Episode 14: Biden’s Foreign Policy Team
Katrina vanden Heuvel on Personnel and Policy
As the Biden administration takes shape, many wonder whether it will implement a truly progressive foreign policy agenda. President Biden’s early action to freeze arms sales to Saudi Arabia has given progressives hope. However, several key national security and foreign policy appointments project a more complicated picture. Katrina vanden Heuvel, long-time editor and part owner of The Nation, joins Eurasia Group Foundation’s Mark Hannah to unpack early indications of whether President Biden will follow through on the realistic and humble foreign policy on which he campaigned. If, as the adage goes, “personnel is policy,” what do his cabinet nominees and early appointments tell us about the president’s vision and agenda? Finally, vanden Heuvel explores what might be done to curb some of the interventionist impulses starting to play out among Biden’s inner circle.
Listen Here: Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Libsyn | Radio Public | Soundcloud | Spotify | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS
Katrina vanden Heuvel is Editorial Director and Publisher for The Nation and a weekly columnist for The Washington Post. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and sits on the board of directors for the Institute of Policy Studies. @KatrinaNation
This podcast episode includes references to the Eurasia Group Foundation, now known as the Institute for Global Affairs.
Show notes:
Archival audio:
Senator Sanders Criticizes Joe Biden For His Vote On The Iraq War | TIME (January 15, 2020)
Biden Picks Veteran Diplomat William Burns As CIA Director | Morning Joe | MSNBC (January 11, 2021)
American diplomacy in a disordered world: A conversation with Ambassador William J. Burns (University of Michigan, March 18, 2019)
Analyzing Biden's possible pick for secretary of defense (PBS, November 25, 2020)
Biden's Defense Secretary Nominee Retired Gen. Lloyd Austin Delivers Remarks | MSNBC (December 9, 2020)
WATCH: Gen. Lloyd Austin's full opening statement in Senate confirmation hearing (PBS, January 19, 2021)
Eisenhower Farewell Address (Best Quality) - 'Military Industrial Complex' WARNING (Ewafa, May 18, 2015)
Assistant Secretary Nuland Testifies Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (U.S. Department of State, November 15, 2013)
Germany: Victoria Nuland says anti-Russia sanctions 'must remain in place' (Ruptley, November 17, 2015)
Transcript:
February 2, 2021
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, I think there's such a distinction between the elite, the Blob, and people. Somehow that needs to be overcome by progressives. But there are also trans-partisan people. It's right or wrong, in a way, sometimes. And I think a left foreign policy needs to be scrutinized as well, but I think you're on a much better track if military force is a last resort and not a first resort.
***
MARK HANNAH: My name is Mark Hannah, and I'm your host for None of the Above, a podcast of the Eurasia Group Foundation. Today, I'm so delighted to be joined by Katrina vanden Heuvel. Katrina is the editorial director and publisher of The Nation, an august progressive publication. She also writes a weekly column for the Washington Post.
We'll be discussing the foreign policy leaders President Biden is surrounding himself with and the prospects for a truly progressive foreign policy in a Biden Administration.
Katrina, thank you so much for being with us.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Thank you for having me on. Important times.
HANNAH: Yeah, no question. We saw in the insurrection last month in the siege of the U.S. capital by a pro-Trump mob, then President-elect Biden stepped out and made a speech, essentially saying, “This is not who we are.” And in doing so, he sort of reasserted an idea of American exceptionalism. What were your impressions of then President-elect Biden's response to the speech?
VANDEN HEUVEL: President Biden wants to be a healer. He wants to be a restorer. And I think what we see in the siege of the capital—but even more acutely in the COVID-19 pandemic and in the rules of our economy—is that this is a moment for reconstruction, not simply restoration. And I think Biden is cautious. He may well see himself as what he is—in my view, a transitional president—and wants to restore. And I think coming out of four years of Trump disruption, what we saw in the capital was almost a mirroring of what he has done in the international community. He's taken treaties and exploded them. He's disrupted without rebuilding. He has had scorn and contempt for the traditional. So, I think Biden's first step will be to restore the United States to the international treaties which it has repudiated—the Paris Climate Accord, one hopes for the Iran agreement. There's been a lot of conflict around that.
