You will be acutely aware that, after the ravages of the Trump years, you have a big healing job ahead of you, not only at home but abroad.
Too often in recent times America’s allies, partners and friends around the world have found ourselves regarded as encumbrances rather than assets. And, too often, we have seen states about whose behavior we have all been concerned ― including China, Russia, the DPRK and Iran ― treated in ways that have been unprincipled, unintelligent or unproductive.
Your own lifetime-attested instincts for decency, moderation and cooperation will serve you well in restoring America’s lost soft power, and sensibly managing its still enormous hard power. In particular, we must hope that the United States, with its huge intellectual and physical resources, will be again under your presidency a world leader in energizing, crafting and implementing solutions to global public goods problems, not least the three great existential risks to life on this planet as we know it ― climate change, pandemics and nuclear war.
American leadership will be particularly crucial on nuclear weapons. You and we know that Trump-style content-free diplomatic vaudeville is useless. But serious efforts to get back to the negotiating table with both the DPRK and Iran ― employing real carrots as well as sticks ― have every prospect of bearing fruit.
Similarly with Russia on New START and the other bilateral arms control agreements now dead, dying or fragile. But please set your sights higher than just holding the line against proliferation and avoiding a new arms race among the existing nine nuclear-armed states, as important as this will be. What the world most needs from Washington is to get serious again ― as President Obama at least tried to be ― about actual nuclear disarmament.
Getting to global zero won’t happen any time soon: verification and enforcement are showstoppers for the foreseeable future, even if the geopolitics becomes more accommodating. But serious steps in that direction are possible with the right will: de-alerting, reduced deployments, dramatically decreased weapons numbers, and doctrinal agreement on ‘no first use’ would be huge risk reduction measures.
And Washington can and should show the way on every one of them. When Obama tried, in effect, to embrace a retaliation-only no first use policy, he was resisted not only by most of the military establishment but by a slew of anxious East Asian and NATO allies still clinging to the illusory comfort of “extended nuclear deterrence.” This time round, please Mr. President, stare them down!
The biggest single foreign policy challenge of your term will be navigating a modus vivendi with China ― ever larger, more powerful and more assertive in claiming its place in the world. Sliding further into confrontational Cold War, with the slim but not impossible risk of it becoming catastrophically hot, makes no sense to your allies and friends, and shouldn’t to you.
China is not the Soviet Union: it is not going to implode any time soon, its Communist Party leadership has no evident ambition for global ideological dominance, and it is joined at the wallet, to our mutual benefit, with a legion of other economies, including the United States and Australia.
That does not mean any of us should become Beijing’s patsy: kowtowing on the South China Sea, not fighting often discriminatory trade and industrial policies, not resisting undue influence, and ignoring egregious domestic human rights violations.
Pushback on these and other fronts is necessary (and should not just take the form of enlisting an ‘alliance of democracies’: states like Vietnam are important counterweight players in this context). But there are limits to what external pressure can achieve with a country of China’s weight, particularly on human rights issues.
The best hope for moderating China’s behavior is to acknowledge the legitimacy and inevitability of at least some of its international aspirations, minimizing our rhetorical stridency and not getting overly agitated that it wants strategic space, the military capacity to protect its economic lifelines, and a level of global policymaking influence commensurate with its new strength.
It should also be productive to focus hard on global public goods issues where there is potentially strong common ground with your administration: climate change, peacekeeping, counter-terrorism, nuclear and other arms control, and even pandemics (in the case of Ebola) are all areas where China has played a more interested, constructive, and potentially cooperative role than generally recognized.
Some final more general thoughts. You hardly need reminding that optics matter, and in that spirit you might wish to be very careful about invoking any of the ‘p’ words – primacy, predominance, pre-eminence ― which these days are calculated to counter-productively irritate not only America’s adversaries but your friends. Whether any of us like it or not ― and a great many of your own citizens certainly will not want to hear it said ― America’s unipolar moment is over.
In winning understanding and acceptance of this uncomfortable new reality, it might be worth channeling some words, both provocative and prescient, that I heard Bill Clinton utter ― privately ― nearly two decades ago: “America’s choice should be to use our great economic and military power not to try to stay top dog in perpetuity, but to help create a world in which we will be comfortable living when we are no longer top dog on the global block.”
Americans are not alone in wanting their political leaders to be overwhelmingly preoccupied with protecting and advancing their own, not other states’ national interests. But you might find it helpful to make clear in your domestic advocacy that not all national interests can be readily defined in terms of immediate security and prosperity returns: there is a strong case for characterizing, as a third category of national interest, “being and being seen to be a good international citizen.”
