The Biden team has consistently downplayed or excused the CCP’s aggression in its effort to conciliate Beijing.
The Biden team has consistently downplayed or excused the CCP's aggression in its effort to conciliate Beijing.
2 023 has been something of an annus horribilis for Sino–American relations, replete with bad behavior on the part of the Chinese Communist Party. We’ve seen the confirmation of secret CCP police stations in the U.S.; the Chinese military’s carrying out dangerous maneuvers in international territory; Chinese refusal to engage in basic military-to-military talks; a spy balloon transiting the continental United States, hovering over sensitive military sites; new revelations on the cover-up of pandemic origins; and the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on the existence of a Chinese surveillance station in Cuba. Since the rise of Xi Jinping, Beijing has become increasingly aggressive, expansionist, and assertive abroad. Its actions from the advent of the pandemic have proven it to be an untrustworthy actor on the world stage, and an anti-American one at that.
The Biden administration, however, begs to differ. It has consistently downplayed or even excused these actions in its effort to conciliate Beijing, which hasn’t reciprocated. The diplomatic fantasy of mollification renders the saga of the spy balloon as merely a “silly” incident that was “more embarrassing” for China than it was “intentional.”
Similarly, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby denied the Journal’s reporting on the Chinese espionage station in Cuba before evidence forced him to walk that back. His mea culpa was nothing of the sort, spinning the denial as correct because of “sensitive information” and the fact that the spy station is not planned, but already up and running. Somehow, the Biden administration sees this as making them look better, when in reality it makes them look utterly toothless.
Treasury secretary Janet Yellen has joined the chorus, remarking to Congress that decoupling from China would be “disastrous” and arguing we should increase economic ties with the People’s Republic. Left unsaid is how the greater ties she seeks would hamstring an American economic response to Chinese aggression, particularly in the Taiwan Strait. Defense secretary Lloyd Austin is still pining for a meeting with his Chinese counterpart after being deliberately and publicly snubbed at a defense event in Singapore earlier in June. According to the New York Times, other Biden officials see strong potential for “deeper cooperation with China on issues like mitigating climate change and relieving debt in poor countries.” These areas of interest are oddly chosen given that China is accelerating its development of coal-fired power plants — a climate change bête noire — and stands to benefit in many of those predatory developing-world debt traps.
This past weekend, Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a pilgrimage to China, the first high-level U.S. visit to the nation since 2018. The much-delayed meeting was initially canceled following the spy-balloon fracas. Despite Beijing’s damaging actions, it has been the Biden administration that has made concessions to revive diplomacy. A State Department spokesman laid out objectives for the visit, which included establishing “open and empowered” communications channels, discussing potential areas of cooperation, and having “candid, direct, and constructive” discussions. This positive thinking is a one-way street, as Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang recently scolded Blinken on an official phone call. The American readout of the call stressed constructive diplomacy, while the Chinese one blamed America for all the ills in the relationship. A promising start, no?
That inauspicious beginning continued throughout Blinken’s trip to Beijing. After arriving in the city to no fanfare, greeting party, or red carpet – not small matters in a protocol-heavy sector like diplomacy – he met with both the foreign minister and Chairman Xi himself. The meeting with Xi was a mere 35 minutes long, which, due to the need for translation, likely left the interlocutors speaking for fewer than ten minutes each. This was one of the shortest major diplomatic meetings on record, showing just how seriously Xi takes Blinken’s appeals for amity. The meeting with Qin Gang was longer, but similarly unproductive. Still, Blinken claimed to be satisfied with the progress made in cooling tensions between the two nations.
Exactly what progress is the secretary referring to? Despite being in town for two days full of meetings, nothing tangible whatsoever came of this visit. Just look at the statements of Blinken and his Chinese counterpart. In his press conference, Blinken promoted the idea that China and U.S. will work together on addressing key issues: fentanyl, the Russo–Ukrainian War, military-to-military dialogue, human rights, public health, and the overall need to stabilize the relationship. None of this actually came to pass, as is clear from the statements of Blinken’s counterpart.
A “working group” on fentanyl will do nothing to stem the tide of this vile drug to our southern border. Blinken was led to believe that the CCP will not sell weapons to Russia — but he cannot rule out Chinese companies picking up the slack. Given CCP control of China’s “private” sector, it is foolish to believe the government has any interest in stopping these arms sales. The Chinese moved not an inch off their idea that any concern for human rights is an unacceptable interference in China’s internal affairs. The idea that Beijing can be a profitable partner in public health should have been left in 2020, yet the Biden team is trotting it out today, when China’s culpability in the pandemic’s spread is undeniable.
The biggest goal of this trip for Secretary Blinken was the resumption of intermilitary dialogue, something meant to avoid miscalculations and reduce potential flashpoints. The Chinese flatly refused, blaming the U.S. for the halting of these talks and attempting to extort significant sanctions relief in exchange for this basic ask. The Chinese did, however, agree that the relationship should be stabilized. But that agreement was couched in terms deeply hostile to the American conception of the status quo and blames the U.S. entirely. Qin’s statement reads like the diplomatic equivalent of a reprimand to an unruly child:
China’s policy toward the U.S. remains consistent and stable. . . . China is committed to building a stable, predictable and constructive relationship with the U.S. China hopes that the U.S. will adopt an objective and rational perception of China, work with China in the same direction, uphold the political foundation of China-U.S. relations, and handle unexpected and sporadic events in a calm, professional and rational manner.
The trip was a complete failure on any pro-American terms. The question for the Biden administration is simple: Was it worth it?
Diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake is not useful or productive, especially when the counterparty is uninterested in anything other than total capitulation. It can be outright counterproductive when it lulls one side into a false sense of security. Right now, we are in serious danger of that outcome if we keep constructing a reality in which Beijing seeks comity and is willing to make concessions. Somehow, in spite of the ample evidence to the contrary, the Biden administration truly believes that China will become a responsible global actor if we can just convince it to be. Beijing is not looking to thaw relations with the U.S. unless we kowtow to its skewed perception of the world. Chinese leaders are happy to engage in this pseudo-diplomacy as long as it comes with American concessions and zero costs. But this is disastrous for American national security, as it will only incentivize future malign actions by Beijing. And yet the Biden team is glad to oblige.
Why? Is it because of some nefarious scheme to sell out the country to our foes? No, it is far more prosaic than that. The Biden administration paid this danegeld for a sham summit because it fundamentally lacks the capacity to disagree with Beijing’s characterization of the issues. By labeling America as a bad actor, both past and present, the American Left has created a moral equivalence between the U.S. and some of the worst regimes on the planet — China included. This self-abnegation leaves us at a huge disadvantage against nations with profound cultural self-confidence. How can we effectively defend America’s national interests when we can hardly defend America itself?
We must be clear-eyed about the threat to the American-led world order posed by a rising China under the totalitarian CCP. That means we must understand why that world order, and the nation that guides it, is worth protecting and advancing. We need a return to confidence in our own strategy and ability, which would inoculate against falling for Beijing’s diplomatic extortion racket. Sometimes diplomacy is a poor choice, especially when it is preceded by unilateral demands and belligerent actions that ensure zero progress will be made. Language alone cannot change the reality of the situation vis-a-vis China. But it seems like repeating the mantra of diplomacy and de-escalation has affected the Biden administration’s view of the problem. After all, fools can convince themselves of anything.