The 2024 Elections and U.S. “Post-Post-Cold War” Foreign Policy by JIE Dalei
There will be both continuity and shifts in U.S. foreign policy in the future.
Welcome to the 19th edition of our weekly newsletter! ChinAffairs+ is a weekly newsletter that shares Chinese academic articles focused on topics such as China’s foreign policy, China-U.S. relations, China-European relations, and more. This newsletter was co-founded by me and my research assistant, ZHANG Xueyu. I am SUN Chenghao, a fellow with the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University, Council Member of The Chinese Association of American Studies and a visiting scholar at the Paul Tsai China Center of Yale Law School (fall semester 2024).
Through carefully selected Chinese academic articles, we aim to provide you with key insights into the issues that China’s academic and strategic communities are focused on. We will highlight why each article matters and the most important takeaways. Questions or criticisms may be addressed to sunchenghao@tsinghua.edu.cn
Today, we have selected an article written by Jie Dalei, which focuses on the 2024 elections and U.S. “post-post-Cold War” foreign policy.
Summary
The shifts in both relative power and domestic public opinion have combined to render the U.S. long-standing post-Cold War foreign policy strategy of liberal hegemony unsustainable. The first Trump administration and the Biden administration have both exhibited the outlines of a “post-post-Cold War” U.S. foreign policy, including abdication and modification of the so-called U.S. leadership, reduction in overseas military intervention, decreasing interest in democracy promotion while turning democratic values into instruments for strategic competition, and increasing economic protectionism and industrial policy. A second Trump administration’s foreign policy will very likely operate within those contours. Meanwhile, a Trumpian foreign policy will certainly have its distinctive features, including its positions on tariffs, alliance politics, and the ongoing Ukraine crisis and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the tensions between Trump and the so-called “deep state,” and Trump’s inclination for a “madman theory” of diplomatic bargaining. The U.S. “post-post-Cold War” foreign policy will continue to evolve as a result of a changing external environment and domestic political dynamics.
Why it matters
This study finds out that the differences on foreign policy between administrations are more like secondary distinctions under a similar overarching strategy, rather than fundamental adjustments at the level of grand strategy. This dialectical perspective, which combines both similarity and difference, is useful for considering the direction of U.S. foreign policy strategy after 2025. Besides, this article details the features of Trump’s second-term foreign policy, which provides better understanding of the policy trend and its impact on U.S. domestic politics and international relations.
More importantly, the article has important implications for future research. First, given the ongoing evolution of U.S. foreign policy in the “post-post-Cold War era”, future research should closely track policy changes and their impacts. Second, Trump’s unique and far-reaching foreign policy warrants further exploration. Scholars can futher the study of long-term effects of Trump’s tariff policies, the game between Trump and the so-called “deep state” as well as the practical effects of his “madman theory” diplomatic style in specific international crises.
In conclusion, by integrating historical context with contemporary political realities, the article offers a unique perspective and academic value.
Key Points
The “Outline” of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Post-Cold War Era
Trump’s “America First” strategy disrupted U.S. diplomacy, challenging alliances, trade, and non-proliferation, while Biden’s “America is back” seemingly signaled a return to tradition. Despite differences, both administrations share underlying continuities, adjusting political, military, and economic strategies. As Richard Haass observed, these shifts mark the emergence of a "post-post-Cold War" framework, redefining U.S. foreign policy amid global challenges.
Political Aspect: The Abdication and Revision of “Leadership”
A dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy was marked by Trump’s presidency, as he abandoned the leadership role the U.S. had held since WWII. His “America First” agenda, driven by populism and nationalism, contradicted the U.S. establishment’s belief that America was an “indispensable nation” whose leadership benefited both itself and the world. Trump viewed U.S. leadership as exploited by other countries, advocating for a focus on short-term, material interests and reduced commitments to international systems. This led to U.S. withdrawal from key multilateral agreements and organizations. While he did not abandon NATO, Trump’s rhetoric undermined America’s credibility, with his term often seen as signaling the end of U.S. global leadership.
In contrast, Biden vowed to restore U.S. leadership, albeit with adjustments. He emphasized revitalizing domestic democracy as the foundation for international leadership, focusing on infrastructure, education, healthcare, and fair international trade. Biden also stressed cooperation with allies, promoting "burden-sharing" and setting preconditions for U.S. leadership. The 2022 National Security Strategy reinforced America’s unmatched advantages but acknowledged global challenges. Biden’s approach, described as leadership without hegemony, marked a shift from the U.S.’s previous dominance, reflecting the challenges of regaining primacy in global leadership.