When so many problems these days ― not just the big three existential risks but a multitude of others including refugee flows, piracy, cross-border crime, and sometimes mass atrocity crimes ― are transnational in character, capable of resolution only through cooperative action, being willing to help solve public goods problems that are sometimes more immediately troubling to other states than your own brings its own reputational and reciprocity rewards. Acting that way is a strategy not just for idealists, but hard-headed realists.
Mr. President, there is an enormous global hunger for the United States to be once again a good international citizen, with the quality of its democracy, and the integrity and competence of its governance a source of attraction rather than revulsion. There is every confidence that under your leadership it will be just that. I’m sure you won’t let us down,
First published in The Korea Times on 21 January 2021
Gareth Evans was Australia’s foreign minister from 1988-96. He is a distinguished honorary professor at the ANU.
Comments
35 responses to “A Letter to President Biden: Rebuilding US credibility”
I just love it when the West talk about the south china sea! American and European – colonialism that came up with most land borders and maritime borders of states bordering the South China Sea: Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam.
We are talking about borders between different colonial possessions – and that implied intractable problems from the start, subsequently inherited by post-colonial nations.
The US has military bases stretching the globe they very much surround China and we temerity to talk about China and their aggression.
Some where between Obama and Trump the world has moved on it is about time we took notice
The claim of the Philippines to the West Philippines Sea islands of the Reed Bank, so much loved by the Australian MSM, originated with the Marcos dictatorship which seized them from PRC when the PRC was assisting Vietnam against the US. Marcos arranged the seizure in 1967 with his good friends in AMOCO (Standard Oil of Indiana). The Chinese/Vietnamese claim (PRC, Taiwan and Vietnam) to the Reed Bank of course pre-dates the Marcos kleptocracy by several centuries. Chinese surveys estimate undiscovered resources amounting to 125 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are in that part of the SCS. Our intrepid PM has got an Australian gunboat chugging around in defense of the obscene wealth and greed of the Manila kleptocracy. Meanwhile President Duterte has chosen not to confront PRC and Vietnam over the issue. The PRC and Philippines are negotiating shared resource exploitation.
Somebody please tell Gareth that the Cold War is over and there is no such thing as “allies”, “friends”, in geopolitics, only interests.
Biden sprints out the gate with a kick in the face for Canada by cancelling KXL permit while Merkel says don’t f-ck with my Russian oil pipeline.
Off to a flying start!
But does not that pipe line go through Native American sacred tribal lands surely that should be a no no.
You have to see the forest for the trees. The sacred land BS is just an excuse, excuses are endless including all these environmentalist on the US side which makes zero sense since 90% of the pollution happens on the Canadian side. These are the trees.
The forest is partisan politics. What’s good for the opposition party is bad for the ruling party so just do the opposite. Look at how NBN panned out here. With such a rotten system you are not going to get much of a co-ordinated policy in anything. Just as Biden says we need an “alliance” etc. etc., first thing he does is punch Canada in the face due to patrician politics.
Gareth is dreaming if he thinks US has credibility that can be rebuilt.
“…once again a good international citizen, with the quality of its democracy, and the integrity and competence of its governance a source of attraction“
Did Gareth misread his brief? Someone tell him he was supposed to be writing about the USA, please.
These reader comments on Gareth Evans’ open letter to Biden are unusually frank and interesting. Gareth , though mired in the conventional US-dominant liberal-imperialist narrative and its condescending language on and towards China , manages a few good sentences that reflect some appreciation of China’s perspective.
Tony Kevin
Tony Kevin
Somebody please tell Gareth that the Cold War is over and there is no such thing as “allies”, “friends”, in geopolitics, only interests.
Biden sprints out the gate with a kick in the face for Canada by cancelling KXL permit while Merkel says don’t f-ck with my Russian oil pipeline.
Off to a flying start!
It is OK by me, Gareth. Go ahead and post it.
I find it strange that the issue of Science is never mentioned, but it is, and will continue to be, the key question as China’s economy overtakes the USA. I say specifically science as it is science that has made the growth of new technology accelerate 10 times, and so engineering of many of the key requirements to overcome climate change and habitat destruction and poverty depend on science, as unfortunately the growth of new weapons does also. Australia is obviously hesitant to commit to playing a part, although that could still go either way, but if the USA were to give up the leadership of the last 75 years then the western world would quickly lose not only dominance but relevance.
