Cynicism, Inoculated – Folha de S. Paulo, March 19, 1972

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

The recent resumption of relations between London and Beijing is a result of the Shanghai Communiqué. Once America reestablished sporadic contacts with Communist China, England, ever pragmatic, decided to go even further by restoring regular relations with the Communist mandarins.

That being the case, it is natural to compare China’s attitudes toward the United States and England.

During Nixon’s stay in Beijing, the Taiwan issue was one of the biggest obstacles to his understanding with China, which claimed the right to annex Taiwan without giving satisfaction to any other country. The Americans could not accept this, so the issue remained unresolved in the Shanghai Communiqué.

Soon after, England came forward to negotiate the resumption of diplomatic relations with Red China. However, there was an obstacle a thousand times more serious to the success of these negotiations. It was Hong Kong, an English colony far more important than Taiwan and, moreover, embedded in the living flesh of China, that is, in the Chinese mainland itself.

Logic would lead Beijing to make more peremptory demands on England regarding Hong Kong than on the US regarding Taiwan.

The British are indeed in Hong Kong because of a treaty duly signed between the British government and the imperial Chinese government, the predecessor of the mob currently ruling in Beijing. Everyone knows, however, that Beijing is essentially anti-colonialist and that, according to the philosophy of Red China, nothing is more decrepit than the Anglo-Chinese treaty establishing the enclave of Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, with perfectly cynical ease, Beijing—shortly after breaking its spears for the “liberation” of Taiwan—makes clear that it still accepts the British presence on Chinese territory!

My goal is not to investigate Beijing’s hidden interest in this matter. I am merely noting that contradiction and cynicism are becoming routine in international life today.

Throughout history, diplomacy has been marked by contradictions and blatant cynicism. However, it would be an exaggeration to say that such displays were routine. The most serious aspect of this “routinization” is the indifference it receives in the mainstream media, among political scholars, moralists, etc.

This indifference sometimes stems from convenience and at other times from discouragement.

The result of this indifference—so widespread that I am unaware of a single political commentator on radio or in the press who has addressed the issue—is a profoundly harmful effect on public opinion. Because no one comments on these aberrations, people today risk perceiving them as natural. Over time, world opinion will slide down the slope of moral insensitivity.

* * *

Another aberration, albeit of a somewhat different kind, is being committed by the Communist Party in Italy.

Newspapers have reported that the Christian Democrats’ continued support for Italy’s shift to the left has upset a large share of the electorate. Tangible proof of this is the continued growth of the neo-fascist electorate.

Italy is now in the midst of an election campaign. For the communists, one of the most essential objectives is to ensure that Christian Democratic candidates win back the anticommunist voters they have been losing. Once the anticommunists have elected a significant Christian Democratic bloc, it will continue its policy of favoring communism for a few more years.

A few more years… It wouldn’t take much for the Christian Democrats to hand Italy over to the Reds by forming an aberrant communist-Catholic government!

How, then, can Christian Democrats be rehabilitated in the eyes of anticommunist voters?

This is one of the major problems the Communist Party faces in the upcoming elections.

The ploy devised by the communists is cynical. The Communist Party’s publicity organs have unexpectedly begun declaring that, since the Christian Democrats are the largest party in Italy, communism’s ultimate goal is to compete for their votes.

This naturally leads naive anticommunist voters to believe that voting for the Christian Democrats is the most effective way to combat communism.

Thus, by attacking the Christian Democrats, communism achieves two results at once:

1. It draws away, to its own benefit, as many left-leaning Christian Democrat voters as possible.

2. It channels as many right-wing votes as possible to the Christian Democrats.

With this move, the Communist Party inflates its own representation as much as possible and prepares the conditions for Christian Democracy to hand power to it someday, just as Christian Democrats did in Chile.

This is the result of the Communist Party’s cynical shift in attitude, from a good ally to a “pseudo-enemy” of the Christian Democrats.

* * *

I will now conclude by drawing a link between my comment on the cynicism of the communist government in Beijing and the analogous cynicism of the Italian Communist Party.

The cynicism of communists is unsurprising. It lies at the core of their doctrine.

I emphasize, however, that cynicism is becoming routine in the diplomacy of Western countries, mainly due to communist actions.

Now, as we have seen, this advance of cynicism has a profound effect on the masses of the West, putting them at odds with themselves and threatening to undermine their moral sense.

Isn’t this yet another advantage for the communist movement? Since the moral deterioration of the adversary is an invaluable precondition for the victory of communism, it seems to me that the answer can only be yes.