Summer Essay 11 -- Retrospective

Final Summer Essay (#11) reflecting on the ideas raised by the current edition of Foreign Affairs as the United States barrels towards the most consequential election in decades, with US global leadership very much on the line.  The bottom line: the election ensures that American foreign policy (and other policies) will shift; the only question is whether the shifts in 2025 will be dramatic or subtle. Savvy strategists and executives will start preparing during the autumn for the next year.

In the American electoral cycle, a special title is conferred upon a President and a Congress who will be leaving office.  It tends to attach in November and lasts until January 20 of the following year.  The title is “Lame Duck.” It reflects a de facto recognition that the political power to take new action has shifted.  It tends to trigger immediate retrospectives about the out-going Administration.

The Carnegie Endowment’s formidable Jessica T. Mathews (no relation to me) ushers in the Lame Duck period early with her essay that discusses the Biden Presidency in the past tense: What Was the Bident Doctrine? Leadership Without Hegemony.

The essay mostly is kind to President Biden, recounting many successes from the last 3.5 years.  By prioritizing diplomacy and refusing to initiate new, direct, sustained US military engagements, Mathews characterizes the Biden Doctrine as one that curtails U.S. ambitions based on “a realistic assessment of its present resources, partisan divisions, and political will.”  She acknowledges (without using the term), that one-term Presidents rarely if ever leave a lasting mark on American foreign policy.

The essay does not lionize the current President. It includes some scathing characterization of the Administration’s “disappointing” Middle East policy in general and its Israel policy in particular, its approach to arms control, its Taiwan policy, and the lack of a “coherent global economic strategy.” 

Regarding China, the essay indicates that “relations with China are steadier than those he inherited,” despite the fact that the bilateral relationship is “characterized by rising acrimony, unfulfilled agreements, military threats, and an almost total lack of purposeful communication.”  But the essay fails to note that the tariffs imposed against China by President Trump were extended and expanded by President Biden.

In fact, the silences in the essay were striking and far more interesting than the content, in my humble opinion. Those of us that have had the honor to serve in government understand that diplomatic silence sends at least as strong a signal as incendiary rhetoric.

The essay oddly only devotes two paragraphs to the east-ward NATO expansion and the “masterful” response by the Biden Administration to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.  It does not mention that this is the second time Russia invaded Ukraine in the modern era (the first time was under the Obama/Biden Administration). Nor does it discuss the broad international coalition that rallied behind Ukraine fostered by American diplomatic leadership.

It does not address the broad economic sanctions imposed against Russia, perhaps since those sanctions did not achieve their stated goal of changing Russia’s military and political objectives in Ukraine.  Nor does it discuss the reaction function that has seen stronger alliances being built quickly by Russia with other US foes and challengers like China, North Korea, and Iran.

The essay never discusses the considerable strengthening of the transatlantic alliance beyond NATO.  Stunningly, it never once mentions the European Union. 

Neither the energy transition nor climate change diplomacy merit attention in the essay despite the fact that both have been at the forefront of the Biden Administration’s foreign policy.  The Biden Administration also used energy diplomacy to bolster Europe’s first winter without access to Russian natural gas, reconfiguring quickly natural gas exports to Europe that replaced Russia with the United States as the main external energy supplier to Europe.  Both the EU and the White House have been fond of pointing out that Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine backfired by deepening the transatlantic geopolitical relationship. Surely this was a foreign policy success?

Significant foreign policy pressure points also exist with Europe, particularly related to the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies and the EU’s intention to implement a carbon border import tax.  Other American allies like South Korea and Japan also received collateral damage from the Inflation Reduction Act’s subsidy structure.  Finally, the EU’s own economic, trade, and foreign policy outreach to America’s back yard in resource-rich Latin America during 2023 create supply chain competition and quiet climate-related policy tensions with the United States. 

Latin America seemingly does not exist in the essay.  Neither the Administration’s renewable energy diplomacy nor the seemingly perpetual regional tensions associated with illegal migration into the United States were addressed in the essay.  Vice President Harris’ 2021 trip to Central America to address the root causes of mass migration northward did not merit a mention.

In the Middle East, the essay references in passing the Abraham Accords but neglects to mention that the Biden Administration until October 2023 had been on a path towards brokering an historic agreement that would have resulted in Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel.  Until Hamas brutally invaded Gaza and took hostages, some of whom remain in captivity.

Finally, the essay never mentions the one person that could be tasked with carrying forward the Administration’s foreign policy priorities: the current Vice President who is running for election to the highest office in the land.

The only conclusion is that Mathews is right; it is too soon to assess the Biden Doctrine. We need to know, at a minimum, whether the next President of the United States will be continuing any of the signature initiatives that were undertaken in the last 3.5 years. So stay tuned. Today’s political risks will certainly trigger policy shifts in 2025.  The question is whether those shifts will be subtle or dramatic. My company's alternative data generated from the language of public policy will tell the tale every day.

Barbara C. Matthewsis a globally recognized public policy and quantitative finance leader.  Her track record of successful innovation and leadership spans five continents in both the private and public sectors, including service as the first US Treasury Attache to the EU with the Senate-confirmed diplomatic rank of Minister-Counselor.  She has consistently been the first executive to forge new paths that add lasting value with durable, high-performing teams.  She is currently the Founder and CEO of BCMstrategy, Inc., a company that delivers ML/AI training data and predictive analytics that provide ground-breaking transparency and metrics about government policy globally.  The company uses award-winning, patented technology to measure public policy risks and anticipate related reaction functions. Ms. Matthews is the author of the patent.