RSS Feed MenuSunday marked the 38th anniversary of the beginning of President Richard Nixon’s historic trip to China. Since then, “Nixon goes to China” has become one of the most overworked clichés in the political book, signifying an uncharacteristic move by a political leader. The temptation to do another “Nixon goes to China” has proved irresistible to many political leaders usually to their disappointment and the disadvantage of the countries they lead. (South Korea opening to North Korea; Israel signing the Oslo Accords with the PLO.)
When Barack Obama began trying to “engage” Iran last year, he explicitly cited Nixon’s policy as a precedent on several occasions. That got me curious, so I decided to read Margaret Macmillan’s Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World. It’s worth reading for a closer look at why Nixon’s policy succeeded, and most attempts at imitating it don’t. (I must admit I had another motive for reading it. I knew I was going to be sitting across the table from Henry Kissinger at a dinner last fall and I wanted more background. I asked him what he thought of the book. He replied, “It is about 70 percent accurate,” which, for a non-fiction book about recent events, is pretty solid.)
The most critical reason for the success of Nixon’s policy is the simple fact that he was pushing against an open door. His motives for warming relations with China were obvious. He was seeking to exploit the Sino-Soviet rift. (The Russians and Chinese had fought a short but sharp border war in 1969.) He also hoped that it would help extricate the United States from the Vietnam War.
China’s motives are less well known, but were absolutely crucial to making the process work. Not only were they concerned about the Russians too, but the chaos of the ongoing Cultural Revolution had left China dangerously isolated in world politics. There were daily demonstrations against foreign embassies in Beijing, and those of the “fraternal socialist allies” were not exempt. At home, the Chinese foreign service was an exceptional target for the Red Guards. When China unexpectedly won her 22-year campaign to be admitted to the United Nations in 1971, Beijing had to hastily transfer China’s ambassador to Canada to New York because so many other senior diplomats were languishing in re-education camps. English-speaking Chinese were so terrified of being found out and denounced as spies that the government had a very hard time locating enough interpreters to service the large delegation of U.S. diplomats and journalists who descended on China in February 1972. (Kissinger made the wry observation about his own Brooklyn-born Chinese interpreter that “She is eligible to serve as president and I am not.”)
Even so, working out the details consumed more than three years of delicate, secret negotiations before the visit actually took place. And even though Henry K. has often been quoted as saying that one “doesn’t go to a summit without the final communiqué in your pocket,” he spent most of his time in China negotiating with Zhou Enlai on the final Shanghai Communique. In spite of all the commonalities at work, it was, in the end, a close-run thing.
One need not be a geopolitician to see that almost none of the same conditions apply with regard to Iran. Iran is facing no external threat comparable to the one China faced from the Soviet Union. (Indeed, Iran is far more threatening to its neighbors than the other way around.) As a result, Iran’s diplomatic isolation is not as consequential as China’s was 40 years ago. Nor is Iran’s internal turmoil comparable to the Cultural Revolution. The U.S. had no sympathy for the Red Guards and what they represented. The Iranian opposition is potentially a very different matter, though Obama has so far refused to give them the time of day. Iran can also sell its oil on the world market, the only export it really cares about. It’s hard to see what the United States can offer that is of any real value to the Islamic regime.
Then there’s the issue of how successful was Nixon’s visit. The Soviet Union is no more, of course. In 1972, China was a backward, third world country. Now, it is a powerful economic competitor that looks to be transforming itself into a rival. Maybe Nixon should have stayed home.
sinz54 // Feb 22, 2010 at 12:12 pm
You left out another reason.
“Only Nixon could go to China” is a catchphrase meaning that only a staunch anti-Communist had the political capital to make a deal with China without being tarred and feathered as an appeaser.
It’s the same reason why only Reagan could make a deal with the USSR that dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals on both sides.
Obama is not like Nixon. He’s like McGovern: A dove through and through, who doesn’t seem to mind making major concessions to our adversaries as long as it buys some temporary time.
If “Only Nixon could go to China,” then “Only Obama could escalate the war in Afghanistan.” So far at least, Obama has made the pacifist Left swallow it.
dragonlady // Feb 22, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Good analysis sinz54.
