Can Biden’s arsenal-of-democracy foreign policy outlast him?

Love him or hate him, the foreign-policy legacy of Joe Biden will be defined, in part, by his exhaustive support of allies in crisis: Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan. 

“American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with,” the president said last October in an Oval Office appeal for more aid. “To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it’s just not worth it.”

But Biden’s successor, whoever he or she is, will likely view these three areas, and America’s role in them, in at least slightly—and possibly wildly—different ways.

Ukraine presents perhaps the clearest moral case for continued U.S. support: an independent country invaded by a murderous former KGB operative simply for acting in their collective desire to be free of Kremlin corruption, embrace rule of law, and pursue a future in the mold of the American experiment. Joe Biden has been a stalwart supporter, providing arms and other support worth tens of billions of dollars. The U.S. also established and leads a global coalition whose donations have been vital to Ukraine’s continued perseverance against Russian forces. 

Israel, a long-time and strategic ally in the Middle East, is at once surrounded by foes seeking its destruction but also exercises control over the daily life of an indigenous population with increasing brutality, alienating many people even in allied countries. The Biden administration serves as a loyal ally and arms supplier. Administration officials have expressed alarm at evidence of Israeli crimes against Palestinian civilians during its Gaza campaign, but the White House has taken few real (or at least visible) steps to curb Israeli action. It has also sent U.S. warships to the Red Sea, assigned to the costly task of batting down missiles and drones aimed at Israel with expensive U.S. missiles—while defending themselves from the same. 

Taiwan presents a shining example of the prosperity that democracy promises. But it is also democracy living under the threat of a Chinese takeover that may take any form or date but which is always present. Under Biden, the United States has stuck to the One China policy, which formally disavows Taiwanese independence and seeks to preserve the status quo. His administration has worked to bolster Taiwan’s defensive capabilities and bring Pacific nations together in a fragile posture of unified strength. 

To Joe Biden, the uniting feature among these three cases was the very idea of democracy–as laid out in his Oct. 22  “arsenal of democracy” speech. 

“Hamas and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common. They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy — completely annihilate it,” he said in a rare Oval Office broadcast. It’s an idea to which he would commit time, effort, focus, and a tremendous amount of American resources while also carefully managing risks and keeping U.S. troops out of harm’s way.

Those supportive measures will take on a new shape in the months ahead as Vice President Kamala Harris emerges as the likely (but not certain) Democratic Party nominee and the Trump campaign attacks not only the Biden administration but norms and accepted truths among the American foreign-policy establishment since the days of Woodrow Wilson. 

A series of questions now loom. What interest will the next Democratic Party candidate have in maintaining or furthering the massive web of multilateral alliances that have helped to arm and financially support Ukraine? Will that candidate also display the same timidness to provide Ukraine with key weapons or allow them to strike targets of choice with those weapons inside of Russia? To what extent will that candidate be persuaded by arguments that Ukraine is unlikely to retake territory lost to Russia under any circumstances, and therefore the war could be solved quickly if only Ukraine capitulates on matters that are key to its security and sovereignty? 

In the Middle East, will the next Democratic candidate continue to arm an Israel accused of war crimes by the United Nations? Will he or she continue to pursue complicated humanitarian missions to attempt to ease famine among the Gazan people? How will he or she approach the question of governance of Gaza following the end of Israeli operations? 

On Friday, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that a peace deal between Hamas and Israel was in the final stages. How will that candidate persuade the relevant parties that key commitments that are part of those negotiations are still stable? How will he or she address the cause of Palestinian statehood and the fundamental but long-denied human rights of the Palestinian people? Will that candidate embrace a more aggressive posture toward Iran and Iranian-backed forces that are regularly targeting U.S. forces across the Middle East? 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit  Washington, D.C., this week to seek continued support for military operations that have destroyed much of Gaza’s housing and infrastructure and killed upward of 35,000 people, many of them children. How will this next candidate push for Israeli accountability to charges of war crimes? 

On Taiwan, will the candidate continue the efforts to deter China militarily, a massive focus of the Defense Department that also rests on continued military-to-military outreach to partners and allies across the Pacific. Will he or she continue the work of slowly decoupling the U.S. economy from China’s without causing massive economic losses for either side? 

Vice President Kamala Harris, in her few public engagements directly related to foreign policy, has sounded very much like Biden but has not laid out foreign policy specifics. As a candidate she focused little on foreign policy and as vice president devoted time mostly to issues like voting rights, reproductive healthcare and migration. And, of course, while she has the endorsement of Joe Biden she does not yet have the nomination. 

Donald Trump’s approach to the issues above is more certain. He is no fan of complicated multilateral alliances and has expressed indifference to Ukraine’s cause (though his views on NATO are more nuanced). On the Middle East, he has cast himself as a reliable friend of Israel, adversary of Iran, and no sympathizer of the Palestinian people. On Taiwan, he has expressed reluctance to aid them militarily (at least not for free) but has also hinted at a harder stance against China.