First Published: The Organizer, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1979.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
For 20 years, spanning the administrations of seven presidents, the US has held that the legitimate, “real” government of China was the regime of Chiang Kai-shek and his successors whose authority was limited to the island of Taiwan and its 17 million inhabitants. The People’s Republic of China, the government of 800 million mainland Chinese by virtue of routing the corrupt, Kuomintang regime in a civil war, was denied official recognition.
In the early years of the cold war, the US regarded the People’s Republic as “bandits” or as “Moscow agents” imposed upon the Chinese people. US policy was based on the assumption that the government of Mao Tse-Tung and the Communist Party of China would be shortlived. With US backing, Chiang Kai-shek would retake the mainland and restore the “old” China where the western imperialists in conjunction with Chinese landlords and capitalists reigned supreme.
This fondest hope of the US imperialists was not to be although it was not for lack of trying. The US armed Chiang to the teeth and encouraged constant provocations and subversion aimed at the People’s Republic. The US took the lead in seeking the political and economic isolation of China, opposing its seating at the U.N. and imposing an embargo on trade. In Korea, the most reactionary US circles, represented by Douglas MacArthur, sought to provoke a full scale war with China.
All these efforts failed. The discredited Kuomintang forces found no support among the working people of China and failed to make good their promise to return to the mainland.
In spite of the US led diplomatic boycott. China’s prestige and recognition constantly grew, particularly among the newly independent nations of the third world. In spite of US imposed trade restrictions, the Chinese people, aided initially by the Soviet Union, took giant steps forward toward building a socialist economy and raising their living standards. And finally China refused to capitulate to the military provocations and bullying of the US. When MacArthur ordered US troops to drive toward the Yalu River and the Manchurian border, during the Korean War. China intervened and drove the US forces back down the peninsula.
Forced to abandon the prospect of “rolling back” communism in Asia, the US turned to a policy of containment. Meanwhile, in the middle fifties the Soviet Union turned away from a policy based on proletarian internationalism and sought to strike a bargain with US imperialism. This bargain compromised the interests of the workers and oppressed peoples in the interests of what has come to be known as detente. People’s China during this period remained an uncompromising, revolutionary voice. As such China continued to incur the wrath of the imperialists and earned the hostility of the Soviet revisionists as well.
The US continued its policy of hostility and non-recognition. It sought to construct an anti-communist alliance in Southeast Asia based on client regimes.
The US brought pressure on the Soviet Union to “moderate” China and make its leaders more “reasonable”. The Vietnam war was fought, at least in some part, to “teach China a lesson” and demonstrate US “seriousness” in its committment to contain communism.
The prospect of US defeat in Vietnam represented a turning point. No longer were the US imperialists able to so effectively dominate events. One manifestation of this new situation was that the US could no longer isolate China. More and more nations established friendly relations, and after many years, China secured admission to the UN on its terms. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the US began to shift its policy... Nixon’s ping pong diplomacy, the Nixon visit, the Shanghai Communique, and now full diplomatic recognition and the establishment of normal relations.
US recognition is fundamentally on China’s terms. For many years US policy makers have seen the alternative to non-recognition as a Two Chinas policy – recognition of the People’s Republic while retaining recognition and ties with Taiwan. This policy was always seen in Peking, and rightfully so, as a gross infringement on the principle of China’s sovereignty and as such it was unacceptable.
Now the US has been forced to recognize the principle of one China with sovereignty over Taiwan, a concession that has the extreme right wingers in Congress howling mad. The US was able to gain some window dressing for its concession in the form of a Chinese committment not to use force in taking steps to unify China. But having conceded the point that the resolution is China’s internal affair, the US is not in a position to challenge the People’s Republic’s actions. Nor does there appear to be any inclination to do so in top policy making circles.
That the US has been forced to abandon its policy of hostility and establish relations is clearly a victory for the people of China and for the people of the US. The new ties mean that friendship and mutual understanding between our two peoples can grow.
At the same time the establishment of ties must be looked at in another context – the growing coincidence of policy objectives in relation to the Soviet Union on the part of both the US and People’s China. This’ is the dark side of the emerging relationship.
US policy is presently the result of a delicate balancing act. On the one hand there are the advocates of detente, symbolized by Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance. The detente faction believes US imperialism’s interests are best served by trying to reach a limited sort of accommodation with the Soviets, based on the recognition of separate spheres of influence. While the detente advocates are not opposed to bettering relations with China, they subordinate this concern to the improvement of Soviet relations, currently focused around the SALT negotiations. The timing of recognition of China and the inclusion of an anti-hegemony clause in the agreement undoubtedly concern the detente faction.
Grouped around National Security Council Chief, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the other faction. While not willing to totally scrap the framework of detente, they favor a more aggressive, anti-Soviet policy. This grouping favors exploiting the so called “China card”. In short they are prepared to promote and support China’s hostility to the USSR as a means for countering Soviet influence and advancing US imperialism’s interests. This action is the source of Soviet alarm and concern in relation to the development if US policy.
The contradictions in the Carter administration’s policy can more often than not be traced to the contention between these different outlooks. The timing of recognition was clearly a victory for the Brzezinski faction. On the other hand President Carter’s efforts at “reassuring” the Soviets, shows that there is no definitive change in US policy. The balancing act will continue.
It is, of course, not surprising that the US imperialists are prepared to exploit the division between the People’s Republic and the USSR to their own advantage. What is far more disturbing is that the People’s Republic of China is increasingly willing to collaborate in this design.
The international line of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the foreign policy of the People’s Republic have gone through a complex evolution since the beginning of the Sino-Soviet split. In the earliest period China’s policy was militantly anti-imperialist. The main criticism of the Soviets was that they failed to consistently oppose US imperialism and objectively collaborated with it.
During the Cultural Revolution China’s line underwent a profound shift. The Soviet Union was designated as a social imperialist superpower and an enemy of the world’s peoples. China called for opposition to both superpowers but continued to target the US as the main enemy.
Following the warming of US-China relations, the People’s Republic’s policy shifted again, focusing on the USSR as the main antagonist. The formal conception of the united front against both superpowers was retained, but was increasingly remote from China’s actual practice.
Now it appears that even this formulation is being scrapped. The communique from the recently concluded plenary session of the Chinese Communist Party speaks of the “new and important successes in developing the international united front against hegemonism.” There is no mention whatsoever of opposition to the “other superpower”, US imperialism. Thus the Chinese leadership is becoming increasingly open in acknowledging the real content of its policy. As we have argued countless times, this is a wrongheaded and dangerous policy which must be opposed.
Another controversial feature of the developing relationship between China and the US concerns China’s policy toward foreign investment, credits and trade. Committed to rapid industrialization, China needs credits and foreign technology to achieve a fast pace of development. Questions have been raised about the terms on which China is to secure these. We think it is premature to judge China’s plans since they are still in the process of definition. There is, however, a certain irony in that many of the features of China’s projected modernization program bear a similarity to measures taken by the Soviet Union, measures which were roundly condemned as evidence of capitalist restoration by the Chinese leadership.
The negative features of China’s foreign policy and questions about its approach to modernization should not blind us to the positive character of diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations. The establishment of ties including trade relations between capitalist and socialist nations is, in and of itself, no violation of revolutionary principle. On the contrary such relations are in the best interests of promoting peace and in the final analysis the worldwide socialist revolution. While the context for China-US recognition can’t be glossed over, the fact of recognition should nevertheless be welcomed by all revolutionaries in the US.