nye213_Mark Makela_Getty Images_joe biden anthony blinken

How Will Biden Intervene?

Jan 5, 2021 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

Broadly defined, intervention refers to actions that influence the domestic affairs of another sovereign state, and they can range from broadcasts, economic aid, and support for opposition parties to blockades, cyber attacks, drone strikes, and military invasion. Which ones will the US president-elect favor?

CAMBRIDGE – American foreign policy tends to oscillate between inward and outward orientations. President George W. Bush was an interventionist; his successor, Barack Obama, less so. And Donald Trump was mostly non-interventionist. What should we expect from Joe Biden?

In 1821, John Quincy Adams famously stated that the United States “does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” But America also has a long interventionist tradition. Even a self-proclaimed realist like Teddy Roosevelt argued that in extreme cases of abuse of human rights, intervention “may be justifiable and proper.” John F. Kennedy called for Americans to ask not only what they could do for their country, but for the world.

Since the Cold War’s end, the US has been involved in seven wars and military interventions, none directly related to great power competition. George W. Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy proclaimed a goal of freedom embodied in a global community of democracies.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 in all 8 Comments on this article

Peter Schaeffer Jan 9, 2021

I sure don't speak for Biden and don't have any insights as to how he thinks. However, he appears to know that America's recent foreign interventions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) have gone badly. He probably also knows that Libya probably cost Hillary the White House. My guess is that he doesn't want to go down that road. But you never know. Of course, the future is unpredictable. If the US is attacked, anything is possible. A more likely scenario is that China attacks Taiwan forcing Biden's hand. That still a low probability even, but not inconceivable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Jan 6, 2021

This article neatly captures the following weaknesses in Nye's approach to I.R
1) Reliance on tautologies of a vacuous type. All policy could be said to 'oscillate between' polarities. But, with greater truth, the reverse could be asserted. In this case, it is truer to say a country's foreign policy does not oscillate between orientations. It is robust with respect to the pursuit of national interest but can change greatly in response to contingencies. John Quincy Adams was saying the same thing as Metternich and Castelreagh and Canning and Talleyrand and so forth. Teddy Roosevelt supported the Spanish American War which gave America temporary control of Cuba as well as Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Nye is pretending Roosevelt was a cuddly Teddy Bear. He does not say that America invented the concentration camp and was responsible for the death of 200,000 Filipino patriots. So much for 'justifiable and proper' intervention in the name of 'human rights'. Kennedy got elected because of his 'missile gap' claim. In any case, for reasons spelled out by the Rand Corp., Eisenhower's approach was obsolete. A proper game-theoretic Nuclear doctrine was required. Moreover, under Bretton Woods, control of the newly independent nations of Africa and South Asia was a sine qua non for Capitalist prosperity. But this meant 'domino theory' type military engagement as well as the colossal stupidity of USAID to countries like India- both of which were counter-productive. However, once the Bretton Woods strait jacket was removed, 'exorbitant privilege' could flow from pure financialization. The Dollar was America's inexorable sceptre albeit the enforcement was done by, not gun boats, but the invisible hand. Incidentally, every politician- on gaining power says- 'don't ask what I can do for you. Ask what you can do for me. Forget the promises I made you. Think about how you can ensure the world becomes my oyster.'

2) Belief in 'soft power' or moral hegemony. This belief distorts the facts. It is a mythology. In this essay, Nye says Wilson entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. The truth is, America's casus belli were based on eighteenth and early nineteenth century doctrine. The Germans had triggered the thing. Talk of 'democracy' was mere puffery and, in any case, was only made possible by the Russian Revolution.
Nye confuses 'principles'- which are either 'cheap talk' or else 'anything goes'- with 'doctrines' which are themselves distinct from 'interests'. Kennedy and Johnson committed to adventitiously wrong military and economic doctrines. The US resiled from those doctrines because, essentially, doctrines serve unchanging national interests. Nye is pretending there is some intrinsic 'oscillation' rather than mere adventitious 'discovery' and course correction. As a result, he says something very foolish- viz. Vietnam saw itself as one nation. The fact is, there is a genuine fault-line in Vietnam but nothing of the sort in Korea. Had Irma Adelman's advice been taken, the South might have, so to speak, assimilated the North- though, obviously, the political genius of Ho Chi Minh & the military genius of Giap would have meant that Vietnam as a whole would have not just stood up to Maoist craziness, it would have been an active agent in lifting up the region in a manner beneficial to its giant neighbor.

