By Ted Snider
Recent events in Ukraine and Taiwan have presented President Biden with an opportunity to showcase his statesmanship. Both situations presented Biden with a red line. Both times he crossed it.
Giving Biden a red line not to cross does not seem to be a good idea. Seemingly demonstrating the psychology less of a statesman and more of a school yard bully, red lines seem to challenge Biden to show that no one can tell him what he can and cannot do.
At the beginning of December, 2021, Putin drew a red line, seeking “reliable and long-term security guarantees.” Those guarantees “would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory.” Russia’s new red line was Ukraine. The red line was not unreasonable: Russia had not significantly reacted to decades of NATO expansion east. NATO was now at Russia’s door.
That Russia expected the US and NATO to keep their promise that they would not expand east and that Ukraine was the final red line was not a surprise to Washington. A pantheon of US officials, including such experts as George Kennen, Jack Matlock, William Burns and Robert Gate, had warned about the dangers of NATO expansion. In 2008, Burns, now director of the CIA, then US ambassador to Russia, warned that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).”
Later, he warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” Short even of expansion into Georgia or Ukraine, Burns called NATO expansion into Eastern Europe “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.” If it came to Ukraine, Burns warned, “There could be no doubt that Putin would fight back hard.” In 1997, Biden himself, then senior democrat on the foreign relations committee, warned against the dangers of pushing NATO expansion too far east.
The existence of a red line does not justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But since Biden and Zelensky both knew that NATO was not going to admit Ukraine, Biden could have assumed the role of statesman and not school yard bully challenged by a red line, clearly stated that NATO was not expanding to Ukraine and sat down at the diplomatic table to negotiate the implementation of the Minsk agreement as the best solution to a settlement in Ukraine.
When Nancy Pelosi announced her trip to Taiwan, Biden again had a chance to be a statesman but rejected it in favor of school yard bully. Biden said only that Pelosi’s trip is “not a good idea right now.” China has for decades made it clear that Taiwan is a red line. When Xi Jinping warned Biden on their most recent phone call that “those who play with fire will only get burnt,” and the Chinese government warned that “the Chinese People’s Liberation Army will never sit idly by” – an extreme formulation it has used only once before – Washington’s language did a further metamorphosis from diplomacy to bully. The language took on the tone of not allowing China to dictate what America could do.
China’s red line is neither new or arbitrary. Joint communiqués negotiated with China between 1972 and 1982 commit the US to only low-profile, unofficial diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Though Pelosi insists that “Our visit – one of several congressional delegations to the island – in no way contradicts the long-standing one-China policy, guided by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the U.S.-China Joint Communiqués and the Six Assurances,” her visit is clearly not a low-profile visit. Pelosi is not just a member of congress making a visit. She is third in line for the presidency and the highest ranking American to visit Taiwan in twenty-five years.
Biden’s claim that he lacks the power to prevent Pelosi from making the trip because, as the head of a congress, which “is an independent, coequal branch of government . . . the decision is entirely the speaker’s” will be hard for China to accept, especially since the speaker is being flown into Taiwan in a US military jet.
Biden, once again, had the opportunity to respond to a well established red line as a statesman and not as a bully. He could simply have clearly stated that Pelosi’s visit is a violation of long-standing, foundational agreements with China and that, if he couldn’t stop it, he did not sanction it, that the executive branch opposed it and that it did not represent the position of the White House.
Instead, the US crossed the red line in a military jet. The long term consequences remain to be seen, but there is little doubt that the turbulent waters have been poisoned. China fired missiles over Taiwan and positioned warships around the island in a manner that clearly demonstrate an ability to blockade Taiwan. At the same time, China announced that it was “canceling or suspending dialogue with the U.S. on climate change, military relations and other topics.” China further canceled “dialogue between US and Chinese regional commanders and defense department heads.”
And there is a further cost the US could pay. Pelosi’s action and Biden’s inaction demonstrate to the world again that American agreements are not signed in permanent ink. When Donald Trump illegally pulled out of the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal, Iran and the world suspected that Trump was the anomaly, and that they just had to wait him out and re-engage with Biden.
When Biden continued Trump’s approach to the deal, it began to look like Trump was not an anomaly but that he and Biden were the face of the American norm: international relations governed not by international agreements but by American interests. The Biden administration’s clear violation of its agreements with China reinforces that appearance. To the world, Trump’s willingness to break international agreements may be looking less like an anomaly and more like an American norm continued under President Biden. And that may make the world less likely to engage in agreements with the US.
Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERSWe See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Red lines…one just has to love them. They are not to be crossed! All sorts of condemnation and retribution will befall those guilty of violations of red lines. Of course, there are modifiers and exclusions, just in case a ‘good guy’ inadvertently makes a mistake. But there is only one red line absolutely NO judeo-christian gov ever violates…even in their own countries…regardless of circumstances or event. There might be a bit of word-play, but never anything of substance or consequence. These are the only ‘red lines’ that are completely inviolate-able by anyone, anywhere in said states…no excuses. All the other red lines are subject to local/regional/POV approval or rejection.
These situations have given Old Geezer Biden one last chance to “get it up”. He and Trump both have no idea what to do with the power they were given. So, they just politically masturbate and spray their demented seed all over their countrymen. What a great team of macho misfits.
I would realy like to know why allmentioned desn’t justify Russian incursion in Ukraine? Sudenly you such supporters of peace! Russianwere supposed just to sit down and wait for the mighty USA to crush it, or to be “decolonized”!
Two errors by the writer. First he claims that Russia invaded Ukraine which is untrue. They were requested by the newly independent governments in the Donbas region to defend them from continual attacks by the Ukrainian government who refused to abide by the Minsk agreement. Secondly China has already acted by cutting off Taiwan’s supply of sand used in their microchip industry which is their biggest industry meaning that Taiwan’s economy will soon collapse. Now all the Chinese have to do is blockade any trade with the island and Taiwan will literally be dead in the water. No actual invasion required. This is what happens when you mess with the nation of Sun Tzu.
I understand that what The US government says and does reflects US gov. interest, but to state; “it began to look like Trump was not an anomaly but that he and Biden were the face of the American norm: international relations governed not by international agreements but by American interests.”
is incorrect. The US Government (inc.) has long left American interests in the dust. Much like the UFO phenomenon, who or what controls individual governments and the World as revealed in ‘The Wizard of Oz’. We can only sit back and laugh as Austin Powers and Dr Evil entertain us with death destruction and “endless?” war. If we had 24/7 cameras and correspondents in Yemen or similar war zones perhaps the laughter would end. Who or what do those Red Lines represent?
Claiming that Russia was not justified in invading Ukraine is total BS.
The pitty in the news is that one have to point it out! Thank you sir.
True, find just one person in Ukraine that didn’t know that by the end of 2014 ‘they’d had it’.
Comments are closed.