Nixon recognize Taiwan?

None of us are saying that. But it turns out that if we look at the events of today that Nixon and Kissinger sold the US and its future to Communist China.

Really? it is maybe the fault of americans and their leaders themselves, first.
Like the Reaganism and all? Maybe. Or not.
 
Really? it is maybe the fault of americans and their leaders themselves, first.
Like the Reaganism and all? Maybe. Or not.

No it´s nixon and his commie appeacement! (sarcasm)

More sensible policies over the last 30 years and US would still be far ahead of China and not be in a mess.

But I´m a bit tired of this debt debate thing. China doesn´t own all US debt, they own a fraction of it. Most of US debt is owned by the US or entities within the US at least.

Secondly, China has many problems which are far worse than those facing the US.

Thirdly, US has 300 million people, China one billion and 300 million. Now consider that US is still the bigger economy... What does that mean for the average Chinese and his standard of living? Even if China would equal, nay, double the size of US economy, the middle class in US would still be better of than the one in China.

So trying to stay on top no matter what is immoral.

But as others have said, the acceptance of China was inevitable. If not Nixon, then Ford, or Reagan. (Carter might have had problems doing it being a democrat but still don´t rule it out).

A pod on an earlier thaw in relations or a later could be interesting.

Any good pod on a China avoiding the cultural revolution bullshit in the 60s and starting to capitalize earlier?
 

Sumeragi

Banned
The people of China do not deserve to starve regardless of what their government is. It's immoral to restrict the prosperity of a nation because you fear it.
That's humanity. We're discussing pure politics :p

I don't quite think that China would have starved even if it weren't open. Most likely Deng would have done something which would have at least kept starvation at bay, but we'll probably be seeing a Burma.
 
I think people here are placing entirely too much credit in the role of the US in China's economic (neo-)liberalization. Sure, Nixon and Kissinger went to China in 1972, and Deng Xiaoping starts social and economic reforms in 1977. The connection looks pretty clear / straightforward.
But the thing is, it's not that obvious - this thinking is a causality fallacy. The Chinese reforms had been building up on a local level for a very long time - local authorities breaking up communes, for example, or initiating free trade. A lot of this stemmed from the death of Mao Zedong, and which point most people outside of the hard left of the CPC blinked and realized that they were collectively heading for a trainwreck. Deng Xiaoping managed to harness that local energy and enact reform on a national level, first trying to build up rural industry, education, etc - a discontinued policy which IMO should have been continued, as it would lessen the urban-rural gap and resulted. He then shifted to subsidizing and encouraging urban industrialization in a protected atmosphere, and things skyrocketed from there. And this all would have happened, most likely, even if Nixon hadn't gone to China. There are other trading partners in the west who would have done business with China.
I think it was a good strategic move for Nixon, because in the long-term, everything that happened gave China (or burdened, from the PLA's perspective) a long-term interest in maintaining good relations with the US - if that sours, they lose our business and strategic leverage, we lose cheap sweatshop goods for the masses. :p So yeah,..
 
Need to note that the USA recognized Taiwan until Nixon recognized the PRC. So the action was not so much about "recognizing Tawian" as recognizing the PRC. I think this made sense at the time but the verdict is out on how this affected the US relationship with China long-term. The USA still arms Taiwan and is committed (supposedly) to defending its independence as long as this is desired by the Taiwanese government. There were geopolitical reasons beyond the Taiwan issue for the PRC and USA to reach accomodation. I don't think US recognition of the PRC had anything to do with Chinese economic liberalization. One can wonder if, as the PRC modernized, the US could have held out recognition longer as a tradeoff for some sort of PRC guarantee that reunification would only occur if desired by Taiwan as well.
 
Of we look at this from a purely raw strategic angle where the aim of the game is to stay the top dog at all costs. Then it would indeed be in the United States interest to have the EU falling apart and Asia falling apart in a nuclear war.

There are nevertheless other ways to stay on the top without having to use these machiavellian means. That's simply levering your advantages to the greateast possible extent.

In 1971 the United States had the following huge advantages relative to China:
1) Massive technological superiority.
2) A fully established mature industrial base able to produce everything from widgets to airplanes.
3) A very strong and well developped infrastructure.
4) Cheap energy and a near total self sufficiency in fossil fuels.
5) A highly perfoming education system able to churn out competent engineers/scientists by the thousands.

1) Still holds true but was wasted in a lot of respects in my opinion. American no longer has a massive edge in nuclear science, in engineering, in aerospace and in key future sectors like robotics and electronics manufacture. Part of this advantage was wasted by not building up on the legacy of the Apollo program, another part of it was wasted because American businesses stopped being as innovative as before relative to say Japan in sectors like car manufacturing and electronics. I would say that policy choices are to blame here, the choice of finance for the sake of finance as opposed to finance for the sake of investing in the future is the best illustration of this.

2) This is still true to a significant degree, but the US has lost its aura here especially with the rise of Japan and growing competition from other advanced economies.

3) American infrastructure is not as good as it once was, some major Americans airports are among the worst in the world as far as delays are concerned. High speed rail is still a gleam in the eye in a lot of states, when unarguably America could have been ahead of many other countries in that respect. The Interstate Highway system is crumbling and in any case it needs to be further expanded to meet future needs.

4) This one is an interesting one as shale gas could reshuffle all the cards in short order. I nevertheless think that it would have been appropriate for the country which first cracked the atom to lead the world in nuclear power generation. Compared to France, America has a more entreprising culture and more "don't forget the costs" approach, this coupled with the larger size of the US means that cheap nuclear power could have arisen in the US. Yet it did not, again policy errors (Carter) are to blame for this failure.

5) The American higher education system is still the envy of the world, but (and please correct me if I am wrong) I have read that the picture is quite different for primary and secondary education. Debates about whether or not to teach evolution in schools, don't help in inspiring more people to take up science either.

There is nothing set in stone about nations rising and falling, for all we know China may grow old before it grows rich. It is all down to the decisions we take in the end and I very much feel that The United States took some wrong decisions during the last forty years or so. Decisions whose ill effects are just starting to be felt.


You make very good points Dunois. If I'm ever made President of America you’re crossing the pond with me to make sure I'm not too handy with those launch codes ;)
 
Actually the dumb thing to do was to recognize the communist state. This then opened the door for trade which saved the communist regime from the collapse of its Soviet neighbor. Without the massive amounts of money that the Chinese sweatshop laborers exports earned the Communist government, that government would have collapsed or been another isolated communist failure like North Korea or Cuba.

Nixon and his fellow travelers saved the communist regime of China. They should put a statue of Nixon up next to Mao.

The GDP under China grew nearly fourfold under Mao. Even without trade with the U.S. China's economy would have continued to grow. China is a huge market that U.S. businesses badly wanted access to and if the U.S. hadn't opened relations with China other countries would have reached out to China to fill the gap.
 
Y'know, it wouldn't be a problem for Nixon to recognize Taiwan... as a Republic of Taiwan, instead of as Republic of China. But at that time, the Taipei government wasn't interested in being just Taiwan. And by when Pan-Green Coalition took over, it was already too late.
 

Sumeragi

Banned
The GDP under China grew nearly fourfold under Mao. Even without trade with the U.S. China's economy would have continued to grow. China is a huge market that U.S. businesses badly wanted access to and if the U.S. hadn't opened relations with China other countries would have reached out to China to fill the gap.
The growth under Mao is more due to there not being a war to fight. Moreover, it's the quality, not quantity, of the growth that matters.


Y'know, it wouldn't be a problem for Nixon to recognize Taiwan... as a Republic of Taiwan, instead of as Republic of China. But at that time, the Taipei government wasn't interested in being just Taiwan. And by when Pan-Green Coalition took over, it was already too late.
Recognizing any sort of independent Taiwan would directly go against the One China policy, since Taiwan was considered as part of China on the PRC side.
 
But would PRC in 1970s do really anything about it? If US went and did it it's doubtful that PRC could do anything else than send protest... at best.
 
Chiang Kai-Shek was still alive back then and the proto-"pan-green" forces there were still underground, and recognition of "Taiwan: would probably been seen by him as American treachery and the prelude to a coup against him.

He might even become friendly with the USSR again?
 

Sumeragi

Banned
You're saying that like the US was the only option for investment in China... which I address in my post you quoted. :rolleyes:
Well I don't know, I just don't see any other country except the US having the capital amount to pull up China as it has been pulled up. I think this is more of a conflict on how we view the importance of US capital compared to the alternatives. The one thing that is certain is that China needed investments to fuel its growth: Without a backer, there would be no 9% growth, however that seems faked given the way statistics are given out in China.
 
Actually the dumb thing to do was to recognize the communist state. This then opened the door for trade which saved the communist regime from the collapse of its Soviet neighbor. Without the massive amounts of money that the Chinese sweatshop laborers exports earned the Communist government, that government would have collapsed or been another isolated communist failure like North Korea or Cuba.

Nixon and his fellow travelers saved the communist regime of China. They should put a statue of Nixon up next to Mao.

One of the the U.S. recognized China was to them from aligning with the Soviet Union again and to get China to help the U.S. to undermine the Socialist Bloc. If the U.S. hadn't recognized China, the Soviet Union might never have fallen at all.
 

Hoist40

Banned
One of the the U.S. recognized China was to them from aligning with the Soviet Union again and to get China to help the U.S. to undermine the Socialist Bloc. If the U.S. hadn't recognized China, the Soviet Union might never have fallen at all.

The Chinese and Soviet communists hated and feared each other so its doubtful they would get together. And if they did get together then they would have had two weak communist systems which probably would have fallen together since both had the same problems. Would the central planners been able to work together any better when you add the added complication of having both the Soviet and Chinese systems.
 

EricM

Banned
The Chinese and Soviet communists hated and feared each other so its doubtful they would get together. And if they did get together then they would have had two weak communist systems which probably would have fallen together since both had the same problems. Would the central planners been able to work together any better when you add the added complication of having both the Soviet and Chinese systems.

Well it goes back centuries. Russo-Sino relations had been awful long before Communism was ever a thought.

I think the future power struggle is really going to be between the PRoC and India. Just read a great book "India & China: Prospects For Peace" and the prospect is not looking too hot.
 
American Politicians sold the idear to the American public that they could have nation without paying for it...Thats why we are in situation to begin with...
 
Top