Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
White House will now be occupied by Joe Biden, not Donald Trump, who wants to remove tariffs on Chinese-made goods and end the trade war that hurts American consumers and importers. Joe Biden for 8 years as Vice President was passive on China, he is far from being a "China Hawk". He wants to avoid a Cold War 2.0 with China, despite his tough sounding rhetoric.


You do know Biden will appoint Flournoy as Secretary of Defense as replacement for Mark Esper. Flournoy is known to say US-China rivalry is "first and foremost in economics, trade, and technology" and increasingly in security sphere.[1] While she is a neocon hawk who promoted Libyan intervention, she respects China as a nuclear power to be respected, and is not a anti-China hawk maniac like Mark Esper, who suggested 50% of US military academy's educational curriculum should focus on China/PLA-threat.



You do know Biden will appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State, replacing the notoriously hawkish Mike Pompeo. Susan Rice was former UN Ambassador and former national security advisor to Obama. She is a well-known quantity and is NOT an anti-China hawk. She is a significant improvement compared to Mike Pompeo as SecState and while she recognizes the challenges of China, she isn't looking for a Cold War 2.0 like Pompeo was.



The State Department controls US foreign policy, Congress and Senate have little influence on US foreign policy. Nobody cares what Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have to say on foreign policy. Their symbolic and useless Xinjiang human rights bill and Hong Kong human rights democracy bill did virtually nothing and changed nothing.



You literally have a 12 year old understand of US-China relations.


You don't need US Senate to repeal the 10-25% Trade Tariffs on China, because they were an Executive order via Commerce Department.
You don't need US Senate to release Meng Wanzhou because they are Federal Charges that they can unilateral drop.
You don't need US Senate to end the Tech Embargo on Huawei because they were Executive orders by the President.
You don't need US Senate to allow ASML to continue exporting EUVL to SMIC, because they were Applied pressure via State Department.

China already has Most Favored Nation (MFN) status that Congress approved in 2000, which allowed China to enter WTO. China doesn't NEED anything from Congress anymore.



Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell already signed that Senate Republicans will consider "centrists" cabinet official picks, but will deny "radical progressives" cabinet picks. Almost all of Biden's picks are "centrists" on China, which means they want to avoid a Cold War 2.0 and are not "pro-China" as you suggested.



That's why Biden's top pick for Treasury Secretary is Lael Brainard, the architect of China's entry into WTO, the pro-NAFTA and free trade deals, and the women who is against labelling China as currency manipulator?

You need to distinguish between "Rhetoric" for domestic purposes and "substanative policy." Biden's rhetoric will be strong and tough on China, but Biden's substanative policy (shaped by his cabinet picks) will be significantly less hawkish than Mnuchin/Lighthizer on China.



Well Trump just lost the election, give Biden 6-12 mons, and memory of Trump will have faded by then. Who is going to remember "enforcement mechanism", "snap-back tariff provisions", and "systematic structural reform of Chinese economy" in late 2021? Nobody, virtually nobody. Biden won't demand the same things Lighizer demanded, Biden will accept some recycled promises on Chinese opening up financial firm access, foreign ownership in joint ventures, and better IP protection, then declare victory, and move on.
And here I am considering Mnuchin and Lighthizer are moderate compared to Pomps, Navarro and Wilbur Ross.
I read some takes from "China observer" that Senate will have a China litmus test for cabinet members, I think that's just a coping mechanism. My take is that McConnell is more moderate compared to Schumer regarding China. I think McConnell doesn't give a shit outside embedding conservative judges in Federal courts.
 
Last edited:

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
And here I am considering Mnuchin and Lighthizer are moderate compared to Pomps, Navarro and Wilbur Ross.
I read some takes from "China observer" that Senate will have a China litmus test for cabinet members, I think that's just a coping mechanism. My take is that McConnell is more moderate compared to Schumer regarding China. I don't think McConnell doesn't give a shit outside embedding conservative judges in Federal courts.

I'm not scared.

Senate Republicans grilling Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary or Secretary of State will be:

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham: "China Bad?"
Flournoy, Brainard, Susan Rice: "China Bad."
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham: "China Bad or China BAD?!?!?"
Flournoy, Brainard, Susan Rice: "China BAD!!"
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham: "Okay, you are appointed, congratulations!"

----------------

What a truly nightmare scenario would be:

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham: "Will you insist on "snap-back" tariff provisions incase China violates trade deal? Will you insist on "enforcement mechanism" and "systematic structural reform" of Chinese economy? Will you Insist on ending Made in China 2025? Will you insist on meeting phase one deal amount or reimposing sanctions?"
Flournoy, Brainard, Susan Rice: "Yes I will and I will re-impose sanctions on all China trade if they don't meet phase one deals."

You can guarantee those idiots in Senate won't go into the real details that matter.
 

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
radical progressives" cabinet picks
Who are radical progressives in U.S. politics anyway? The Squad? Bernie? Warren? Who else?
Anyway I read that Biden is already considering having Dick Cheney as foreign policy lololol.
 
D

Deleted member 15887

Guest
Who are radical progressives in U.S. politics anyway? The Squad? Bernie? Warren? Who else?
Anyway I read that Biden is already considering having Dick Cheney as foreign policy lololol.
I mean, Bernie's nice enough to acknowledge that China does good in terms of poverty alleviation. Though predictably, if Bernie were to have been Democratic nominee, he would have been crucified as a CCP sympathizer due to that very mild comment he made.
 

