Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the raft domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /customers/a/5/e/nowadays.org.uk/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893 {"id":3286,"date":"2021-03-31T17:17:48","date_gmt":"2021-03-31T16:17:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nowadays.org.uk\/?p=3286"},"modified":"2021-03-31T17:19:57","modified_gmt":"2021-03-31T16:19:57","slug":"bidensbalancingact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nowadays.org.uk\/bidensbalancingact\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden’s Balancing Act: Establishing A ‘Victory Path’"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Antony Blinken, the incumbent United States Secretary of State, and National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, faced China\u2019s Foreign Policy Official, Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, on Thursday 18th<\/sup> March 2021. The talks, which were held in Alaska, took an uncharacteristically undiplomatic turn, which ended in the delegates exchanging mutual insults and accusations (Hansler, Gaouette, and Atwood, 2021). Notably, the Chinese delegates accused the U.S. representatives of being condescending, while the U.S. officials blamed the Chinese statesmen of showboating. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This latest demonstration of animosity calls for a re-evaluation of the relationship between the U.S. and China. More specifically, it requires the Biden Administration to take a more substantive consideration of the desired outcome of these talks, and future foreign policy, towards China and America\u2019s Asian allies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Biden has described the Sino-U.S. relationship as one of \u2018extreme competition\u2019, but he remained cautious to emphasise that there \u2018need not be conflict\u2019 (Wertime 2021). However, the problem lies herein, Biden refuses to strategize upon how this relationship would come to an end. By calling the relationship \u2018extreme competition\u2019, he continues the precedent set by his predecessor, President Trump, whose administration claimed that the Sino-U.S. conflict was caused by the existence of the Communist Party, suggesting that the rivalry would cease when the Communist regime did (Cooper and Brands 2021). The \u2018extreme competition\u2019 conveys this same lack of finality, revealing that the Biden administration has very little plans for the outcome of this competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A strategic plan to establish an outcome for the Sino-U.S. \u2018competition\u2019, that has progressively worsened under successive governments since Obama, is desperately needed. As outlining a plan would serve to entrench cohesion across the U.S. executive, legislature, and relevant federal agencies, a characteristic that Biden values deeply after the erratic nature of Trump\u2019s foreign policy. Equally, a strategic end goal enables mutual understanding between China and America, illuminating their expectations of each other and avoiding a dangerous blind dance around possible global conflict. Lastly, and vital for domestic understanding of foreign policy, establishing an end goal for this relationship allows a benchmark to be set, at which the successfulness of policy towards China can be measured. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Biden has taken the reins just as China is at the apex of its geopolitical ascendency, and America\u2019s influence has been slowly losing its\u2019 potency in Asia. Both the U.S. and China are equally vying for a place as the global hegemon, and while China refuses to cede their advances towards global power, the U.S. declines to sacrifice its unipolarity (Cooper and Brands, 2021). Consequently, this entrenches significant animosity and antagonism between the states, and could theoretically, result in the U.S. and China blindly walking in to a second Cold War. Therefore, the relationship between these states is at an impasse, and an outcome must be established close this chapter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The eventualities of this relationship have many possible outcomes, with few being attractive to both the U.S. and China. The ideal, but unlikely, eventuality lies with mutual accommodation (Cooper and Brands 2021). However, the reality of the situation, due to China\u2019s ascendency ambitions and America\u2019s defensive nature regarding their unipolarity, means that other eventualities are far more probable. Therefore, the U.S. may favour the eventuality of Chinese state collapse, while the Xi Jinping administration shall hope for America\u2019s secession of influence. Most catastrophically, the relationship could result in all out conflict, an end which is made more likely by the U.S. reluctance to assign a strategic end goal to the relationship (Cooper and Brands, 2021).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n