30 Years After Recognizing China (1972) - Did Kissinger's Diplomacy Do More Good Than Harm?

self

[jstone78]

Nixon made his famous trip to China 30 years ago, although the anniversary was several months ago (February?).

In the process of opening up to China, Taiwan, one of America's very best friends, was tossed aside like a gum wrapper.

Taiwan is now a democracy.

Was Kissinger's diplomacy in the Middle East, Rhodesia, South America, USSR and Vietnam a success?

[jstone78]

The major foreign policy initiative in those days as "Detente". Anyone remember it?

[William McKinley]

SHOW YOUR PRIDE! SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[USMMA_83]

Kissinger is a fu**ing idiot! He did more harm than Clinton and his band of monkeys.

[DoctorMichael]

Anyone remember it?

Yes. Detente is an old French word which refers to the action taken when one loosens the string on a crossbow rather like going from a 'cock-and-locked' position on a 1911. This takes place so as to avoid an accidental misfire. In the case of Henry the K it was a metaphor for "decreasing the tension" (on the bow-string of war).

[Conagher]

Interesting. The rest of the civilized world and anyone who knows at least a modicum on the subject would disagree with you.

[Cicero]

No doubt that the opening to China was by far the most important action taken by Nixon's administration.

The jury is still out. China is an enormous potential danger to the United States. But I would stress potential danger. It's not inevitable, if we play our cards right. China is not historically aggressive beyond what it regards as its proper sphere of influence. They have always thought that China was the center of the world, and had no great ambition to rule over the fringes. It remains to be seen whether Mao broke that old Chinese worldview.

Whether we would have done better to continue isolating China is a question. That would have blocked their rapid economic expansion into the world economy. But at some point the wall would inevitably have broken down anyway.

I agree that Kissinger was a defeatist, who deep in his heart thought that the USSR would inevitably win the Cold War. But I'm not sure that he actually DID anything that damaged our basic security interests. The Soviet Union was not ripe to fall back then. It was later on, and Reagan was wise enough to see the opportunity.

[USMMA_83]

Wait for the thread to develop...

[Enemy Of The State]

Kissassenger should be hung for his acts!

[tallhappy]

More harm.

[weikel]

Yes China became less commie afterwords as did Russia eventually and the commie world got at each other's throats.

[weikel]

Kissinger got the Chinese and Russians more worried about each other than us. Mao was certainly evil and probably responsible for more deaths than Stalin but he was old going to China probably helped strengthen Deng's hand against the gang of four.

Now why is all this a bad thing.

[weikel]

The jury is still out. China is an enormous potential danger to the United States. But I would stress potential danger. It's not inevitable, if we play our cards right. China is not historically aggressive beyond what it regards as its proper sphere of influence. They have always thought that China was the center of the world, and had no great ambition to rule over the fringes. It remains to be seen whether Mao broke that old Chinese worldview.

Thank you most freepers who have China as their pet issue seem to have little understanding of the history of China.

I don't think Mao adhered to the old view of foreign policy and Chinese interest he was a revolutionary and they can't be trusted but Deng on the other hand took the old fashioned view. Now personally I don't trust the current guy but I think his neo Maoist view will die with him.

[maui_hawaii]

Kissinger, in his heydey, did things that could be considered beneficial. No question. It was combination of things though. In Kissinger's day, in regards to China, he basically supported those factions inside of China that wanted a more moderate China. These people shifted China.

Back then, everyone was a pawn in the US's game. China included.

What I don't like is people moving from "China is a tool for our safety, and a very detailed place with some on this side and some on the other" to "China is sooo great, China is sooo good, China this, China that...". In present debates, you either like China or you don't like China. No one looks at the details of things.

People have often lost all objectivity to China.

Kissinger doctrine is past its heydey sort of, and to be honest, I think too many people think of 'opening China' as acceptance of the CCP's positions. Its not. The only real Kissinger thing that could be applied today is to support those inside of China that will move them more toward our direction in a friendly manner. At the same time take seriously and oppose those who do not meet our requirements. There is a saying about this in Chinese, about the soft and the hard...

We need a new objectivity towards China. China still does not see things the way we see them. China is still dangerous, and China STILL has factions. The world landscape has changed from Kissinger's day though. To try and fully use "Kissinger doctrine" today is quite foolish. Even moreso, to try and use Kissinger as a reason for why China is so 'great' is plain stupidity.

We are not trying to defeat a USSR anymore, but our doctrines toward the PRC are still the same.

[Enemy Of The State]

Sure those were good points..in the mean time we stabbed a strong ally in the back...(Taiwan)

[weikel]

I actually don't really disagree with anything you said I will qualify however it was Kissinger who stressed looking at countries as chess pawns for your own interest. As for factions Deng had most of the bad guys shot but some survived by pulling successful "Vicar of Bray" esque transformations.

[maui_hawaii]

The US needs a balanced micro and macro view of China. Those rampant CCP diehards who want to conquer Taiwan, we should oppose them with full force.

Those who opt to better the country, limit power, build positive institutions, and bridge the gap with Taiwan peacefully, while respecting the neighbors, including Taiwan and the US... we should not be so opposed.

We are going to have a "China", just what kind of "China" is what matters. If they define "China" as 'CCP rule' then thats no good.

We have to identify who is who.

Just because we oppose rampant and ignorant nationalists, people who are ignorant of the world and opposed to institutionalization and law, it does not mean we hate all Chinese people. If you ask the nationalists though, if we challenge the CCP, it means we hate Chinese people.

To those people they need a monster, and we are it. Their interpretation of history is flawed and basically they are not willing to get over things, and get on with it. Just because a British white guy sold opium 150 years ago, it means to them that ALL foreigners and all white people are bad. Its stupid.

Then they base their entire world view around the chip on their shoulders. I can name all kinds of things.

[Conagher]

It was well worth the wait.