Nixon-Zhou Shanghai Communique Turns 42

 Accord.jpg

                               By David Parmer / Tokyo

February 27, 2014 marks the 42nd anniversary of the historic Shanghai Communique between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China. Signed in Shanghai’s historic Jin Jiang Hotel, the document was a start in the resumption of relations between the two former WWII allies. What made then President Nixon’s trip even more important was the fact that Nixon was both a conservative and an anti-Communist. At the same time, both Mao Tse-tung and Zhou Enlai were in ill health and at the end of their long and storied careers. What makes the document itself especially interesting is its language, and the tone of “agreeing to disagree.”  These days our news comes to us interpreted by various people-we get their opinions rather than straight fact. For this reason, we publish the Shanghai Communique in its entirety below. You can read it in a few minutes and make up your own mind about history. Any comments? Please post below.

   (U.S. Department of State-Office of the Historian)

President Richard Nixon of the United States of America visited the People’s Republic of China at the invitation of Premier Chou Enlai of the People’s Republic of China from February 21 to February 28, 1972. Accompanying the President were Mrs. Nixon, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers, Assistant to the President Dr.Henry Kissinger, and other American officials.

President Nixon met with Chairman Mao Tse-tung of the Communist Party of China on February 21. The two leaders had a serious and frank exchange of views on Sino-U.S. relations and world affairs.

During the visit, extensive, earnest, and frank discussions were held between President Nixon and Premier Chou En-lai on the normalization of relations between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, as well as on other matters of interest to both sides. In addition, Secretary of State William Rogers and Foreign Minister Chi P’eng-fei held talks in the same spirit.

President Nixon and his party visited Peking and viewed cultural, industrial and agricultural sites, and they also toured Hangchow and Shanghai where, continuing discussions with Chinese leaders, they viewed similar places of interest.

The leaders of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America found it beneficial to have this opportunity, after so many years without contact, to present candidly to one another their views on a variety of issues. They reviewed the international situation in which important changes and great upheavals are taking place and expounded their respective positions and attitudes.

The U.S. side stated: Peace in Asia and peace in the world requires efforts both to reduce immediate tensions and to eliminate the basic causes of conflict. The United States will work for a just and secure peace: just, because it fulfills the aspirations of peoples and nations for freedom and progress; secure, because it removes the danger of foreign aggression. The United States supports individual freedom and social progress for all the peoples of the world, free of outside pressure or intervention. The United States believes that the effort to reduce tensions is served by improving communication between countries that have different ideologies so as to lessen the risks of confrontation through accident, miscalculation or misunderstanding. Countries should treat each other with mutual respect and be willing to compete peacefully, letting performance be the ultimate judge. No country should claim infallibility and each country should be prepared to re-examine its own attitudes for the common good. The United States stressed that the peoples of Indochina should be allowed to determine their destiny without outside intervention; its constant primary objective has been a negotiated solution; the eight-point proposal put forward by the Republic of Vietnam and the United States on January 27, 1972 represents a basis for the attainment of that objective; in the absence of a negotiated settlement the United States envisages the ultimate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the region consistent with the aim of self-determination for each country of Indochina. The United States will maintain its close ties with and support for the Republic of Korea; the United States will support efforts of the Republic of Korea to seek a relaxation of tension and increased communication in the Korean peninsula. The United States places the highest value on its friendly relations with Japan; it will continue to develop the existing close bonds. Consistent with the United Nations Security Council Resolution of December 21, 1971, the United States favors the continuation of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and the withdrawal of all military forces to within their own territories and to their own sides of the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir; the United States supports the right of the peoples of South Asia to shape their own future in peace, free of military threat, and without having the area become the subject of great power rivalry.

The Chinese side stated: Wherever there is oppression, there is resistance. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution–this has become the irresistible trend of history. All nations, big or small, should be equal; big nations should not bully the small and strong nations should not bully the weak. China will never be a superpower and it opposes hegemony and power politics of any kind. The Chinese side stated that it firmly supports the struggles of all the oppressed people and nations for freedom and liberation and that the people of all countries have the right to choose their social systems according to their own wishes and the right to safeguard the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of their own countries and oppose foreign aggression, interference, control and subversion. All foreign troops should be withdrawn to their own countries.

The Chinese side expressed its firm support to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in their efforts for the attainment of their goal and its firm support to the seven-point proposal of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam and the elaboration of February this year on the two key problems in the proposal, and to the Joint Declaration of the Summit Conference of the Indochinese Peoples. It firmly supports the eight-point program for the peaceful unification of Korea put forward by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on April 12, 1971, and the stand for the abolition of the “U.N. Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea.” It firmly opposes the revival and outward expansion of Japanese militarism and firmly supports the Japanese people’s desire to build an independent, democratic, peaceful and neutral Japan. It firmly maintains that India and Pakistan should, in accordance with the United Nations resolutions on the India-Pakistan question, immediately withdraw all their forces to their respective territories and to their own sides of the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir and firmly supports the Pakistan Government and people in their struggle to preserve their independence and sovereignty and the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their struggle for the right of self-determination.

There are essential differences between China and the United States in their social systems and foreign policies. However, the two sides agreed that countries, regardless of their social systems, should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, nonaggression against other states, noninterference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. International disputes should be settled on this basis, without resorting to the use or threat of force. The United States and the People’s Republic of China are prepared to apply these principles to their mutual relations.

With these principles of international relations in mind the two sides stated that:

–progress toward the normalization of relations between China and the United States is in the interests of all countries;

–both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict;

–neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and

–neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.

Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest.

The two sides reviewed the long-standing serious disputes between China and the United States. The Chinese side reaffirmed its position: The Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all U.S. forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of “one China, one Taiwan,” “one China, two governments,” “two Chinas,” and “independent Taiwan” or advocate that “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined.”

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges.

Both sides view bilateral trade as another area from which mutual benefit can be derived, and agreed that economic relations based on equality and mutual benefit are in the interest of the people of the two countries. They agree to facilitate the progressive development of trade between their two countries.

The two sides agreed that they will stay in contact through various channels, including the sending of a senior U.S. representative to Peking from time to time for concrete consultations to further the normalization of relations between the two countries and continue to exchange views on issues of common interest.

The two sides expressed the hope that the gains achieved during this visit would open up new prospects for the relations between the two countries. They believe that the normalization of relations between the two countries is not only in the interest of the Chinese and American peoples but also contributes to the relaxation of tension in Asia and the world.

President Nixon, Mrs. Nixon and the American party expressed their appreciation for the gracious hospitality shown them by the Government and people of the People’s Republic of China.

Bitcoin-The New Face of Money?

bitcoin_logo_3d_wood.png

 Thanks mostly to the Internet, money is flowing in new ways and in new forms. From credit cards we have moved to PayPal for peer to peer and business to customer transactions. Now there are companies like Square that permit small businesses to easily accept credit card payments. And the newest form that money is taking is Bitcoin, digital or cryptocurrency that allows anonymous, peer-to-peer currency transactions globally that bypasses the traditional banking system. Users need to obtain a “wallet” (software) and then they can purchase coins with real cash from a Bitcoin exchange. After that they can exchange Bitcoins peer to peer. Needless to say, the Bitcoin has caused a stir worldwide with governments struggling to create policy to match the virtual currency. In many countries in the EU provisions are in place to regulate the currency under existing barter and tax laws. Russia has banned the virtual currency outright, citing its potential for use in illegal activities and use by terrorists. China has cracked down on Bitcoin use, driving the price of the currency down, and Alibaba, China’s leading online retailer has banned the currency. In Japan, Bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox has gone offline citing security issues, and here too the price has plummeted and coinholders can not withdraw their funds. So safety, volatility and price fluctuation are a big concern for this new currency. Once valued at around $1,000,  Bitcoin is now exchanged at around $650 in some parts of the world.  So, new money-have you hear of it? What do you think? Will all money be virtual in the future? Post your opinion below.

Kerry’s Valentines Message in Bejing

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was on the China leg of his latest Asia trip this week. On Friday he met with Chinese leaders to discuss a number of important regional issues, the chief one being North Korea. While both parties traded jabs on some issues, i.e. the Chinese asking for some cooperation in reigning-in Japan’s right wing factions, and the U.S. pointing the finger at China’s Tibet and Uighur problems, there was agreement on the need for cooperation on the North Korean nuclear issue. Media reports had Kerry as being optimistic, and had Kerry suggesting some give and take could come about if a solution could be reached. Looming in the background are the Six Party talks, and North Korean hints that maybe they are willing to talk again. So what really happened in Beijing? Was any real progress made, and will China pressure Pyongyang to sit down, talk and take action? Add your comments below.

Tea or Coffee?

What do you prefer? Asia’s traditional drink of choice- tea, served hot, iced or with lots of milk and sugar, or sipped solemnly in a ceremonial way. Or coffee in the form of Latte, Mocha, American or espresso? Do you drink tea or coffee exclusively, or does it depend on the time and place? Give us your thoughts below.

2014 Year of the Horse

2014 is the year of the horse in the oriental zodiac. The horse is lively and energetic and serves people well keeping an independent spirit. The world is faced with many of the same problems from 2013: the civil war in Syria, the unrest in Egypt, the constant threat of terrorism and migration from south to north. It seems we are again faced with problems both known and unknown. Our question this week: what major changes can you forsee in 2014, and will the year end well or badly? Post your comments here.

Are the Sochi Winter Olympics Safe Enough?

