Meanwhile, Beijing’s engagement in Third World politics had never stopped. Doing so suggests the Mao-Nixon meeting actually was less groundbreaking than it has been depicted.įirst of all, Nixon’s coup de theatre terminated a process that had been ongoing for almost a decade: the ending of China’s (relative) isolation or, more precisely, its concomitant antagonism toward the United States and the Soviet Union.īy 1972, China was completing diplomatic normalizations with the most important Western European countries – France, West Germany, Italy, and the UK - not to mention Australia, Canada, and Japan. Instead, it highlights the need for scholars and other observers to properly contextualize the visit within longer and broader historical trends already underway. This is not to suggest a deterministic path to the post-1978 economic transition. Ultimately, it took Mao’s passing to make these shifts more visible.Įven though Mao was not keen on using America to fuel China’s future economic growth, as Deng Xiaoping would prove to be, the 1972 visit occurred at a time when some in the PRC were debating some of the basics of Chinese economic development. It is possible that the visit also facilitated changes that were already silently underway in China as a result of Beijing’s decision to (re) join global capitalism and become a “player” in global governance (rather than in just the socialist and non-aligned worlds). In addition to the Nixon trip, it is important to stress the significance of two trends that had been playing out in the post-WWII era: namely, the rise of Asia and Washington’s often confusing and contradictory attempts to facilitate and to benefit from this ascendancy.Ĭlearly, in the short-term, “The Week that Changed the World” significantly altered the course of the Cold War, giving the United States the ability to play the China card vis-à-vis the Soviets, and vice versa. Rather, it aligned neatly with evolving American and Chinese strategies regarding both one another and the rest of the world. Such a historical re-contextualization suggests that the visit was “simply” a very important event, but one that did not come out of the blue. However, what precisely did the visit change? Was it truly a global turning point?Ī half century has now passed and the time has come to move beyond the undeniable theatrical acclaim the visit produced (and deservedly received) and to situate Nixon’s visit and the subsequent unfolding of the Sino-American rapprochement within the broader context of the second half of 20th century history. What we currently see, and what we have seen over the past 50 years, is the unforeseen but also linear result of the seeds that were planted during that eight-day trip, famously hailed as “The Week that Changed the World.” Unquestionably, it was. Certainly these factors were strong initial catalysts, but they are not sufficient when it comes to explaining fully what happened over the long run. In fact, reasons for collaboration multiplied in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. That the Soviet Union was perceived as a common threat (to the PRC’s security and America’s hegemony), the conventional story goes, provided an additional motive for collaboration. The Nixon visit initiated a phase of collaboration between the two countries that, in spite of recurring difficulties, continues until today. The most populous communist state and the wealthiest capitalist nation had decided it was time to put ideology on the sidelines, recognize each other diplomatically (which, importantly, took another seven years) and (very slowly) let business commence. What happened next is generally well-known. Careers, Fellowships, and Internships Open/Closeįifty years ago, the People’s Republic of China and the United States shocked the world when American president Richard Nixon travelled to Beijing and met with China’s Communist Party Chairman, Mao Zedong.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |