Critique on Henry Kissinger’s New Book
Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. National Security adviser who subsequently became U.S. secretary of State, was the key figure for breaking the 30-year stalemate between China and the United States in 1971 when, on his trip to Pakistan, he pretended to have a stomachache and quickly sneaked into China to meet Chairman Mao and Zhou Enlai. It has been 40 years since then. Kissinger is a German-born U.S. politician who, under the U.S. Constitution, is not eligible for presidency. But his status as an important leader in one of the world’s largest nations should be quite personally fulfilling.
In retrospect, after 40 years, both nations have changed leadership six or seven times. President Nixon, who greatly treasured Kissinger, resigned after the Watergate scandal. Thereafter, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama succeeded as leaders. After seven presidents, time has changed everything, including the debt pile the United States has accumulated over the years. The United States is no longer the “empire” it used to be.
Similarly, China has had its ups and downs and is not the same as before. Excluding the “Gang of Four,” China has changed leadership multiple times from Chairman Mao, Liu Shaoqi, Soong Ching-ling (few remembered she was chairman), Dong Biwu, Li Xiannian, Yang Shangkun, Jiang Zemin, to today’s Hu Jintao. Eight leaders have changed hands since Kissinger last visited China, and this is something he can boast about on the 40th anniversary of his initial visit.
The United States and China cannot reverse the toll of time, but Kissinger’s thick skin allowed him to make continuous visits and endure the challenges encountered in China. Upon invitation, he rarely missed an opportunity, and in the past 40 years, he visited China 50 times. Not surprisingly, his recent book was named “On China.” The book is 586 pages, priced at $36. Amazon.com probably sells it for half the price.
The book was published on May 15, over a month ago. A translation can be expected soon because of the competitive nature of Taiwan’s publishers. Quick-minded publishers will soon license the book from Penguin and split it among translators.
It was through Max Frankel of The New York Times that I read the review on Kissinger’s book. He was executive editor of The Sunday Post and a columnist. He won the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Nixon’s icebreaking visit to China. No person is more suitable for writing a review for Kissinger’s book, “On China,” than the 81-year-old Max Frankel.
Putting aside Frankel, let us return to Kissinger, who is an 88-year-old man, born in 1923. His Nobel Peace Prize was taken with a grain of salt by the Taiwanese loyal to the Republic of China. But Frankel spoke a few just words for him about his ability to organize strategic concepts and his focus on real problems, not on conflicts, hatreds and fears.
Frankel pointed out that in 1972, the Chinese were quite repulsive toward the U.S. — their intervention with the Communist Party, KMT conflicts and their attitudes of superiority and criticism for the lack of human rights, democracy and religious freedom in China. But Kissinger was able to find a compromise between mutual benefit and mutual destruction. He was able to find the threat that the Soviets were imposing on China and the United States.
Kissinger’s strategic concept, in his own words, is “that China and the United States would find a way to come together was inevitable given the necessities of the time.” Is this an unbreakable statute? Frankel’s commentary was exactly on these points.
International relations sometimes develop in parallel: Nixon greatly suffered from the anti-Vietnam War efforts; China suffered from the Tiananmen Square protest, both disproving Mao’s perpetual revolution theory. Prior, the United States and China had a common enemy — the Soviets. Therefore, their alliance was inevitable. However, history evolves through day-to-day, naturally occurring events. Kissinger’s prior strategic concept on “inevitability” turns out to be no longer true. What’s the time now?
To remind readers that times have changed, Frankel paraphrases Kissinger’s book: Today’s headlines are China’s strong economic growth and its position as the world’s industrial powerhouse. In comparison, the prior glory of the Soviets and their Eastern European allies has already collapsed. The U.S. is also dangerously addicted to foreign oil, goods and credit.
Under the Hu-Wen administration, Kissinger praises China for focusing on economic development, all else considered, and remains content with its historical frontier, willing to await a peaceful reunion with Taiwan. Beijing is now solely focused on economics to improve the nation’s living standard. Frankel willfully teases Kissinger, saying that he has long considered democracy to be a burden on statecraft.
