A Mixed Bag: U.S.-China Relations Under the Biden Administration

Former Vice President of United States Joe Biden speaking in Des Moines, Iowa. Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. 

Once a famine-ridden and crumbling nation during former Chairman Mao’s rule, the “rise of China,” or China’s economic boom, which started in 1978 drastically changed the country’s geopolitical landscape. China’s ability to go from a state of extreme poverty to a thriving market economy on the scale of the U.S. indicates the shift in foreign relations between the U.S. and China in the past few decades. 

Richard Nixon’s famous 1972 visit to China attempted to pursue various forms of policy cooperation between the two nations to welcome China into the U.S.-dominated international order as a “responsible stakeholder,” as Andrew J. Nathan of Columbia University put it. However, as China grew in power, the “rise of China,”  which was lauded by the United States government, quickly began to pose a threat to American interests. The Trump administration clearly raised concerns about China’s growing power, thereby crystallizing the nation’s status as a “strategic competitor.” The rhetoric around China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to be negative, as seen by former Trump advisor Newt Gingrich’s assertion that China is “the greatest threat to us [the U.S.] since the British Empire in the 1770s.”

After former President Trump lost the 2020 Presidential Election to now President Biden, U.S.-China relations have taken a new route. Ostensibly, President Biden’s China policy follows in the footsteps of former President Trump. The Biden Administration has also referred to China as a “strategic competitor,” retained Trump’s tariffs, and continued the subtle bolstering of support to Taiwan. 

Yet, the Biden Administration since taking office has produced an uneven track record when it comes to holding China accountable. This contrasts with the former administration’s confrontational and hard stance against many of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) actions. President Biden’s lack of coordinated action toward the Trump-era trade agreement and inconsistent condemnation regarding the Uygur genocide have led many Americans and leaders to question his capacity to stabilize and strengthen relations with China. 

One stark example is seen by President Biden’s lack of progress in diffusing the trade-war started by the former administration. The Trump administration’s trade deal signed in January of 2020 was meant to revitalize the U.S. economy, with China committing to purchase a historic $200 billion of U.S. exports before 2021. Yet, China is expected to fall short of the trade deal and is only on pace to fulfill 60% of the purchasing commitments by 2022, citing the pandemic and factory issues as contributing factors. The Trump administration also imposed tariffs on China, hoping that raising the costs of Chinese products would help revive American manufacturing. Nevertheless, the contrary happened—tariffs made it more expensive to manufacture goods in the U.S. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research confirmed that the tariffs raised the costs of imported goods, making it more expensive to use and rely on important materials to manufacture goods in America. Nearly one year into his presidency, President Biden is still stuck in the trade-war dilemma. Biden has not removed any of the tariffs that are hurting American workers, nor taken solid action to deal with China’s limited purchasing of American goods. The frozen trade war seems to have little signs of thawing, alarming American manufacturers who are struggling to stay afloat. 

President Biden’s inconsistent approach to China is also seen in his effort to hold the CCP accountable for the horrific human rights abuse and genocide of the minority Uygur population in northwestern China. Biden did impose sanctions on several Chinese biotech and surveillance companies over the abuse of Uygur Muslims. This was followed by a U.S. diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics over the “genocide and crime against humanity,” according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki. Regardless, these actions and verbal condemnation contrast other instances. During a February 2021 phone call with President Xi, for example, Biden stated, “culturally, there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow,” when pressed about the Uygur crisis in China. Unsurprisingly, his cultural relativist downplaying of China’s genocide against the minority population sparked intense backlash. Former national security advisor H.R. McMaster, for his part, accused Biden of “bigotry masquerading as cultural sensitivity.”

Perhaps even more concerning have been the tension-filled and rare meetings between the two world leaders since President Biden took office. Within the first seven months, Biden and Xi have had only one phone call. Former President Trump, by contrast, spoke to President Xi twice over the phone and met him another time in person within the first six months of his presidency. 

The new administration’s actions thus far affect not only immediate economic and cultural issues but may also affect increase in the possibility of an interstate conflict, specifically,  the “cross-strait” conflict between mainland China and Taiwan. To be sure, the “strategic ambiguity” strategy—an approach President Biden and many of his predecessors have resorted to that deliberately uses inconsistent means of communication to achieve political goals—has its benefits. China might attack if it believes the United States would abandon Taiwan. On the other hand, an ironclad promise to defend Taiwan could spur the small country to boldly declare their independence, risking a Chinese invasion. This strategy is one way of deterring China from attacking, while also preventing Taiwan from angering China by declaring sovereignty. 

But given China’s increased aggression towards the island, coupled with President Biden’s inconsistent approach, it may be time to reassess this ambiguous strategy. Clear intentions, rather than ambiguous intentions, act as the best case solution to both hold China accountable and send a clear signal of America’s intentions in defending Taiwan. 

Despite the economic and political importance of defending Taiwan, the Biden administration has not announced any changes to their policy regarding the territorial dispute, with President Biden asserting that there is a difference “between reserving the right to use force and obligating ourselves, a priori, to come to the defense of Taiwan.” 

Following Biden’s comment, Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida introduced a bill that would authorize the president to take military action to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack. In addition, Robert M. Gates, a former defense secretary and C.I.A. director who served under former President Barack Obama, offered a similar opinion that it might be “time to abandon our longtime strategy of strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan.” Many other scholars and high-ranking officials have called on President Biden to assess the effectiveness of his current strategy. 

Considering the increase of Chinese forces in recent months—in line with the Russian invasion of  Ukraine—it may be time to introduce a policy of strategic clarity. A clear strategy will make explicit that the U.S. is committed to defending Taiwan. Doing so would “lower the chances of Chinese miscalculation, which is the likeliest catalyst for war in the Taiwan Strait,” according to Richard N. Haass, the former director of policy planning at the State Department under President George W. Bush. 

If the Biden Administration continues with the strategic ambiguity method, Taiwan may proclaim complete self-governance, triggering a Chinese invasion. However, with a strategic clarity method in place, China will most likely abstain from war, since the U.S. will have already made their intention to back Taiwan through a credible and clear signal. This represents a win-win situation: Taiwan would maintain its peace, China would be deterred from waging war, and the U.S. will not need to intervene. Such a strategy would save some 23 million Taiwanese citizens from losing their basic human rights under the CCP and could even save them from being killed in an invasion. 

Under the new Biden Administration, there is still much work to be done. The president’s unpredictable and even confusing manner of dealing with issues of trade, genocide, and Taiwan has proved frustrating to the public and global leaders alike. It is thus instrumental that the Biden Administration adopt a more coherent plan to stabilize not only U.S.-China relations but global geopolitical relations at large. 

Evelyn Yu (CC '25) is a columnist writer at CPR with a focus on U.S.-China relations. She is a first-year student looking to major in neuroscience and political science. Evelyn currently serves as an Event Chair for the Columbia University Asian Pacific American Heritage Month (APAHM) club, Social Media & Marketing Co-Chair for Columbia University Red Cross and dances with the Columbia University Ballet Ensemble (CUBE). You can find her taking up dance classes, exploring new coffee shops, writing, or just lounging on the steps with friends.