MON, FEB 07, 2022
IT
IS a political axiom of sorts that US presidents tend to gain public
support during foreign policy crises, as the American people rally
behind the commander-in-chief when he confronts a foreign adversary that
is seen to threaten the security of the nation.
That
may explain why conspiracy theorists have occasionally accused this or
that White House occupant of drawing the country into an international
crisis in order to distract the public's attention from domestic
problems; this is sometimes referred to as "wagging the dog", after a
1977 film Wag the Dog in which a president's political fixers
orchestrate the invasion of a country in order to divert the media's
focus from a presidential sex scandal.
But
if anything, President Joe Biden has run for office pledging to focus
on domestic problems, the lethal pandemic and the struggling economy.
His main foreign policy preoccupation seemed to be the geostrategic and
geoeconomic challenge from China, insisting that he would shift the
centre of US foreign policy from the Atlantic and the Middle East to
East Asia and refrain from drawing the country into new military
entanglements.
Ironically,
the first foreign policy crisis President Biden found himself in
amounted to reversing the script of Wag the Dog - not invading but
ending the American occupation of a foreign country, Afghanistan.
While
most Americans supported the idea of ending the 20-year-old war in that
South Asian country, the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from
Afghanistan and the images of the Taliban taking control of Kabul were
seen by critics as a humiliating betrayal of allies that emboldened
America's enemies.
A
public backlash against that move only helped erode support for
President Biden at a time when continuing economic problems were
politically hurting him and his administration. President Biden was also
criticised by some of America's allies for not consulting with them
before ordering the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Certainly
no one would accuse President Biden of orchestrating the current crisis
in Ukraine that has suddenly raised foreign policy issues to the top of
the White House's agenda and, contrary to earlier expectations does not
involve China or, say, Sino-American tensions over Taiwan.
The
main producer of what is the most dangerous crisis in Europe since the
end of the Cold War is Russian President Vladimir Putin who - perhaps a
la the Wag the Dog film - was trying to distract the Russian people's
attention from his country's domestic political and economic problems.
While
no one can predict what Putin's ultimate goals are, he has clearly
challenged the balance of power in Europe by amassing 100,000 Russian
troops on the border with Ukraine, as he tries to extort concessions
from his neighbour and for the West in the form of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (Nato) which is headed by the US.
It
is unlikely that President Putin is planning a full-scale invasion of
Ukraine which could result in a full-blown military conflict. That could
amount to Europe's biggest war since the 1940s and involve many Russian
casualties and devastate the country's economy.
To
President Biden's credit his response to President Putin's provocations
was tough but measured, without trying to fan the winds of war as he
resisted pressure in Washington to deploy a large number of troops to
Ukraine and to threaten Russia with a military retaliation if its leader
decided to invade its neighbour.
President
Biden did deploy 3,000 US troops to reinforce American military
presence in countries neighbouring Ukraine, and did threaten Russia with
massive economic sanctions that could also target President Putin
himself.
Even
more significant, President Biden has succeeded in mobilising the
support of Nato's members in displaying the Western alliance's resolve
vis-à-vis the Russian aggression and in the name of providing assistance
to a fellow (if not perfect) democratic government in Kiev.
That
America's European allies are rallying behind the US sends a clear
message of Western unity to President Putin who has threatened to
strangle the economy of Germany and that of other European countries by
cutting off Russian gas supplies to them.
But
President Biden also wants to avoid a new war in Europe that would
force him to divert resources from dealing with his main goals of ending
the pandemic and reviving the American economy.
Moreover,
there is a clear consensus in Washington these days that, indeed, the
long-term threat the US is facing is in the so-called Indo-Pacific
region and not across the Atlantic, and that rising China, and not
declining Russia, would become America's main global rival in the coming
years.
To
put it in practical terms, the US could not afford the military and
economic costs of handling a military conflict with China, for example,
over Taiwan, while engaging in a war with Russia over Ukraine.
From
that perspective, President Biden's main task would be to persuade his
counterpart in Moscow that he has overplayed his hand and needs to climb
down from his high horse while allowing President Putin to
diplomatically save face.
That
may not be a mission impossible. The Russian President wants to get a
commitment from the West that Ukraine would not be invited to join Nato.
In fact, the military alliance has no plan to do that and could
probably reach a deal with the Russians that would guarantee that that
would not happen.
In
a way, President Putin's bombastic rhetoric and military threats ended
up consolidating the Western alliance and strengthening the US strategic
position in Europe, and in the process providing President Biden with
political momentum at home, and at a time when he needed to.
President
Biden's public image as a resolute and effective commander-in-chief
would probably be enhanced, following last week's dramatic raid by US
forces in north-west Syria that led to the Islamic State's top leader
killing himself and his family as Americans closed in, capping months of
secret planning by the Biden administration. That should counteract the
humiliating scene of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But
let us end with another political axiom: While American presidents do
benefit in the short term from rising public support during
international crises, especially if they manage them successfully, the
outcomes of presidential elections are determined by the condition of
the American economy and not by foreign policy achievements.
To
recall, former US President George HW Bush led his nation into a major
military victory against Iraq during the First Gulf War in 1991, only to
end up losing the 1992 presidential election to Democrat Bill Clinton,
after which a political aide observed, "It's the economy, stupid!"