Biden’s Provoking Another War. This Time With China.

In September 1901, just days before becoming president, Theodore Roosevelt remarked, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” This was a succinct summary of Roosevelt’s approach to diplomacy and foreign policy, and it has been the motto of Big Stick diplomacy ever since.

The idea was that the ability of the U.S. to project military force should be strong but kept in the background. Diplomacy was better than war; talk was better than violence. Still, in order to get the best results in diplomacy, it was good for your adversaries to know that you could react with military force if necessary and that you were prepared to do so.

In effect, the best use of military force was not to use it but to let opponents know you could do so if they were unreasonable. Roosevelt used Big Stick diplomacy successfully to build the Panama Canal, keep European powers out of Cuba after the Spanish-American War, and to create the Great White Fleet of 16 battleships that peacefully circled the globe in a show of U.S. naval prestige.

Today, Biden’s motto seems to be: Speak loudly and carry no stick at all. Biden is escalating a war with Russia in Ukraine and now threatens war with China over Taiwan while he cuts the military budget and fails to give our military the technological edge it needs to compete with Russian hypersonic missiles and the Chinese space force.

The latest example of Biden’s bluster with little to back him up is described in this article. Biden was on a tour of Asia last week meeting with key allies in Tokyo including the leaders of Japan, Australia, and India.

The meeting was clearly about efforts to counter the rise of China, yet China was not singled out by name and there was nothing on the agenda specific to the situation in Taiwan. For decades, the U.S. has carried out a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding whether the U.S. would come to the aid of Taiwan if it were invaded by China. Most observers quietly believed the U.S. would help Taiwan militarily, yet that policy was never proclaimed publicly in order not to provoke China needlessly.

When asked by a reporter if the U.S. would use force to defend Taiwan, Biden answered “Yes.” With that single word, the policy of strategic ambiguity went out the window.

The problem is that Biden may have provoked war over Taiwan, rather than deterring one. China considers Taiwan part of China and has repeatedly said it will control Taiwan eventually by one means or another, including an invasion.

The invasion planning looks at Chinese force projection capabilities and the defenses of the Taiwanese. But it must also take into account the likely response of the U.S. If the Chinese thought that the U.S. might respond, but that such a commitment might weaken over time, China could find it in its own best interests to wait until U.S. interest waned.

On the other hand, if China were certain that the U.S. would respond and saw the U.S. getting stronger over time, they could find it optimal to invade sooner than later. The purpose of strategic ambiguity was to keep the Chinese guessing.

By negating strategic ambiguity, China might conclude that now is the time to strike. Biden’s big mouth and shoot-from-the-hip approach have made war with China more likely.

And unlike Roosevelt, Biden has no big stick to back up his big mouth. It’s small wonder stock investors in the U.S. and China have been running for the hills.

Corporate leaders and institutional fiduciaries looking to incorporate state of the art predictive analytics to their risk mitigation and strategic analysis should click the link to learn more about Raven Predictive Analytics®.