Joe Biden’s First Diplomatic Fight Will Be at Home
If he wins, Biden might find his hardest foreign policy task is answering the demands of the resurgent progressives who helped put him in office.
In the dawning days of the Arab Spring, as throngs gathered in Cairo to demand that Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak step down after nearly 30 years in power, the aging autocrat could count on the support of a longtime friend in the White House.
Joe Biden, then Barack Obama’s vice president, was watching the revolutionary fervor in Egypt with unease. He sympathized with the desire of Egypt’s young people to have a real democracy and more economic opportunities. But in meetings at the White House, according to others present, he was among those voicing worries that a sudden departure by Mubarak could lead to unfriendly Islamist rule, if not outright chaos. Biden believed Mubarak had worked well with the United States in tackling terrorism, keeping the peace with Israel and other strategic interests. Plus, he’d known the 82-year-old Egyptian strongman forever and didn’t think he was all that bad. In fact, as the protests unfolded, Biden told PBS, “I would not refer to him as a dictator.”
[Global Issue] Biden Doctrine Images Mubarak fell two weeks later, in February 2011, and before long, another dictator took over—Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, an Army general who presided over the slaughter of more than 800 Muslim Brotherhood supporters as he consolidated power. The Obama administration, desperate for some stability, refused to call Sisi’s seizure of power a coup. It froze arms sales for a time but ultimately lifted those restrictions. And things have moved further in Sisi’s favor under President Donald Trump, who has bragged about his love for Sisi—“Where’s my favorite dictator?” he reportedly once quipped—and even granted him a White House visit.
These days, as Biden seeks to oust Trump from the White House, his tone toward Egypt—and autocrats in general—is a bit different than it used to be. The Democratic nominee has promised to make the promotion of human rights and democracy a foreign policy priority. Earlier this year, after the release of an American from Egypt’s prisons, Biden promised via tweet: “No more blank checks for Trump’s ‘favorite dictator.’”
[Global Issue] Biden Doctrine Images For many progressives whose preferred candidates lost to Biden during the Democratic primary, Biden’s pledge was exciting and energizing. Was he actually suggesting he would cut off billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Egypt? Nearly 50 years after Biden first took public office—decades when he largely hewed to established nostrums about American power—progressives saw the 275-character tweet as a hint of a larger shift in his worldview. They wondered whether he would venture outside his comfort zone, even if it meant breaking with a close Arab ally that has made peace with Israel.
The left has long felt marginalized in America’s national security debates. But decades of costly, inconclusive U.S. military interventions abroad have increasingly emboldened progressives arguing for an approach guided by restraint and moral rectitude. Now, progressive activists are regularly talking with Biden’s campaign in a bid to shape the Democrat’s foreign and national security policy agendas, and there are plenty of signs that Biden and his aides are listening.
null But the lingering suspicions about Biden among many progressives foreshadow a passionate intraparty brawl over the shape of his foreign policy if he is elected—a domestic squabble that could sorely test his diplomatic skills.
null “You think, first and foremost, that Joe Biden’s saying the right thing. This is the signal you want,” says Stephen Miles, executive director of the advocacy group Win Without War, about Biden’s slap at Sisi. “But it makes you wonder if the actions of a President Biden will match up with the rhetoric of a candidate Biden.”
It’s not just Egypt that brings these questions to mind for progressives. Officially, the former vice president already has roughly 1,800 people on some 20 foreign policy and national security committees offering him advice from a variety of perspectives. In reality, he’s relying heavily on a coterie of advisers with long D.C. résumés, including several who advised him during the Obama years. This unnerves progressives who fear a return to a pre-Trump world mindset—a restoration instead of a reinvention.
[Global Issue] Biden Doctrine Images Biden, whose campaign offered limited comments for this story, has promised to end the “forever wars,” elevate diplomacy and champion human rights as well as democracy. But progressives look at the 77-year-old candidate’s track record and wonder whether he will keep such lofty promises. They wonder what devils lie in the details of his pledge to “build back better.” They worry that, like many predecessors, he will treat Americans’ economic security as secondary and separate from U.S. military primacy. They question whether Biden’s record and longtime relationships with foreign leaders mean he will break new ground or revert to old habits.
