We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
The US no longer wants to be the world's policeman
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Now that the war in Afghanistan is just about concluded, less than 24 hours before all of the remaining American troops wrap up their mission in Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, after over 100,000, mostly Afghan civilians, as well as American and coalition partners evacuated from the country. One thing to point to is just how much the United States and the American people have changed in interests, in what presence, what the role, what the mission of the United States globally is and should be.
As everyone now is very keenly aware, this war became very, very unpopular among Democrats, among Republicans. If there was anything you could find people agreeing on in foreign policy, it's, "We're angry at China, we want to end the wars. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, why are we doing all this stuff?" In other words, the idea that the United States is the global policeman. A role that the Americans had accepted to a great degree during the cold war, accepted to a significant degree after 9/11, really doesn't accept any more. And so, I think one of the reasons why people give such a hard time to this America is back idea of Joe Biden is that, there are many things about America's history that a lot of Americans increasingly aren't up for. The idea of being the global policeman. The idea of being the architect of global trade. The idea of being the promoter of common values, of an open society and rule of law and human rights.
And these things that back after World War II, the United States set up the United Nations, did the lion share of drafting the UN charter, the universal declaration of human rights, increasingly something the Americans are focusing on for themselves, but not focusing on for the rest of the world. We've talked about various manifestations of this over the years. This idea that if the average American citizen increasingly believes that their own government is not representative, is not taking care of them, the social contract isn't working. We're letting all of these new immigrants in and the composition of the country's changing, but you're not taking care of me and my family. Then suddenly the country that has the Statue of Liberty, the country that made itself great on the back of accepting all of these downtrodden people from around the world who wanted to make better lives for themselves, suddenly that doesn't seem as attractive for a lot of Americans. And the idea of sending our young men and women around the world to defend liberties and to help improve the lives of others and defend other countries from internal and external menace becomes something we're not as interested in doing. If there's violence on the American streets and policing isn't taken care of, and why are we doing all of these things?
So, I do think that the one notion that America has to provide for American citizens before it can effectively provide global leadership, certainly in terms of being a leader by example, is a very important lesson, and one that needs to be a work of a generation. It is not just a work of a single administration, whether Democrat or Republican. I'm so conflicted in terms of the war in Afghanistan, it was a relatively small presence at the end. The Afghan defense forces were doing almost all of the fighting, you weren't seeing Americans go back in body bags. But I also completely am empathetic to how unpopular the war had become even in a very different manifestation of how much less of the burden was on Americans, and how useful it was to be working together with a coalition. All of these things are very challenging, but they're so much more challenging when the American population isn't onboard with the mission.
And I do think that today's America presence globally is not an isolationist presence at all. It's not that the United States is suddenly saying we're disengaging from the rest of the world. Certainly, the US will still be providing a lot of humanitarian aid. The US will still have significant boots on the ground all over the world, in bases in the Middle East and in South Asia and Europe and Latin America and Asia. No other country in the world has or is interested in promoting the kind of military strength that the Americans do. But the idea of the American's as global policeman has taken a very big hit. And instead of isolationism, I think what's increasingly replacing it is a nationalism, is a mercantilism, is a sense that the US power should be used first and foremost, to ensure that there are no free riders and that the Americans are benefiting. And that means that alliances need to be more transactional than they have been and less about common values.
And that is going to make it hard to build up this notion of common democracies fighting for an individual good. I do think that one of the advantages that the Americans have had historically, vis-à-vis the Soviets and vis-à-vis China, is that American values, given the choice, are better values. And I would say that yes, in 2021. But I do think the gap has diminished. And the reason the gap has diminished in part is because Americans don't really know what American values are anymore. And to the extent they see the way many in America behave, not to mention how divided the country is, they are less willing to stand up for democracy and openness and freedom of speech and all of these values that are bedrock principles for the United States.
And if you look at the first year of the Biden administration, his successes have largely been domestic. They've been $1.9 trillion for the American bailout, the $3.5 trillion that I think is going to come soon for infrastructure, which is a very significant and broadly speaking, supporting the social contract in the US. Not to mention vaccine rollout, which will now include booster shots for Americans, well before most of the world has gotten their first jab. This is a US foreign policy for the middle class. I think if you made Biden choose, would he rather have more success in Afghanistan and less at home? The answer is absolutely not. And again, I think that we can all be sympathetic to any individual political leader that feels that way. The challenge is that the world for the last 50 years has banked on a level of leadership from the most powerful country that increasingly it is not likely to get. And that is going to be challenged from both the left and the right. And as it is, nobody else is going to replace it.
If the United States had spoken with its allies earlier and told them, "Hey, we want to pull out of Afghanistan, but will you guys do it?" I think that would have been a smarter thing to do because it would have been collective decision making, but I don't think the allies would have put up many, if any troops at all. I think the same thing is, unfortunately, we've seen this play out with NATO. The Americans saying, you promised to put 2% of GDP spend into defense and the biggest country other than the United States in NATO economically is Germany, they're not close and they're not going to get close. And so that willingness to provide burden sharing is going to be more challenging as the United States does less in terms of collective leadership, global leadership. The allies are hard pressed to fill any of that space.
And frankly, so are the Chinese. The Chinese may talk a great game and they've accomplished an enormous amount. But belt and road investment has fallen off precipitously over the last 10 years from what it was when it was first announced. And China's facing some serious challenges domestically right now. Their demographic challenges, their debt challenges, growth challenges, the private sector becoming more of a difficulty for them. So yes, China's certainly going to continue to extend its influence around the world. But the idea that the Chinese will in some way fill a vacuum that's left by the United States, that's not coming. And of course, you wouldn't see that from the Russians either. There's plenty of leadership to go around, but it's not global. And increasingly it's not international and multilateral, it's regional, it's domestic it's backyard. And that creates lots of space for bad actors, it creates lots of space for local conflict. That's what I think we're increasingly seeing.
And I think that if the lesson of Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that lesson. It's that whether it was Obama or Trump or Biden, they were all feeling this obvious pressure that the role that the United States was willing to play, was willing to assume in the cold war, and after 9/11, is increasingly one that is not supported or sustained by American domestic politics on either side of the aisle. And that's something that I think the allies had not yet fully appreciated. They thought that Trump was more of an aberration as opposed to a structural response to things happening in the United States, that are much deeper and much longer lived.
So anyway, that's just a few moments for me today. I hope everyone's doing well. And I certainly hope that we can get on from this chapter as smoothly and painlessly as possible. Everyone, talk to you soon.
Is American democracy in danger?
American power was indisputable in the 20th Century. The US helped win two World Wars, developed a resilient economy, and in 1991 emerged from the Cold War as the sole global superpower. But today the country is facing unprecedented polarization caused, in part, by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 financial crisis and the amplification of disinformation on social media. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer asks former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes whether the American Century is truly over, or if there's anything we can do to restore the country's reputation as a "shining city upon a hill."
Can President Biden convince the average Joe that foreign policy matters?
President Biden may have convinced American allies that the US is back, but will It be difficult for him to convince his fellow Americans that engaging in the world is vital to protect interests at home? Former US ambassador Ivo Daalder believes that the COVID crisis has shown Americans that global problems can become local problems quickly. According to a Chicago Council poll, two-thirds of Americans believe that it is important for the US to play an active role in global affairs. Being involved is "no longer a luxury," Daalder told Ian Bremmer on GZERO World. "That's why a foreign policy for the middle-class is actually a pretty good slogan when you think about it, because it's trying to sell engagement, solving problems together with your friends and partners around the world, as a means to helping you achieve what you want every day - which is to have a good job that pays enough to take care of your family."
Watch the GZERO Worldepisode: Has Biden convinced the G7 "America is back"?
Takeaways from President Biden’s first G7 summit
If the US is really back, as President Biden keeps saying, what is it back to do? That was one of the biggest questions at the G7 summit in the United Kingdom last weekend, the first stop on the first trip abroad of Biden's presidency. The G7 tackled the world's biggest problem by pledging to donate 1 billion doses of the vaccine to COVAX, with 500 million of those coming from the United States. Taxes, climate change, China, and Russia were on the agenda, too. Biden's trip went better than Trump's last big outing, to be sure. Ian Bremmer recaps this year's historic G7 meeting.
Watch the GZERO Worldepisode: Has Biden convinced the G7 "America is back"?
European allies welcome back a US that is engaged and “loves Europe”: Ivo Daalder
At the G7, President Biden brought American engagement with the world back to levels that used to be the norm. The United States playing an indispensable role in leading the world was never questioned until Donald Trump became president. The question now becomes how long is America back for, asks former US ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, who also raises the point: "Is the kind of way the United States has engaged the world still the appropriate way for dealing with the challenge we have?" Daalder speaks with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World about Biden's first presidential trip to Europe and the reception he received from European leaders.
Watch the GZERO Worldepisode: Has Biden convinced the G7 "America is back"?
GZERO discussion examines how US foreign policy impacts all Americans
Why should Americans care about US foreign policy? Whether or not they relate to most "high-brow" diplomacy issues, they should be interested in how US foreign policy impacts their daily life via immigration, trade, America's role in the world, and even race. A few experts shared their thoughts on Tuesday, June 15, during the livestream conversation "How US Foreign Policy Impacts All Americans" presented by GZERO Media and sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation.
Former Acting US Trade Representative Mariam Sapiro said that while most American politicians view US foreign policy as mainly having to do with national security, the pandemic has taught us that they should pay equal — if not more — attention to how our national security is also determined by our economic security as a result of economic and trade policies. COVID, she explained, laid bare the consequences of losing so many jobs due to offshoring and automation — precisely in the communities that were hit the hardest by the virus.
Why National Security Is Inextricably Linked to Economic Security | Amb. Miriam Sapiro | GZERO Mediayoutu.be
Corporations also have a stake in US foreign policy, noted Eurasia Group and GZERO Media President Ian Bremmer. For instance, many big US companies and even celebrities reject the mainstream US political consensus that America must engage its allies against China because they still want to do a lot of business with the Chinese, whatever Beijing does on the rule of law.
The US Government Seems Ready To Get Tough on China, But US Companies? | Ian Bremmer | GZERO Mediayoutu.be
One particularly thorny issue is immigration. For Cecilia Muñoz, senior advisor at New America, if the last four years have taught us anything, it's that the decisions we make around the US southern border are not driving migration to it. We can't fix immigration at the border, she added, because the problem is in the Northern Triangle countries in Central America.
How Climate Is Driving Migrants to US Border | Cecilia Muñoz | GZERO Mediayoutu.be
But President Biden views the world differently than most Americans do — and that's a problem. Former State Department senior official and New America CEO Anne-Marie Slaughter pointed out that Biden will struggle to sell his idea that the US should once again be the global policeman, which Americans started to abandon under Obama and ultimately gave up on by voting for Trump.
Is Biden's Global Role for US Out of Step With Most Americans? | Anne-Marie Slaughter | GZERO Mediayoutu.be
The disconnect between Washington and what Americans are really concerned about extends to trade. For many Americans, said former US Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), the perception that America got hurt by its own trade policies is the reality that they lost their jobs due to trade. Edwards also weighed on how race affects US foreign policy, commenting that especially in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests a year ago, there must be a recognition that what happens in America sends signals to the rest of the world.
Why Race in America Is a Foreign Policy Issue | Congresswoman Donna Edwards | GZERO Mediayoutu.be
Biden and G7 take on China
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Hi, everybody happy Monday. Ian Bremmer here. I've got a Quick Take for you. Thought we would talk a little bit about President Biden's first trip outside the United States as president and the G7, which frankly went better than expected. I'm the guy that talks about the GZERO world and the absence of global leadership. But the desire of a lot of American allies to have a more regularized relationship with the United States that feels like a partnership and alliance is pretty high. And President Biden's willingness to play that role, irrespective of the constraints and divisions that he has back at home, it's also pretty high. And those two things aligned.
The timing also was fantastic, because the United States is now looking in the rear view mirror at coronavirus, largely. And that's almost true for the Europeans, the Brits, the Canadians, even the Japanese are getting better. So if there was ever a time to not play domestic politics for the G7 and instead, actually look ahead at what can be done on the global stage, this was it. And as a consequence, there was more progress than you would normally expect. First of all, one billion vaccines being provided, repurposed to lower and medium income countries, plus some financing. The United States providing half of that, 500 million vaccines from the United States being donated to poor countries. And I did not hear a single Senator or member of the House of Representatives, Democrat or Republican, in any way complain about the US doing that.
That's the first piece of meaningful US leadership on the global stage that I have seen that hasn't been politicized in the US in years. And that's a good piece of news because we desperately need to do more. And until everyone's vaccinated, the global economy is slow and people will continue to get sick and die, and we're not out of the woods. So that's a positive thing. The allies were happy to support it and to be seen as playing along with American leadership, I think. I would have liked to have seen more. I would have liked to have been earlier, but it's still by far the biggest announcement that's been made since coronavirus has hit. And it happened under American leadership with the G7, so that's good context.
Secondly, you got some coordination on tax policy. We knew that was coming. It'll take years to actually get ratified in the US Congress and in European individual parliaments, but it still is alignment, it's steering the ship. There was pretty strong coordination on Russia. Not that they necessarily know what to do, but that they're all mutually angry about the cyberattacks that are going on. And Biden wants to coordinate policy with the Europeans, which is why you saw the pullback on the pipeline Nord Stream 2, sanctions that the US was putting on. The view was, "Look, the pipeline is getting built anyway. With tougher sanctions under the Trump administration, and they were tougher, the pipeline was still getting built. It was probably going to be made operational." The only question is after Merkel, do the Greens take the chancellorship? Probably not. And so as a consequence, Biden's like, "Why am I doing this? Let's coordinate with the Europeans and our allies on Russia." That worked pretty well.
The big question and the most interesting piece was China. And this announcement with no details around it, given in the communique of the B3W, Build Back Better World. That is a horrible acronym. I hope they change the name. But the idea was to come up with something that could offer an alternative to China's Belt and Road. It sounds like it just came out of thin air, that's not the case at all. It's actually been discussed for over a year now. Initially it was Australia, Japan, and the United States under the Trump administration, looking for something to do that would support investment and financing of big projects in infrastructure for lower income countries around the world, where right now it's all China, all Belt and Road all the time. There's no alternative.
And you could have done it with the quad, but the Australians are in a trade war with China right now. They wanted some air cover. They certainly wanted a broader group. And the Americans and the Japanese were both happy to move in that direction. So they moved it to the G7. And the Australians, the South Koreans and the Indians, none of them members of the G7, were all invited as special guests. The only other special guests was South Africa, part of the British Commonwealth, the Brits were hosting it. So really an effort to bring the Asian allies in, bring India, a member of the quad in, and be able to get stronger consolidation in policies toward China.
Now, suddenly when the China conversation happened on Saturday, the Europeans, the French, the Germans, and the Italians, felt blindsided because they hadn't heard about what all of this meant. And the fact that a project was ready to go, a multibillion dollar telecom project in Southeast Asia, that is, I'm told, going to be announced in the next few weeks. So they pushed back and that was on Saturday. They even shut down the internet for the summit, because nobody wanted all of this dissent to get out and discussed with the staffers of the G7 that could have scuttled anything they agreed on. They figured, "Let's wait until we all know how we want to frame this in the communique, and then we can turn the internet back on." That's what actually happened. And you ended up getting largely what the Biden administration wanted, which was a lot of talk about China in the communique, a lot of things the G7 agreed they were angry about, whether its Uighurs or South China Sea, or intellectual property theft. And a willingness to set up this B3W a committee that will organize towards putting it in place.
Does it feel like we're heading more towards confrontation with China? Yes. Are the Europeans happy about that? Not particularly. But US leadership on the issue, which is significant. It's not going to be a competitor to Belt and Road, but it is looking like an alternative to digital Belt and Road, more strategic for the Americans and more aligned for a lot of the American allies.
So interesting, significant, worth talking about. More important on balance than the upcoming summit in a couple of days with Russia and Putin. I'm sure I'll talk about that too, but that's for another day. That is your Quick Take. I'll talk to everybody real soon.
Biden's vaccine diplomacy and US global leadership; US-China bill gets bipartisan support
Get insights on the latest news in US politics from Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington:
What's the significance of the US-China bill, competition bill that passed the Senate earlier this week?
Well, the bill is a major investment in American technology, research and development, semiconductor manufacturing, and it's designed to push back on the China Made in 2025 push that lawmakers have become increasingly worried about in recent years. The opinion in Washington has shifted from seeing China as a strategic competitor to a strategic rival. And you're seeing what's now likely to be one of the only bipartisan bills in Congress now pushing back on that. Significant money for semiconductors in this bill, even though some of it was set aside for automotive purposes. That money's not going to come online fast enough to really make a difference to the current global semiconductor shortage, but it will help build up US long-term spending capacity and manufacturing capacity in semiconductors.
Other aspects of the bill, banned the application TikTok from going on government devices out of security concerns, created new sanctions authorities around Xinjiang and Hong Kong for human rights abuses, and mandated a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics, which is probably going to happen anyway once the Biden administration is able to align with its allies. Let the athletes play. Don't let any high level delegations go. This is probably the only bipartisan bill to happen this year, yet still, half of Senate Republicans voted against it because they were opposed to the kind of industrial policy they think this represents, but it does show the area where there's bipartisan agreement in a city that's very, very divided right now. China is the bad guy and Congress is moving in that direction.
With President Biden announcing the US will donate 500 million vaccine doses to the world, is this the first step in the US's return to international leadership?
Well, the US said they were going to buy 500 million doses from Pfizer, maker of one of the mRNA vaccines developed in the United States, and send it out through the COVAX initiative to 100 countries around the globe. Separately, the G7 said that together they would donate a billion vaccine doses around the globe, but the US is obviously leading this initiative with the greatest vaccine production capabilities and the largest contribution globally. Still, the Biden administration has come under some criticism for being a little bit too slow to get these doses out the door. And the NGO community wants to see the US support a vaccine waiver, which the US has said they want to do, but now they're trying to negotiate that to allow other countries to use the IP created by Pfizer, Moderna, and others to create vaccines around the globe and drastically increase supply over the long-term.
The US has been very cautious in its approach. It wants to make sure that it has enough doses to give every adult in the US two, which is the recommended amount, and save some reserve for booster shots in case they're needed or if the virus starts coming back next summer. So, probably no matter what the US does here, it's not going to be enough for some people, but Biden is using this as an effort of vaccine diplomacy to let the world know that the US is back. This is a very different approach from the Trump administration, and this is signaling their commitment to spreading goodwill around the world.