Biden, Harris and Trump should issue a joint statement on the risks of World War III

In an election year of unprecedented shocks, a historic positive event could help alleviate the fraught international situation: a joint bipartisan statement by the candidates on America’s fundamental national security principles. An affirmation that “politics stops at the water’s edge” could not come at a more opportune time. 

Both President Biden and former President Trump have repeatedly referred to the imminent danger of the U.S. slipping into World War III. Foreign policy experts and other commentators have also picked up on the Armageddon theme.

Biden and Trump have sent contradictory messages on what could cause the ultimate human catastrophe. The Biden-Harris administration has consistently refused to provide Ukraine with the needed weapons systems and the authority to reverse Russia’s invasion, for fear that this could provoke Vladimir Putin to escalate further, leading to global war. Trump, on the other hand, accuses Biden of already doing too much and recklessly getting America involved in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. 

Still, for all their rhetorical differences, Biden and Trump seem to have a common bottom line: Ukraine must concede some of its sovereign territory to Russia for the fighting to stop. The only questions are how much seized land Putin should be allowed to keep, and how quickly the deal can be made.

Biden says it is up to Ukraine to decide those issues, but, significantly, he has never endorsed Ukraine’s desire to regain all its territory — as he said he would defend “every square inch” of NATO territory. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has taken such a maximalist position on his country’s sovereignty.

Trump, on the other hand, repeatedly claims he can resolve the war within 24 hours, which he apparently estimates is how long Zelensky will take to submit to a U.S. ultimatum that he permanently surrender up to one-fifth of Ukraine or else lose all American aid.

Meanwhile, a different calculus is underway among Russia’s declared strategic partners China and North Korea; its undeclared partner, Iran; and Iran’s Middle East proxies. All are supporting Russia’s invasion materially and strategically while separately pursuing their own aggressive regional agendas. And supposed NATO ally Hungary is increasingly siding with Russia, which sees NATO as its enemy.

The opportunistically coordinated attacks from this anti-Western menagerie require a concerted American effort both internationally and domestically.

In the international realm, the alliance and partnership relationships built by the Trump and Biden national security teams in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East must be broadened and strengthened during Biden’s remaining months in office, and by his successors.

As Trump brusquely but effectively argued during his term in office, several NATO members need to step up their contribution to support the common defense against the existential danger in their own backyard. The coordinated assault on Western values and interests requires all NATO hands on deck.

On the domestic front, the American election presents both danger and opportunity. With America’s deep political divisions well-advertised to the world, our adversaries seek to exacerbate and exploit the fissures to enable their aggressive moves against the distracted U.S. and its allies and partners.

To the extent that they agree on the advisability of preventing that outcome, the contending political tickets, along with Biden while he remains in office, need to publicly agree on some fundamentals of American national security policy.

First, the U.S. will defend its territory, and its citizens and assets, anywhere in the world. That includes closing its Southern border against the flood of illegal migrants from other nations. 

Second, the U.S. will use its military power if necessary to defend its treaty allies in NATO and in the Indo-Pacific region: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and Thailand.

Third, the U.S. will use its military power if necessary to defend its strategic partner Taiwan against military or economic attack from China.

Fourth, the U.S. will provide Ukraine the essential arms and authority for use against military targets in Russia and Russian-occupied Ukraine to facilitate its self-defense and the removal of all Russian forces from its territory.

Fifth, the U.S. will continue to provide Israel the essential arms needed for its self-defense while urging it to continue exerting every reasonable effort to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, recognizing that Hamas and other Islamic terrorists regularly use civilian populations as human shields and critical and cultural infrastructure as havens for fighters and weapons. 

Sixth, the next president must end the serious perceptual problem that has paralyzed the foreign policy of the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations — the fear of escalation by adversaries if America stands too resolutely by its allies and strategic partners or enforces its own declared red lines. American policy must ensure that professed enemies fear the consequences of spiraling escalation at least as much as our political leaders do. 

Seventh, the U.S. will provide the necessary budgetary resources to meet its national security obligations and to prevent adversaries from dividing and distracting America with multiple security challenges.

Eighth, as critical as military preparedness is to defense and deterrence, the response to the multi-dimensional challenge from the authoritarian assault on Western values and interests must also encompass the economic, informational and ideological domains. 

A joint statement endorsing these eight principles by the presidential and vice-presidential candidates would assure American voters of their seriousness — and go a long way toward deterring further adventurism by the West’s adversaries.

Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies and a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute.