Beijing Review: Fifty years ago, you were on the plane to Beijing with President Nixon. What was your most impressive experience during that visit? You witnessed the formation of the Shanghai Communiqué. What was the significance of its publication back then?
Chas W. Freeman Jr.: It was an opportunity to participate in something that was obviously of great historical importance. The whole event was a hinge on which history turned. We didn’t understand the extent of quite how much the impact of this would be. This was a move to change the geopolitical chessboard.
I was overwhelmed to see how very sophisticated and informed the Chinese officials were when dealing with work. Zhou Enlai, in particular, was someone of great grace, charm and skill as a diplomat. It was he who suggested that we begin the communiqué, reporting the results of the visit with a long recitation of our differences. And this was important because we had allies or friends on opposite sides of the issues we are addressing.
The communiqué is unusual, perhaps unprecedented in that it does not try to paper over differences, but states them clearly. Then goes on to say, notwithstanding these differences, we have ample reasons to cooperate. That was the spirit of the times. I wish it were the spirit of today.
In your interview with the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project in 1995, you mentioned that Dr. Henry Kissinger said if the Chinese ever became powerful, they would “bury” the U.S. because of the adroitness of their strategic thinking. Do you agree with him?
I don’t think he meant to “bury” the U.S. in the sense of doing anything fundamental to us.
But that remark, as I recall, was following a meeting with Deng Xiaoping in New York. And Mr. Deng was a man who had a brilliant, strategic mind and a capacity for cutting through problems to their core. He wasted few words, he wasted nobody’s time, he was decisive, and he was a statesman. I think Kissinger was highly impressed by the strategic reasoning that Chinese leaders evidenced. I think that’s what Kissinger meant as secretary of state.
So I think “bury us” means outcompete us. And indeed, that may be what is now happening. So perhaps he was more far-sighted than he realized.
You once mentioned that during the initial period of diplomatic relations between China and the U.S., there were generational differences in the U.S. Foreign Service. Is that still the case today?
When I encountered China for the first time, it was a very different country. It was not strong. The younger generation has not experienced such a China and has no idea how far China has come or what alternatives China might have adopted, if it had not traveled the path that it did. If you don’t know how bad things were back then, you cannot understand how good things are now.
There is a psychological problem involved in the U.S., adjusting to a reality in which it is no longer the unchallenged No.1 power in the world.
Around 1870, the U.S. became the largest economy in the world, overtaking Britain. China had been the largest economy until 1850 when Britain overtook it. Since 1870, which is now a very long time ago, 150 years, the U.S. has been accustomed to being without a peer.
Now, China is clearly recovering its historical status as an enormously wealthy, powerful state. And the U.S. therefore has to pay attention to China in a way that it hasn’t before. That is psychologically difficult. The Chinese understand this, because China fell a very long way from where it was. Historically, China had probably been about one third of global economic power. It’s now rising again toward that level. I think all these adjustments are difficult and keeping them in historical perspective is easier, if you are like me, an old man.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the America Competes Act of 2022. Many Chinese experts on Sino-U.S. relations see this act as an attempt to contain China’s rise. Do you think it will be passed into law?
I fear it probably will be passed. And I am convinced that it will injure the U.S. far more than it injures China. What do you say in Chinese? “We cannot wall ourselves off from the world?” I think by separating ourselves from China’s progress, we impoverish ourselves and we retard our own progress.
Unfortunately, at the moment, in my view, the U.S. is in the position of adversarial antagonism, rather than trying to improve our own performance, or doing what we used to do and what China has done so successfully, namely, look abroad for best practices that we can adapt to our own conditions.
We are focusing on restricting China. I don’t think this is otherwise or has any prospect of being successful. China is not the Soviet Union. The basis of the containment theory or grand strategy that George Cannon formulated in 1947 was that the Soviet Union, if it were walled up, if it were contained, would eventually fall as a result of its own defect. The system didn’t work. It would collapse. And indeed, 40 some years later, that happened.
Nobody thinks China’s system is going to collapse. Furthermore, unlike the Soviet Union, China is fully integrated into the world. It cannot be walled off. Even if it were possible, the U.S. now no longer has the capacity to do what it did in 1948, 1949, 1950.
So, the circumstances are very different. And I’m sorry to say that those in the U.S. Congress, and the political elites who fear China and fear its competition, have it fundamentally wrong.
The Joe Biden administration is following the concept of values diplomacy, trying to unite America’s allies against China. Being a veteran China expert, what aspects of China might appeal to the international community?
China has many aspects that appeal to the world. It performs well, it has lifted many people out of poverty, and it has taken the blue boiler suits that I saw in 1972 and replaced them with colorful clothing.
