Shared stake in peace

On Feb 21, 1972, Richard Nixon paid the first ever visit by a US president to the People's Republic of China, thus began what Nixon himself called "the week that changed the world". Nixon recalled that in shaking hands with Chinese premier Zhou Enlai, he said: "When our hands met, one era ended and another began."

Within hours of his arrival, he met Chairman Mao Zedong, in the presence of Zhou, together with US secretary of state and national security adviser Henry Kissinger. These four men ended nearly a quarter century of US-China enmity, signaled the end of the Cold War and enabled half a century of peace and stability with no wars between the great powers.

They showed how individuals who recognize the changing tides of history can shape national and global destinies. With the United States embroiled in the Vietnam War that ended the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, Nixon the presidential candidate had already signaled his bold views in his 1967 article in the magazine Foreign Affairs: Asia after Vietnam.

There he recognized that Asia was changing faster than any other part of the world and that rapidity of change meant that a "nation or society that fails to keep pace with change is in danger of flying apart".Asia's future must therefore focus on four giants－India, Japan, China and the US. He was realist enough to recognize that "any American policy toward Asia must come urgently to grips with the reality of China". Presciently, he stated earlier: "But other nations must recognize that the role of the US as world policeman is likely to be limited in the future."

Chinese historical records also show that by the second half of the 1960s, both Chairman Mao and premier Zhou had recognized the need for change in Chinese foreign policy.

The context surrounding this historic event was not at all optimistic. The US was in the midst of its messy war in Vietnam, which had escalated to engulf Laos and Cambodia. The US dollar was delinked from gold in August 1971. That month, India signed a treaty of peace and cooperation with the Soviet Union, signifying an important shift in the Cold War. China-Soviet relations were tense with the 1971 border clashes. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 ended with the formation of the new nation of Bangladesh.

For China, the continuous conflicts on its borders as a result of the Cold War were debilitating to its need to have peace to rebuild its economy. Thus Mao and Zhou considered it timely to engage with the US and take relations in a new direction.

Kissinger, as a professor of diplomatic history, understood that the contest of great powers hinges on the matter of balance. He recalled Otto Von Bismarck as saying that in a world order of five powers, it is always desirable to be part of a group of three. Thus, getting China out of the Soviet sphere would be highly advantageous to the global balance.

As the historical record shows, Mao and Nixon set the strategic direction, leaving Zhou and Kissinger to work out the complex and difficult negotiations. At the heart of the issues was the one-China principle that was affirmed in the Shanghai Joint Communique of Feb 28, 1972.

There are important lessons to be heeded from the week that changed the world.

First, despite severe differences, it is possible for rivals and enemies to recognize the benefits of mutual cooperation and peace. It is easy to go to war, but much more difficult to make peace lasting. In his State of the World speech to the US Congress on Feb 18, 1970, Nixon elaborated on his concept of peace, which he saw as requiring confidence－the cementing of trust among friends through partnership, strength, generosity, shared feeling and practical not rhetorical hard work.

For Nixon, peace was much more than the absence of war: "The pursuit of peace means building a structure of stability within which the rights of each nation are respected: the rights of national independence, of self-determination, the right to be secure within its own borders and to be free from intimidation."

Second, no country is monolithic. Every country has many different views and interests, but it is up to its leadership to persuade the others to strive for a lasting peace to buy time to build or rebuild national strength, rather than a crippling war that can only escalate today to nuclear destruction.

Third, no agreement is possible unless the protagonists understand each other's wants and needs and their points of view. After a quarter of century of enmity, there was no further point in demonizing each other so that no agreement was possible. Constructive ambiguity is the art of diplomacy.

Have these lessons become lost over time, when parochial views and interests seek to divide rather than to cooperate? The relations between nations are like any other human relationship with ups and downs, stresses and strains. Nixon offered a wise observation on this: "For peace will endure only when every nation has a greater stake in preserving than in breaking it."

The author is former chairman of Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong. The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn