Chinese and United States reports and statements indicate that the foreign policy of the United States will not undergo a radical change. The US president may introduce amendments to some sub-details, as for the broad headings of the US policy towards China; it will not change, as some people claim. President Biden was clear from the outset that China is the main competitor for his country and that the US must curb China’s political reign and its tremendous economic progress, in a recent fiery statement by the US President that China will be held accountable for its human rights violations, such statements are similar to those made by former President Donald Trump during his political attack on China.
However, last week, President Biden made his first phone call to Chinese President Xi Jinping. During the call, the US President affirmed that the US adheres to preserving the security and stability of the Indian and Pacific oceans, and that the interest of the American people will be on the top of priorities. Unfortunately, President Biden expressed, in a way that does not differ from his predecessor, the US’s concern about the economic policies pursued by the Chinese administration in the Hong Kong and Xinjiang regions, and criticized the rapid steps taken by Beijing regarding Taiwan. Before making that phone call, President Biden had referred to the intense competition between his country and China, which is raging in terms of the great Chinese economic and political progress in addition to the enormous military capabilities that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has become.
As for the Chinese president, he called on his US counterpart for cooperation and constructive communication with the aim of resolving the accumulated crises that have worsened greatly during the era of former President Donald Trump. Also, the leadership in the Chinese Communist Party has called on the US administration to cooperate and extend a hand instead of political maliciousness and destructive economic policies. But it seems that the US administration is intent on placing China in the category of political accusations. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has expressed that the US is determined to hold China accountable with regard to human rights and the violation of the rules of democracy in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet.
China has made many achievements in the last decade. For the first time in modern human history, a non-Western country can accomplish a technological achievement. China was able to obtain 5G while it is on its way to 6G.This achievement was a resounding shock in the West, specifically the United States; this achievement was a resounding shock in the West, specifically the United States. In an unethical and illegal manner, the daughter of the president of the Chinese company “Huawei” was arrested in Canada and then the Canadian authorities handed her over to the US. This random step indicates the US failure and imbalance in the technological sector for the first time in favor of China after the US was on the throne of technology. The rational policy pursued by the Chinese administration has recently led to the elimination of extreme poverty, and China has made economic progress in light of COVID-19 and the economic recession, which indicates the resilience of the Chinese economy and its ability to achieve growth in the most difficult circumstances.
The US administration often criticizes China for violating human rights, oppression and unjust order, but in fact the Chinese administration pursues a development policy towards Xinjiang and other rural areas in China. In recent years, China has expanded the transportation network to reach all Chinese regions and increased the budget allocated for development and education, thus most of the rural population has become skilled and specialized workforce. It is a smart strategy to eliminate extremism and terrorism because poverty is an incubator for terrorism. The West often refers to technical institutes and training centers designed to integrate marginalized Chinese populations into active citizens as centers of oppression and torture. More than once, the Chinese administration has made it clear through reports, but it seems that the US is determined to maintain the maliciousness.
Chinese-US cooperation in the era of President Biden will be limited to global issues of concern to humanity, such as: climate change, health (specifically in the fight against COVID-19) and arms control; as for economic competition and political rockslide, the situation is still unclear on the horizon, but it is unlikely to reach a state of calm. President Biden is pursuing a policy of openness and engagement with international organizations, unlike his predecessor, which constitutes a golden opportunity for China to improve its relationship with the US and restore what President Trump has destroyed. The Sino-US relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the field of international relations and cannot be overlooked. Both the United States and China possess a strong economy, a developed military, and an increasing political role on the international stage.
China adopts a policy of openness to neighborhood and stable relationship with some countries with which it shares contradictory interests and regional differences, such as South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. This wise Chinese policy makes it difficult to create regional differences or Asian rift between China and other regional countries. It is clear that the Asia-Pacific region will be on the top of President Biden’s priorities. The United States is on its way to making a nuclear agreement with Iran and ending the conflicts in the Middle East, such as reopening the borders between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and serious peace negotiations to end the war on Yemen. Therefore, the Middle East is not a priority for the United States in this era because the greatest danger threatens the US economy and the US’s position in the modern international system is coming from the East, specifically China, which has become the main competitor to the US.
Wang Da indicated that President Biden’s policy will be more severe than President Obama’s policy toward China, although both presidents belong to the same party and have similar visions. Biden was Vice President Barack Obama, but the political and economic situation of China in continuous progress and it has become difficult for the United States to tame despite President Trump’s attempts to impose economic sanctions through trade war and taxes, Wang Da indicates that President Biden’s policy will be softer in dealing with China than President Trump. The United States is very concerned about China’s acquisition of advanced technology and its tremendous economic growth, so the efforts of the new US administration will focus on curbing this Chinese progress.
