An interesting long essay today by Edward Luttwak at UnHerd. The myth of Chinese supremacy.

The 1972 Nixon and Kissinger visit to Chairman Mao in China was certainly some kind of breakthrough. If nothing else it forced the USSR to open a second front in the east, moving tank and motor rifle divisions across from Germany. But it went along with a determined effort by the US press to look the other way when it came to the obvious shortcomings in China, from the rampant poverty, the still-ongoing Cultural Revolution – and the stench of human excrement:

Neither the American nor the Chinese media misrepresented that momentous strategic encounter, but they did join hands in utterly concealing the reality of China itself. For example, none of the admiring descriptions of Beijing and its imperial monuments in the New York Times prepared me for the stomach-turning stench that pervaded the city, and reached indoors as one tried to eat in the Beijing Hotel dining room. Throughout the city, human waste was not flushed away but carefully collected as precious “night soil” fertiliser, and then ladled into handcarts that were slowly pulled through the city to the surrounding vegetable fields.

Nor did I read in 1972 about how the crowds in Beijing’s streets trudged from place to place in various states of clinical depression, understandably enough given the deep misery in which they were living — from their one-room-per-family, courtyard houses with no hot water to everyone’s shabby Mao suits and grey faces that evidenced border-line malnutrition. All this stood out even more because of the ubiquitous posters depicting ecstatically happy, rosy-cheeked enthusiasts applauding Mao.

Nor did anyone in 1972 care to mention that the officials they encountered — as I did four years later — were all suffering from intense sleep-deprivation: they had to reach their offices soon after dawn for lengthy pre-work “struggle sessions”, with the janitors and junior staff who run their ministry’s Revolutionary Committee playing Red Guards to upbraid them. The topsy-turvy rituals of the Cultural Revolution persisted until Mao died.

Instead of any criticism, the US press praised everything, including the health-giving virtues of riding a bicycle to and from work, even though Beijing’s summer air was full of faecal dust, with carbon monoxide added in the freezing winters of the coal-heated city.

A journalist of great fame at the time, James Reston, had already recounted his own marvellous experience of Beijing when he suddenly needed emergency surgery there in July 1971. His acute appendicitis could have killed him, but it turned out that the nearest hospital was fully equipped, and the surgery went well. It was only many years later, when Mao’s doctor defected and wrote his memoirs, that it emerged that Reston was taken to the hospital reserved for the top party leaders — the only one in Beijing fully equipped to treat him, or anybody who needed surgery.

The smell went away in later years as chemical fertilisers arrived, but many of the misrepresentations of that 1972 trip linger till this day — of which the most important by far is the legend of China’s strategic statecraft, superior by virtue of its very long-range perspective, then personified by Zhou Enlai. Because Kissinger negotiated primarily with Zhou, he elevated that servile toady — who never once tried to save life-long colleagues from Mao’s murderous intrigues — into a statesman of transcendental wisdom, fully endowed in the long-view department.

This was exemplified by Zhou’s answer to Kissinger’s fawning request for his retrospective view of the French Revolution. Indeed, Kissinger never tired of relaying the Great Man’s answer: “Too early to tell”. You see, you see, Kissinger would add, China’s greatest minds look ahead 200 years. Today, authors and publishers still use “playing the long game” in the subtitles of books about China.

They should not. Chas W. Freeman, the interpreter, immediately told Kissinger that Zhou was referring to the 1968 student uprising that overthrew De Gaulle, whose final outcome was indeed still unclear in 1972. But Kissinger refused to give up his two centuries for a mere four years, and continued to repeat the story when gracing the dinner tables of the extremely rich in subsequent decades. It was one of the simpler Kissinger mystifications: by turning Zhou into a great statesman, he qualified himself as one — unnecessarily, it would later transpire, because he had so little competition until Reagan arrived to deflate the balloon of Soviet power.

Kissinger’s lie about Zhou was only the tail of a much bigger rat: the historical falsification that ignores China’s stupendous record of strategic incompetence down the ages…

According to Luttwak, the strategic incompetence extends up to the present day, as Beijing alienates all of its neighbours – with the exception, notably, of North Korea.

Let's hope he's right. We could all use some incompetence from China round about now.

Posted in

3 responses to “Kissinger’s lie”

  1. Joanne Avatar
    Joanne

    “Zhou was referring to the 1968 student uprising that overthrew De Gaulle.”
    That had never occurred to me! I had heard this anecdote before, and thought how wonderfully clever and profound Zhou’s response was.
    He apparently had little idea what the phrase “French Revolution” actually meant, so he assumed that Kissinger was asking about the “soixante-huitards.” So, it wasn’t profundity of thought, but shallowness of knowledge that was behind Zhou’s answer. How disappointing.

    Like

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Yes, it was news to me too. Makes a lot more sense than Kissinger’s spin.

    Like

  3. Martin Adamson Avatar
    Martin Adamson

    Zhou had studied in France so he certainly knew about 1789 etc. Obviously there was some other misunderstanding or distortion.

    Like

Leave a reply to Mick H Cancel reply