Follow us on social

google cta
2021-04-29t005134z_1711589909_mt1sipa000w8aade_rtrmadp_3_sipa-usa-scaled-e1619726858186

Biden doesn't need a cold war to justify good policy

The president invoked inflated fears of China to make the case for his ambitious domestic goals.

Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

In last night’s address to a joint session of Congress — the first of his presidency — Joe Biden made the case for massive investments in the American economy, infrastructure, and society. To do so, he summoned fears of a rising China, declaring that the United States is “in competition with China and others to win the 21st century.”

It is commendable that President Biden did not employ the extreme ideological rhetoric of the Trump administration in characterizing China and the bilateral relationship. Such language crowds out any rational discussion of what China’s rise means for the U.S. and the West and simply provokes a similar hardline response from many ordinary Chinese, making the effort to craft an effective policy toward Beijing even more difficult. 

But it is unfortunate that Biden nonetheless felt the need to justify his domestic proposals — positive and necessary steps towards ensuring prosperity for all Americans, and for reviving our flagging democracy — by placing them in the context of a global struggle against autocracy, and specifically with China.

The U.S. (along with other democratic nations) certainly has differences with China over various political norms and human rights values, and China’s rise presents a challenge to America in a number of arenas. But China is hardly an existential threat, nor the preeminent threat facing the United States today. Rather, the greater threats — many of which the president highlighted in his speech — are internal and global.

Domestic extremism, racism, and violence, political deadlock, and transnational perils like climate change and pandemics all present dire threats to the stability of the United States and the well-being of Americans. To present our challenges as the usual struggle between great powers is a distortion of reality; we will not be able to solve our problems through an all-consuming struggle with any other nation.

Biden stressed that he welcomes competition with China, but does not want conflict. The United States, he says, will “correct abuses” by China, and maintain its military strength in Asia and the Indo-Pacific. 

On this, the devil is in the details: how the administration defines the goals of U.S. policy in Asia, and the tone and means with which it pursues them. The U.S. can no longer treat Asia as if it remains the sole provider of hard security, or the primary economic partner, for that region and others.

It should no longer police the world and try to assert its military primacy at all costs. Instead, the United States must try to effectively work with all major nations to reduce conflict and pursue cooperative solutions to global problems. This will require deterrence towards rival powers like China — but it also requires credible reassurance on key interests. We will not stabilize Asia by pursuing the kind of bipartisan, hostile, zero-sum strategy exemplified by some of the Biden administration’s rhetoric or the China-focused legislation now making its way through Congress.

President Biden said many good things last night, but his remarks regarding China continued to reflect the absence of an overall strategy reflecting the complex reality of our relationship with China, and with other nations.


WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 28: President Joe Biden addresses a joint session of Congress, with Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the dais behind him, on Wednesday, April 28, 2021. Biden spoke to a nation seeking to emerge from twin crises of pandemic and economic slide in his first speech to a joint session of Congress. (Photo by Melina Mara/Pool/Sipa USA/POOL)No Use Germany.
google cta
Asia-Pacific
NPT
Top image credit: Milos Ruzicka via shutterstock.com

We are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe

Global Crises

In May of his first year as president, John F. Kennedy met with Israeli President David Ben-Gurion to discuss Israel’s nuclear program and the new nuclear power plant at Dimona.

Writing about the so-called “nuclear summit” in “A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion,” Israeli historian Tom Segev states that during this meeting, “Ben-Gurion did not get much from the president, who left no doubt that he would not permit Israel to develop nuclear weapons.”

keep readingShow less
Ambassador Robert Hunter
Top photo credit: Former NATO Ambassador Robert Hunter at the American Academy of Diplomacy's 17th Annual Awards Luncheon, 12/14/2006. (Reuters)

RIP Amb. Robert Hunter, who warned about NATO expansion

Europe

The world of foreign policy restraint is poorer today with the passing of Robert Hunter, an American diplomat, who was the U.S. ambassador to NATO in 1993-1998. He also served as a senior official on both the Western Europe and Middle East desks in President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council.

For decades, Hunter was a prominent, sober, and necessary voice of restraint in Washington. To readers of Responsible Statecraft, he was an occasional author who shared his insights, particularly on Europe. To those of us who knew Robert personally, he was a mentor and a friend whose tremendous knowledge was matched only by his generosity in sharing it.

keep readingShow less
NATO Summit 2025
Top photo credit: NATO Summit, the Hague, June 25, 2025. (Republic of Slovenia/Daniel Novakovič/STA/flickr)

Will NATO survive Trump?

Europe

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump threatened to place new punitive tariffs on European allies until they acquiesce to his designs on Greenland, an escalation of his ongoing attempts to acquire the large Arctic island for the United States.

Critics loudly decried the move as devastating for the transatlantic relationship, echoing Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen’s earlier warning that a coercive U.S. seizure of the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean the end of NATO.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.