"Strategic Patience" Leads to "Weakness"
Diplomacy has gotten rocky recently between the United States, China, and North Korea.
Despite the rhetoric heating up, President Joe Biden plans to use "Strategic Patience" towards China and North Korea. The term was popularized after Former President Obama decided to apply this 'strategy' to North Korea. It meant that, like a shaolin monk, the stronger fighter will wait for his opponent to make a mistake before taking any action.
The concept sounds nice to the ears, but it has never been proven to work in geo-politics. From 2009 to 2016, the Strategic Patience policy only made things worse. North Korea continued nuclear testing and launching of medium range missiles.
According to an editorial in the Sankei Shimbun [Japan] on Jan. 27th, “Although Ms. Psaki announced that the U.S. policy vis-a-vis China would not change, ‘strategic patience’ was the policy of the Obama administration vis-a-vis North Korea which was so passive that it consequently allowed Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.”
In 2017 on the other hand, Former President Trump's "Fire and Fury" policy brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table. Since that time, there has not been a single nuclear test from North Korea. Some have compared Trump's approach to Richard Nixon's "Madman Theory." No matter what it is called, it has proved superior to "strategic patience" over the last 50 years.
It has often been said that "if you want peace, prepare for war." Within that oft repeated phrase a paradoxical truth. If the Biden regime wants peace in Asia, they must be willing to display willingness to use force. This in turn will reduce the likelihood it will have to be used.
If they instead lack the courage to show their willingness to use power, they must be dissuaded from their current strategy towards something else. When things are deteriorating, anything might be better than maintaining the status-quo.