In a couple week the 22nd winter Olympics will get underway in Sochi, Russia. Athletes from 85 countries and  spectators from around the world will attend the games and the Paralympics to follow. Russia will deploy massive security to prevent acts of terrorism. But given the location in a known hot spot for dissent and terrorism, will Russia be able to offer 100% protection to participants and guests?  Is it possible to prevent terrorism and have an open and enjoyable games? Post your comments below.

Environmental Quality: Are You Concerned?

How important is the environmental quality to your daily? Is it a big concern? Many people worry about air and water quality, and the threat of nuclear disaster. Do you worry? Does it look like science, industry and government will work together to solve these problems in the first half of this century, or are you pessimistic about any solutions being reached. Please let us know.

Sports Diplomacy or Circus?

This week has seen a team of former National Basketball Association players head to North Korea under the leadership of former Chicago Bull’s star Dennis Rodman. The purpose of the trip was a friendship game between the North Korean team and the former NBA players. The ever-colorful Rodman considers himself a close friend of North Korea’s leader Kim Jung Un.  The trip was also to celebrate Kim’s birthday. Rodman sang to Kim before the game. All quite a spectacle. Some people point to parallels between this trip and the visit of the USA ping pong team in the 1970s. They claim the Mao, like Kim was no angel, but that the so-called “ping-pong diplomacy” got things moving between the two standoff superpowers.  The question now is, is there any chance of this happening? Could any diplomatic advantage result from this trip? Or, or positions so hardened that nothing like sports diplomacy will help? Any ideas? Post your opinions below.

Abe To Yasukuni-Why, and Why Now?

This past month (December 2013) Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe paid a visit to Yasukuni Shrine to pay his respects to the war dead. After his December 26th visit, Abe said that he did not intend to offend anyone, but rather that he went there to pray for the war dead.  Predicitably, China and Korea were outraged, and protests were made. The question is: Why did Mr. Abe visit Yasukuni at all, and why did he visit it at a time when rising tensions had peaked and subsided a bit. What was Mr. Abe thinking?  Please share your insights with us and our readers on this matter.

More Thoughts On The ADIZ

RG21 Senior Research Fellow, Bill Lee has some additional thoughts on China’s Air Defense Identification Zone. Since his musings are generally insightful, we have decided to post them here. For comments by the full RG21 team on China’s ADIZ, please check out the 23 November 2013 post on this blog, which even includes an intriguing analysis based on Sun Tzu. (http://research-group21.com/admin/mt.cgi?__mode=view&_type=entry&id=104&blog_id=3)

 

                                                                     by Bill Lee

今朝の新聞に米国副大統領の日本の訪問は大きく取り上がったけれども私の目を引いたのは金正恩の叔父で張成沢は失脚したようだという記事でした。えええ!と言う感じで私は本当にびっくりした。

確かに日中、日韓関係はそれぞれまずくなってきている。チェスゲームみたいに各国は自分の駒を展開しているところです。中国は突然に防空識別圏を設定してびっくりしましたけれども実はびっくりすることではないと思う。日本では政府やメディアや市民など皆は尖閣・釣魚島を奪うという中国の狙いだと受けている。しかし私には中国の基本的な目的は海へ万里の長城のような第一列島線までの周辺線を設定しようとしている。勿論日本はいまのままで中国のADIZを認めないが中国は鋭い外交的な戦術を工夫したんです。それは中国は自分のADIZに入る飛行機が必ず事前に報告しなくてはならないというデマンドです。米国や日本のADIZはデマンドではなくて

リクエストになっています。交渉で中国側は譲歩デマンドからリクエストにすれば、米国や日本のADIZに同じようになるわけ。そうすると中国のADIZの正当性の主張は強くなってほかの国から暗黙の認知・了解を得る。

心配しているのは中国の党・政府の中央指導者が離れた海岸にある軍事基地の指揮官を完全に支配しているかどうか。無謀なパイロットは「防御的な緊急措置」で事故を起こす可能性がある。一回、二回事件があっても戦争にならないと思うけれども貿易や観光客数が減るとか経済的な損害が出る。こういう緊張の中で中国側は外務省のイライラした発言とかに頼っては行けない。チャイナウォッチャーは中国の外務省は党・軍事と比べれば比較的に力が弱いとよく知られている。今のところ、大事なことは中央からの声ですね。面白いことは今の二人の世界的リーダー両氏が、共に今年の三月に現在のポジションになっていたことです。それはフランシスコ法王と 近平。組織的に二人の状況は似ている。フランシスコ法王のバチカンは中国の共産党と共通点があると指摘されている。両組織はとても強力で不透明に機能している。なのにこのごろフランシスコ法王は結構演説やインタビューや発言により肯定的なイメージを作っています。一方で今週イギリスのガーディアンという新聞は「習近平はまだ謎」の記事を載せました。米国の政府は中国の意図は何だろうかという疑問を持っています。その質問を一番適切に答えるのは、やはり習近平であるべきでしょう。習近平法王はもっと国際社会に中国の意図や行動を理解でいるように説明すれば緊張感は大分減ると思います。