Idealizing America, Demonizing China

In retrospect, the deadlock in China-U.S. relations today is entirely America’s doing. However, there is no hiding the fact that our own understanding of the U.S., especially that of many passionate scholars and intellectuals, has become at the same time rigid, romantic and filled with delusions — especially emotional ones. They often indulge in wishful thinking, coming up with specious nonsense. The insights of these intellectuals are less worthwhile than those of Chinese citizens who have never left the country.

For example: “America is a nation of law.” In actuality, China’s Ming Dynasty already followed a legal system. Or, in a nutshell, America’s present situation is possible because it has some of the necessary ingredients: democratic laws guaranteeing liberty and human rights (thereby implying this was all China needed to have peace and prosperity through the ages). The overly abstract statements made above forget America’s modern and historic conditions and are nothing more than idiotic babbling. Actually, from a historical perspective, America is without a doubt one of the most capricious countries. In other words, America continually adjusting its own regulations in the middle of discussions or while making agreements is the most “likable” quality of American temperament, and maybe even the key to American democracy. Of course, China’s current situation of also undergoing reform and adjustment constitutes a reason for China and the U.S. to sit down and talk.

It is also necessary to look at how public opinion in both China and the U.S. is packaged to induce more rigid relations between the two countries. What in America is “demonizing China” is instead, in China, “idealizing America.” Interactions between both sides have deepened misunderstandings to a point where no one even knows who they are anymore. Various discourses within China idealizing the American system’s strengths have given the Chinese public an unrealistic, idealized illusion about America. For example: the idea that the American system is already perfected, was derived from a series of ultimate truths and values and, therefore, once this system is complete everything will be bright and shining for all future generations to come. Or take another example: American policy is the product of careful deliberation and rational thinking and so Americans stick to their word, are not trying to intimidate anyone, truly mean what they say, etc. And all of this is because the U.S. Constitution has upheld “centuries of law” which, once established, cannot be changed whatsoever.

From the other side, this viewpoint creates the Chinese people’s fixed, unchangeable misconceptions of American policy. This has ultimately led to both sides digging in their heels and solidifying their own positions. One minute we are filled with illusions about America, the next, we “have no illusions whatsoever,” making Americans arrogant and overbearing, allowing them to easily take power, which is much more difficult to take back. Actually, it’s like the best-selling book seen all over bookstalls titled “The President Is Unreliable.” The book itself I am not familiar with, but from a historical perspective, not only is America’s president unreliable, but Mao Zedong claimed in his 1958 “Message to the Compatriots in Taiwan” that “Americans are unreliable.” Time will only continue to prove this point.

However, historical reality often can’t beat eloquence. For example, recently a well known Chinese economics student believed that the constitutional convention of 1787 established the foundations for American democracy and personal freedom once and for all. This student has most likely never even been to America. Actually, it is not really necessary to go and see firsthand. Just read some books and you’ll know: In the same year as the constitutional convention, several states did not see eye to eye with the federation. Participants in the convention were representatives of their states’ interests and included farmers, businessmen and attorneys. They were not there to defend civil liberties, but rather to negotiate and discuss their own states’ rights. What America is proclaiming everywhere today is similar to the “human rights” and “civil liberty” about which our economics student gushes. But there was no ultimate decision on these topics at the constitutional convention and in fact, they were simply ignored at the famous meeting. The real historical truth is: Civil liberty and human rights were afterthoughts, coming about through haggling and debating between the states, and only gradually established — it was an inadvertent outcome.

In fact, it was as recent as 100 years ago.

The Chinese philosopher Yan Fu, in his “On the Speed of World Change,” spoke on the essence of Western democracy: “Freedom is the substance, democracy the function.” To Yan Fu, “freedom” refers to economic liberalization toward the pursuit and protection of one’s personal interests, while democracy refers to “order”; pursuing this order, protecting personal economic interests and undertaking negotiations, compromise and legal consequences together comprise “democracy.” Democracy is not a defined, flawless system, but rather sitting down and talking. How issues are discussed, what is to be discussed and how thoroughly are questions of interests and of knowing the enemy as well as yourself.

