Biden's Hard China Stance Matter of Fact or Expediency？
By Lo Ching-sheng
China Times, February 6, 2021
With the successive speeches and position expressions of the new Cabinet members of the United States, the China policy of the administration of President Joe Biden is gradually becoming clearer. It is worthy to note that these speeches of these important cabinet members display a strong anti-China position different from the platforms of Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign. Instead, it seems that President Biden is following the policy of his predecessor, and this is rather unusual.
It began with the testimony by Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his nominee hearing in the Senate. Blinken stated that China no doubt poses the most significant challenge to American interests, identifying with his predecessor Mr. Pompeo’s definition of Chinese actions towards the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region as a “genocide.”
Followed by Ambassador to the United Nations nominee Linda Thomas-Greenfield in her testimony on her confirmation hearing in the Senate, expressing that China is a “strategic competitor” and regret for giving a speech at the Confucius Institute of Savannah State University in Georgia as mentioned by senator.
In a dialogue with his predecessor Robert O’Brien co-sponsored by six major think tanks, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on January 29, indicated that the United States has to face “China’s violence against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, suppression of Hong Kong protests, and threats against Taiwan and identified China as the most significant issue in the alliance between the United States and the European Union.
Biden Administration Position Differs from that during Biden Campaign
The policy stances of various members of the Cabinet are quite different than those expressed during the Biden campaign. This shift becomes even clearer when Russia is taken into consideration. In an interview with CNN last September, Mr. Biden expressed that Russia is America’s opponent while China is a serious competitor. In an interview with CBS last October when questioned who was the greatest threat to America, Mr. Biden also indicated it was Russia because Russia has disrupted American security and alliances, while China is the biggest competitor.
That President Biden defined Russia as America’s greatest threat is clearer than the ambiguous relations between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, therefore all parties expected that Biden would take a tougher position towards Russia and Mr. Putin after assuming the presidency. However, President Biden not only talked over the phone with Putin immediately both also reached agreement to extend the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty for another five years, all while the U.S. military has yet to take any action in Europe. In contrast, President Biden has yet to talk with Xi Jinping over the phone and White House spokesman responded to question only saying “will deal strategically” while the Pacific Fleet frequented the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. Which side is more important becomes quite clear.
In terms of strategy, the Roman had an axiom which said “never engaged in war with two sides”, because strength would be dispersed and end in losing in both sides. Although President Biden’s foreign policy speech in Department of State the other day didn’t change his position, but lost no time in easing the tension with Russia and dealt with China with full strength adjusting scale of confrontation putting China seemingly higher than Russia, similar to the position of Mr. Trump during his final days as president.
Furthermore, the Biden administration succeeded Trump’s context. For instance, Mr. Trump set up a new coordinator for the Indo-Pacific affairs in the National Security Council, replacing “Asia Pacific” of the Obama administration with “Indo-Pacific”. In terms of alliances, Mr. Pompeo, in his noted speech on Communist China and the future of the free world, called for establishing a new alliance of democratic nations. In conceiving democratic values, the focus on China’s genocide of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, suppression of Hong Kong democracy, and pressure against Taiwan remains intact. Thus, it seems that the Biden administration’s tough position on China is similar to that of Mr. Trump in the final days of his tenure, even the connotation is nearly the same.
But this is not logical. Usually when government changes hand, the new administration will highlight its difference from its predecessor to present its new image. Washington is no exception. The first day when President Biden assumed his office, he immediately signed 15 executive decrees and memorandums including returning to the Paris Agreement and World Health Organization, discontinuing construction of wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, and requiring the wearing of masks in all federal buildings. All these measures are slaps in the face of Mr. Trump. However, the legacy of Trump’s China policy has been all taken without reservation.
Will Biden Administration be Defined by Trump’s Legacy?
After Mr. Biden’s victory in presidential election, if we view from the twists and turns during the power transfer, we may get a clearer picture. In the last two months of his administration, Mr. Trump launched unscrupulous attacks against China. On January 8, the United States announced Kelly Craft, then ambassador to the United Nations, would visit Taiwan and, on January 9, announced the lifting of restrictions on official contacts with Taiwan. On January 15, the Trump administration designated nine mainland Chinese companies, including China Maritime Petroleum, China Commercial Aircraft, and Xiaomi, as supporting military development enterprise and enforced sanctions against them. Mr. Pompeo even posted on Twitter claiming his anti-China measures would be his legacy during his tenure.
In a mature democracy, an outgoing administration government, in general, will not make major policy to show respect to the new popular mandate. In its last days, the Trump administration acted frequently, even trying to frame the new government with its “legacy,” violating the politic general practice and was deemed as to give Mr. Biden tight shoes to wear. The module of supporting Taiwan to counter mainland China was also not considered by many American scholars to be helpful.
An article co-authored by Michael Green and Bonnie Glaser of the Center of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Richard Bush, former chairman of American Institute in Taiwan, stated that in the last days of term of office strongly supported Taiwan would politicize Taiwan policy which instead would be detrimental to U.S.-Taiwan relations. Shelley Rigger, a Taiwan-friendly scholar, also indicated that Trump administration decided to bring troubles to others when its term of office was coming to an end.
This has indeed brought trouble to the Biden administration. Under the onslaught of new coronavirus pandemic, the United States is full of strong anti-China sentiment, a tough China policy would be a political test. Thomas Greenfield even praised China in her speech at the Confucius Institute. For this reason, her U.N. ambassador confirmation vote has been blocked and postponed by Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
This can explain why the Biden team’s policy position has subtly changed from during the election campaign to after taking office. Major figures of the Cabinet had to demonstrate similar tough anti-China position to avoid being questioned or even being attacked. If so, verbal tough anti-China position may only be a matter of expediency.
Because competition includes not only confrontation but also cooperation. If the United States and China engage in full-scale confrontation allowing no space of cooperation, then war will be the only way in the future. This is a Thucydides trap that America is trying to avoid. The previous Trump administration knew the so-called “legacy” of tough anti-China policy wasn’t workable, otherwise it would not launch it until the last few days of its administration when it needed not be politically responsible. This also implies that if he desires to unfold meaningful competition with China, President Biden can gradually mitigate the current relation of tension discarding the “tight shoe” given deliberately to political opponent to wear.
Therefore, though verbally tough, the Biden administration still cautiously disclose the message of easing its relationship with China. For instance, it published memorandum instructing not to use the “Wuhan virus” or “China virus” to refer to the coronavirus (COVID-19), because using the geographic origin to name the virus would foster xenophobia. Though this was considered as to safeguard the interests and dignities of Asian Americans, Mr. Trump had repeatedly used the term “China virus” to impugn China. Therefore, it was a gesture of goodwill on the part of President Biden towards China.
The discourse of Secretary Blinken is even more noteworthy in not what he said but what he did not say. In expounding China policy, Blinken didn’t differentiate “Chinese Communists” with “China”. It was well known that Mr. Pompeo deliberately highlighted “Chinese Communists” rule and on many occasions, he used “Chinese Communists” instead of “China” and even called Xi “General Secretary.”
To differentiate “Chinese Communists” with “China” is not a viewpoint of the conservative, as a matter of fact, it is even closer to the idea of the Liberal who always advocate contact with China. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof once wrote an article advising Mr. Biden to seperate Xi from China, that is, to criticize the former but not demonize the latter to avoid offending the whole of China and forcing Chinese officials to unite around their leader.
The concept of “estrange” implied that Chinese people overthrow Chinese Communist rule, or their officials stage a coup. That Secretary Blinken did not continue this statement reveals that the genuine direction of America’s China policy is not so tough, or more precisely, the Biden administration’s China and Taiwan policies are not clear yet. Let us remain patient, wait, and see.
The author is executive director of Taiwan Strategy Research Association.
From: https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20210206003089-262110