Experts have expressed concerns about the Biden administration’s diplomatic approach towards China, suggesting it may be inadequate in the face of a changing global landscape.
The administration’s efforts to engage Beijing, while avoiding confrontation, have yielded limited material gains and have been criticized for failing to fully capitalize on the concessions obtained.
Diplomacy and Defense: A Delicate Balance
Gordon Chang, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a China expert, explained the situation in stark terms:
“The one thing that we’ve got is time,” he said.
“The United States is not ready to defend itself and its allies and partners, and by appeasing China we have bought a little bit of time.”
Chang criticized the administration’s approach, saying,
“Biden has bought time, and the Pentagon has done nothing. It hasn’t done as much as it’s needed to do, so we have wasted time. … Apart from that, I don’t think we’ve gotten very much.”
This viewpoint underscores the perceived strategic delay rather than a robust policy response.
Read More: Comer vs Raskin: A Clash of Perspectives in Biden Impeachment Inquiry
Bilateral Meetings and Agreements
President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s interactions have been a focal point of U.S.-China diplomacy.
They had their first face-to-face meeting since Biden’s presidency at the G-20 summit in Indonesia in 2022.
Xi’s visit to the U.S. for the first time since 2018 was also significant when he met with Biden in San Francisco.
Key agreements were made during these meetings, including military-to-military communications and efforts to tackle fentanyl distribution, a pressing concern as nearly all “precursor chemicals” for fentanyl are sourced from China.
Jake Sullivan, Biden’s National Security Advisor, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, outlined the administration’s stance:
“The United States is competing with China across multiple dimensions, and we make no bones about that. But we are not looking for confrontation or conflict.”
“And we are seeking to manage that competition responsibly, intensifying diplomacy to reduce the risk of miscalculation,” he said.
Sullivan emphasized the importance of these discussions for global stability and reducing the risk of unintended conflict.
Criticism and Expectations
Despite these efforts, critics like Chang have pointed out the administration’s perceived inaction in response to issues like COVID-19 and fentanyl, both linked to China.
“To me, it’s incomprehensible that we would allow this, but we have allowed the killing of Americans in great numbers.”
Chang stated, reflecting on the pandemic and fentanyl crisis.
Expectations of a more robust U.S. response to China’s actions, including sending spy crafts into American airspace and increased activity in Taiwan’s ADIZ, have not been met.
Also Read: Biden’s $82 Million Internet Boost for North Carolina
Regional Military Strategies and the Future
The U.S. has been actively engaging in military drills with regional allies, strengthening ties with countries like Australia, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan.
A notable development was Japan’s agreement to purchase 400 U.S.-made long-range Tomahawk missiles, signaling a robust regional military posture.
Matt McInnis, a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War’s China program, offered a nuanced view:
“The Biden administration has continued many of the policies of the Trump administration on China and is actually taking some strong steps in many areas with China, but I do think that inherent fear of provocation is setting us up — especially this year — for some concessions that are going to be detrimental.”
Strategic Ambiguity and Global Dynamics
The Biden administration’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” has drawn criticism for its oscillation between supporting the One China Policy and arming Taiwan.
This approach, coupled with the increasing support of China and North Korea for Russia and Iran’s aggressive moves in the Middle East, has led to concerns about the effectiveness of the U.S.’s strategy.
McInnis further commented on the implications of this approach:
“The more we restrict ourselves, that is going to set new norms that China can exploit and pressure us,” he said.
“We end up deterring ourselves and not getting much in return for it.”
In summary, the Biden administration’s China strategy faces scrutiny as global tensions rise and the international system evolves.
The approach, balancing competition with diplomacy, raises questions about its effectiveness in the current geopolitical climate.
Read Next: Biden Administration Reinstates Terrorist Designation for Houthis Amid Escalating Red Sea Tensions
Facebook 
Twitter 
LinkedIn 