ while affecting states and societies, politics and economics coequally. For curtailing environmental threats, countries may apply geoengineering by interacting with the natural system of earth to counteract threats of climate change like releasing the sun’s energy back into space through Solar Radiations Management or Stratospheric Aerosol Injection spraying to cause global dimming. The developed countries especially US and China will see suspicions on sincerely working on environmental threats as this would require economic sacrifices.
In the sphere of Economics, the national debt management will push countries to avoid funding on the issues of environment as they will already be pressed hard for matching the needs of the growing demands of their elderly and younger populations alike. Covid 19 has already left indelible imprints on the economies of the world especially the developing countries two fifths of which, according to 2019 IMF assessment, were at debt distress. Automation and rapidly growing AI will reduce 9 percent global jobs and transform one third by 2040 while at the same time creating massive new technology and automation stemmed jobs which will test the states adaptability to manoeuvring technology. This will have disproportionate effect across the countries and regions. The element of Superstar firms, the new multinationals, will critically affect world economies and make definitive inroads in the affairs of politics.
The technological forces will surpass all other forces in intensity especially with the significant rise of AI and Biotechnology. The US-China rivalry in this sphere will be rampant. AI will disrupt global current workforce while also creating new dimensions of labor compelling the countries to remodel their working force structures. The application of AI in warfare will be on the rise and will be adding a new element to the geopolitical dynamics. AI is well positioned to fly and reach space which will turn the space diplomacy in new form and bring the two global rivals face to face. AI will siphon out the human element of emotions in making decisions having social effects.
As these forces interact, world will see five possible scenarios in which the first three are the prominent.
In the first scenario, it will the US and allies led democracy which will manipulate the world. Being democratic, there will be more space for innovation and the rise of technology with robust public private partnerships will prosperously affect economic growth of the countries. This will enable the states to be responsive to their people’s needs while the same time making adaptations unlike in the repressive regimes of Russian and China whose policies will let them on steady decline.
In the second scenario, it will be China which will be mastering the world arena but not exactly acting like leading it due to its inherent repressive dynamics. This will happen on account of failure of international organizations with least interest paid to them by the major powers. The factors of high national debt, the costs of caring for aging populations, and hazardous environmental occurrences will havoc states’ budgets and keep them away from spending on education, infrastructure, and scientific research. In these circumstances due to the integrally centralist and controlled Chinese centralism will help China gain global attention through its global infrastructure packages and other initiatives. Many countries will thus tilt to the Chinese sidelines.
In the third effectual scenario, it will be a contested coexistence of US and China which will emerge. This will be based on shared economic and growth preferences and agreements.
Much of what is stated in the report must be happening in the world ahead but much of what is left unstated is more critical. Summed up, there will be more instability, pandemics, economic recessions, state conflicts and disorders in the five different worlds that lay ahead.
Understanding Ronald Regan’s approach to the Cold War
President Ronald Reagan’s ascendency in the political hierarchy of the United States, ending in him becoming the President is often regarded as a triumphant victory by American conservatives. His conception of the world order, domestic and international relations show a reflection of a conservative understanding of issues. His legacy as president remains as having effectively brought down the Soviet Union and the threat of Communism. His policies towards the Soviet Union have a transformative nature, as his understanding and approach to US-Soviet relations changed radically after his first term. Though being a staunch Anti-communist and regarding the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”, he sought to ensure that America and its idea of a “Free World” prevailed and later on, that the two most significant military powers would reach common ground in order to make peace more sustainable.
