These
threats were manifest. During the nineteenth century, Russia had replaced the
Mongols as China’s chief security worry on the northern frontier. There was
also increasing tension between the two powers along their common border in
Manchuria. In 1969, at Zhenbao Island, an armed confrontation occurred during
which both sides took casualties. To the east, Mao was anxious of American-dominated
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Accordingly, Mao’s goal in supporting not only
North Vietnam but also the Communists in Cambodia and Laos was to create secure
southern states that would acknowledge China as their “older brother.” However,
China would remain interested in ensuring that neither Cambodia nor Laos would
become puppets of Hanoi. China paid a high price for its intervention in the
Korean War. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) suffered huge numbers of casualties
in a war they were unprepared for. Mao was also forced to delay his murderous domestic
agenda in order to fight in Korea. On the crucial question of whether China
would have directly intervened in the event of an American invasion of North
Vietnam, Zhai is ambivalent. China sent signals to that effect, which President
Johnson believed. Whether this threat would have been made good is impossible
to determine.
In
the 1950s, China was confident of its fraternal relationship with the Soviets.
The ideological sympathy of both nations made their common front against
Western “imperialism” possible. Zhao contends that, as relations with the
Soviet Union cooled, Mao altered his ideology to suit the new circumstances. Mao’s
ideological gymnastics required some fancy footwork. He wanted to play the
United States off against the Soviet Union. By the mid 1960s the Soviets were
providing Hanoi with large amounts of military hardware. Mao had to walk a
tightrope to develop relations with the United States and still maintain
influence with Hanoi. He failed due to his policy of détente and Vietnam’s historical suspicions of Chinese
intentions.
Zhai’s
main argument that geopolitical issues dominated China’s policy towards Vietnam
is well documented and presented. The book’s only shortcoming is the author’s
bias towards American intervention in Southeast Asia. For example, chapter six
is titled “Confronting U.S. Escalation, 1964-1965.” This reviewer lost count of
how many times America’s attempts to prevent the Communists from spreading Nacht und Nebel throughout the region were
characterized as “escalation.” Despite the author’s standard “liberal” view on
America’s intervention in Vietnam, this book is a valuable addition to the
literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment