Joe Biden and Donald Trump have quite different views on international affairs. Trump’s “America First” strategy, which prioritizes national sovereignty and economic interests over multilateralism and world leadership, is well recognized. Biden, on the other hand, is a multilateralist who values international alliances and collaboration.
Their approach to using power as opposed to appeasement is one of the main distinctions between Trump and Biden. Trump is a strongman who supports displaying American might abroad and employing force when necessary to further US goals. Biden, on the other hand, is more cautious and favors using economic penalties and diplomacy to settle international conflicts.
Here are some examples of how Trump and Biden have approached strength versus appeasement in their foreign policy:
- Iran: Trump rescinded the United States’ participation in the Iran nuclear agreement and slapped harsh sanctions on the nation. Biden has indicated a desire to re-enter the agreement, but only once Iran resumes abiding by its terms.
- China: Trump sparked a trade spat with China by putting tariffs on Chinese imports. Although Biden has adopted a more circumspect stance, he has continued to apply strong pressure on China on matters like trade and human rights.
- Russia: Donald Trump has lauded Vladimir Putin as president of Russia and worked to strengthen ties with that country. In reaction to Russia’s aggressiveness in Ukraine, Biden has adopted a much stronger approach against that country, slapping sanctions and expelling Russian diplomats.
US foreign policy has been significantly impacted by the divergent views of Trump and Biden on using force vs appeasement. Many US friends were turned off by Trump’s “America First” strategy, which also caused a fall in US worldwide leadership. US leadership on the global arena has been restored thanks to Biden’s multilateralist strategy, which has also helped to mend fences with allies.
The debate over strength versus appeasement is likely to continue for many years to come. There is no easy answer to this question, as the best approach will vary depending on the specific circumstances. However, it is clear that the foreign policy philosophies of Trump and Biden are vastly different
Foreign policy in the US has been significantly impacted by these disparities.
It’s important to remember that “strength” and “appeasement” are often employed in arbitrary ways. One person’s bold and firm approach to foreign policy may be another person’s irresponsible and aggressive behavior. Similar to how one individual may see a careful and diplomatic approach to international affairs as, to another, being weak and indecisive.
Noting that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy is also crucial. Depending on the particulars, such as the nature of the danger, the interests at stake, and the possible outcomes of alternative acts, the optimum course of action will change.
In the end, choosing whether to pursue a foreign policy of strength or appeasement is a challenging choice that must be taken on a case-by-case basis. There is no simple solution, and unforeseen effects are always a possibility.