Li Xiao points out that the Biden administration will restore the alliances that President Trump’s policies have destroyed in East Asia and the ASEAN region, as most of President Biden’s team members were concluding agreements in the Asia-Pacific region to confront China economically and politically, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Jiang Yang considers that the Chinese administration should strengthen its relations with its Asian neighbors, especially those countries that have troubled relations with China, such as India, Japan and Vietnam, in order to block the door on the United States to create differences in Asia. Most experts expect that the public opinion campaign launched by the United States against China will intensify regarding Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan, but this fake propaganda will not affect the Chinese progress.
The United States under President Obama does not resemble the United States under President Biden. The capabilities of the United States are constantly shrinking, while China is in stable progress and it is expected to become the first economic power in the coming years. Even the United States’ European allies do not agree with it on the hostility of China because of the great economic interests that unite Europe with China. The United States is still the great power, but there is a shift from unipolarism to competitiveness with the United States. The Chinese-US relationship will not be worse than it was during the era of President Trump, as the reliance is always on President Biden to break the ice and restore what his predecessor corrupted.
Transition 2021: How Biden is likely to approach the Middle East
In terms of foreign policy, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden,is likely to face numerous challenges, especially when it comes to the Middle East because of the disastrous policies of the former President, Donald Trump, in the region. Even in his inauguration speech, Biden made it clear that it was going to be testing time. Some of the challenges that the new administration would be facing includethe nuclear deal with Iran, the ongoing war in Yemen, issues of human rights issues and the current deadlock between Israel and Palestine. There is some possibility that Biden’s foreign policy towards the Middle East would either be a revival of Barack Obama’s former policies or new strategies would be formulated based on the nature of the challenges faced. However, it is certain that Biden will address or undo Trump’s terrible policies in the region.
The Biden administration’s top foreign policy agenda is the policy towards Iran. The Iran nuclear deal (2015) or JCOPA was considered to be a milestone in multilateral diplomacy that was irresponsibly abandoned by Trump in 2018. Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” of sanctions against Iran aimed to please the traditional allies as they faced a common enemy in Iran. Biden has promised to return to the 2015 JCPOA agreement, and he would also discuss Iran’s nuclear program and exchange for sanctions relief. In this process, it is expected that Washington might pressure Iran to withdraw its support for regional proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Moreover, the US would also seek to curb Iran’s export of precision guided missiles to her regional allies. Iran though, has already made it clear that these issues would not be discussed in the event of a renegotiated JCPOA. Furthermore, this plan may be complicated by the recent assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, which was not condemned by the White House that Iran blames on Israel. Public outrage had not even subdued at the point due to the assassination of Qasim Sulemani. Currently, the architecture of the Middle Eastern region is even more complex and challenging than it was four years ago butthe fact is that Iran cannot afford military conflict at this point when its economy is already crippling amidst the COVID-19 pandemic along with the sanctions imposed by the US.
Trump administration’s “Israel-first” approach in the region brought severe criticism at the global level. The Abraham Accord, signed in September of last year,which normalized Israel’s relations with UAE & Bahrain, is widely seen as Donald Trump’s most significant foreign policy achievement. This Accord altered the decades long regional perception that Arab-Israel peace could not be achieved without first addressing the issue of statehood for Palestinians. Biden has said that he supports more countries recognizing Israel but at the same time Israel needs to work towards genuine solutions between the two states. Moreover, the new administration at the White House will not show the same tolerance for Israel’s settler expansionism as its predecessor. However, there are certain foreign policies by the Trump administration that the new US leadership does not want to renew. The normalization of Arab-Israel relations is something that enjoys bipartisan support. And also, the shift of the US embassy to Jerusalem seems unlikely to be undone.
The US policy inthe Middle East under the new leadership will be less ideological and would be more based on fundamental principles. These principles will greatly focus on human rights as some analysts view human rights as the core foreign policy agenda of the Biden administration. Thus, it does not seem not to be good news for the traditional allies of the US including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel. There are a variety of issues in addition to the human rights issues: the KSA intervention in Yemen, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the lingering mistrust, the jailing of activists and Jamall Khashoggi’s murder case, which are creating uncertainties between the Washington and Riyadh. Hence, KSA is going to have a very difficult time with the Biden administration. Similarly, the new administration can also be expected to take a less tolerant view towards Moscow and Ankara because of the extraterritorial activities in the Middle Eastern region.
