But let’s recall what China looked like at the time Henry Kissinger went on his secret trip to Beijing in July 1971. Mao Zedong was, without question, the most radical anti-American leader in the world, supporting violent guerrilla groups across Asia and beyond. And while it didn’t chant “Death to America,” Beijing was the principal supporter of the North Vietnamese, sending them troops, supplies and funds to fight and kill American soldiers every day. China was also in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, one of the most barbaric periods of its modern history.
Initially, the opening to China changed none of this.
The comparison is ludicrous, as I've mentioned.
But even on Zakaria's terms, China's change to oppose the USSR required us to concede defeat in South Vietnam against China-supported North Vietnam--before focusing on the Soviet Union as a common enemy.
Pray tell, what do we have to lose in this revived diplomacy? Do we surrender to Iranian dominance in Iraq and Syria? Does the Persian Gulf become more than a geographic term?
China did not change with Nixon's effort. China used us to help protect them from the USSR as much as we used them to resist Moscow. China was a communist dictatorship that aligned with us against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is gone.
And today China is still a communist dictatorship--and siding with Russia to contain us--that has their much greater military power aimed at us, again.
And President Obama ordered a "pivot" to contain China.
Wow. Feel the reset.
And what's with this claim by Zakaria?
History suggests that as countries get more integrated into the world and the global economy, they have fewer incentives to be spoilers and more to maintain stability.
I'd be real curious to know what his examples from history are. Because China and Russia are more integrated into the world and global economy than ever before, and they seem to be willing to be spoilers who seek to make gains against the forces of stability.
If he's talking about Germany, Japan, and Italy, there was that little thing called "America defeating them and keeping troops on their soil until this day." Being integrated into the world economy was a byproduct of their defeat and not a cause of their ceasing to be spoilers to stability.
So if China's example is to be followed, at some point in the future Iran will still be a nutball mullah-run theocracy that hates us and has a much more powerful military to fight us.
But will we have defeated a bigger threat in the meantime which required Iranian help to cope with? I doubt that very much. So we get nothing but pleasant time with our heads stuck in the sand.
Feel the legacy!
Don't listen to Zakaria. His advice can only lead to disaster. As I've said more than once, the man couldn't find his own buttocks with both hands and a GPS signal.