3) It is foolish to depict Bush Snr. as a 'realist'. The nature of reality at that time was unknown. Bush was part of a discovery process. Nye's approach to I.R is useless because it is 'intensional' and ignores Knightian Uncertainty. Furthermore, this type of mythologizing leads one to tell stupid lies. The fact is, April Glaspie and other such incompetents mishandled the whole thing. An American Sergeant was the son of Aideed. Did anyone say 'hey, dude, ring your Dad so we can sort this out peacefully'? No. Of course, not. This was the State Dept. and the Army screwing up royally but doing so according to the book. Nye tells us of his book 'Do Morals Matter?' but won't admit that morality is about using your brain to sift out stupid lies from discourse. Why pretend, at this late hour, that there is any genuine debate as to whether the invasion of Iraq was 'realist' or 'liberal'? The thing was opportunistic and was meant to turn a profit- which it did for 'contractors' but not the tax-payer. Nye knows very well how and why Chalabi was able to use the 'neo-cons'. The guy had a PhD in Math and went on make a lot of money. In other words, he was their wet dream.

Nye's article is titled 'how will Biden intervene?' Predictably, he hasn't answered the question at all. I will. Biden will 'intervene' in the following ways

1) In his first eighteen months, by reason of mere bureaucratic momentum, he will try and fail at 'China containment' strategies. After that, he will let the invisible hand wielding the sceptred dollar work its magic.
2) Since Biden's failure re. China is known in advance, including to himself, he can't intervene anywhere else coz then all the peeps be saying 'big deal! You restored human rights to the equivalent of Reagan's Grenada but backed off from a fight with Winne the Pooh despite the horrible things he was doing to Eeyore.' Thus the safer thing to do would be to invest in Voice of America broadcasts and the National Endowment for Democracy so as to regain soft power amongst the soft headed portion of the global population.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sing Koo Jan 6, 2021

The intransigent posture of unilateralism by the Trump Administration will likely be abandoned by Biden, recrudescence of unilateral intervention is unlikely. With the return of multilateralism, prudent intervention that aligns with allies’ interest will be in favored over Trump’s random intervention as exemplified by the Iran air strike and magnanimous attitude towards Russia’s bounty on American soldiers. In retrospect, such behavior has failed to serve as an epigraph towards defining a consistent foreign policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Jan 6, 2021

I only claim this to be an expression of my own intellect (experience). Not the result of anyone else’s belief. Albert Einstein said, “The secret to genius is not to reveal your sources” (he did this MANY times). Albert Einstein also said, “You cannot both plan for peace and plan for war.” I understand that he was correct in this statement, but I did not derive this truth by believing in his conclusion. It is my own conclusion, and mine alone.

You cannot aim for both War and Peace. The process of Rationalism (Planning, Propaganda and their Implementation) to achieve one and not the other are mutually exclusive. I.e. your goal cannot be both annihilationism and coexistence, nor dither between them. The thought patterns for both/each diverge, and cannot be reconciled. You must choose one or the other, i.e. dedicate yourself to one goal and oppose the other. (The two goals are totally incompatible.)

Neither can either goal (annihilationism or coexistence) come to agreement or compromise. There is no solution created by compromise between the two aims.

Political nihilism (gridlock/Mexican standoff between those that promote annihilationism and coexistence) only maintains the Status Quo, which itself is unacceptable. It simply preserves a state in which neither war nor peace prevail, only those who control the system of money, and choose between peace and war depending on which is the most profitable to them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Wu Jan 5, 2021

Where do you place within the spectrum interventions that aim to create chaos and social instability ? For example, support for colour revolutions in the Middle East that ended with anarchy in Libya, and civil war in Syria ? Sure, these might be for the benefit of US national interest, but to promote democracy and human rights ? And should the US be compelled to mitigate the consequences of such actions ? For example, Europe has been bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis, whereas the Trump administration has significantly reduced its commitment to providing refuge for those people displaced directly or indirectly as a result of US foreign policy. How about the US support for anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, with the explicit promise of refuge, only to renege on that promise when the bill was blocked by Ted Cruz ? Or to use sanctions not as a means to protect human rights, but as a bargaining chip, or even to protect wrongdoers such as the case of deterring the ICC investigation into US war crimes ? After the events of recent years, I think even traditional US allies will question the ulterior motive of foreign intervention by US administrations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/gPENthk

Cookies and Privacy

How Will Biden Intervene?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

How Will Biden Intervene?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification