The death last week of long-time China policy architect Henry Kissinger can “be seen as an apt metaphor” for the end of the engagement policy the controversial statesman initiated in the early 1970s and that over the ensuing decades led to closer trade and culture ties between the two once antagonistic countries, long-time American expert on China Orville Schell said on Friday.
But, with engagement gone, “The U.S. should now look to find whatever opportunities it can to build new bridges, while at the time working with allies, partners and friends to strengthen its military, as well as economic and cultural presence, as a form of deterrence in such contested hot spots as the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea and Senkaku Islands,” said Schell, the current director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York. Schell, who has authored more than a dozen books on China, is a former professor and dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley.
“Hopefully we can find some things to cooperate on and try to rebuild some of the bilateral musculature we have lost during the Xi Jinping era,” Schell said. “This will not be easy because the PRC (People’s Republic of China) under Xi’s leadership does not excel at reciprocity.”
Schell spoke on the sidelines of the Cure4Cancer event at the Asia Society in New York on Friday. The gathering highlighted collaboration among nations – including the U.S. and China — in the fight against cancer, and was held jointly with the 6th annual symposium organized by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group of China, which have worked together on cancer research.
Underscoring the current strains in Washington-Beijing ties, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was reported by AFP to have told a defense forum held in California on Saturday that China is “the biggest threat we’ve ever had” and “is not our friend.”
Interview excerpts with Schell follow.
Flannery: We’ve had the APEC meeting and Henry Kissinger’s passing away as significant events in U.S.-China relations recently. Where do relations go from here?
Schell: Kissinger’s passing be seen as an apt metaphor for the end of the engagement policy this controversial statesman initiated in the early 1970s and that over the ensuing decades led to closer trade and culture ties between the two once antagonistic countries.
Engagement as a workable policy is now irrevocably over. In a way, his death is a moment in the drama of U.S.-China relations when the person who started it and believed in its promise is now gone.”
Flannery: Why do you say it’s the end of engagement?
Schell: Because “engagement” as a policy depended on flexibility and lowering the flame of antagonism that animated the Cold War. Engagement started — though without the name “engagement” — in 1972 when Kissinger and Nixon went to China. Then in 1979, Carter recognized China and “engagement” then continued for decades. Nine U.S. presidential administrations supported it wholeheartedly.
Orville Schell at the Cure4Cancer conference held at the Asia Society in New York on Dec. 1, 2023.
Russell Flannery
But interestingly, the Chinese had no such similar concept. Indeed, in Chinese there is no specific term of what we came to know as “engagement.” Then, when Xi Jinping came around, he had a different notion of the way the world was put together. He proved very much an old-style old Marxist-Leninist who saw the outside world, Western world, and democratic world as fundamentally antagonistic — what he refers to as hostile foreign forces to China as a one-party Marxist-Leninist state. Moreover, I think he also began to imagine this was China’s moment of resurgence – or of rejuvenation. This is what his China dream is all about.
So, those two things conspired together in Xi’s mind: He saw China as rising, and America as declining. In his view it was China’s rightful place to be at least a more prominent player on the world stage, if not a global hegemon.
You asked about APEC. My view of APEC – and I was out there – is that it was a very superficial phenomenon. I think Xi Jinping, worried about China’s economy, wanted to court foreign investment, so was trying to be a little nicer and a little more friendly. However, deep in his heart, I don’t believe he’s suddenly become much more friendly or trusting. I don’t think things have changed radically.
That said there still may be areas where some new collaborations are possible and where things could be done. Why? Because I think Xi is, despite all his bravado, in fact feeling a little more dependent on the world, at least the global marketplace.
Flannery: So where do we go from here?
Schell: We go to conferences like this on cancer collaboration and hopefully we can find some things on which to cooperate and thus try to rebuild some areas of common interest.
I first went to China in 1975 when Mao Zedong was still alive, and there was precious little friendship between the U.S. and China. There was nothing going on between us. But then under Deng Xiaoping it changed, and it will change again. In the meanwhile have to do what we can now to keep the promise of change alive and, above all, not go to war.
Flannery: What would be the catalyst for a better tomorrow?
Schell: The catalyst for a better tomorrow is for the United States and its various partners, allies and friends to be cautious and temperate, and build better connections where we can, but don’t be unnecessarily provocative — don’t give up Taiwan, don’t give up the South China Sea, don’t give up the Senkaku Islands and don’t give up on Arunachal Pradesh in India that China claims as part of Tibet.
But don’t be any more inflammatory than necessary. The goal should be to deter, not inflame.
Flannery: It seems from what you’re saying that the U.S. needs to increase its military presence in that part of the world. But from a Chinese point of view, any such increase in American military presence will be viewed as inflammatory.
Schell: I think that’s absolutely right. And if Xi Jinping doesn’t understand that increased military presence by Australia, Japan, the Philippines and India is being caused by himself, he is going to put himself in the middle of a Greek tragedy. And we all know how most Greek tragedies end: very able, smart leaders of kingdoms reach too far, become too arrogant, and end up bringing everything down on everybody, including themselves. I think Xi runs this risk.
Flannery: What’s ahead for Taiwan?
Schell: That’s the most dangerous part of the puzzle. When he met with Kissinger, Mao Zedong said, it doesn’t matter if it takes 100 years to solve this, we can wait. And when Deng Xiaoping went to Tokyo in 1979 before visiting Carter in Washington D.C., he said” Leave this for smarter, future generations. Don’t mess with it now.
But Xi has a different view. If he doesn’t get it back while he’s alive, he seems to see it as a failure. For him, compromise or seeming failure is unacceptable. But that’s the heart of diplomacy – compromise. He denies himself the capacity to do diplomacy and is left with what? Conflict?
Underscoring strains between Washington and Beijing, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo on … [+] Saturday reportedly described China as “the biggest threat we’ve ever had” and said the country “is not our friend.” (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
See related posts:
Taiwan Billionaire’s Daughter Joins High-Stakes Presidential Race As Opposition VP Candidate
China’s Economic Growth Poised To Pick Up Next Year — PwC
@rflannerychina
