December 9, 2020
What Will Joe Biden’s China
Strategy Look Like?
Regardless of
how Joe Biden chooses to tussle with Xi Jinping, he will be more consistent in
his messaging than Donald Trump has been. He won’t give tacit approval to Xi’s
genocidal policies behind closed doors, as Trump allegedly did.
President-elect Joe Biden is
“not going to make any immediate moves” with regards to China,
he told the New York Times in a recent interview. “[A]nd the same applies to the tariffs,”
Biden continued, referring to the heavy taxes paid by U.S. consumers on Chinese imports as part of
President Donald Trump’s trade war. “I’m not going to prejudice my options.”
What options might Joe Biden want
to pursue with China? Biden has styled himself on the campaign trail as a
diplomatic internationalist whose foreign policy would avoid the military
boondoggles of the last two decades. It’s notable that Biden and Trump
have jostled for the
title of biggest hawk when it comes to U.S.-China relations. In
fact, retaining Trump’s aggressive and counterproductive trade policies is
among the options that Biden is considering. But that would be an
inauspicious start to the next four years of engagement with Beijing.
In the New York Times interview, as he has throughout his campaign, Biden kept his plans
for China vague. He wants to “develop a coherent strategy,”
he said, and the “best China strategy, I think, is one which gets every one of
our—or at least what used to be our—allies on the same page.”
Biden’s interviewer, New
York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman, added his interpretation
that being on the same page means “galvaniz[ing] a global coalition against”
Beijing. That’s not a strained reading given what else Biden said: He sketched
a hardline trade policy which will keep at least some of Trump’s trade
agreements intact. He explained as well that he wants more “leverage” against
Beijing, linking this to domestic industrial and research policy.
Pennsylvania and Nevada Certify Election Results for
BidenDoes “leverage” also mean military might?
Biden’s reported consideration of Michèle Flournoy for defense
secretary—a choice yet unmade, but receiving new support from Democratic lawmakers—is one
reason to think the answer may be “yes.”
Flournoy takes an adversarial approach to China, arguing we need
further military build-up to ensure China does not attack us. She wrote in Foreign Affairs this past summer
when her place in Biden’s then-hypothetical administration was widely assumed,
that Washington should “deploy more senior officials and additional military
forces to [Asia], to underscore [Washington’s] enduring presence” there. The
United States should conduct enough military exercises in China’s neighborhood,
she said, to be able “to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s military
vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72
hours.”
Flournoy’s perspective isn’t the
only indicator of where Biden is likely heading with China. His secretary of
state nominee, Antony Blinken, in May endorsed sanctioning China for its authoritarianism in Hong Kong. Incoming National
Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has called for “devoting more assets and resources to
ensuring and reinforcing, and holding up alongside our partners, the freedom of
navigation in the South China Sea,” which probably means military build-up. And
Biden himself has said he will “pressure, isolate and punish China” in
concert with U.S. allies.
This is not to say the Biden
administration is moving toward a policy of pure antagonism toward China, or
that Biden will simply pick up where Trump left off. Biden will be more consistent in his messaging than Trump has been. He
won’t talk about his “love” for Chinese President-for-life Xi Jinping, as
Trump bizarrely did. He won’t give tacit approval to Xi’s genocidal
policies behind closed doors, as Trump allegedly did.
Flournoy notes that there are many issues on which “we have to
deal with China as a partner or we cannot solve the problem,” which is a far
more realistic view than Trump’s ramblings about “cut[ting] off the whole relationship.”
Diplomacy will probably stabilize: Blinken says he aims to stop “veering back and forth between
confrontation and abdication” with China. Meanwhile, Sullivan has criticized Washington’s habit of giving China
unrealistic, maximalist ultimatums, which Beijing ignores because they’re not
important enough to U.S. interests to justify military enforcement. Also,
Biden recognizes the United States will have to “cooperate with
Beijing on issues where our interests converge.”
The challenge for Biden and his
still-assembling team, then, will be to heed their own best advice.
Dictating Beijing’s governance of Hong Kong or curtailing China’s already-limited maritime power in its near abroad, for
example, is likely the sort of unrealistic, maximalist dictate Sullivan rightly
warns against. Both Biden and Flournoy acknowledge that the need for
cooperation (which also includes the more mundane engagement two enormous,
entwined economies entail) requires treating China as a rival, not an enemy.
That doesn’t mean dissembling in the face of Beijing’s
totalitarianism and abuses. But it does mean proactively keeping the peace,
deliberately reducing opportunities to stumble into a conflict between
the world’s two most powerful militaries, and fostering mutually
beneficial trade.
Nixing those Trump tariffs would
be a good place to start.
Bonnie Kristian is
a fellow at Defense Priorities, contributing editor at The
Week, and columnist at Christianity Today. Her writing has
also appeared at CNN, NBC, USA Today, the Los Angeles
Times, and Defense One, among other outlets.
Image: Reuters
No comments:
Post a Comment