HANNAH: What parts of Joe Biden's record do you put the most stock in? He has a mixed record, right? On the one hand, he's part of the Washington establishment. He's long been a senator. He voted for the Iraq war. And yet, on the other hand, he has preached the need for humility and opposed the surge in Afghanistan, for instance.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I think that was his finest moment—his understanding of the need for humility and restraint—because I do think if you look closely at Biden's record, it's painful to see. But he has stood on the wrong side of history, certainly the Iraq decision.
Interlude featuring archival audio
VANDEN HEUVEL: I think he could be someone who would be moved by the times like Roosevelt was moved by the times, both in terms of new issues and new willingness to step forward and be more progressive. But I do think it's a moment for Congress to reassert its role in foreign policy to correct the excess of post-9/11 foreign policy, where the authorization to use military force was approved in twenty-four hours and has been the root cause of endless war. I think that's critical. And it's a moment to rewrite the global economy, which is at the root of a lot of problems we confront in this country with the seventy-plus million who voted for Trump. But I think the corporate-led globalization has not worked for working people.
HANNAH: Do you think the Biden Administration will support Congress asserting more of its war powers authority now that Biden himself is president? I know that was something he wanted when he was in the legislative branch.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I think he's an interesting figure in adjudicating this because he's a man of Congress as well as a man of the executive branch, and I think he would see the value of Congress playing more of a role, though every president, as we know, has accrued more power—the imperial presidency. But I do think Biden has the temperament and the history to see a balance more clearly.
HANNAH: President Biden's administration is now taking shape. We're seeing a lot of names. Tony Blinken is Secretary of State. Linda Thomas Greenfield is the new U.N. Ambassador, and many others. So, I'm wondering: what are your impressions of the team he's now assembling?
VANDEN HEUVEL: Most of them come from what is called “the Blob,” the adherence to a Washington consensus that has, in my view, not worked for most people in this country. Tony Blinken at state and Jake Sullivan at the NSC are classic members of the Blob. I'm interested in the appointment of William Burns to the CIA.
Interlude featuring archival audio
HANNAH: Bill Burns generated headlines because he's been a lifelong State Department diplomat, the first career diplomat to take over the CIA, which is a big deal for an agency which has developed this reputation for issuing the traditional rules of international diplomacy and has felt empowered to do a lot of cloak and dagger operations like supporting enhanced interrogation techniques, torture, paramilitary, and regime change operations, too.
Interlude featuring archival audio
VANDEN HEUVEL: I do think William Burns has a history and a track record during which he has seen through the Blob, though he is a member of the Blob in good standing. He's of a different generation than Blinken and Sullivan. He does not come directly out of the Obama-Clinton nexus, for better or worse.
HANNAH: I was really intrigued by that appointment. The defining legacy of the CIA in the past couple of decades is the drone program, and it's a total mystery to me. I've got Bill Burns' book, The Back Channel, about diplomacy and revitalizing diplomacy, but I'm not very clear on what his beliefs are around the drone program.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I think he's an opaque figure, as many diplomats are. He was not the first Biden choice for the CIA, according to the news reports. And what's happened after 9/11, as you well know, is we kind of grew this community of consultants, of outsourcing, of contractors, and then new agencies, NDI. He's going to have to work with Avril Haines, who I think is a much more complicit person, if I might, in the drone program. I don't think Burns has had that complicity. I think he's the classic diplomat. How he will fare at the CIA is an interesting issue. Coming out of Carnegie is, I think, also not a bad place. So many come out of the Albright and other lobbying shops, which I think hurt Michele Flournoy enormously, who is up for Secretary of Defense.
Interlude featuring archival audio
HANNAH: Michele Flournoy was one of the top picks for Defense Secretary until Joe Biden announced he was going to choose General Austin for the role instead. Flournoy was a top Defense Department official under the Clinton and Obama Administrations and is widely believed to be a staunch interventionist in recent years. She supported a continued increase in the defense budget, the troop surge in Afghanistan, and helped persuade Obama to intervene in Libya.