In studying his approach to tackling the Soviet threat, it’s important to first understand the correlation between the policies adopted by previous administrations and Reagan’s own pursuit of defeating the Communist threat which at the height of the Cold War, threatened to spill into a full-scale conflict between the two regional hegemons. Previous administrations had traditionally approached the threat posed by the Soviet Union with a policy of preventing the collapse of European allies at the hands of the Soviet Union. This included stymieing the spread of Communism across the world and the consistent development of Ballistic missiles in order to deter a Soviet military advance into Europe by providing a “nuclear umbrella” to European Allies. Before the Reagan administration this policy was in large part accepted as the means through which the Soviet threat could be effectively challenged. President Reagan followed a similar policy by pursuing aggressive military buildup and focusing on development of a vast range of ballistic missile platforms which would act as a comprehensive deterrent in preventing the Soviet decision-making elite to pursue a path unacceptable to US strategists (ARBATOV 2019). Being disillusioned with the far left, his opinions and campaign slogans had strong ideological underpinnings which would later on influence his dealings with the Soviet Union.
The changes in Reagan’s policy weren’t without the influence of another very important personality, Mikhail Gorbachev. The Soviet leader’s role in Reagan’s change in policy from antagonism to rapprochement is widely claimed by academic scholars as a major contributing factor for the rethink in Reagans approach to Communist Soviet Union. Gorbachev’s revolutionary approach to International Relations was followed by America’s “reactionary response” in the shape of pursuance of arms control and softening of political rhetoric (Fischer 1997). Ronald Reagan second term in office was marked by a change in his policy of pursuing aggressive development of arms and making space-based missile defense systems having the capability of destroying incoming Soviet missiles. The Strategic Defense Initiative was seen by many in the Soviet ranks as a dangerous escalation of arms race which had the potential of transforming into military conflict. (Britannica, T.Editors of Encyclopaedia 2021). Seeing and acknowledging Gorbachev’s new approach as “revolutionary” President Reagan sought to rely on an intense sustained engagement with the Soviet leader in order to achieve what his previous approach had failed to do (Talbott 2004).
Mikhail Gorbachev’s approach to the subject of foreign policy was based on establishing relations with the west and a recalibration of ties with the United States. At the time of the Cold War a large part of the effort by the two nations was to prevent the other state from gaining a definitive edge in the area of technology, military and nuclear weapons. Apart from the ideological conflict the Cold War witnessed many states in the world becoming the conflict grounds in which the US and USSR sought to establish their control and influence. Mikhail Gorbachev’s arrival into the political spectrum and pursuing a policy of peace and prevention of creation of arms was in large part influenced by the domestic environment of his country. The Soviet Union after Brezhnev had a weakened economy due to extensive spending building and maintaining large military industries and sophisticated missile delivery and defense systems. The Russian political elite largely dominated by Russians. Gorbachev’s “restructuring” in order to improve the economic conditions of the state was also followed by a rethink at the foreign policy front. In his famous interview at Harvard University he described how the conditions of repression, arrests and suppression of critical voices against the state were silenced. This led to perestroika which gained support from the Russian masses. (The Harvard Gazette 2004).
The question as to the extent to which the effect of President Reagan and Gorbachev’s relationship caused “reversal” of US foreign policy with regards to the Soviet Union should be considered through different metrics. Firstly it’s important to study how the “Reagan doctrine” which formulated the plan of tackling soviet expansionism into countries across the globe evolved during the time of Reagan’s Presidential terms. Ronald Reagan’s doctrine was a shift from previous administrations approach to the Soviet threat. In what was previously termed as “containment” of Soviet expansionism, Reagan’s approach constituted of a “roll back” of Soviet expansionist forces across the world. From “Afghanistan to Nicaragua” Reagan’s approach was an active effort to subdue Soviet expansionist forces seeking to gain a foothold in important areas such as South Asia and Central Americas. (US Department of State archive 2001). While toning down the harsh rhetoric and signing important arms control treaties, US efforts to prevent Soviet expansionism continued despite a thaw in relations and a warm cordial relationship between the two world leaders.
Reagan’s original agenda of an aggressive military buildup and development of ballistic missiles saw a reversal during his second term. Both leaders sought to control the arms race and roll back on the creation of such weapons. The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-1) and other similar treaties was a ‘break away’ from Reagan’s original doctrinal approach. Gorbachev’s willingness to engage in talks was what initiated this change. What is also interesting to note is that despite belonging to radically different ideologies, both leaders shared a similar view on important matters. This is significant as both leaders expressed the desire to regulate arms control and to promote peace.