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
Remember in the last debate both Trump and Biden doesn't talk a lot about China. The only China point from Biden is that He gonna make sure that American company got better treatment in China so no more joint ventures or Transfer of Tech. I bet lot of Democrat backers corporations are jealous with Tesla because he got that sweetheart deals in Shanghai.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
You do know Biden will appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State, replacing the notoriously hawkish Mike Pompeo. Susan Rice was former UN Ambassador and former national security advisor to Obama. She is a well-known quantity and is NOT an anti-China hawk. She is a significant improvement compared to Mike Pompeo as SecState and while she recognizes the challenges of China, she isn't looking for a Cold War 2.0 like Pompeo was.
Starting to think her Benghazi skeletons might come back to haunt her confirmation again, much like it did back in 2013 when Obama wanted her to succeed Hilary at State. Absolutely guaranteed Republicans will drag this out in committee hearing if Biden goes ahead to nominate her, it'll get ugly.

The State Department controls US foreign policy, Congress and Senate have little influence on US foreign policy. Nobody cares what Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have to say on foreign policy. Their symbolic and useless Xinjiang human rights bill and Hong Kong human rights democracy bill did virtually nothing and changed nothing.
The Senate Foreign Relations committee controls funding of foreign aid programs, arm sales, and training of allies. So yes, they do have a major influence on US foreign policy, especially when they have a major say on who becomes Secretary of State. I imagine Biden's administration will have to do a lot of quid pro quo if he wants to see through his foreign policy/legislation.

That's why Biden's top pick for Treasury Secretary is Lael Brainard, the architect of China's entry into WTO, the pro-NAFTA and free trade deals, and the women who is against labelling China as currency manipulator?

You need to distinguish between "Rhetoric" for domestic purposes and "substanative policy." Biden's rhetoric will be strong and tough on China, but Biden's substanative policy (shaped by his cabinet picks) will be significantly less hawkish than Mnuchin/Lighthizer on China.
I very much want Brainard for Treasury, it'll sure ease up trade tensions amongst the two superpowers. But she still needs to get through confirmation hearings through the a Republican control Senate Finance Committee, and I'm worried they'll see her as too pro-Beijing... Amongst all 3 NSC Cabinet postings, I only really see Flournoy (especially since Mattis wanted her as his deputy, she would've gotten through committee hearing and Senate approval but Trump's inside team saw her as too much of an Obama holdover) having a clear path on getting through committee hearing and ultimately getting Senate approval.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think Trump COVID mishandling will make Benghazi looks pale in comparison.
Agreed - except they're banging the gavel telling you to stfu whenever the topic of COVID mishandling gets brought up, redirecting Rice to her unfitness for the position of Secretary of State, or until she's given them a satisfactory answer that a State Department led by her can work in bipartisanship with a Republican controlled Senate, which pushes an anti-China agenda from the likes of Rubio and Cruz.

Regarding Brainard, tell McConnell that if they don't approve Brainard he'll gonna have Warren as an ACTING secretary.
Warren is in no position legally (according to the line of succession to becoming Acting Secretary of the Treasury, it goes from Deputy to Undersecretaries to Assistant Secretaries.... etc) to ascend to the position on an acting basis. She'd either have to be in some sort of position in the Treasury under the Trump Administration (which she isn't) and held over by Biden during the transition of power, or she'd have to step down from her Senate seat (I mean she's lost out on the Democratic Presidential nomination, would she really give up her seat in the Senate?!) to become acting Treasury Secretary.... And even then she'd still need Senate approval - no way jose that's happening, not when she plans on taxing everyone to high heaven and ramping up government spending.

Realistically it'll be the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Biden nominates (and gets confirmed) that'll hold the position of Acting Secretary of the Treasury until the Biden administration can get their nomination through. Quite Frankly I think Brainard has a higher chance of getting confirmed to the Treasury over Rice's chances of becoming Secretary of State.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
I'd argue that Mike Pompeo is infinitely more competent and dangerous than Biden or Susan Rice.

Trump just says YES to whatever Mike Pompeo whispers in his ears, and Pompeo is former CIA Director, he is more cunning and clever and devious than Biden times 1000.
I'd say otherwise. What Pompeo did is very much hollow. Such unilateral motions are bound to never achieve the goals but project some sort of effort if anything.

"Containing China" is a good buzzword thrown around often but what exactly is it? Physically, China can't be contained. The ideology behind it is dated (WW2 - Cold War era geographic containment). It hinges on the Heartland and Rimland theories of Geopolitics.

The real containment is isolation of China using soft diplomatic outmaneuvering and cutting China off the technological networks that push global technological advances.

US has failed to do that under Pompeo. Certainly, Pompeo can seem intimidating but what he did was pluck very low hanging fruits.

1.THAAD to SK was long time coming in the face of the North Korean Ballistic advances and aggression.
2. Arming Taiwan wasn't a new concept. Taiwan has been armed by US since its existence as ROC.
3.The Quad is hollow (for the time being). No specific mention of China in its agenda. It's like a transparent bikini.
4.HK was a failure. Xinjiang is too.
5. Trade war was a failure.
6. The Wassenar Agreement dictates that ASML cannot sell its most advanced tech to non participant country.
7. Huawei isn't dead. Neither is ZTE.
 
Top