A Closer Look at US Global Leadership: Navigating the Complex Dynamics of Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan

Foreign Policy Brief #116 | By: Inijah Quadri | January 29, 2024

Featured Photo taken from: www.theguardian.com

__________________________________

In an era of evolving geopolitical landscapes, the United States faces the challenge of exerting effective global leadership amidst complex international conflicts and tensions. Three prominent areas of concern include the situations in Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan. Each region presents unique challenges that test U.S. foreign policy principles, strategic interests, and its commitment to global stability. These situations require nuanced approaches, balancing the pursuit of peace, respect for national sovereignty, and the need to uphold international law.

Analysis

a. Ukraine: The U.S.’s support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia demonstrates a strong commitment to European security and the principles of national sovereignty. This involvement, marked by substantial military aid to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, not only underscores the long-term impact of U.S. foreign policy on European stability but also influences Russia’s international stance. While this support is a significant factor in the ongoing conflict, it also brings into question the extent and implications of U.S. involvement, especially in terms of potential escalation and destabilization within the broader European region. Such a scenario could lead to shifts in military and economic alliances across Europe.

Nevertheless, the current approach aligns with the success seen in historical contexts, such as U.S. support in the Balkans during the 1990s, which helped to stabilize the region post-conflict. However, in this instance, the US was instrumental in helping to broker a peace deal. Continuing with existing support, the U.S. should likewise bolster diplomatic efforts through platforms like the United Nations, NATO, and possibly BRICS, to seek a peaceful resolution, mirroring successful diplomatic engagements like the Dayton Agreement.

It is worth noting that the U.S.’s stance on Ukraine is deeply intertwined with its domestic politics. Notably, the MAGA Republicans have shown reluctance to support further funding for Ukraine, tying their approval to demands for stricter immigration policies. This standoff reflects a broader political divide within the U.S., where foreign policy objectives are increasingly used as leverage in domestic policy negotiations. Such internal conflicts not only complicate the U.S.’s commitment to Ukraine but also send mixed signals to international allies and adversaries alike.

b. Gaza: The Gaza Strip’s situation, exacerbated by the Israel-Palestine conflict, presents a different challenge. In the context of Israel and Gaza, President Biden faces pressure from progressive Democrats urging a more balanced approach towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. This faction advocates for greater support of Palestinian rights, posing a challenge to the traditional U.S. foreign policy that heavily favors Israel. While the situation in Gaza is particularly dire, with frequent humanitarian crises, the U.S. has historically been a staunch ally of Israel. Yet it faces calls to address the humanitarian needs in Gaza and promote a just solution to the conflict.

To avoid being labeled as two-faced, this necessitates a careful balance of U.S. foreign policy. Biden’s navigation of these internal pressures is also delicate, as he must balance progressive demands with the potential backlash from a significant domestic Jewish constituency, which traditionally influences U.S. policy in the region.

Here, the U.S. has the opportunity to play a constructive role by increasing humanitarian aid and facilitating dialogue. Learning from the success of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, in which the U.S. played a pivotal role in mediating, similar diplomatic efforts could be employed to rejuvenate peace talks. The U.S. can leverage its influence to support UN resolutions that focus on alleviating the crisis and promoting a two-state solution.

c. Taiwan: Taiwan’s situation involves the U.S.’s strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly the island’s role as a major chip manufacturer. This economic interdependence complicates the U.S.’s role in the region. While supporting Taiwan’s defense capabilities is crucial for maintaining regional stability and securing U.S. economic interests, any significant shift in policy could have domestic economic repercussions. Additionally, the U.S. must consider the broader impact on its relationship with China, a key player in global economics and politics.

The U.S. follows a policy of strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan, supporting its defense capabilities while not formally recognizing it as an independent state. This stance aims to deter Chinese aggression without provoking a direct conflict. The potential risks of the U.S.’s strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan include misinterpretation by China, possibly leading to miscalculations or unintended escalations. In the current global political climate, this approach risks alienating regional players who seek clear commitments. Thus, while maintaining a balance, the U.S. must be cautious to ensure its policy does not inadvertently escalate tensions or create strategic vulnerabilities.

The U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity, while supporting Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities, is a measured approach to maintaining regional stability. This stance is reminiscent of the U.S.’s Cold War policies, which effectively deterred conflicts through strategic ambiguity. Enhancing diplomatic efforts to reduce cross-strait tensions and encouraging China’s peaceful rise are vital. The U.S. can advocate for Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, drawing on the successful precedent of U.S. support for China’s WTO entry, which facilitated more engagement in global affairs.

The U.S. approach in these regions reflects a balancing act between moral imperatives, strategic interests, and international norms. The effectiveness of U.S. policies in these complex scenarios is a subject of ongoing debate, highlighting the challenges of contemporary global leadership. In each scenario, however, it remains imperative that the U.S. navigate its web of internal pressures and interests while striving to maintain its global leadership role and adhere to its foreign policy principles.

Engagement Resources

• Council on Foreign Relations (https://www.cfr.org/): Provides in-depth analysis of global issues, including U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan.
• United States Institute of Peace (https://www.usip.org/): Offers resources on conflict resolution and peacebuilding, relevant to the situations in Ukraine and Gaza.
• Brookings Institution (https://www.brookings.edu/): Conducts research on U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific, with a focus on Taiwan and China-U.S. relations.
• Amnesty International (https://www.amnesty.org/): Provides reports on human rights issues in conflict zones like Gaza.
• RAND Corporation (https://www.rand.org/): Offers analysis and research on defense and security, relevant to U.S. policy in Ukraine and Taiwan.

Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.