President Xi recognized that the world is undergoing significant transformations, the likes of which have not been seen for a century, and that the international landscape is experiencing major shifts. He stated, “China and the United States have once again arrived at a crossroads, necessitating another decision regarding the path forward.” He added that both nations can support each other’s success and growth by adhering to the three principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation.
The Chinese president expressed his willingness to work with the U.S. to establish a suitable path for bilateral relations, a decision which he believes will benefit both nations and the world. He also voiced his hope that Henry Kissinger and other U.S. insiders will continue to play a constructive role in returning Sino-U.S. relations to a favorable track.
Kissinger’s Vision for Relationship with China
Kissinger has long perceived China as a substantial challenge, advocating for diplomacy if confrontation is unavoidable. Since the 1970s, he has argued against confrontation with China, citing its historical significance, cultural richness, and demographic strength as reasons to avoid direct conflict.
Of note is the fact that both China and the United States today are considerably different from their respective states in the 1970s. Consequently, the dictate-based policy and cold war mentality that the current U.S. administration employs with China are futile, and they certainly lack rationale and depend on miscalculation.
Kissinger believes it is impossible to contain China and proposes that both nations should formulate a cooperative framework given the scale of destruction that would ensue from a confrontation. He underscores that neither country can accurately predict the magnitude of the disaster that would result from their conflict, especially given their reliance on AI technology, which would govern the course and severity of the clash.
Consequently, “the relationship between the United States and China is crucial for the peace and prosperity of both countries and the world.” He contends that under the present circumstances, it is essential to preserve the principles established by the “Shanghai Statement,” understand the paramount importance China places on the “one China” principle, and steer the relationship in a positive direction.
Kissinger perceives Biden’s policy towards Beijing as not dissimilar to Trump’s, and believes the issue lies with the American public’s desire for war with China, which in turn influences the president’s actions to satisfy the electorate.
Kissinger expressed a progressive stance on Chinese mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which he deemed a “new and significant game,” leading to a “multipolar Middle East,” and suggesting that America is no longer an indispensable force in the Middle East.
He expressed concern that the success of the mediation could reinforce Beijing’s role as a peace broker in the Middle East, encouraging it to mediate in other world regions. Kissinger’s pragmatic vision extends beyond just the administration’s dealings with Beijing; he was opposed to the war in Ukraine, viewing any consideration of Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO as a grave error.
Read: Reflecting On 56 Years Of ASEAN: Have We Evolved Into A Stronger Community?
After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, he cautioned against defeating Russia, considering its power, historical significance, and cultural and political weight. Kissinger maintains that while starting a war is easy, ending it is significantly more challenging, a sentiment that applies aptly to the “special process” in Ukraine led by Moscow.
In conclusion:
Years of life have done nothing to diminish the cunning and assertiveness of this stalwart of American diplomacy. Yet his foresight, practical realism, vast experience complementing his academic background in political science, and dedication to his homeland’s interests have guided him to advocate for peace.
Despite the changes and nuances in Kissinger’s character, and even his Nobel Peace Prize, the world’s perception of him as a malevolent figure, often likened to a Nazi or ‘Machiavellian’ character, remains unaltered. Perhaps it’s apt to say that ‘Machiavellian’ could be a term used to describe him in this era.
Shaher Al Shaher is an Associate Professor at the School of International Studies Sun Yat-Sen University/ China. Previously he was a Professor at the Faculty of Political Science – University of Damascus.