Yalta Times Yalta – Folha de S. Paulo, March 12, 1972
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
“Both sides agreed to expand contacts in science, technology, culture, sports, and journalism. Both sides agreed to facilitate trade and exchanges on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.” These words—followed by a few paragraphs on Sino-American trade—are from the “Shanghai Communiqué.” Given how hollow, frustrating, and suspect they are, they cannot go unremarked.
In summary, this topic encompasses an entire program aimed at bringing the American and Chinese peoples closer together. Between the peoples, mind you, not merely the governments.
So, we must first ask how authentic these planned contacts really are. What does the “Shanghai Communiqué” mean by “the Chinese people”? Are they the crowds delirious with enthusiasm for communism that we hear about in the Beijing press, radio, and TV? How authentic are these crowds? To what extent do they identify with the people? Given that all official communist propaganda shamelessly lies about the people’s solidarity with the Party’s ideology, the question is inevitable.
We thus strongly suspect that the “Chinese people” with whom the Americans are going to “deepen their understanding” are none other than the Communist Party. And that the Yankees’ contacts will be made not with representatives of the authentic majority of the Chinese people, but with teams of scientists, technicians, athletes, and journalists affiliated with the official party. In other words, with fanatics or poor victims of brainwashing or panic.
What, then, will these contacts be worth in bringing the two peoples closer together?
* * *
Another observation can be added regarding the loyalty of these contacts. If Beijing truly desired mutual understanding between the Chinese and American peoples, it should not be satisfied with contacts between technicians and experts on both sides. This is true even if they authentically represented their peoples. If it were sincere, communist China should open its borders to Americans from north to south and guarantee them complete freedom to come and go as they please. This would easily be reciprocated in the United States. But the Chinese carefully avoid this. In the “Shanghai Communiqué,” provisions are made only for contacts between technicians and experts, or between newspapers, magazines, and other similar entities. Everything is done at a distance, easily filtered and controlled, to show only what suits them and, above all, to hide what they want no one in the West to know.
Isn’t it clearly a hoax to call this a serious and loyal relationship between peoples?
* * *
We also see deception in the content of the contacts. What does “deepening understanding” mean? It would seem there is no obstacle whatsoever between communist China and the US, and that both sides understand and sympathize with each other. It is just a matter of deepening this knowledge and understanding. Just as happens, for example, between the brotherly peoples of Latin America.
However, the reality is quite different. Taken as it is, the Chinese Communist Party differs in countless ways from the American people, ranging from lifestyle to the highest philosophical and religious considerations.
Why, then, distort reality in this way by basing the program for relations between these peoples on the false assumption that deepening mutual understanding alone is enough to improve relations?
In situations like this, rapprochement goes far beyond mere mutual understanding. It involves one party’s acceptance of the other’s ideology or the convergence of both toward an ideological amalgam.
If, on the contrary, relations remain only at the level of mutual understanding, the better they understand each other, the more they will realize how far apart they are.
Let us imagine, in concrete terms, a free-market American and a Chinese communist, each expounding their ideology to the other. If both remain in their respective positions, they will leave the meeting more aware than ever of what divides them.
Now, only a fool would believe that the Chinese Communist Party would send people capable of changing sides to these meetings. Therefore, the Communist Party will promote such meetings only to the extent that it hopes to “convert” Americans or at least “soften” their stance on Marxist doctrine.
This is the real meaning of the convoluted topic of the “Shanghai Communiqué,” a meaning not immediately apparent but which becomes clear upon serious analysis of the text.
* * *
What practical outcome will this have?
Given American candor and the cunning of the Chinese communists, the outcome will be highly favorable to the latter.
The communists will establish such relations only to take advantage of every opportunity to get the other party to accept their ideology.
Americans, adhering to classical liberalism, will attend the meetings convinced that both parties are merely there to exchange doctrinal information without any mutual persuasion. They will even consider proselytizing a breach of fair play.
In other words, Sino-American relations will develop on a basis that the Chinese will know how to take advantage of, but the Americans will not.
* * *
This is one of the many disconcerting aspects of the “Shanghai Communiqué.” However, many other aspects make it one of the most calamitous documents in history.
From this point of view, it can be said that in our century, so full of calamities, appeasement is the greatest. In Munich, its first manifestation appalled people of good sense.
Yalta was a greater calamity than Munich; it was Munich multiplied by itself. And the “Shanghai Communiqué” is Yalta multiplied by itself.
