It worked, of course. But while not being Trump might be a virtue for a campaign, it turns out that it’s not enough to be a successful president. This week, after days spent denying that America was technically in a recession, Biden had a rare foreign policy success to announce. After only a quarter of a century of searching, America’s intelligence agencies had finally found Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of al-Qaeda. Biden’s announcement of Zawahiri’s death from a drone strike was given with the same seriousness and importance that Barack Obama announced the killing of Osama Bin Laden 11 years ago. But Biden’s announcement did not have the same effect as Obama’s. Perhaps because Zawahiri was al Qaeda’s number two and lesser known. Perhaps because Zawahiri’s ability to function had been so limited in recent years. Or maybe because the announcement didn’t show that big of an American hit. After all, a year ago this summer, America left Afghanistan. In those dirty, bloody, humiliating days, Biden tried to explain that the mission of the two-decade operation in the country had been accomplished. Mainly because Al Qaeda was no longer in Afghanistan. While no one really wanted to try for another two decades to turn Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian republic, Americans remember the embarrassment of that withdrawal. There were a few basics that were still expected. Like Al Qaeda that isn’t there. Then a year later it turns out that the Al Qaeda leader was visiting his family in a house in Kabul, right next to the US Embassy. The dreams of Afghanistan that existed in the 2000s are in the dust, of course. What dreams or even visions have taken their place? What are the ambitions of American foreign policy in the era of Biden? There must be some, surely? Trump had a clear and very understandable policy. He wanted to project American power. He wanted deterrence through force. And he didn’t mind promoting the “crazy” tactic in foreign affairs. This is the tactic of presenting yourself as so potentially vindictive and unpredictable when provoked that no one knows what you might do and therefore you should do nothing. It is not a tactic that finds much favor among the many think tanks and foreign affairs professionals in Washington. But it’s a tactic with something to be said for it. The Taliban were clearly terrified of what Trump might do if they continued to kill American soldiers in his sight. Vladimir Putin was clearly discouraged from swallowing more Ukraine while Trump was president. And more importantly, the Chinese Communist Party saw that in Trump they had a counterpart who was willing to call them out on both espionage and trade illegal activities. So what is the Biden doctrine? To this day, absolutely no one knows, including himself. His foreign secretary, Anthony Blinken, is said to be frustrated by the difficulty of making any decisions and probably has less visibility than anyone who has held the office in recent decades. There doesn’t seem to be much of an idea. It’s true that Biden has joined the international coalition against Putin, but he seems to have gone back and forth about what America’s strategic goals in Ukraine might be. As a result, it has curiously been left to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to make perhaps the most notable foreign policy intervention of this presidency so far. During her trip to the Far East this week, there was much speculation about whether or not she should visit Taiwan: a visit that will be seen in Taiwan, Beijing and the rest of the region as an expression of support for the island’s independence. For a few days and then a few critical hours, the entire American press seemed to follow the flight path of Speaker Pelosi’s plane. Would the Chinese do the unthinkable, (voiced by some of their most belligerent foreigners) and actually shoot down a plane carrying the Speaker of the House? That didn’t happen. But the White House didn’t seem on board with the travel plans of one of the Democratic Party’s most senior leaders either. In the weeks leading up to the visit, the White House seemed to balk at the idea. The CCP and the White House curiously began echoing each other in the suggestion that such a trip might be “challenging.” Of course, allowing the Chinese Communists to dictate the travel plans of an American official should be unacceptable. But the White House sometimes seemed to tolerate it, even to agree. It was a position that Beijing exploited with great ostentatiousness. It is reminiscent of the Dalai Lama affair during the coalition years in 2012, when David Cameron and Nick Clegg met the Tibetan leader while he was in London. In that case it seemed that the prime minister and his deputy did not know what they were getting into. But the response was quick. Beijing immediately suspended its trade mission to the UK. Horrified, the UK government was forced into a humiliating apology, with officials effectively promising never to meet the Dalai Lama again. While the CCP is experienced in such diplomacy, Cameron and Clegg proved to be absolute novices at it. But it is one thing if Britain is forced to bow to Beijing, and another level of seriousness if America does. And that was the point of contention with Pelosi this week. Ten years ago, the question was whether Britain was allowed to pursue a Tibet policy. The answer turned out to be “no”. Fast forward to 2022 and the question is whether America is allowed to have a Taiwan policy. The answer to this must surely be “yes”. And even more. For decades the US has had a policy of creative ambiguity on the Taiwan issue. In reality this means that the attitude changes with each administration. There is considerable difference of opinion even within the parties in the US. There are those on both sides of the aisle who believe the US should be bellicose in promising to defend Taiwan, others who believe Taiwan cannot be the central issue in China-US relations. There is something to be said for all of these behaviors. However, while a degree of ambiguity may be desirable, the perception of malleability is not. The upshot of this week’s events was that the Biden administration appeared malleable on the Taiwan issue and therefore on other questions. He seemed capable of being pressured, bullied and even intimidated by the CCP, which has pushed smaller fish, but he did not dare to confront America in such a way. We’ll see what the consequences are this week. But the biggest fear in the US is not that the American side is being led in the wrong direction, but that it is not being led at all. Biden, not for the first time in his presidency, appears to be insecure and unclear in his thinking. It’s definitely a change from Donald Trump. But not necessarily the change America or the world needs. Douglas Murray’s latest book is The War in the West