Also, kudos to the author in explaining to people why Iran is not like China. Anti-americanism has been a main pillar of their ideology; to discard it by engaging in open diplomacy with the Great Satan would endanger the legitimacy of the ayatollahs. We’ve seen how they’ve reacted to such perceived dangers. Anyway, the regime has lost its legitimacy. Why prop it up through public negoitations? It may not crumble next year, but it’ll be hard pressed to survive once it opens up to the rest of the western world. From the ayatollahs perspective, they do not want western influence of any sort in Iran. They jail men and women with western style clothing and haircuts. Such a paranoid regime dedicated to self-preservation is not going to cut a deal. The US should be encouraging a velvet revolution.
balconesfault // Feb 22, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Obama is not like Nixon. He’s like McGovern: A dove through and through
http://adamthinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama_nazi_communist_muslim_peace.jpg
balconesfault // Feb 22, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Also, kudos to the author in explaining to people why Iran is not like China. Anti-americanism has been a main pillar of their ideology
Anyone who is suggesting that Anti-Americanism wasn’t a main pillar of Mao’s ideology in China is just ignorant, as bad as the liberals of the 50’s and 60’s who spoke out in support of Mao’s affection for the working class.
Documents show that in discussions with the Kremlin, he was openly advocating the value of waging a nuclear war with the US.
mlloyd // Feb 22, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Only Nixon could go to China” is a catchphrase meaning that only a staunch anti-Communist had the political capital to make a deal with China without being tarred and feathered as an appeaser.
Right, because Nixon held commonsense policy hostage. If anyone but Nixon went to China, Nixon would tar and feather them as an appeaser. The power of demagoguery.
dragonlady // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Balconesfault, are you saying Iran IS like China?
I discussed anti-Americanism as an additional stumbling block IN CONJUNCTION with the author’s points on the different historical circumstances. But keep up the strawmen; I’m sure it makes you feel superior to call people ignorant. China and Iran are not the same, despite superficial similarities you’re drawing between the two countries. Mao was very much the ideologue and hater of capitalism, but Mao was always and still is revered as a national icon, a WWII hero, and father of socialist China. Even though his political adversaries plotted to remove him from power, they dare not tamper with his popular image.
Ayatollah Khameni is not in the same boat–he does not have the same religious credentials as his predecessor. As such, he really can’t control all the different factions in the govt. Anti-westernism is all that he and his supporters in the IRGC seem to have left as they desperately cling to their legitimacy. The opposition is crying death to dictator. The internal dynamics, not to mention geopolitics, is different than in China circa 1972.
sinz54 // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:42 pm
mlloys: If anyone but Nixon went to China, Nixon would tar and feather them as an appeaser.
Nixon wouldn’t have to.
Look at the reaction of the American public to President Jimmy Carter’s appeasement of the USSR just 5 years later.
Nixon didn’t have anything to do with that. He had already resigned due to the Watergate affair.
Americans have always been a proud people, who don’t like going hat in hand to other nations begging them not to attack us. Except for you left-wingers, who think that’s cool.
balconesfault // Feb 22, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Balconesfault, are you saying Iran IS like China?
China today is not like China was when Nixon visited.
In reality, at the time Nixon visited, Mao held a totalitarian control over the Chinese people which would make the Ayatollah’s envious. It was not because of reverence of him – but because of a reign of complete fear.
Mao met with Nixon for two reasons – to bolster his image as the leader of the Communist world, and to see if he could get Americans to be stupid enough to provide him with advanced military technology as part of our driving a wedge between him and the USSR.
That said, the man most certainly cultivated anti-Americanism. I cannot accept the premise that Mao was inherently more friendly to US interests than Iran.
balconesfault // Feb 22, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Americans have always been a proud people, who don’t like going hat in hand to other nations begging them not to attack us. Except for you left-wingers, who think that’s cool.
You are such a dork sometimes.
Let us know which country on earth we “left wingers” wouldn’t support vitrifying with nukes if they ever launched a nuclear attack on our country.
jabbermule // Feb 22, 2010 at 6:11 pm
balconesfault: “Let us know which country on earth we “left wingers” wouldn’t support vitrifying with nukes if they ever launched a nuclear attack on our country.”
