World Strategic Insights interview with Ambassador Mitchell B. Reiss on challenges to United States leadership.
Mitchell B. Reiss is an American diplomat, academic, and business leader. At the U.S. State Department, he was the Director of the Office of Policy Planning for Secretary Colin L. Powell where he provided strategic recommendations on U.S. policies towards Iraq, North Korea, China, Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict. He was appointed by President Bush to be Special Envoy, with the rank of Ambassador, for the Northern Ireland Peace Process. He has also served as President and CEO of The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and President of Washington College.
Has the war in Ukraine revived American leadership? Has the United States reasserted itself as the global leader of democracies and a reliable partner?
The war in Ukraine has provided the Biden Administration with an opportunity to re-establish American leadership, but it is premature to claim that it is once more a global leader and reliable partner. Much will depend on how the United States prosecutes this war, meaning that it continues to hold together NATO, maintains the multinational sanctions regime, provides the necessary weapons to Ukraine, and articulates and then executes a strategy for ending the war in a way that satisfies Ukraine and deters Russia from future aggression.
That is a very tall order, but the United States will also need to address other challenges around the world, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the complex mixture of competition and cooperation with China. Further, there are the multilateral challenges that cannot be solved without US leadership — including climate change, food security and global health. No one expects the United States to solve all these problems, but if Washington wants to be viewed as a global leader, then it will need to adopt policies and align allies to manage or mitigate these risks.
A few months ago, in one of your writings, you stated that “political divisions in the United States have undermined our country’s ability to support our allies, deter our adversaries and promote a liberal international order.” Does the difficulty of reaching bipartisan agreement on key strategic issues remain in the United States? Will U.S. foreign policy continue to oscillate depending on whether Democrats or Republicans lead the White House and control Congress?
Yes, the difficulty of reaching agreement across party lines persists and is likely to become more severe this November, should the Republicans win back the House of Representatives, which most people expect, and/or the Senate, which is a definite possibility. This will mean that the Biden Administration will be hard-pressed to pass any legislation, either foreign or domestic-focused, and will be limited to governing by Executive Orders, which can be overturned by the next President. This will handicap forging any consistent approach to foreign policy.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently stated that “even if President Putin’s war continues, we will remain focused on the most serious long-term challenge to the international order, which is the one posed by the People’s Republic of China,” because “China is the only country that has the intention to reshape the international order and the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do so.” Blinken also unveiled the Biden administration’s strategy toward China, which can be summed up in three words: invest, align, compete. What is your opinion, could this strategy be sustainable for the United States and functional in countering China?
I agree with the Secretary’s analysis that China poses the greatest threat to US power and the international order. It is certainly possible that the United States could sustain this strategy, but much will depend on having a bipartisan consensus not just on the threat, but also on the policy solutions.
The “compete” part of his equation will take care of itself. If the Cold War is a guide, one could expect the Republicans to take a more hawkish approach than the Democrats towards China in hopes of securing domestic political gain.
The “invest” part will be up to the American private sector, which is already re-evaluating its current and future business options in China. (The global corporate response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is clearly driving this reassessment).
The “align” part of the equation will be the most challenging to realize. It is inconceivable right now that the US and China would be willing to discuss a number of pressing issues, including Taiwan, maritime rights in the South China Sea, the militarization of space, nuclear arms control, cyber warfare, human rights and even North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. It is unlikely that they can even re-establish military-to-military communication and cooperation (despite Secretary of Defense Austin’s efforts at the recent Shangri-la conference). The consequence is that the US and China will not join together on those multilateral issues that need their joint leadership, like climate change and global health.
Mitchell B. Reiss – American diplomat, academic, and business leader.