Interlude featuring archival audio
VANDEN HEUVEL: It's one thing to work for a lobbying. It's another thing to have clear ties to defense companies and sit on the board. As one of your guests, William Hartung, has brilliantly investigated and exposed, that is, it seems to me, a path one shouldn't cross because the defense companies have such power in this country. To have one of their officials inside is not helpful.
HANNAH: And let's talk about other appointments. Lloyd Austin, the retired general for Defense Secretary.
Interlude featuring archival audio
HANNAH: A lot of the news stories which surrounded General Lloyd Austin's nomination, were about his status as the country's first black Secretary of Defense. Also important was the fact that in order to confirm Austin, Congress had to waive a requirement which prohibited former military officials from holding this important position until they'd been retired from the armed forces for at least seven years.
Interlude featuring archival audio
HANNAH: A lot of people in the progressive community were alarmed from a civil military relations standpoint that so soon after Mattis we would have another general being appointed Defense Secretary. And yet there's been some more recent reports that have suggested he might actually be a little bit more judicious when it comes to use of force. What are your thoughts about Lloyd Austin as Defense Secretary?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I'm not in love with the breakdown of the civilian military, but he is very respected. And the most important thing, Mark, is I think generals and those who've been in the military often have a better sense of restraint. I think the armchair warriors in Washington who haven't served—and I haven't served, but I restrain myself from calling for military interventions as the first channel of reply. I think generals are more wary. And I think one of the great statements of our history is delivered by General Eisenhower.
Interlude featuring archival audio
VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, Biden spoke of that when he introduced the General. He spoke of how there is often a restraint on the part of those who send men and women into battle that is more important than, as I said, those who sit in think tanks and are more reckless with intervention.
HANNAH: Joe Biden is picking deeply experienced people, but often those are the people who share a kind of conventional view of America's global role. If he wanted to surround himself with people from outside that world, that might mirror his own instincts to oppose the surge and to ground our diplomacy in this kind of humility, where would that counter-elite come from?
VANDEN HEUVEL: Very good question. I would suggest that on, quote, “domestic issues”—and I have a hard time separating domestic and… you know, you have to bring them together, but there is a bench, so to speak. I was for Elizabeth Warren for Treasury Secretary. Janet Yellen is good. Jared Bernstein, her deputy, is even better. Heather Bouchet. I mean, these are people who come out of a progressive network. I think we have not built the bench—yet—to a point where it's compelling to a new administration. On the other hand, if you recall, Biden and Sanders set up commissions on a range of issues. They did not have one on foreign policy. And I think that was a mistake because there are people from the Sanders camp—Matt Duss, for example—and people from the Quincy Institute and people around the country. I could give you ten names. And we thought about it, but bringing back people from previous time and looking at the new generation which is emerging. There could have been more diversity. I'm not saying it would have been a progressive foreign policy team, but there is no team of rivals I see in the foreign policy national security community. And even worse, Mark, you do not need to bring Victoria Nuland back into this administration.
Interlude featuring archival audio
HANNAH: President Biden nominated Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. She's one of the highest ranking positions now at the State Department, and a lot of the controversy around her nomination stems from her hardline stance on Russia and general interventionist outlook.
Interlude featuring archival audio
VANDEN HEUVEL: She was a counselor to Cheney. She put aside her views on Ukraine and Russia, but it's a militarized view of how to engage with Russia. It's often a militarized view—the need for more escalation of weapons. And I think that is destructive of what Biden should seek. I think with a little more work, there were people available. We've written about this, about Matt Duss and that team and those who could have played a role. And I don't think it's too late. The Progressive Caucus, the largest ideas-based caucus in the House, is more effective now than it's ever been for Pramila Jayapal as director. They've started a defense budget caucus to look clearly and realistically at possible cuts and rally people. I think that augurs well because Eliot Engel, who was the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair for many years—sixteen terms—is gone. He was much more hawkish. So, I think there's the possibility of new people coming into this discussion.
I do think this administration is—it's interesting that there's such a diversity of representation, which is powerful. I think one of the great appointments is Deborah Helland at Interior, the first Native American. But I'm also a believer in diversity of views, and I think the stigmatization of different points of view about practical issues needs to be aired and not silenced.
HANNAH: Let's get down to brass tacks here. What is a progressive foreign policy?
VANDEN HEUVEL: It's a third way right now. I do think a progressive realism at its core is an understanding that intervention should be a last resort, that diplomacy should be a first resort, that we need to reinvest in our communities, and that we need to get our house in order. I don't believe it is isolationism, because I do believe it's a progressive multilateralism. But it's not necessarily buying into the institutions that have defined our post-twentieth century world.
Let me come back, if I could, because I do think Biden—the personal conflicts with what could be a Biden foreign policy, which could be bolder than he is. We come out of a time, Mark, where it seems to me if the COVID-19 pandemic has not shown us we need to reimagine what security means in the twenty-first century, what will? We're witnessing—it seems to me—a failure of U.S. foreign policy and national security policy and politics. We need a reimagining of what security means because we've seen that the enormous defense budget—which has not been trimmed or rethought—has not helped us with COVID pandemics or global inequality or nuclear proliferation or the challenges we face today.
I come back to something you said. How can we talk about being exceptional—American exceptionalism? How can we retain this triumphalism, which has defined, in my view, U.S. foreign policy since the end of the first Cold War? We need to be more humble. We need to understand that much of the world looks at America as an unreliable superpower. And Biden may well repair, re-stitch, or re-weave some of that, but there needs to be a humility—it seems to me—and a restraint and a realism about the U.S. role in the world.
HANNAH: That makes me think about Donald Trump, in a way, because part of his popularity was based around his willingness to challenge these orthodoxies. Same thing with Bernie Sanders, even though those challenges were different. Opposition to the Blob seems to be popular. So, what are mainstream politicians missing? What is the disconnect?
VANDEN HEUVEL: What is security? What do people seek? I'm struck by the survey—very briefly, there was a survey of sixty counties in the industrial heartland in 2016 after Trump won, and those sixty counties were the hardest hit by war, wounded, maimed—highest number. Trump won those counties because he talked about ending endless war. I think that is a compelling message to take to a country which is tired, which seeks security of housing, of jobs, of freedom from pandemic, and sending their kids to college. I think there's such a distinction between the elite, the Blob, and people. Somehow that needs to be overcome by progressives. But there are also trans-partisan people. It's right or wrong, in a way, sometimes. And I think a left foreign policy needs to be scrutinized as well, but I think you're on a much better track if military force is a last resort and not a first resort.
HANNAH: Katrina, really grateful for you sharing time with us. The last question I want to ask you is: what do you see as your role in the next four years? You're obviously going to be holding the administration accountable in your writing, in your observations, and in your reporting. What are the things you're going to focus on as you watch the Biden Administration develop its agenda over the next year or two?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I am going to stay focused on building a progressive foreign policy of realism. Particularly, I'm involved with the revitalization of a committee called the American Committee on U.S.-Russian Accord, working with Ambassador Jack Matlock, Bill Bradley—people involved in citizen-to-citizen but also high level diplomacy. William Burns was somewhat involved. I believe that's very important, and I think to keep pushing so that we have real security and rethinking of security.
HANNAH: Katrina, thank you so much for joining us.
I’m Mark Hannah, and this has been another episode of None of the Above, a podcast of the Eurasia Group Foundation. Special thanks go out, as always, to our None of the Above team who make this all possible: our producer Caroline Gray, our editor Luke Taylor, our sound engineer Zubin Hensler, and EGF’s graduate research assistant Adam Pontius. If you enjoyed what you've heard, we'd appreciate you subscribing wherever you subscribe to podcasts. Rate and review us, and if there is a topic you would like us to cover, send us an email at info@egfound.org. Thanks for listening. Stay safe.
(END.)