Certainly, returning to the Iran nuclear dealofficially, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action-will take a longer time to review because of the complexity of the issue and the domestic problems that the US is currently facing. There is also a possibility of a dangerous escalation without a nuclear deal due to Iran’s aims of buildingmilitary scenarios. Therefore, multilateral diplomacy is the best option for regional peace and security, which has been tried in the previous years.Even the JCPOA was a result of such diplomacy. The US ending its support to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen might turn away the traditional allies for some time but not permanently due to the common interests in the region. Biden is also likely to alter Trump’s decision to withdraw US forces from the region as it would decrease US influence in the region. The top priority of the US administration in the Middle East would be to try and manage Iran’s problems and to maintain reasonable relations with Israel. Traditional allies of the US in the Middle East were content and supportive of Trump’s policies in the region but they view Biden, not as a President, but Vice President of the Obama Administration. Trump’s bilateral relations were often based on personal ties with the foreign leaders while Biden is expected to adopt a more multilateral approach in engaging with the allies. Still, scholars believe that there would be no fundamental change in the US foreign policy towards the Middle East, especially when it comes to protecting its vested interests in the region.
Rejoining the UNHRC will be the State Department’s first diplomatic mistake
As over the last days US Vice President Harris swore in Linda Thomas-Greenfield as the new US Ambassador to the UN, US Secretary of State Blinken announced in parallel that the US is now seeking election to the UN Human Rights Council, in an attempt to rejoin the UN system. But that’s not the right first move back at the UN that the US should be making. And that’s not what the progressive left had in mind when the real left groups put in office the new Biden Administration.
My perspective comes from having worked in the UN human rights system and as a finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech last year – but also as a progressive left voice.
The days when UN engagement defined Democrats vis-a-vis Republicans are over.
Shunning the UN has always been a Republican hallmark but backing and pouring so much funding into an old style, corrupt bureaucracy that has little to do with “diplomacy” is not what the new, awaken progressive left wants either.
Several weeks ago, I made the estimate that the 10bln dollars which the US government pours into the black hole called the UN equals the Covid relief that 16mln struggling American people could be getting now. The Biden Administration’s State Department diplomats have to remember who put them in office.
Democrat centrist diplomats have more in common with the UN in terms of ways, goals, style and world view than they do with the progressive left. Backing the UN means backing the old, corrupt ways, which the real progressive left voted to break last year.
The decision to announce the US’s goal to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council comes in the same week when President Biden finally announced his real stance on the Black Lives Matter ‘defund the police’ goals. Biden, it turns out, unsurprisingly does not support that. That’s not what the progressive left signed up for, either.
The UN institutional funding inertia by the US government does not define the Democratic Party anymore. That’s not what the left voters want.
The left’s reasons for not embracing the UN and the UN Human Rights Council have little to do with the usual Republican ‘go it alone’ at the international stage.
Yes to diplomacy and multilateralism. No to the corrupt, faceless UN. “International diplomacy” is no longer the same thing as the UN system.
The wave that rose across American political life last year, with so many young black activists and so many people voting for the first time, signaled a big resounding No to old ways and old institutions, which have little concern for the actual needs of the people.
The new US Ambassador to the UN, Thomas-Greenfield, will have the tough job of reforming the UN, and in my opinion, even defunding the UN.
The days when love for the UN defined Democrats are certainly over. It’s time for the Biden Administration to do what it was elected for, which is to not simply go back to the same old, same old corrupt, faceless bureaucratic institutions swimming in money. This is not what we want. The progressive left voted for change and now that also includes the UN.
U.S. Climate Policy Could Break the Ice with Russia
“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity” — Albert Einstein
Within the climate crisis lies strategic opportunity for the United States. Climate change offers the chance to earn back the good will of allies, to prepare American cities for an urgently needed increase in immigration, and to reinvent U.S.-led institutions that have gone stale. Perhaps most of all, foreign policymakers should remain cognizant of how climate action can help the U.S. navigate relations with the other great powers.
As a recent report from the Center for a New American Security details, synergy between China and Russia is more problematic for U.S. interests than the sum of the challenges that each nation poses individually. Similarly, a recent Atlantic Council publication observed that “allowing Russia to drift fully into China’s strategic embrace over the last decade will go down as the single greatest geostrategic error.” Chinese and Russian interests do currently align on defense, economics, and the degradation of the U.S.-designed world order, but the nature of their alignment does not constitute an alliance.
In characterizing the relationship, this distinction is paramount. For as long as China and Russia remain merely convenient partners, rather than ideologically kindred allies, it is possible to keep these neighbors at arm’s length. To this end, the U.S. must reorient its approach to Russia. It is the Russian perception that world politics are rigged to benefit the U.S. at Russia’s expense that has prompted its support for China.
Russia’s national interests are rooted in the desire for respect. With this in mind, Russia could pull back from synergy with China if a better opportunity to advance these interests presented itself. Ultimately, the ability of the U.S. to offer a mutually acceptable alternative will hinge on two related factors: the Arctic and NATO. Critically, the issue of climate change is central to both of these factors.
In the Arctic, rapid warming removes barriers to resource exploitation, shipping activity, and great power competition. This has drawn many non-Arctic states to the region. Yet, even with China inserting itself as a “Near-Arctic State,” Russia has expressed the need for a hierarchy of regional influence in which the interests of Arctic states are prioritized over non-Arctic states. On this, American and Russian interests align.
Russian distrust of the U.S. complicates matters, however. Arctic military assertiveness from Russia is evidence of its sensitivity to the NATO alliance. In response, U.S. military branches have been releasing strategies for Arctic-specific forward defense. Such militarism is not conducive to improving relations, securing sovereign influence, or addressing climate change.
In order to limit undue Chinese influence in the region and stabilize its relations with Russia by securing a multilateral agreement that formalizes an Arctic hierarchy, the U.S. will need to alter its foreign policy so that Russia perceives it to be a viable partner. The alteration should be sufficient for reducing friction with Russia’s core interests, but not so extreme that liberal values or American security are put in jeopardy. Such transactional considerations should include fashioning a new climate-positive role for the U.S. in NATO. After all, the permanent physical presence of roughly 76,000 U.S. troops on the European continent not only irks Russia, but this posture is also expensive, carbon-intensive, and perhaps not even the most effective approach to conflict deterrence.
Indeed, research has shown that rapid deployment of new forces is significantly more likely to stymie aggression. This suggests that the U.S. should reduce its troop levels in Europe by at least 75 percent while bolstering rapid deployment readiness. This would allow the U.S. to simultaneously reduce its military’s fuel demand and greenhouse gas emissions, earn the good will necessary for stronger diplomacy with Russia, and still honor its security commitment to NATO in the event of a crisis. Moreover, the U.S. could then reinvest the potential savings into both Arctic sustainability and NATO’s capacity to manage climate insecurity.
Through the establishment of a bounded Arctic order and the greening of American leadership in NATO, the U.S. can dispel Sino-Russian synergy in the region and help maintain balance between the great powers. Specifically, these actions would both politically distance China from Russia and give the Kremlin substantial reason to begin feeling more optimistic about its relations with the West. To be sure, similar measures will be necessary in other regions to fully assure balance. However, the Arctic is a natural place for the U.S. to begin this endeavor. Usefully, the themes of climate mitigation and adaptation provide a blueprint for what countering Sino-Russian synergy elsewhere ought to generally entail.
The European Union and Russia: To talk or not to talk and about what?
The recent visit of the High Representative of the European Union Josep Borrell to Moscow was seen by those, who...
Getting Away With Murder: The New U.S. Intelligence Report on the Khashoggi Affair
It was October 2, 2018 when a man walked into the Saudi Arabian consulate to collect some documents he needed...
Why Did States Sign NPT Treaty As Non-Nuclear Weapon States
Following the inception of the “Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons NPT” in 1967, about 186 states signed NPT...
Pandemic pushing people ‘even further behind’
As the COVID-19 pandemic gathers pace, people worldwide are “being left behind – or pushed even further behind”, the UN...
Crisis in Armenia Provides Fertile Ground for Russian Meddling
The immediate cause came on February 25, when Onik Gasparyan, Chief of General Staff of the Armenian Army, and other...
US intelligence report leaves Saudi Arabia with no good geopolitical choices
The Biden administration’s publication of a US intelligence report that holds Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman responsible for the...
Russia-EU break possible but unwanted
Pressures in relations between Russia and the West have recently become so strained that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned of...
Human Rights3 days ago
Belarus human rights situation deteriorating further
Americas2 days ago
U.S. Climate Policy Could Break the Ice with Russia
Economy2 days ago
Kickstarting the U.S. Economy: A Rebound or Further Inequity?
South Asia2 days ago
Ancestral Lineage of Hazaras: from Afghanistan to Pakistan
Economy2 days ago
Brighter Future Waits Ahead
Middle East2 days ago
Will the New Interim Government Lead Libya Out Of A Long-Standing Crisis?
Middle East3 days ago
Gender in the GCC — The Reform Agenda Continues
Health & Wellness3 days ago
Natalia Vodianova joins UNFPA to tackle stigma and advance women’s health