At their meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, last week, US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to once again exchange ambassadors, continue arms reductions and avoid nuclear war, but they continue to wrangle over cyberattacks and human rights issues.
Since Biden took office, he has had only one unofficial telephone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), but he hurried to hold a summit meeting with Putin just after the G7 meeting.
Biden’s reasons for these decisions invite speculation. Russia used to be a member of the G8 industrialized countries, but its membership was revoked after it instigated a referendum on Crimean independence in 2014. Biden choosing this moment for a summit seems to be a message to Putin that the West might be ready to allow Russia back into the G8.
During his US presidential campaign last year, Biden wrote an article outlining his ideas on foreign policy. He viewed Russia as a military threat, and as an “archrival” or “opponent” of the US, while he viewed China as a threat in terms of trade and values, seeing it as a “competitor” of the US.
As military conquest is a zero-sum game, a trade war can be a non-zero-sum game, and a contest of values can end in mutual respect, it is generally accepted that Biden sees Russia as the bigger problem strategically.
Biden’s desire to reconcile with Russia might stem from China being the first country to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. China has continued its economic and military expansionism, which has resulted in rising anti-China sentiment in the US and the international community.
Although the Indo-Pacific strategy was former US president Donald Trump’s attempt to contain China, the results wished for have been difficult to achieve because of India’s insistence on a non-alliance policy. Although Biden advocated for an alliance of democratic nations before he took office, he had to turn his attention to Russia, as not every country was interested in opposing China.
In the short term, the US is likely to have difficulty achieving the diplomatic goal of working with Russia to counterbalance China.
In the 1970s, the US employed a strategy of working with China to contain the Soviet Union. The US had the opportunity to intervene after China and the Soviet Union clashed over Zhenbao Island (珍寶島), known as Damansky Island in Russia, in March 1969. However, there is presently no obvious conflict between Russia and China.
The US is also likely to have difficulty because for some NATO members in eastern Europe, neighboring Russia is the main threat, while distant China is a potential partner. Hungary, for example, holds this view.
However, in the long run, Russia — which has always placed Europe over Asia in terms of its national development — is unlikely to miss this opportunity to play both sides against the middle.
Even if Russia does not begin to treat China as an enemy, it is likely to reduce the mutual dependence they have had over the past few years, and that is certain to have an effect on Xi’s diplomatic plans.
Yang Chung-hsin is a civil servant.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
RSS