Another important element is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which saw an all-out Soviet effort to establish control over the region and reach the warm waters of the Arabian sea. The United States, eying an opportunity and realizing the threat of a possible soviet hold of South Asia, actively supported the Afghan Mujahedeen. Through Pakistan, the US pivotal role resulted in the Soviet forces failing to defeat the guerrilla forces despite huge numbers of troops and highly sophisticated weapon systems. This costly conflict was to prove detrimental to Soviet morale and the economy. After having effectively taken over, Gorbachev became heavily involved in restoring the economy and control over the production of arms between the United States and the Soviet Union. Gorbachev sought to move away from previous Soviet leaders doctrines and open diplomatic channels which would result in the final culmination of the Cold War.
President Ronald Reagan’s presidency was marked with a significant contrast in approaches to the Soviet threat. Having become president, his strong ideological standpoints were the driving forces behind his policies. With the Soviet Union, Reagan’s original approach was that of confronting, condemning and a protectionist mindset. Being a vocal proponent of American values of free speech, liberty and democracy his political campaigns to his televised addresses portrayed the Soviet Union as the principals threat to the very principals that America stood for. Like previous administrations, combating soviet expansionism and attaining global hegemony were prized objectives which defined much of US policies during the first term of President Reagan. His second term however saw a ‘shift’ in part of Reagan’s understanding of greater and more pressing issues at hand which demanded attention. Having originally promoted military spending and development of sophisticated missile weapon systems, Reagan’s view changed by the coming of Mikhail Gorbachev.
Both leaders, seeking initially to control production of arms, sought other means to create an environment more conducive for peace. While motivations differed, there was consensus between the two leaders on important matters which made diplomatic summits productive and resulted in many arms treaties. Both leaders established a relationship of trust and warmth which had largely been unseen since the start of the Cold War. These meetings were then followed by confidence building measures and trips to respective capitals which allowed a further thaw in the relations. Despite continued conflict in other states, both leaders relationship saw a significant reversal in the policies of US under the Reagan administration.
Coronavirus: EU Strategy for the development and availability of therapeutics
The European Commission is today complementing the successful EU Vaccines Strategy with a strategy on COVID-19 therapeutics to support the...
Circular solution to Mosul’s conflict debris launched
Mosul – Iraq’s second largest city – suffered massive devastation during the conflict with the Islamic State in Iraq and...
Hydrogen in North-Western Europe: A vision towards 2030
North-West Europe has a well-developed hydrogen industry that could be at the edge of an unprecedented transformation should governments keep...
Trump Lost, Biden Won. Is Joe Biden’s presidency a signal towards Obama’s America?
Greek statesmen, Pericles once said, “Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean the politics won’t take interest...
Climate Change Problem: an Emerging Threat to Global Security
Climate Change is one of the greatest challenges faced by humanity. The Greenhouse–gas emissions and over-exploitation of natural resources result...
Viet Nam’s mango industry: towards compliance with export market requirements
A Swiss-funded project, implemented by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), is helping mango value chain stakeholders in the...
Armenia After the Parliamentary Elections
On June 20, snap parliamentary elections will be held in Armenia. The move will ease tensions in the country but...
Reports3 days ago
Labour market disruption & COVID-19 support measures contribute to widespread falls in taxes
East Asia2 days ago
Kissinger Again Warns US, China Heading for Armageddon-like Clash
South Asia3 days ago
West Bengal Election: Implications for Indian Politics
Economy2 days ago
Role of WTO in Regularization of International Trade
Middle East1 day ago
Saudi Arabia and Iran cold war
Intelligence2 days ago
The ‘Post-Covid-19 World’ Will Never Come
Energy News3 days ago
Seven Countries Account for Two-Thirds of Global Gas Flaring
Intelligence2 days ago
Biological warfare: A global security threat