I don’t think the world has to fear the export of the Chinese system. But China needs to set an example. I think if you go back and read The Four Books [four Confucian classics on which much of Chinese philosophy is based], you will find that Mencius praised the foreign policy concept that influence on other countries can be derived from setting a good example. He said the good state can be discovered when you see other countries trying to learn from it.
Do the U.S. and China have common ground that we can work on to move relations forward, as we did in Nixon’s day?
I think the answer is yes. But it requires statesmen or women to deal with that, to realize that.
Now, the issues we’re confronting are in many ways more serious than that: Climate change has the potential to erase the human species, not just make life difficult for us with violent weather and floods and hurricanes and typhoons.
The pandemics that we’re seeing. The human species has now grown to such numbers that it is a very attractive target for viruses and bacteria and the like. And we will see more pandemics. All these problems cannot be dealt with by a single country.
And in the whole world, the two most powerful, innovative countries are China and the U.S. I would add, finally, that we all hold a stake in prosperity and in domestic tranquility.
China has benefited enormously from American prosperity through an export-led growth pattern that has raised Chinese living standards. Similarly, the U.S. benefited hugely from China’s emergence as the world’s largest manufacturing power. Almost one third of global manufacturing is now in China. China is producing twice the volume of goods that the U.S. does.
So, we need to remember that our prosperity and our personal welfare depend on a world in which we can cooperate, not just to address the problems I mentioned, but to benefit ourselves and our countries.
These are long-term issues. Human beings for whatever reason have a hard time dealing with long-term problems. They have a tendency to defer action on them. This is a mistake. So, question: Can we produce a leadership that is up to the standards of statesmanship that President Nixon spoke of?
How about President Biden?
I don’t see anyone at the moment. President Biden is unfortunately trapped by the current condition of American politics. He does not have a majority in the Senate. Although he has a 50-50 split, he is not able to get things through reliably. He has a very narrow majority in the House of Representatives. The two together seem to be in gridlock at the moment.
If he were to introduce proposals for a change in U.S.-China relations, which I would favor, he would raise arguments on all sides against him. And he would lose the ability to do the things he is already trying to do. So, he is basically paralyzed by the current situation in American politics, which is not good.
There is a sense in China that a kind of hostility is growing among the American public, as though it is returning to the anti-China and anti-socialist zeitgeist of the mid-20th century. Is there anything we can do to reverse this trend?
I’m not sure I agree with you about American attitudes. I think the political elite, particularly that part of it in Washington, D.C., is probably hostile toward China. Whether they are sincerely hostile, or they are simply using this as a political weapon to advance their own interests is an interesting question. I do not know the answer to it, but I think the public at large is a great deal less fervent in its focus on China.
And indeed, Americans and Chinese on a one-to-one basis, on a family-to-family basis, have very good chemistry. We get along well, we understand each other, we form friendships and connections easily. So, I think the best answer to the question is this: We need to keep the fabric of our relationships intact. The more contact there is at the personal level, the stronger the trend toward a better relationship will be. I think this is a passing phase.
The Chinese have a reputation for taking the long view. I think the rough with the U.S., which we are now observing, is temporary and China needs to prepare for the day when two things happen.
First, the U.S. picks itself up from the sad condition in which it is now and restores itself to greater “wealth and power,” if you will. Second, when that happens, China is positioned to be a close friend of the U.S., rather than an adversary. And both things are possible, but they require patience, and they will require a bit of change on both sides. Nothing is ever one-sided. I think, to some extent, where we are now, is the product of mistakes on both sides, although I would say the major problems visibly are on the side of the U.S. at the moment.
As you are very familiar with both Chinese and American culture, have you ever noticed any ways that Chinese philosophy can relate to that of the U.S.?
There are many things in Chinese culture and philosophy that are exceptionally valuable. I’ll start with saying Chinese food, which has many merits.
The Chinese enjoyment of life, which is inclusive. Spring Festival and moments like that are also very attractive. There is a passage in Mencius which talks about how you recognize the good state. If you lose your wallet on the road, somebody returns it to you. In other words, honesty and straightforward concern for the wellbeing of others is very much an aspiration of Chinese culture. And finally, there is the famous si hai zhi nei jie xiong di (All men are brothers). You know this is an idea of common humanity, which is universal in its appeal.
I also agree very much with the Chinese formulation of what we call the golden rule. The golden rule in Christian tradition is to do unto others what you would have them do to you. And the Chinese version is don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. This thought is the same, but the concept of self-restraint, zi wo yi zhi, or something like that, is very important.
So, there are many things to admire about China. There are some little aspects that are not so admirable, but we will leave those aside because I think the best way to proceed with this relationship, for China to proceed globally, is qiu tong cun yi—that is to set aside differences and look for common ground. -The Daily Mail-Beijing Review News Exchange Item