All of these uncertainties are why, if Biden wins in November, leading figures on the left say they have no intention of shutting up. Instead, they plan to call him out and hold him accountable in what some described as a permanent opposition mentality.
“The reality is that progressives have been able to significantly move the debates on a handful of important issues,” says Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a favorite of progressives who is often mentioned as a future presidential contender and potential Biden secretary of State. “That is just a new reality that will greet the next Democratic president.”
null None of this is to say Biden has to worry much about his left flank in the election itself, at least not on foreign policy. Four years ago, Hillary Clinton had to contend with a Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, who painted the former secretary of State as a dangerous hawk and gained enough purchase in some swing states to possibly tip the election in Trump’s favor.
Today, progressives face no such dilemma. Biden might not be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but he is not Trump, whom they see as crude, inhumane and easily manipulated on the world stage. To the left, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy has meant squandering America’s power and moral authority by abandoning diplomatic agreements, punishing allies, embracing autocrats and, most alarmingly, bringing the United States to the precipice of new wars—despite the president’s halting efforts to bring U.S. troops home.
Progressives see an opening with Biden and don’t want to miss it, but they are not a monolithic group. They differ among themselves, for instance, on one of the most vexing dilemmas in foreign policy: when to use U.S. military force to advance human rights, such as trying to stop a genocide. Broadly speaking, though, progressives have in recent months settled on some top priorities. They want to reduce U.S. defense spending and cut back on America’s global military footprint; devote more resources to diplomacy; and engage more with allies and partners on transnational challenges—as well as with adversaries when there are common interests. When compared with moderate Democrats or traditional Republicans, progressive foreign policy thinkers are more likely to put economic issues, such as the impact of trade deals, at the heart of their strategies.
In letters to Biden, progressive groups have laid out specific demands. They have requested that he commit to significant cuts in defense spending—at least $200 billion, according to one May letter. They want the former vice president to lift broad-based economic sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, arguing those penalties hurt civilians instead of the ruling regimes. They want Biden to commit to pushing for an all-out debate in Congress on whether to end ongoing military interventions and to repeal current authorizations for the use of military force. And they want him to agree to condition military aid to Israel on how it treats the Palestinians.
[Global Issue] Biden Doctrine Images Over the spring and summer, Biden’s team worked with Sanders, his last opponent in the primary, to set up joint task forces that focused on finding common ground on a handful of issues. The resulting committees covered climate change, education, the economy, criminal justice reform, health care and immigration. Not covered? Foreign policy. That upset many progressives, although a Sanders aide acknowledged that neither side pushed hard for a joint group on the topic.
Much of progressives’ focus since Biden emerged as the victor of the primary has been on shaping the Democratic Party platform. And on foreign policy, they feel they succeeded in making this year’s platform less hawkish than 2016’s. In spots, the new platform reads like it could have been ripped from a Sanders stump speech. It calls for an end to “forever wars,” though it caveats that by saying the endings must be “responsible.” The 2020 document also disavows the idea of U.S.-imposed “regime change,” including in countries like Iran.
Progressives faced significant pushback on Israel-related matters, however. Sanders’ allies couldn’t persuade the Biden crowd to mention the possibility of conditioning military aid to Israel; the platform says the party’s commitment to Israel’s security is “ironclad.” But while progressives failed in having the word “occupation” used in reference to Israel’s territorial moves, this year’s platform does state that Democrats “oppose settlement expansion” by Israel, a contentious issue not mentioned in 2016. It also nods to freedom of speech even as it condemns the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that targets Israeli policies toward Palestinians.
null “The platform is not a policy statement. It’s a politics statement. And I think it showed that the politics are changing, and the party establishment has recognized that in a way they didn’t feel they needed to in 2016. They had to tip their hat to it,” says James Zogby, a Sanders ally and president of the Arab American Institute, who helped shape the platform.
