The Biden administration’s strategy of adopting a conciliatory approach toward China has raised significant concerns among experts, who argue that the U.S. has failed to make substantial gains and capitalize on the few concessions obtained.
Gordon Chang, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, highlighted the perceived lack of preparedness on the part of the United States to defend itself and its allies. He pointed out that appeasing China has bought only a limited amount of time without significant progress. Chang emphasized that the U.S. is no longer effectively deterring China, warranting a reconsideration of policies.
President Biden’s interactions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2022, including their face-to-face meeting and discussions at the G-20 summit, aimed to foster military communications and address issues like fentanyl production.
However, critics like Chang criticize the Biden administration for not taking decisive action in response to the significant impact of COVID-19 and fentanyl deaths originating in China. The administration’s emphasis on diplomacy and managing competition with China has faced skepticism, with critics expressing concerns about the lack of forceful responses to provocative actions by China.
While the Biden administration has continued some of the Trump administration’s policies on China, there are claims that it exhibits excessive caution to avoid provoking China. Matt McInnis, a senior fellow for the Institute for the Study of War’s China program, noted that concerns about provocation might lead to detrimental concessions.
Despite incidents like China’s spy crafts entering American airspace and increased provocations in Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, the administration has focused on military drills with allies and strengthening partnerships.
The soft approach with China has allowed bad actors to act with impunity, leading to breakdowns in the international system. The policy of “strategic ambiguity,” oscillating between support for the One China Policy and arming Taiwan, has faced criticism for its inconsistency. China’s support for Russia, particularly in light of North Korea’s involvement, raises concerns about the consequences of the administration’s diplomatic choices.
Overall, skeptics contend that the Biden administration’s strategy toward China, marked by diplomatic overtures and caution, may result in detrimental results and a failure to effectively counter China’s influence on the global stage.
The emphasis on humanitarian considerations often neglects the fundamental responsibility of securing borders and protecting American citizens. These perspectives raise questions about the long-term consequences of the Biden administration’s approach to managing the U.S.-China relationship.
