President Biden is expected to announce his candidacy for another term this week. What do you think was the hallmark of US foreign policy under his administration? One must assess Biden’s foreign policy against the background of the enormous complexity of the current world situation: the geopolitical power shifts caused by climate change, technological developments, the war in Ukraine. Added to this are the many problems left behind by his predecessor Donald Trump. I see three key advances under Biden: First, repairing relations with US allies. Secondly, to sharpen the focus on common global challenges, especially climate change. Third, to recognize the need to invest in national renewal in a competitive environment.
Where do you see the deficits? The withdrawal from Afghanistan was not what the Biden administration would have liked to show the world. It was clear that this retreat was wanted. But, firstly, it should have been better planned and executed, considering the foreseeable consequences and, above all, the evacuation of people who supported the western allies. Second, it would have required a communications strategy – also to convey to the world that the US would remain engaged in the region.
Mariano Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar is President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Previous positions include a judge on the California Supreme Court and a professor at Stanford University, and served as a White House adviser to two US presidents.
After the years of the Trump administration, European expectations of President Biden were very high – and then quickly dampened. How much “America First” is left in Biden’s foreign policy? The Biden administration shows that the balance of American leadership — including some Republicans — is trending in the right direction. And that means commitment to the world. Of course, there are other voices in the US, and they’ve had more influence under Trump. The previous government sharply criticized NATO, failed to recognize the complexity of the EU and neglected important relations with Ukraine. Compensating for this is an unfinished project. It will probably take more than four years to fully repair the relationships.
The Biden administration shows that the balance of American leadership — including some Republicans — is trending in the right direction. And that means commitment to the world.
Tino Cuéllar, President of the global think tank Carnegie
in one Essay for “Foreign Affairs” you recently criticized the fact that the Supreme Court is increasingly influencing US foreign policy. In what way? In recent years, the Court has adopted increasingly aggressive interpretations of the law. In the last year alone, he has decided cases involving cross-border security cooperation, the regulation of financial risks and US leadership on climate change. This severely limits the US government’s ability to act, including internationally. At the same time, Congress has largely withdrawn from foreign policy.
On the other hand, you emphasize that US states play a stronger role play in foreign policy. How does that concrete look? Some states have significant influence. California, Florida, New York and Texas together generate about 37 percent of American economic output. When states try out new policies that don’t yet have support from the rest of the country, it can be very formative. California’s zero-emission vehicle policy was taken by China as a model for a similar scheme. The states can also be an important factor of continuity across different governments. For example, when the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement under Trump, states like California and New York continued to participate and showed that the US remains a key player in climate policy. I think that cooperation between states and other countries will intensify, especially in areas such as energy, technology, but also civil society initiatives.
US-Mexico border fence near Nogales, Arizona.
You grew up in Mexico and the USA and have done a lot of work on migration policy. How did this issue, so controversial under President Trump, evolve during the new administration? Migration is an extraordinarily complicated policy area that requires both principles and practicality. Most Americans share the view that we are an immigrant country. That is why we have a vibrant, dynamic and diverse society. But it also requires that we take seriously the need for an orderly and fair system that can handle high levels of legal immigration. This is a long-term project, but also an urgent task given the current movements. Specifically, the Biden administration has attempted, among other things, to reform the system for processing asylum applications at the Mexican border, which the Trump administration had enforced. This is an example of how the Supreme Court has allowed Trump-era politics to continue. Right now there is chaos at the border, which is not good for Mexico, nor for the US, nor for many of the Central American countries people are coming from.
You are President of the Carnegie Endowment, which has offices in several countries including China. How can you work as an independent think tank in a country where there is no freedom of expression? We are committed to our independence and intellectual integrity. Our mission is to generate ideas and disseminate knowledge to foster global collaboration. To do this, we need to work with countries around the world, including those that don’t necessarily share the views of many of our scientists. Of course, this requires a high degree of caution. At the same time, exchanges with Chinese scientists are valuable in order to better understand what is happening inside the country. We continually review our work to make sure we don’t compromise. We deliberately do not work on some of the topics on site, but in Washington or Brussels.
In April 2022, the Russian government closed the Carnegie office in Moscow. What lessons did you learn from this experience? That Carnegie will always be true to its principles. When we can no longer work with intellectual integrity, we leave a site. It came as no surprise that the Russian government ordered the closure of our office because our scientists were independent. They were critical of the government. They pointed out that Russia has created a massive problem with this war. Nevertheless, we will continue our mission. This means that sometimes we have to reinvent projects. Like with our office opening in Germany. Our team of experts will be based in Berlin, an epicenter of policymaking for Europe and the world when it comes to Russia and Eurasia.
