Biden wants to block the rise of China. Should Canada join him?

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support for as little as $5 per month!

Joe Biden visits China, August 2011. Image credit: David Lienemann/Wikimedia Commons

This past weekend U.S. President Joe Biden sent a naval group headed by aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt into the South China Sea. Officially, the military action was to promote "freedom of the seas." In reality, it was a show of force on the part of the incoming administration.

The military exercise was designed for domestic approval as well as to warn the Chinese authorities the new U.S. president is paying attention to their overflights of Taiwan.

Biden sees national unity as a main objective. Identifying an external enemy is a classic means used by imperial powers to scare people into closing ranks: witness the U.S. Cold War with Russia.

Driven by the bipartisan U.S. foreign policy establishment, American policy towards China has been moving from "constructive engagement" when Bill Clinton was president -- 1993 to 2001 -- to an era of "strategic competition" which will continue with Biden in the White House.

The constructive engagement policy was aimed at bringing China to adopt World Trade Organization (WTO) practices. Protection for intellectual property rights (a.k.a. putting monopoly profits ahead of the public interest, as with COVID-19 vaccines) was among the rules U.S. corporate capitalists had championed at the WTO.

Right-wing populist Republicans pointed to the impressive economic success of China as being at the expense of the U.S. and engineered thanks to the Democrats backing the entry of China into the WTO.

China was also understood to be a competitor -- not just a trading partner -- and the Obama-Biden administration, in office from 2009 to 2017, orchestrated a "pivot to China" policy to deal with its rapid economic rise.

The pivot announced by then secretary of state Hillary Clinton was optimistically designed to move money and resources away from the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, and to "contain" China with military and economic measures.

The main upshot of the pivot was to drive China back into close relations with Russia, despite the long-standing U.S. policy imperative to keep the two great powers apart.

Under Obama, the U.S. envisaged a regional economic bloc: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, designed to encircle China with a coalition of democracies; but former president Trump walked away from the deal. 

China reacted to the failed pivot by negotiating its own pact with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other Southeast Asian nations, but not India. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership was signed this past November, just as Biden was being elected U.S. president.

China was also able to forge a commercial pact with the European Union, which has been wary of negotiating a trade deal with the U.S.

Kurt Campbell, the architect of the pivot under Hillary Clinton, has joined the National Security Council in the Biden White House, taking a lead role on policy for Asia.

Campbell is on the record as supporting a military build-up to support the pivot to China, which, as he argues, has both a military security and economic dimension.

An aggressive, belligerent U.S. approach to China is not supposed to exclude co-operation on climate or the pandemic. It will include pressuring China on its human rights abuses against Xinjiang's Muslims.

Canada, France, the U.K., and other U.S. trading partners and NATO allies are going to be lobbied to join the U.S. in aggressively countering China militarily -- and on trade, commercial practices, technology, investment, and human rights.

Revving up strategic competition may make sense to a U.S. leadership which thinks it won the Cold War with Russia and expects to win another great victory by blocking the rise of China. This is not a good enough reason for Canada or other countries to join them.

In his inauguration address Biden had only a few sentences about foreign policy. His main preoccupations were domestic issues: the pandemic, climate, re-invigorating government, and better rewarding work.

The "we must deal with pressing issues first" approach the Biden administration has adopted domestically could also work for the U.S. internationally.

Canada should be working with a broad coalition to urge the U.S. to identify global issues and act jointly with others, including China, to address common concerns: global health and vaccine availability, fossil fuels and climate, renewable energy and the environment, refugees and migration, arms control and military spending reduction, inequality and poverty, and re-distribution of wealth and global taxation.

The U.S. may wish to remain the only superpower, but the experience of the last four years has revealed conclusively the shortcomings of waiting for the U.S. to show the way.

Clearly, shared power multilaterally offers Canada and other countries a better opportunity to deal with the challenges to human existence we face together now instead of joining the U.S. in a cold war with China so as to preserve American hegemony.

Duncan Cameron is president emeritus of and writes a weekly column on politics and current affairs.

Image credit: David Lienemann/Wikimedia Commons

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.