As the campaign has sped forward, progressive organizations have sought special channels to influence Biden. That has included a call once every six weeks between a handful of leading progressive groups and Antony Blinken, one of Biden’s top advisers and a former deputy secretary of State.
“It’s very friendly,” says Yasmine Taeb, senior policy counsel for one of the participating groups, Demand Progress. She adds, however, that “even on those calls, it’s so difficult to get very specific commitments from them.”
Biden’s allies say the campaign has done careful intraparty diplomatic spadework. A campaign adviser said the former vice president “is consulting with a wide array of foreign policy experts, including progressives, as he considers the global challenges that would face him as president.”
Progressives also are trying to influence Biden’s hiring decisions. Some have quietly been coming up with lists of potential hires for a Biden administration, including people who can serve in critical, midlevel positions such as assistant secretaries of State or Defense. People familiar with the issue declined to share potential candidates’ names, saying they didn’t want to make them targets, but they say they’ve handed the lists to the Biden campaign.
[Global Issue] Biden Doctrine Images At the same time, progressives have been vocal about the types of hires they’d like Biden to avoid. Some of the demands are so broad—puritanical, even—that they would wipe out a huge swath of candidates. For example, in one letter, several groups on the left urged Biden not to hire anyone who has advocated (and has not disavowed their support) for “U.S. military interventions in pursuit of political objectives” or “covert operations that resulted in civilian harm.” The activists acknowledge they are setting a high bar, but they say they want to send a message that they are watching Biden as much as the Republican opposition is.
Progressives are already singling out some top Biden campaign advisers by name. Numerous Democratic National Convention delegates signed an open letter to Biden urging him not to rely on the advice of people such as former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, whom he considered for the vice presidency; former senior Defense official Michèle Flournoy, a potential contender to lead the Pentagon; or even Blinken, one of Biden’s most trusted senior campaign aides. These and other Washington hands “have demonstrated poor judgment on national security issues,” the letter asserts, slamming them for their roles in Obama-era military actions, as well as their private sector affiliations.null null null
Joe Biden, then Barack Obama’s vice president, was watching the revolutionary fervor in Egypt with unease. He sympathized with the desire of Egypt’s young people to have a real democracy and more economic opportunities. But in meetings at the White House, according to others present, he was among those voicing worries that a sudden departure by Mubarak could lead to unfriendly Islamist rule, if not outright chaos. Biden believed Mubarak had worked well with the United States in tackling terrorism, keeping the peace with Israel and other strategic interests. Plus, he’d known the 82-year-old Egyptian strongman forever and didn’t think he was all that bad. In fact, as the protests unfolded, Biden told PBS, “I would not refer to him as a dictator.”
These days, as Biden seeks to oust Trump from the White House, his tone toward Egypt—and autocrats in general—is a bit different than it used to be. The Democratic nominee has promised to make the promotion of human rights and democracy a foreign policy priority. Earlier this year, after the release of an American from Egypt’s prisons, Biden promised via tweet: “No more blank checks for Trump’s ‘favorite dictator.’”
The left has long felt marginalized in America’s national security debates. But decades of costly, inconclusive U.S. military interventions abroad have increasingly emboldened progressives arguing for an approach guided by restraint and moral rectitude. Now, progressive activists are regularly talking with Biden’s campaign in a bid to shape the Democrat’s foreign and national security policy agendas, and there are plenty of signs that Biden and his aides are listening.
It’s not just Egypt that brings these questions to mind for progressives. Officially, the former vice president already has roughly 1,800 people on some 20 foreign policy and national security committees offering him advice from a variety of perspectives. In reality, he’s relying heavily on a coterie of advisers with long D.C. résumés, including several who advised him during the Obama years. This unnerves progressives who fear a return to a pre-Trump world mindset—a restoration instead of a reinvention.
All of these uncertainties are why, if Biden wins in November, leading figures on the left say they have no intention of shutting up. Instead, they plan to call him out and hold him accountable in what some described as a permanent opposition mentality.
“The reality is that progressives have been able to significantly move the debates on a handful of important issues,” says Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a favorite of progressives who is often mentioned as a future presidential contender and potential Biden secretary of State. “That is just a new reality that will greet the next Democratic president.”