That’s a strawman argument – no single country on the planet would be insane enough to launch a nuclear attack on us. However, there are plenty of country-less terrorist organizations who would love to detonate a nuclear bomb in one of our major cities. Then who do you retaliate against? The big problem with the left is that they will continue with their pacifist ways until something like that actually happens, then they’ll just sit back and blame America’s “imperialist ways” for the attack. Business as usual.
jabbermule // Feb 22, 2010 at 7:23 pm
http://adamthinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama_nazi_communist_muslim_peace.jpg
Ok, I made up my mind — Obama is an appeaser with Socialist tendencies who increased our military presence in Afghanistan only because he made it a campaign pledge to do so in the context of criticizing the Iraq War (calling Afghanistan “the right war” etc). Otherwise, he wouldn’t be there at all.
dragonlady // Feb 22, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Balconesfault: “I cannot accept the premise that Mao was inherently more friendly to US interests than Iran.”
Actually no one made that argument. We’re discussing differences between Iran and China, and how it was in Mao’s own interests to negotiate with the US (as you indicated) since he correctly concluded he couldn’t take on the US, USSR, and his own internal revolution all at the same time. Looking at it from Iran’s perspective of their national interests, they risk the crumbling of their regime if they open up their country to the west. Not tomorrow or next year, but over time, it can certainly happen. Particularly now that they are semi-representative governments on both sides of the border. They truly fear a “velvet revolution.” Mao did not. While he was totalitarian, you’re wrong about him still not being revered. I’ve been to Tianamen square and Beijing–Mao portraits still are prominent in China. People have criticized him for some of his excesses, but ironically, the man who hated capitalism is on Tshirts and souvenirs everywhere.
balconesfault // Feb 22, 2010 at 11:18 pm
ironically, the man who hated capitalism is on Tshirts and souvenirs everywhere.
The Chinese know what sells!
Sorry for misinterpreting the China v Iran argument.
I do believe that overt American support for Iranian dissidents would be wholly counterproductive, since it will almost inevitiably bring backlash by the regime. And at a time when the universal stance of the Republican Party is that our government needs to cut back on spending … I’m not particularly sure how military involvement in Iran will move us in that direction. What we’re left with is talking.
Mandos // Feb 23, 2010 at 4:57 am
But balconesfault, don’t you know? Military expenditure…isn’t. Somehow.
sinz54 // Feb 23, 2010 at 10:55 am
jabbermule: Obama is an appeaser with Socialist tendencies who increased our military presence in Afghanistan only because he made it a campaign pledge to do so in the context of criticizing the Iraq War (calling Afghanistan “the right war” etc). Otherwise, he wouldn’t be there at all.
Obama is there because if Afghanistan collapsed on his watch, that would be the end of his Administration. And of the Dem Party as well.
Even if they believe the war is futile and hopeless, they don’t want a total defeat on their watch.
dragonlady // Feb 23, 2010 at 2:19 pm
balconesfault: I do believe that overt American support for Iranian dissidents would be wholly counterproductive, since it will almost inevitiably bring backlash by the regime.
I do not disagree it may be counterproductive but different in the way you mention it. We may de-legitimize the opposition–the Iranians are very nationalistic and don’t like to be seen as any lackey of a foreign power. So we do have to be careful in how we support the opposition. But we can still support them in other covert ways vs obviously throwing our weight behind one face or another. Liberals are proponents of soft power–not sure why you wouldn’t want to condemn the regime for its human rights abuses and speak generally about the people’s right to self-determination. Attack the regime too, for its violations of international community protocol, and breaking treaties it signs. You could actually use this as leverage in diplomacy…we can ease off our criticism of the regime if they come to the table to deal. Not that they normally care what others think about them, but if they think it’s having an effect on their internal stability, they certainly will care.
I’m not sure Republicans are running around saying we have to bomb Iran (the McCain joke during his presidential campaign aside). We’re just saying don’t take any option off the table–use whatever you can in leverage for diplomacy. We don’t believe a no pressure, be adult-like and talk approach will work–Obama has tried it and it isn’t working. I would be blunt with Iran–if you cooperate with the international community, we’ll stay neutral in your internal affairs. We may always stand for human rights rhetorically just as you stand for your version of Islam, but we won’t support the opposition materially. If you go nuclear, then regime change is on the table. It doesn’t have to be military–it can be done via soft power like the revolutions in eastern europe. That may make the regime re-calculate what is in its best interests, since regime change would defeat the entire reason of going nuclear–in Iran’s case, it’s to preserve its ruling system, guarantee little foreign interference in its affairs, and extend its power to be the regional hegemon.