Kissinger has in fact said this before: Democracy is a less-important piece in a global chess match. Last Wednesday, June 28, he went to Beijing again to meet Xi Jinping. I hope he did not say such discouraging words to China’s future leaders.
In retrospect, after 40 years, both nations have changed leadership six or seven times. President Nixon, who greatly treasured Kissinger, resigned after the Watergate scandal. Thereafter, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama succeeded as leaders. After seven presidents, time has changed everything, including the debt pile the United States has accumulated over the years. The United States is no longer the “empire” it used to be.
Similarly, China has had its ups and downs and is not the same as before. Excluding the “Gang of Four,” China has changed leadership multiple times from Chairman Mao, Liu Shaoqi, Soong Ching-ling (few remembered she was chairman), Dong Biwu, Li Xiannian, Yang Shangkun, Jiang Zemin, to today’s Hu Jintao. Eight leaders have changed hands since Kissinger last visited China, and this is something he can boast about on the 40th anniversary of his initial visit.
The United States and China cannot reverse the toll of time, but Kissinger’s thick skin allowed him to make continuous visits and endure the challenges encountered in China. Upon invitation, he rarely missed an opportunity, and in the past 40 years, he visited China 50 times. Not surprisingly, his recent book was named “On China.” The book is 586 pages, priced at $36. Amazon.com probably sells it for half the price.
The book was published on May 15, over a month ago. A translation can be expected soon because of the competitive nature of Taiwan’s publishers. Quick-minded publishers will soon license the book from Penguin and split it among translators.
It was through Max Frankel of The New York Times that I read the review on Kissinger’s book. He was executive editor of The Sunday Post and a columnist. He won the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Nixon’s icebreaking visit to China. No person is more suitable for writing a review for Kissinger’s book, “On China,” than the 81-year-old Max Frankel.
Putting aside Frankel, let us return to Kissinger, who is an 88-year-old man, born in 1923. His Nobel Peace Prize was taken with a grain of salt by the Taiwanese loyal to the Republic of China. But Frankel spoke a few just words for him about his ability to organize strategic concepts and his focus on real problems, not on conflicts, hatreds and fears.
Frankel pointed out that in 1972, the Chinese were quite repulsive toward the U.S. — their intervention with the Communist Party, KMT conflicts and their attitudes of superiority and criticism for the lack of human rights, democracy and religious freedom in China. But Kissinger was able to find a compromise between mutual benefit and mutual destruction. He was able to find the threat that the Soviets were imposing on China and the United States.
Kissinger’s strategic concept, in his own words, is “that China and the United States would find a way to come together was inevitable given the necessities of the time.” Is this an unbreakable statute? Frankel’s commentary was exactly on these points.
International relations sometimes develop in parallel: Nixon greatly suffered from the anti-Vietnam War efforts; China suffered from the Tiananmen Square protest, both disproving Mao’s perpetual revolution theory. Prior, the United States and China had a common enemy — the Soviets. Therefore, their alliance was inevitable. However, history evolves through day-to-day, naturally occurring events. Kissinger’s prior strategic concept on “inevitability” turns out to be no longer true. What’s the time now?
To remind readers that times have changed, Frankel paraphrases Kissinger’s book: Today’s headlines are China’s strong economic growth and its position as the world’s industrial powerhouse. In comparison, the prior glory of the Soviets and their Eastern European allies has already collapsed. The U.S. is also dangerously addicted to foreign oil, goods and credit.
Under the Hu-Wen administration, Kissinger praises China for focusing on economic development, all else considered, and remains content with its historical frontier, willing to await a peaceful reunion with Taiwan. Beijing is now solely focused on economics to improve the nation’s living standard. Frankel willfully teases Kissinger, saying that he has long considered democracy to be a burden on statecraft.
Kissinger has in fact said this before: Democracy is a less-important piece in a global chess match. Last Wednesday, June 28, he went to Beijing again to meet Xi Jinping. I hope he did not say such discouraging words to China’s future leaders.
Next article![]( "Republican Candidates as the Anti-Obama")