Military Aspect: Continuous Principle of “Don’t do stupid stuff”
The phrase “Don't do stupid stuff”, coined during the Obama administration, emphasized restraint over intervention. Trump, while adopting a similar stance, made controversial decisions such as airstrikes in Syria (2017, 2018) and the assassination of General Soleimani in 2020. He also ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan in 2017 but ultimately signed a 2020 agreement to withdraw U.S. forces by 2021, touting himself as the only president not to start new wars.
Biden continued this cautious approach, using force as a last resort, prioritizing counterterrorism, and emphasizing non-military solutions. His withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, though controversial, was defended as necessary to address broader challenges.
The Ukraine crisis and Middle East tensions further tested Biden’s strategy. He provided military aid to Ukraine while avoiding direct confrontation with Russia and sought to prevent wider Middle Eastern conflicts. However, critics argued that his diplomacy-first approach was overly idealistic and insufficient for managing escalating threats.
Idealogy Aspect: The Decline of Democracy Promotion and Instrumentalization of Values
Trump downplayed the role of values in U.S. foreign policy, prioritizing “principled realism” in his security strategy and asserting that the U.S. did not seek to impose its way of life on others. In contrast, Biden acknowledged domestic democratic challenges and emphasized democracy’s practical value in addressing problems. However, his administration also de-emphasized values in security, focusing on pragmatism over ideological goals.
Despite differences, both administrations reduced the explicit focus on values while increasingly using ideology to frame relations with China. This marked a shift from promoting values to leveraging them as strategic tools. Both prioritized geopolitical interests over ideological consistency. For instance, Biden’s engagement with countries like India, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, despite their democratic shortcomings, highlighted a pragmatic approach. His foreign policy reflected a blend of “value-based” and “practical-based” alliances, often prioritizing geopolitical benefits over strict adherence to ideological principles.
Global Economy Aspect: Protectionism and Industry policies
Trade protectionism, which began under Obama, surged with Trump’s 2016 election campaign. His “worker-centered” trade policy prioritized middle-class support through protectionism and unilateral actions like exiting the TPP and renegotiating deals. These policies influenced Biden, who retained many elements while adjusting for his priorities.
After Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, Democrats rethought strategies, addressing the gap between global economic policies and domestic needs. Biden’s national security strategy emphasized working-class interests, inclusive growth, fair trade, and stricter labor and environmental standards. His approach reflects a shift toward government involvement and protectionism, focusing on national security and economic competition.
The Fundamental Drivers of Diplomatic Strategy in the Post-Post-Cold War Era
Both Trump’s first term and Biden’s administration reflect a shift in U.S. foreign policy driven by changes in international power dynamics and domestic public opinion. As U.S. influence waned, the country reduced its global leadership role, stepped back from military interventions, and embraced protectionist and industrial policies. Meanwhile, shifting public opinion eroded support for liberal hegemony, paving the way for Trump’s 2016 election.
The Decline of Relative Power
Since the end of the Cold War, structural realism, which focuses on relative power, has faced criticism for its inability to explain global shifts, such as the Cold War’s end, the absence of a unipolar U.S.-led alliance, and post-Cold War order characteristics. Measuring relative power is also challenging, as factors like economic output, influence, and soft power complicate analysis. Unlike the sudden changes seen after major wars, post-Cold War shifts in relative power have been gradual.
Despite these challenges, relative power remains significant. For example, U.S. State of the Union addresses rarely mentioned China during the peak of U.S. power but increasingly focused on it from 2006 onward. Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden all acknowledged China’s rising competition, signaling the need for U.S. policy adjustments. Biden, in particular, emphasized the importance of “rising” U.S. strength in contrast to China’s ascent. Post-2007 financial crisis, both academia and policy increasingly analyzed global shifts based on the decline of U.S. hegemony and the rise of a more competitive world.
The Evolution of Public Opinions
Since the 1970s, U.S. foreign policy has often conflicted with public opinion. While elites focus on global issues, the public prioritizes domestic concerns such as healthcare, crime, and social security, and is more cautious about military intervention abroad. Public opinion tends to align more with realism than elite idealism.
This divide reflects shifting domestic influences on foreign policy. Different factions, such as Wilsonians, Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians, and Jacksonians, have vied for control, with Jacksonians gaining prominence. These changes, combined with global shifts, have led to a reorientation in U.S. diplomacy. Although timing doesn’t always align with global shifts, once adjustments are made, they tend to be irreversible, signaling a lasting transformation in U.S. foreign policy.
Trump Diplomacy 2.0
Trump’s second-term foreign policy will follow the general “post-post-Cold War” trajectory but will have its own unique characteristics, shaped by his first term and the work of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation’s “2025 Project” and the America First Policy Institute. Key areas of focus, such as tariffs, U.S. relations with allies, the Ukraine crisis, and the Israel-Palestine conflict will underscore Trump’s contradictions with the “deep state” and his “madman theory” approach to diplomacy.
Tariffs, Allies, Ukraine Crisis, and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
During his campaign, Trump proposed the Reciprocal Trade Act, giving countries a choice to either remove tariffs on the U.S. or pay billions in tariffs. He focused on reducing economic dependence on China, including revoking China’s most-favored-nation status and phasing out imports over four years. This stance reflects Robert Lighthizer’s advocacy for “strategic decoupling” from China to achieve trade balance and his criticism of unfair trade practices by both allies and adversaries.
Trump’s foreign policy emphasizes reducing U.S. responsibility in alliances and pushing for “burden-sharing.” While European allies express concerns, Asian allies like South Korea and Japan remain outwardly optimistic but uncertain.
On Ukraine, Trump called for immediate peace talks, criticizing Biden’s policy. His foreign policy advisors propose a more comprehensive strategy with Russia. Trump’s second term is expected to continue his pro-Israel, pro-Saudi stance, and tough approach on Iran, with personnel signaling a continuation of first-term policies.
Trump’s Attitude Towards “Deep State”
During the 2016 election, Trump vowed to “drain the swamp” by reforming Washington’s political system, including national security sectors like intelligence and military. He argued that intelligence investigations into Russian interference and the establishment’s globalist policies hindered his “America First” agenda.
Trump centralized decision-making, politicized staffing, and sought to reduce bureaucratic resistance, notably through a 2020 order converting federal positions into political appointees. By the end of his first term, agencies like intelligence, Justice, and State were affected.
In his second term, Trump aimed to complete his “deep state” dismantling with a “Ten-Point Plan” to purge corruption and increase oversight. His team, including the Heritage Foundation, is organizing for a potential second term, despite concerns over politicizing government.
Trump’s Diplomatic Style Guided by the “Madman Theory”
Trump’s foreign policy style is widely regarded as “unpredictable”, a tactic he intentionally employs. In his book Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America, he emphasizes his preference for unpredictability to unsettle adversaries. This approach, marked by not revealing military actions in advance, characterized his first term and is likely to continue in his second. Trump’s style aligns with Nixon’s “madman theory”, where appearing irrational pressures adversaries into concessions. However, studies suggest this strategy has limitations, such as difficulties in signaling threats clearly. For example, his threats against North Korea failed to achieve their intended results. While the “madman theory” has limited effectiveness, Trump may persist with this approach in his second term.
Conclusion
Shifts in relative power and domestic public opinion have made it harder for the United States to sustain its post-Cold War strategy of liberal hegemony. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have shaped a “post-post-Cold War” foreign policy, marked by diminished U.S. leadership, fewer military interventions, declining efforts to promote democracy abroad, and a rise in protectionism and industrial policy. Trump’s second term is likely to continue these shifts, with a focus on politics, military engagements, values, and international economics, while retaining distinct features like his approach to tariffs, allies, and ongoing conflicts such as Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine. Amid these changes, the U.S. faces a challenge in adapting to its declining relative power while remaining engaged in the world, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
About the Author
Jie Dalei 节大磊:Dr. Jie Dalei is an Associate Professor at the School of International Relations, Peking University. His academic expertise lies in the areas of international security, Cross-Strait relations, and China-U.S. relations. His research examines global security trends and their impact on China’s national security, with a particular focus on China’s strategies in the international political arena. Dr. Jie has contributed significantly to the understanding of China’s role in global governance and security dynamics, and his work is widely recognized in the field of international relations.
About the Publication
The Chinese version of the article is published in The Chinese Journal of American Studies (《美国研究》. The academic bimonthly journal is published by the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the Chinese Association for American Studies. The journal features articles by Chinese scholars on various aspects of American society, including politics, economics, diplomacy, military, science and technology, culture, history, art, and ideology. It serves as a common platform for scholars engaged in the study of American issues in China and acts as a central space for exchanging insights and understanding of the United States.