You will never lose a single battle if you know both yourself and your opponent. Throughout the history of China-U.S. relations, one basic conclusion becomes clear: Experienced and skilled negotiators, in the marketplace and on the battlefield, should prepare to follow suit when the opposite side plays “one hand hard, one hand soft” to pursue material gains strongly while neglecting other issues. China is known as one of the “gentler” countries, proud to lack experience in dealing with snobbery and materialism. However, regarding businessmen and even politicians, there are at least a few who follow the old ways: Do business first and be a gentleman second. Even striking back when someone attacks first — this actually comes from the belief that “it is impolite to not reciprocate.”

In discussing China-U.S. relations, we cannot overlook the late chairman Mao Zedong, who opened the door to relations between the two countries. While Mao was extending the olive branch to Nixon, Zhou Enlai did not forget to coldly tap Kissinger on the shoulder and say, “you want to reach out to the Soviet Union by standing on Chinese shoulders.” Chairman Mao said: One day, when we are no longer useful to you, you will try to kick us around and restrict China.

Chairman Mao shook his thumb at Kissinger: You believe this is America. And he pointed with his pinky finger and said: You believe this is China. But you should not underestimate us. Mao used his familiar method of philosophical language to explain: The Soviet Union gave me the hat of a warlord, while you give me the hat of a warmonger. Let me tell you, both of these hats fit me just fine!

For the sake of long-term amity between the Chinese and American people as well as an increased understanding between the two cultures, Mao and Nixon discussed students going abroad to America. Chairman Mao knew Kissinger was still single and jokingly offered to introduce him to a Chinese wife. And again later, Mao said, “we will send [students] … not too old” to attend elementary school through college. And “if among them [a few dozen] don’t want to come back, no matter.” Mao joked: We have so many people, if you need more we can send you some.

China and the U.S. came together not through faith or emotions, but rather for a simple common interest. Due to this straightforward consideration of their mutual interests, America and China found their common language; basically, they were there for the survival of the two nations as well as future generations to come. Mao Zedong discussed China’s youth, but in the face of foreign dignitaries refrained from mentioning his own son, Mao Anying, who had been killed in battle. Both sides were aware of his death but chose to leave the matter unspoken.

However, just one day later, President Nixon responded immediately to a question at a global speech by mentioning his own daughter.

Today, as China-U.S. relations are at a crossroads, Chinese and American citizens should try to return to Feb. 21, 1972, when President Nixon’s statement shocked the world. Take another look at a so-called “ultra-right-wing” American president who created dialogue with “red China”:

“The world watches. The world listens. The world waits to see what we will do. What is the world? In a personal sense, I think of my eldest daughter whose birthday is today. As I think of her, I think of all the children in the world, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in the Americas, most of whom were born since the date of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China.

“What legacy shall we leave our children? Are they destined to die for the hatreds which have plagued the old world, or are they destined to live because we had the vision to build a new world?

“There is no reason for us to be enemies. Neither of us seeks the territory of the other; neither of us seeks domination over the other; neither of us seeks to stretch out our hands and rule the world.

“Chairman Mao wrote, ‘So many deeds cry out to be done, and always urgently. The world rolls on. Time passes. Ten thousand years is too long. Seize the day, seize the hour.’

“This is the hour, this is the day for our two peoples to rise to the heights of greatness which can build a new and a better world.

“In that spirit, I ask all of you present to join me in raising your glasses to Chairman Mao, to Prime Minister Zhou and to the friendship of the Chinese and American people which can lead to friendship and peace for all people in the world.”

This is more than just beautiful eloquence and fervor. The speech creates a premise for Chinese-U.S. relations by giving simple reasoning and a cruel truth: The Chinese people valiantly sacrificed their son, while the American people were afraid to lose their daughter.

Because of this, it can be said: “For such a great sacrifice,” the Chinese people are a great people.

“For understanding and following the times,” the American people are also a great people.