SERIES: COVID-19’s Long-Term Policy Implications - COVID-19’s Impacts on U.S. Foreign Policy, Immigration, and Global Leadership
The COVID-19 pandemic has rightly become the sole focus of the public health policy world, but it is also having far reaching effects into policy landscapes way beyond healthcare. This blog post is the eighth in a series that will explore how COVID-19 is changing American life, and as a result, impacting various policy areas. This series will explore changing American attitudes, examine new policy ideas, and project on legislative and regulatory activity we may see as a result of the virus in the months ahead.
COVID-19 does not recognize borders and has been spreading throughout the world. Efforts to fight the virus have shifted international relationships, begging the question what lasting impacts the pandemic may have on the global world order. While some countries are leveraging emergency declarations to consolidate power and maintain order, others see COVID-19 as an opportunity to advance in the global pecking order.
As a result of COVID-19, many countries are turning away from international institutions, with some nations adopting nationalist policies to prevent the importation of coronavirus cases. For example, the U.S. first closed its borders to arrivals from China on February 2, followed by blocking arrivals from Europe in March. Simultaneously, the pandemic has brought new challenges to the forefront of foreign relations, creating opportunities for international cooperation unlike those ever seen before. More specifically, countries like China and South Korea are engaged in disease diplomacy, supplying health aid to countries in need, including the U.S.
U.S. Relationships with Near-Peer Competitors
COVID-19 is a prime factor in growing tensions between the U.S. and China. Even before the onset of the virus, policymakers in both countries warned “a second Cold War” could be on the horizon. More recently, China has faced scrutiny for its early handling of the coronavirus in Wuhan, particularly for a lack of transparency to the rest of the world about the severity and far-reaching spread of the virus.
The world’s post-COVID-19 reality could reasonably be a binary world with smaller countries lining up behind China or the U.S., a situation that could bring a host of novel security and intelligence challenges. China already appears to be behind attacks against the U.S.’ efforts to combat the coronavirus and develop a vaccine.
In the early days of the pandemic, Russia, another near-peer competitor, attempted to improve its international image by sending the world's largest cargo plane loaded with masks and respirators to New York. This flipped 30 years of history on its head, as the U.S. has traditionally been a major food aid provider since the fall of the Soviet Union. More recently, Russia has succumbed to its own COVID-19 outbreak and is struggling with inadequate testing capabilities and rapidly increasing caseloads. However, interactions between the U.S. and Russia since the start of pandemic demonstrate how potential adversaries are closing in on the U.S. competitive advantage and seeking to leverage the public health crisis to make the U.S. look weak.
As the pandemic continues, other sovereign governments have felt pressure to align with either the U.S. or China. For example, Australia has a long-standing intelligence and security relationship with the U.S., but a deep economic relationship with China, with trade between the nations totaling more than $150 billion. Australia may be placed in a difficult position after the pandemic, as the country’s leaders could be forced to choose between security and economic recovery.
Foreign Assistance As a Tool of Credibility and Diplomacy
China has sought to rebuild its image on the international stage by sending out large amounts of medical aid. The Chinese Government itself has furnished large donations of medical equipment to countries collaborating on infrastructure developments for the Belt and Road Initiative, a series of infrastructure projects to create a “new silk road” through Asia and Africa. China’s private sector has also stepped up its philanthropic efforts to support the global COVID-19 response. In March, Jack Ma, co-founder of Alibaba, donated half a million COVID-19 test kits to the U.S., as well as large amounts of masks to European countries.
Viral diplomacy is not limited to China, as other countries are seeking to improve their credibility on the world stage in how they support allies and partners in global COVID-19 response efforts. In April, Maryland acquired 500,000 test kits from South Korea; Egypt sent a shipment of masks, tests, and body bags to the U.S.; and Cuban doctors traveled the world offering help in strained healthcare systems.
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has furnished vital foreign aid annually. While the country’s earliest foreign assistance efforts were focused on containing the spread of communism, U.S. aid has expanded in scope to support peace, stability, and development programs throughout the world. Despite the U.S. Government’s historic leadership in providing humanitarian assistance and development aid, year after the year, the Trump Administration’s budget request has sought to reduce assistance spending. These cuts have routinely been rejected by Congress.
In the early days of coronavirus, the U.S. quickly became a recipient of foreign aid as policymakers struggled to control the pandemic and protect Americans from the virus. However, just this week, the State Department announced a commitment of $162 million in additional humanitarian assistance for COVID-19, bringing the total to date to more than $1 billion since the outbreak began. According to the State Department, these funds have been used to support vital interventions in health, sanitation, water, protection, logistics, and food security in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Similarly, the U.S. private sector has made more than $4.3 billion in donations to support U.S. allies and partners during the pandemic.
It remains to be seen how COVID-19 might impact the foreign assistance moving forward. Assuming the U.S. Government allocates trillions more in funding for coronavirus response and economic recovery efforts in the U.S., the Trump Administration could potentially bolster its argument for further reductions in foreign aid money due to the growing deficit at home. However, the pandemic could also embolden Congress to appropriate and increase oversight of assistance to vulnerable allies and partners during the global recovery period.
International Institutions and U.S. Soft Power
China has been increasing the presence of its soft power around the world to portray a willingness to offer a helping hand. Meanwhile, the U.S. has continued, and since the onset of COVID-19 perhaps even accelerated, a trend of withdrawing its resources from international institutions that began after President Donald Trump’s election.
A consistent critique of President Trump’s foreign has been receding levels of American soft power and influence abroad, on issues ranging from human rights to climate change. Before COVID-19, President Trump had withdrawn the U.S. from the United Nations (U.N.) Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and the Paris Climate Accords. As a consequence of these actions, the U.S. has lost credibility as a leader on these issues, with other countries like China and Russia surging to fill in the void.
Consistent with previous efforts of the Trump Administration to scale back U.S. participation in multilateral bodies, concern is rising that COVID-19 has exacerbated other countries’ perception of the U.S. as a reliable ally that can provide aid in essential times of need.
In April, President Trump announced he would freeze American funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), citing alleged pro-China policies and biases. While some criticism of the WHO’s initial response may be valid, there are foreign policy and global health experts who believe President Trump has cut off crucial funding that was helping the entire world combat the virus. In recent days, there has been some speculation the Trump Administration might resume some WHO funding, although it seems there is no consensus in the administration and the situation remains fluid.
Relatedly, at the U.N. Security Council, the State Department recently scuttled a resolution calling for a global ceasefire during the COVID-19 pandemic. China and the U.S. have fought over mentions of the WHO in resolutions since mid-April, and the conflict has divided the Security Council. Estonia and Germany have attempted to placate the U.S., while France and Tunisia continue to support inclusion of the WHO in resolutions.
Earlier this month, European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen convened the largest and most developed democracies in the world for a summit, where billions of dollars were committed to global vaccine development efforts. The Trump Administration declined to participate or contribute to these efforts, leading some to question how this might impact the U.S. Government’s ability to secure effective COVID-19 vaccines or treatments developed abroad. Foreign policy and public health experts have said they worry the U.S. will not be prioritized to receive the first round of doses.
Immigration and Border Security in the Time of COVID-19
The Trump administration has long sought to leverage opportunities to pursue its immigration policy objectives. Conflicts, poverty, and hunger around the world continue to affect people as COVID-19 adds to the threats facing the world’s most vulnerable populations. That said, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have expressed concern about immigration during the post-COVID economic recovery.
On April 22, President Trump issued a proclamation closing the U.S. to all new immigrants who are not healthcare professionals or relatives of American citizens. This move threatens the base of the American economy and could cause labor shortages in many sectors currently considered essential. Since the beginning of the crisis, the U.S. has stopped non-essential entry at the Canadian and Mexican borders and is immediately expelling migrants at the borders. However, some visa rule changes have been made to allow migrants to work in agriculture. The Trump Administration has not stopped deportation flights and has threatened sanctions on countries refusing to accept deportations. Flights present a major health risk during the pandemic, as each deportation flight has the opportunity to be a super-spreader event.
Since March 1, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has continued construction on the border wall on the Mexican border. Over 50 miles of barriers have been constructed since then. This construction has brought a flurry of activity and movement to border towns at a time when the rest of the country is experiencing a standstill. Many of these communities have limited health infrastructures, meaning that an outbreak could have catastrophic consequences on border communities. Although the Trump Administration maintains the border wall is a priority, high levels of stimulus spending could influence Congress to impose greater limitations on the president’s ability to reprogram funding for the border wall, for example in this year’s defense authorization or appropriations bills.
The Impact of COVID-19 on Foreign Policy in Campaigns
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the nature of today’s presidential campaign, as both candidates have fully suspended in-person campaigning. However, the issues raised by the virus have not changed the core messages of either candidate on foreign policy.
President Trump initially praised and trusted Chinese leadership and the country’s response to the coronavirus outbreak in Hubei Province. He tweeted support for Chinese President Xi Jinping and praised him for his transparency before turning to condemn the WHO for not demanding enough transparency from President Xi. The Trump campaign is expected to seek to differentiate itself from the Biden Campaign by claiming the former vice president is too friendly with China.
Meanwhile, Vice President Biden has accused President Trump of being too trusting of the Chinese Government in the early stages of the pandemic. He has released advertising blaming President Trump’s trust of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) words as a major cause of the severity of the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. Vice President Biden has also said he would have taken tougher actions to ensure transparency from China, including sending medical observers to the country to monitor the situation on the ground.
A recent poll found that 66 percent of Americans have unfavorable views of China, a number which has drastically increased since January. Due to the coronavirus’ origins in China and ongoing tensions in the bilateral relationship, U.S.-China relations are could be fundamental issue in this presidential campaign cycle. That said, we could see China policy continuing to be an issue the presidential campaigns use to distinguish themselves as we approach November 3.
Conclusion
Although coronavirus has split the international system and further positioned the U.S. and China as the two major global powers, the pandemic has also presented a common cause around which the world can unite. COVID-19 could lead to a second Cold War, or alternatively, it could usher in a new era of international cooperation. The choice between the two outcomes largely depends on how the U.S. conducts its foreign policy during the pandemic and subsequent period of economic recovery.