This 'Roadmap' explores the settings of a dialogue between the two hegemons, expanding on the first notes of the series 'Geopolitics of Weiqi' and 'Questions better left unanswered'
U.S. and China international relations are best pictured in a matrix
Constructive exchange depends on a clear perception of the multi-layered dimensions which both countries have to navigate, but a heady dose of national self-interest on each side cannot be discounted
A compact
The interaction of economic interests, geopolitical influence and ideological principles plays out in each nation's confident projection of faith in a unique destiny
Because foreign strategies are intertwined with the strongest national commitments in both countries, their relationship is bound to become immeasurably more complicated as social, economic and political options harden on either side
Red lines
Red lines for one of the hegemons will easily be ignored or misinterpreted by the other, fostering division and eventually conflict
This is true of America's China policy, a medley of domestic policy considerations, industrial and financial interests and concerns for trade deficits, Pacific nations outreach and global hegemony
This is no less the case for China, caught in the vortex of incompatible options, between the ‘tributary’ relationships, historically in favor, and the benefits of material hard power displays
Henry Kissinger observed that China’s revolutionary leader Mao Zedong’s undertakings inspired economic and foreign policy with ideological exaltation
Applied to the upheaval since the late 1950’s, the comment sheds light on the (disastrous) economic Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and on the social carnage of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)
Taking center stage and fanning the flames, ideological expectations drove economic choices at the cost of tremendous social and political upheaval
And internationally, by asserting ideological leadership, China stood apart, confronting its Soviet nemesis implacably
In a sense, the country barely survived these assaults on economic and social reality, which dismantled the structures of society, all in the name of ideological purity
The underlying forces which drove China to such extremes may seem to belong to the distant past
Quite possibly, such a half-truth accommodates the great hope of Western business, eager to capture Chinese markets, and of America’s Pacific interests, aimed at balance and peaceful coexistence
However, the intensity with which ideology mixed with economic planning, and drove foreign relations continues to resonate
To entertain a dialogue with China today, the U.S. Administration has to take stock of an experience its leadership has experienced either personally or for close family members...
..and to weigh the lessons China has drawn from those searing experiments...
Deng Xiaoping, who led China’s massive changes from 1978, may have been protected by the Red Army during the wildest stage of anarchy unleashed by Mao Zedong, but he still spent 7 years in exile during the Cultural Revolution, growing vegetables and working as manual laborer in a tractor repair plant in Jiangxi province
His family however suffered immensely from the ‘Red Guards’ – Deng’s son Deng Pufang was pushed off the top of a university building in Beijing, breaking his back and, without medical assistance, was to stay a paraplegic for life
President Xi Jinping, although just 13 years old when the mayhem started in 1966, was not spared either as son of Xi Zhongxun, a revolutionary veteran and vice premier purged by Mao. As member of the party elite, Xi was a target, as was his entire family
The father of President Xi was sent to a factory in central China, and, repeatedly beaten, disoriented after years of isolation and interrogation, failed to recognize his sons at the first family reunion 6 years later (in 1972)
His daughter from a first marriage, Xi Heping, President Xi’s sister, lost her life ‘persecuted to death’ according to official accounts, which may have been by suicide
The point is that "hardship, injustice and family suffering during the decade of destruction was endured, and treated as an incident on the road to social cohesion, not to be dwelt upon"
H. Kissinger – on China (page 323)
It might be argued that ideology lost none of its edge but, instead of running havoc, as occurred during the ‘Great Leap’ and the ‘Cultural Revolution’, ideology is summoned as the glue combining economic progress and international power
If this assumption proves correct, legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might be staked on the dynamics of this synergy
In a true gamble, a reversal of great magnitude, perceptions have been turned upside down
Ideological revolution had been the guiding light of every political, social and economic choice
In the name of revolutionary ideals, Mao Zedong exhorted the "masses" to tear down the social 'cadre' in every form and shape
The administration, the economic foundations, the educational system and the Communist Pary itself were all suspected to be self-serving in the end
Ideology today is a marker, entrusted to the CCP to define the essence of what has become an orderly society
The economy, running smoothly with material benefits for all, is at the heart of this social contract
Giving a sense of purpose to China's people in their everyday toil, economic progress contributes to make ideological goals a reality - over time
Foreign policy has to balance national interests and symbols of ideological credibility, touting the country's astounding advance
A far cry from revolutionary exaltation, ideology has been the appointed buttress of reform, both economic with the exceptional rise of private enterprise, and social, with the emergence of an enriched middle class
Playing out over decades, since Deng Xiaoping swept away limitations to individual initiative in the late 1970's, the reforms created power centers of their own right, giant conglomerates with international ambitions and an educated and keen consumer class
How to recast these potent social forces with a sense of ideological purpose is the challenge of President Xi
Because these forces are also the faultlines of Chinese society, U.S. diplomacy would be loath to ignore the implications