I do think it is a very ‘decent’ letter. Biden may be far from perfect but we’ve just been staring down the barrel of a fascist Amerika. Biden is a welcome delivery from that nightmare. The advice Gareth gives is by and large exactly the advice I’d be giving myself. While I might wish to go in harder on some issues, Gareth, as a former foreign minister is no doubt aware of the limitations of so – called ‘power’.
My own letter to Biden, on nuclear risk reduction is to be found here:
http://www.abolition2000.org/en/news/2020/12/25/usa-president-elect-biden-urged-to-take-action-on-nuclear-risk-reduction-and-disarmament/
I’m amazed that Gareth Evans is afforded any credibility given his role in East Timor. He spent several years desperately trying to downplay the atrocities going on there in the 80s and 90s. And of course who can forget his relationship with the Indonesian foreign minister Ali Alatas. They proudly clinked champagne glasses in an aircraft celebrating the theft of Timor’s maritime resources.
Replying to Teow Loon Ti: Australia has just been given a hammering by the UN Human Rights Council. There will be vigorous debate about how we should respond to the particulars. I’m sure that I will be among those who think the response of our government will be inadequate. This is part of the process of the international community attempting, with many faults and some tendentious arguments, trying to apply a moral code which all nations can follow. Long may those efforts – to apply ethical guidance to Australia, China and every other nation – continue. Gareth Evans is 100% correct.
I keep hearing the word ‘decent’ when Biden is described by present and former public officials. It certainly does not jibe with my judgement of Biden particularly on his record regarding support for America’s foreign wars and on his record of domestic legislation. I guess my criteria for assessing ‘decency’ is quite different to Gareth Evan’s.
Gareth is putting his hope in the US Wiemar Republic of a geriatric centrist shill for big business in Biden. If there is a historical figure equivalent to Biden it is Gustav Stresemann. He tried to restore German dominance of Europe after WWI by diplomacy but basically came to political grief with the Depression. And we all know what happened after Wiemar.
Certainly mine as well!
Malcolm: I suspect that Gareth Evans’ criteria for assessing ‘decency’ is very similar to yours. The big difference is that Evans is a diplomat.
If you blur out all the honeyed words, the stroking of Biden’s ego and the due deference to American exceptionalism, this is what is left.
* America’s treatment of China, Russia, DPRK and Iran has been ‘unprincipled, unintelligent and unproductive’ in recent times.
* Biden should do what Obama either could not or would not; stand up to the internal military establishment, NATO and SE Asian allies in pursuing a n0 first-use policy re nuclear weapons and shake off any of their illusions that their security can or will be guaranteed by a first-use by the US of nuclear weapons. He leaves out Israel and its threats on Iran but why buy into that poisoned kettle of fish.
* Accept that ‘America’s unipolar moment is over’.
* America should accept the rise of China, including accepting its legitimate security concerns and its
international aspirations.
* America should address the two other real problems facing the international community; climate
change and Covid.
* Pretty much everyone outside of the US has watched it in recent times with
‘revulsion’.
I say good on him (to Evans) but I doubt very much that Biden or the Democrats are capable of truly ridding themselves of their American exceptionalism.
He voted for all of the amendments to the Higher Education Act and Bankruptcy Code that made it impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy. He voted for NAFTA. Biden voted for Iraq, W’s 2005 Bankruptcy Act, he voted for the Gramm-Leach-Blily, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, the Hyde Amendment, the supported the trad deals, he supported the multi-trillion dollar regime change wars.
Does anyone else see a contradiction in the following two points mentioned in the above article?
1) That does not mean any of us should become Beijing’s patsy: kowtowing on the South China Sea…
2) The best hope for moderating China’s behavior is to acknowledge the legitimacy and inevitability of at least some of its international aspirations…the military capacity to protect its economic lifelines…
The usual cant about China’s internal human rights issues is especially rich directed as it is toward the President of a country with arguably the very worst internal (and let’s not even mention the external) human rights issues on the planet.
Gareth we need you back to lead a diplomatic mission to China with the support of the USA. If Biden has any strategic nous he will start the process immediately.
A word to the wise is enough. In this case a good word and a wise, experienced, knowledgeable recipient.
are we taking advice from this guy now?
“Your own lifetime-attested instincts for decency, moderation and cooperation..”
Biden’s enthusiastic cooperation with bushjr’s illegal invasion of iraq was neither moderate nor decent.
I’ll take a diet coke with the timor traitor’s lecture on ” being seen to be a good international citizen.”
Spot on mate. This is the guy who spent years at the UN cooking up and agitating for the odious R2P (“Responsibility to Protect”) doctrine, better expressed as “Right to Bomb” . Evans is the very model of the modern Liberal Imperialist. His soul mate is Hillary Clinton; the worst example of their handiwork the vile destruction of Libya.
Soothing and placatory words from
Gareth Evans. Let’s hope they’re heeded, but I’m not holding my breath. US power structures comprise much more than the ambit of a single president, and they have a relentless momentum of their own.
The other main problem is the tacit acceptance that the US is a benign force for good in the world, and that it’s power can be employed to deal with “difficult states”. This ignores the persistent refusal of America to abide by the so-called “rules-based international order” whenever it’s perceived interests are threatened.
The nomination of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran as problems is laughable given the behaviour of the USA since WWII.
The last time the US declared war by its “democratically elected” congress was in 1942. Since the end of WWII the US has fought 17 wars of aggression and probably killed about 11 million people. It is currently engaged in 174 military conflicts. All conducted under the ‘rules”. Not.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42738.pdf
I liked Mr Gareth Evans when he was our Foreign Minister. I like most of what he has written above except for the part regarding the “behaviour” of China:
“Pushback on these and other fronts is necessary…. But there are limits to what external pressure can achieve with a country of China’s weight, particularly on human rights issues.”
“… kowtowing on the South China Sea, not fighting often discriminatory trade and industrial policies, not resisting undue influence, and ignoring egregious domestic human rights violations.”
“The best hope for moderating China’s behavior is to acknowledge the legitimacy and inevitability of at least some of its international aspirations …”
All these parts strike me not just as patronising but presented as another of those ubiquitous “them” and “us” narratives that is ever present in the Western psyche. It is telling the reader that “ours” is the proper behaviour and “theirs” is wrong and needs to be reined in. Human rights violations are as serious and prevalent in the US and Australia as it is anywhere else in the world. In criticising others we should remind ourselves of our own transgressions e.g. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Manus Island, Nauru, and the innumerable wars on smaller nations causing death, destruction and all manner of misery. Worse of all, some of the human rights violations behind the bamboo curtain have never been proven, not the least because it is not open to prying eyes, but exaggerated and manufactured for geopolitical reasons. To put it simply, we are not the keeper of China’s behaviour. Neither are they the keepers of ours. So far, it has been a one sided finger pointing from the West that I believe annoys them to no end. As equals, human rights concerns should be dealt with through diplomatic channels. Human rights can also be seen as the rights of the individual among certain national groups that can vary according to different cultures and histories. Much of it depends on how the society is organised. If anyone doubts this, just go to a deeply religious and conservative society and declare that their prophets are false – it will not be seen as your human right to free speech or freedom of belief even though the country calls itself a democracy. So far accusations from the West has been based on scant evidence from journalists or writers looking for a profile or dissidents seeking the asylum agenda. I doubt the evidence in many of these accusations can stand in a court of law in the Western countries. They are just political fodder.
People like Evans, Albo, and Wong, with a keen eye on their own personal popularity, can never resist pandering to the ugly prejudices of their audience. Sadly, they are about the best you can expect from the democratic process.
And ALL of the three would defer to our omnipotent intelligence operatives, who in turn are joined at the hip with the CIA. Morrison and his fellow canines are waiting for clear signals, nay, instructions from the new Biden lieutenants, and will jump accordingly. There would be less hypocrisy if we would just ditch the Southern Cross, and just fly the Stars and Stripes!
Thanks Teow Loon Ti, I always enjoy your contributions.
While it’s true that people/states who point their human rights violations finger at others often do it from within their own extremely fragile glass house, there’s a sense in which I’d rather have hypocrites highlighting other people’s indiscretions than no one saying anything about abuses of human rights. And while I appreciate that there are cultural variations in what are considered to be human rights, I am prepared to stand on a rock and say that I personally am vigorously opposed to capital punishment, extrajudicial killings, torture, detention without a fair trial, unjustified discrimination, unfair treatment and more.
