The United States really won in the historical stage of the Cold War. It eventually rely on Lithineticism, instead of Nycsonism or Kissinger style.It is a good thing to thaw Sino -US relations itself, but it is difficult for both sides to obtain more and more higher and higher -level fit.The pragmatic policy of Kissinger's style also allows the United States to take a step in one step, just that.
Henry Alfred Kissinger, a US border giant and former Secretary of State, died on November 29.I remember in the early 1990s, the author received a professor of foreign policy in Beijing in Beijing.At that time, Sino -US relations were unprecedentedly low, and the Chinese government hurriedly asked Kissinger for help, hoping that it would dredge and resolve severe differences between China and the United States.At that time, the author told the American professor that Dr. Kissinger recently published some insights and waved his hand, saying that "Kissinger is out of date."
"Kissinger is outdated"?This declaration felt quite wrong for China at that time.Kissinger himself was far away from public office after 1977. His government diplomatic career (as a national security adviser and Secretary of State of the United States) was mainly from 1970 to 1977.During this period, for the benefit of the United States, he ran through the international structure of the Cold War and drove the cold war.Including the signing of a series of military control and "Detente" with the Soviet Union at the time, as well as the ice breaking the ice for Sino -US relations, promoting the first trip to China President Nixon in 1972.So for China's foreign border, Kissinger can be called the godfather of the American foreign junction and the "Panda School" China Connect.
Looking back today, the so -called "Kissinger is out of date" should be accurate.The more objective and comprehensive evaluation should be said that "Kissinger style" is a major part of the overall diplomatic philosophy and practice of the United States after the war.To this end, the Washington Post has a relatively good summary, that is, the main diplomatic style of Nixon and Kissinger is the "controlled the Cold War", and the main diplomatic style of Reagan and old Bush is "winning the Cold War."The biggest difference between the two in philosophies is that the former pursues the so -called "realpolitikitik, also known as Makiavilism). The latter emphasizes the difference between values and the game of morality. One of them is the so -called human rights diplomacy.
Historical records show that when Kissinger served as Secretary of State, it publicly stated that Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was a group of people who made money and fate, but the United States would still deal with them and establish a relationship.During the process of responding to the Soviet Group during the political period, Reagan continued to condemn the Soviet Union as an evil empire, and called on Soviet leader Gorbachev to "overthrow this wall" (Note: refers to the Berlin wall during the Cold War).
"" Existence is reasonable "
"Kissinger style" is based on the basic judgment of Hegel's philosophy "existence is reasonable". It focuses on realistic problems and pragmatism.Some major changes and defeat opponents.Kissinger's boss when he was in power. President Nixon published a book 1999 in 1988 and won without fighting. It also described this similar conflict with opponents.Impact "diplomatic concept.
But the facts show that when Kissinger stepped down in 1977, the Soviet Group was still like the sky, and soon after the war, Afghanistan warned Afghanistan.In the year, Iran's brutal closed state rule, which restored politics and education, and blatantly attacked the US Embassy and detained hostages.However, the Carter government at that time was still influenced by some "Kissinger style". The neutral field in crisis treatment was hesitant to compromise, trying to rely on Iran's negotiation to solve the problem. FinallyInternational prestige and influence have been severely frustrated.
After the Reagan government's main administration in 1982, it changed the US's controlling diplomatic style for more than 10 years, and began to pursue advantages and victory.Reagan once publicly stated: "The United States I advocated is simple to the Soviet policy. Some people may think it is too simple, that is, the United States victory, the Soviet Union failed."
During the period of Reagan and old Bush, the Islamic autocratic regime and the strong man, such as Libya, and Saddam in Iraq, the other hand, the other hand, and the Soviet group played a game, from the external support strategy to the Soviet GroupInternal changes were disintegrated until the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991.That is to say, the United States really won at the historical stage of the Cold War, and eventually rely on Lithism, instead of Nixonism or Kissinger style.
In the process of the above historical framework and thinking evolution, it is not difficult to discover the true nature of the ice -breaking journey of ice -breaking the ice in junior high school and the United States in 1972.
The thawing itself is a good thing, but it is difficult for the two sides to obtain more and higher and higher -level fit, because China still adheres to the ideological revolution ideology and extreme left political route, and Kissinger style is practical.Doctrine policies also allow the United States to take a step in one step, just that.Only when China finally abandoned the Cultural Revolution at the end of 1978 and the start of reform and opening up can Sino -US relations truly achieve normalization and great development.
Some people will ask, why can Kissinger be a "old friend of the Chinese people"?It should be said that Kissinger has a good luck. During his administration, he opened the door to Sino -US relations. It belongs to one of the founders of the new pattern. Although he is no longer in charge, he is lucky enough to meet China for 40 years.The prosperity and glory of reform and opening up, Sino -US relations have been continuously developed and enhanced.In such a benign environment, the old friends of the Chinese people can continue to do it smoothly.
Sino -US relations have not fundamentally changed in 50 years
In contrast, the US ambassador to China in the mid -1940s is not so lucky.Helley was famous for his trials to mediate the conflict between the KMT and the Communist Party on behalf of the US government after the victory of the Anti -Japanese War and avoid the civil war in China.In 1945, during the negotiation process of the Chongqing and the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai -shek, Mao Zedong, the mainland government, accompanied the tall Americans that were exposed in many historical shots, the Ambassador of Herley.Imagine that if the National Republican discussion was really successful at that time, China formed a joint government to build a peace peaceful country, and Herley would become a "old friend of the Chinese people"?And his merits and contributions to China's development will also greatly exceed Kissinger's level.
In the course of the development of Sino -US relations, the United States' "contact and cooperation" policy close to half a century from 1972 to 2018, which began at the fixed tone of Nixon and Kissinger.It is difficult, but there is no fundamental change.After 2018, the United States politics and mainstream society judged that the policy of China in the past has failed. From then on, Lagana has begun to dominate the China policy, and has not changed due to rotation of political parties. Instead, it has intensified.This is why Kissinger has sighed in recent years, "Sino -US relations have been difficult to return to the past."The helplessness and sigh of Kissinger may have different interpretations.Some say that because China is now strong, the United States is unbalanced, so Sino -US relations have changed significantly.This saying that it may be politically correct, but it does not really solve the problem of China.There are two major judgment standards for reference.First of all, what is China strong?Modern civilization should include the strength of ordinary people and individuals, otherwise it is not really powerful.Furthermore, the United States is the leading capitalist, and the main characteristic of capitalism is that wealth can be created.If you want to engage in other doctrines, you must also create wealth instead of tossing some false ideology and political movements all day.
The author thinks that Kissinger deeply sighed, of course, penetrating his hole if he watched the fire, that is, China is now going to the dangerous path of reform and opening up.This road is unreasonable.This will not only harm China, but also make the prospects of Sino -US relations dim.In the long tunnel, Century old Kissinger could not see light.
(The author is an expert in international cultural strategy in the United States)