Today, progressives face no such dilemma. Biden might not be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but he is not Trump, whom they see as crude, inhumane and easily manipulated on the world stage. To the left, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy has meant squandering America’s power and moral authority by abandoning diplomatic agreements, punishing allies, embracing autocrats and, most alarmingly, bringing the United States to the precipice of new wars—despite the president’s halting efforts to bring U.S. troops home.
Progressives see an opening with Biden and don’t want to miss it, but they are not a monolithic group. They differ among themselves, for instance, on one of the most vexing dilemmas in foreign policy: when to use U.S. military force to advance human rights, such as trying to stop a genocide. Broadly speaking, though, progressives have in recent months settled on some top priorities. They want to reduce U.S. defense spending and cut back on America’s global military footprint; devote more resources to diplomacy; and engage more with allies and partners on transnational challenges—as well as with adversaries when there are common interests. When compared with moderate Democrats or traditional Republicans, progressive foreign policy thinkers are more likely to put economic issues, such as the impact of trade deals, at the heart of their strategies.
In letters to Biden, progressive groups have laid out specific demands. They have requested that he commit to significant cuts in defense spending—at least $200 billion, according to one May letter. They want the former vice president to lift broad-based economic sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, arguing those penalties hurt civilians instead of the ruling regimes. They want Biden to commit to pushing for an all-out debate in Congress on whether to end ongoing military interventions and to repeal current authorizations for the use of military force. And they want him to agree to condition military aid to Israel on how it treats the Palestinians.
Much of progressives’ focus since Biden emerged as the victor of the primary has been on shaping the Democratic Party platform. And on foreign policy, they feel they succeeded in making this year’s platform less hawkish than 2016’s. In spots, the new platform reads like it could have been ripped from a Sanders stump speech. It calls for an end to “forever wars,” though it caveats that by saying the endings must be “responsible.” The 2020 document also disavows the idea of U.S.-imposed “regime change,” including in countries like Iran.
Progressives faced significant pushback on Israel-related matters, however. Sanders’ allies couldn’t persuade the Biden crowd to mention the possibility of conditioning military aid to Israel; the platform says the party’s commitment to Israel’s security is “ironclad.” But while progressives failed in having the word “occupation” used in reference to Israel’s territorial moves, this year’s platform does state that Democrats “oppose settlement expansion” by Israel, a contentious issue not mentioned in 2016. It also nods to freedom of speech even as it condemns the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that targets Israeli policies toward Palestinians.
As the campaign has sped forward, progressive organizations have sought special channels to influence Biden. That has included a call once every six weeks between a handful of leading progressive groups and Antony Blinken, one of Biden’s top advisers and a former deputy secretary of State.
“It’s very friendly,” says Yasmine Taeb, senior policy counsel for one of the participating groups, Demand Progress. She adds, however, that “even on those calls, it’s so difficult to get very specific commitments from them.”
Biden’s allies say the campaign has done careful intraparty diplomatic spadework. A campaign adviser said the former vice president “is consulting with a wide array of foreign policy experts, including progressives, as he considers the global challenges that would face him as president.”
Progressives also are trying to influence Biden’s hiring decisions. Some have quietly been coming up with lists of potential hires for a Biden administration, including people who can serve in critical, midlevel positions such as assistant secretaries of State or Defense. People familiar with the issue declined to share potential candidates’ names, saying they didn’t want to make them targets, but they say they’ve handed the lists to the Biden campaign.
Progressives are already singling out some top Biden campaign advisers by name. Numerous Democratic National Convention delegates signed an open letter to Biden urging him not to rely on the advice of people such as former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, whom he considered for the vice presidency; former senior Defense official Michèle Flournoy, a potential contender to lead the Pentagon; or even Blinken, one of Biden’s most trusted senior campaign aides. These and other Washington hands “have demonstrated poor judgment on national security issues,” the letter asserts, slamming them for their roles in Obama-era military actions, as well as their private sector affiliations.