Mr Sainsbury, I myself would not like to live under the Chinese regime and probably will find life close to impossible. Like you, I grew up and lived under a very different set of cultures – British colonial, post-independence Malaysia, Australia. That doesn’t mean that I would be so critical as to censure the practices in other countries that are organised differently. I may not agree with the cultures of say, Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, but I certainly would not criticise the way they choose to live their lives especially if I wish to seek their cooperation on any international transactions. That is why I say that if we are concerned about any human rights abuses, as we should if the act is cruel and inhumane, it should be done through diplomatic channels. Did anyone think that megaphone accusations will solve anything? I think if one cares to look around the world, human rights abuses are more serious in many other parts of the world. The Rohingas are not receiving a similar attention. All those that you mentioned were (some recently, others are still happening) practiced by the US (with the extra-judicial killing replaced by gun violence). I would hesitate to say that all the trials against the blacks are “fair” in the US. Moreover, there are innumerable cases of blacks being unjustifiably kill by the police. Why is the criticism not directed against the US?
I believe as human beings, we all seek similar freedoms and rights. I do not see China as any different. I also do not see them as a static sort of system but an evolving one that has, perhaps, to delay giving 1.4 billion people all the rights that are enjoyed by the West without the country breaking apart as a result. One of the reasons I think that they are able to lift their people out of poverty so quickly is that many of the freedoms enjoyed by the rest of us has to be delayed. They are presently hugely more humane than they were half a century ago when a person cannot go from one village to the next without the permission of cadres. They were not allowed to travel abroad as tourists. They were not allowed private ownership of property. The relative freedom that they have today is because they have grown wealthier and can afford such privileges. When times are lean and meagre resources have to be parcelled out to ensure everyone gets a share, laws have to be draconian – perhaps to the extent that they are labelled human rights abuses. How the country would turn out in the next several decades is beyond anyones ability to predict. Their report card on improvements in every aspect of their lives is commendable. They should be left to work their problems out for themselves. If they are that bad, surveys indicating that 80% of them approve of their government would not have happened.
What is obviously overlooked by many people is that 1.4 billion people made of at least 25 different ethnic groups is not easy to govern as a nation without people giving up some individual rights. Imagine the problems currently happening in the US with only about 1/5th of China’s population. If the Americans were as poor as the Chinese during Mao, with the freedoms they enjoy now, what sort of chao could one imagine?
I agree with you, but I do like this bit:
Given the (mainly propaganda-induced) anti-China mindset, this is good advice.
Hear hear. I SUPPORTED BOB HAWKE/KEATING/EVANS TEAM. It was a great time for Australia knowing its place in Asia and was very productive with China and ASIA AND THE WORLD.
Talk about Xinjiang terrorist problem and human rights for some, To be fair the US led wars caused more millions of death and refugee problems among world Muslim citizens than Xinjiang many times over what they accused China of. The West led by USA made more mistake than China over last 50 years. I sincerely hope Joe Biden will do what he preached so far in his inauguration speech of unity, harmony ; healing the soul, allow people to make mistakes including himself but dare to admit and change it for the better. We are all human. To err is human. No point create enemies among “them and us” within USA OR ANY OTHER NATIONS and the world. That includes Australia China relation. Blessing to all for the humanity we all share.
So Dr Ka Sing Chua you proudly state “I SUPPORTED BOB HAWKE/KEATING/EVANS TEAM”.
It is disappointing that your memory of Evans as part of the “Team”, is selective.
I still vividly recall the photo of Gareth Evans and Ali Alatas in 1989 signing the Timor Gap Treaty flying over Timor Leste sipping champagne, whilst Indonesian forces and their Militias were slaughtering East Timorese on the ground.
Our treatment of the East Timorese since has been disgusting and still playing out through our federal governments treatment of Bernard Collaery & Witness K.
I offer the following link to enlighten.
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/australias-agreement-with-timor-leste-does-not-have-a-positive-history-20170908-gydn6v.html
Thanks for your comment Ian Harvey. My message is we all make mistakes in life and in our profession including Gareth Evans. I agreed with you Ian, Australian governments can do better in Timor and other issues which we would not go into them here. They have made many mistakes in the past too like any other government. But prevention of wars is the best saviour for humanity compared to what the West and East trying to find faults on each others and create wars. That would not help with the big picture of saving lives and our common humanity whether in Australia, Xinjiang or USA or any other part of the planet will fellow world citizens reside. History is there for us all to learn from it including Joe Biden.
Blessing to all who are still suffering from wars and violent conflicts.
The sooner we have constructive and democratic diplomacy and good governance and governments, the sooner their sufferings will be eliminated and their souls will be healed.
That is my humble opinion.
I thank you for your reply Dr, with all due respect I think it is important to understand how the East Timorese feel about Gareth Evans,
Surely in any relationship, any acknowledged violation should be followed with an apology and then rectified?
I provide this link.
http://www.etan.org/et2007/august/11/08gareth.ht