The Joe Biden government is for now being a continuation of that of Trump in some fundamental questions of his foreign policy. During the administration of the real estate magnate, relations with China suffered a great deterioration as a result of the trade war unleashed against Beijing, under the tricky name of “sanctions”. However, in the rhetoric in relation to China and Russia and in some concrete actions, we see a tightening of the Biden government compared to that of Trump. It is true that the former senator made the United States (EU) return to the Paris climate agreement, a campaign promise, and agreed with the Russian proposal to extend the New Start treaty, two positive steps. The first is a contribution to the health of the planet, the magnitude of which will depend on the degree of commitment the US is willing to reach in reducing greenhouse gases, of which it is the world’s highest emitter in relation to its population; the second, an undoubted contribution to world peace by regulating the strategic arsenals of both great nuclear powers and promoting a loosening of international (high) tension.
The Biden presidency, it is true, has only just begun, and faces very serious internal economic and political problems, such as secular structural racism, the significant drop in the population’s standard of living in the neoliberal decades, the accumulated deterioration of the infrastructure, the balance tragedy of a poorly managed pandemic and the unstoppable migration crisis on the border with Mexico. This accumulation of pending issues could explain that he has not yet addressed some foreign policy issues and reversed extreme measures taken by his predecessor such as the savage tightening of the blockades against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea, which qualify as crimes of against humanity and contribute to aggravate international tension.
But arguing internal problems cannot delay addressing these and other international issues for long if, as it constantly proclaims, it intends to continue exercising international leadership. Unless you try to get it by force and can no longer do it, as was your custom until not so long ago, without paying a heavy price. Precisely the main problem of the US is its crisis of hegemony and the most advisable thing would be to change force for dialogue as a way to prevent the crisis from accelerating and deepening rapidly.
But that does not appear to be the direction chosen as the Biden administration has embraced some of the aggressive policies of its predecessor. Ergo, Secretary of State Blinken agrees with the “firmer” attitude taken by Trump towards China and although he disagrees “greatly” on how he did it in different areas, he believes that “the basis was correct.” He even coincided in a senatorial hearing with his predecessor Pompeo’s bizarre description of the alleged repression of China in Xinjian province as genocide, and on some issues the Biden administration seems to tend to exacerbate previous policies. This is the case of Ukraine, where the US president recently expressed to his Ukrainian counterpart his “unwavering” support for “Russian aggression”; also the open interference in Moscow’s internal affairs by adopting sanctions against Russian officials for the so-called Navalny case and against countries that acquire Russian S-400 anti-aircraft systems. Not to mention its meddling in the Asian giant, by heating up the conflicts over Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet, territories about which Washington says and acts as if they were not part of China. Furthermore, the US does not have the morals to set itself up as a champion of human rights when it constantly violates them in its territory.
On an issue like the nuclear treaty with Iran, broken by Trump and which Biden promised to reestablish, Washington has resisted lifting the economic punishment imposed on Tehran as a step prior to its reentry. Furthermore, it seeks to impose injurious measures on the defense of Iran as a precondition.
It is obvious that the European Union and the United Kingdom did not seriously defend the nuclear treaty when the United States withdrew, and they share a large part of its policies towards Russia and China. Nor have they been energetic in the face of a brutal US violation of international law such as the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Zionist State, an attitude that will be maintained by Biden, which will become a serious obstacle to any possibility of reaching a political solution to the Palestinian conflict. Israeli. In these European and British attitudes a scenario similar to that of the cold war is also configured. On this subject there is much more to argue. We will do it soon but our next installment has to focus on the elections next Sunday in Ecuador and Peru.