Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:21:09.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Bargaining and Domestic Politics: U.S.-China Relations since 1972

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Robert S. Ross
Robert S. Ross
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access

Abstract

The concepts of triangular structure and pattern of relations are useful in understanding conflict in U.S.-China relations, particularly over Taiwan, and in explaining the context in which Chinese domestic politics influences the P.R.C.'s policy toward the United States. Through their influence on relative bargaining strengths, shifting patterns of relations have determined Beijing's readiness either to push for change in U.S.-Taiwan relations or to accept the status quo until China's bargaining position improves. The pace of policy change within a particular pattern of relations has been influenced by the P.R.C.'s domestic politics, which has also compelled the leaders to protect their domestic position by issuing statements aimed at the domestic audience.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , January 1986 , pp. 255 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For various interpretations of the interplay of U.S. Taiwan policy, P.R.C. domestic politics, and China's Soviet policy, see, for example, Manning, Robert A., “Reagan's Chance Hit,” Foreign Affairs 54 (Spring 1984), 83–101Google Scholar, at 93; Barnds, William, “China in American Foreign Policy,” in , Barnds, ed., China and America: The Search for a New Relationship (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 224-25Google Scholar; Hamrin, Carol, “China Reassesses the Superpowers,” Pacific Affairs 56 (Summer 1983), 209-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 224-27; Haig, Alexander Jr., Caveat: Realism, Reagan, and Foreign Policy (New York: Macmillan, 1984), 200Google Scholar.

2 For an overview of U.S.-China relations, see the memoirs of U.S. statesmen: Kissinger, Henry, The White House Years (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979)Google Scholar; Kissinger, Henry, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little, Brown, 1982)Google Scholar; Nixon, Richard, RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978)Google Scholar; Ford, Gerald, A Time to Heal (New York: Harper & Row, 1979)Google Scholar; Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Power and Principle (New York: Farrar Straus Giraux, 1983)Google Scholar; Vance, Cyrus, Hard Choices: Critical Years in America's Foreign Policy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983)Google Scholar. For an overview of the Carter years, see Sutter, Robert G., The China Quandary: Domestic Determinants of U.S. China Policy, 1972-1982 (Boulder, CO: West view Press, 1983)Google Scholar. On Chinese policy debates, see Harry Harding, “The Domestic Politics of China's Global Posture,” in Thomas Fingar and The Stanford Journal of International Affairs, eds., China's Quest for Independence: Policy Evolution in the 1970s (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Lieberthal, Kenneth, Sino-Soviet Conflict in the igjo's: Its Evolution and Implicationsfor the Strategic Triangle (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1978)Google Scholar. For a discussion of the fallacies of reliance on domestic politics, see Ng-Quinn, Michael, “The Analytic Study of Chinese Foreign Policy,” International Studies Quarterly 27 (June 1983), 203-24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 211-22.

3 , Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 71Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., 98-99. Kaplan, Morton, in System and Process in International Politics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957)Google Scholar, includes alliance patterns in systems theory.

5 The “pattern of relations” is discussed in Snyder, Glenn H. and Diesing, Paul, Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 463Google Scholar.

6 On the multipolarity of contemporary international politics, see Ibid. For a perspective emphasizing Chinese behavior as a product of bipolarity, see Ng-Quinn, Michael, “International Systemic Constraints on Chinese Foreign Policy,” in Kim, Samuel S., ed., China and the World: Chinese Foreign Policy in the Post-Mao Era (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

7 The romantic triangle and the pivot state are discussed in Dittmer, Lowell, “The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analysis,” World Politics 33 (July 1981), 485–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 489 (emphasis in original). The swing position is discussed in Synder and Diesing (fn. 5), 465. Dittmer argues that a “stable marriage pattern,” characterized by amity between two states and enmity between these two and the third state, has characterized Sino-American relations since 1978. I will show below that this pattern is highly unstable, due to the implications on dependency relations of one state's quest for a stable marriage. Dittmer analyzes a third form of triangular relations, “ménage à trois,” which will not be discussed in this paper.

8 Snyder, Glenn H., “The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics,” World Politics 36 (July 1984), 461-95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 471-73; also see Dittmer (fn. 7), 510.

9 Snyder (fn. 8), 471-73.

10 Dittmer (fn. 7), 489; Snyder and Diesing (fn. 5). 465.

11 See, for example, Snyder and Diesing (fn. 5).

12 Henry Kissinger argues that Soviet fear of greater U.S.-China cooperation moderated Mocow's arms-control policy. See Kissinger (fn. 2, 1979), 766-68, 836-37.

13 The standard work remains Liska, George, Nations in Alliance: The Limits of Interdependence (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962)Google Scholar. The importance of “interaction change” is noted in Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 43–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 The terms are from Snyder (fn. 8), 464-65.

15 Snyder and Diesing (fn. 5), 436, 465. Also see Iklé, Fred Charles, How Nations Negotiate (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 30Google Scholar. Third-party behavior affects decisions to go to war. See also Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de, The War Trap (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Blainey, Geoffrey, The Causes of War (New York: The Free Press, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H. W., and Sapin, Burton, “The Decision-Making Approach to the Study of International Politics,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1961), 188-90Google Scholar; Kaplan (fn. 4), 108, 158; Snyder and Diesing (fn. 5), 354-55.

17 Ibid., 526, 530.

18 See, for example, Kenneth Lieberthal, “The Foreign Policy Debate in Peking as Seen through Allegorical Articles,” The China Quarterly, No. 71 (September 1977), 528-54.

19 Snyder and Diesing (fn. 5), 526.

20 See Gourevitch, Peter, “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics,” International Organization 32 (Autumn 1978), 881–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Snyder and Diesing (fn. 5), 530.

21 Xinhua, March 4, 1978, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service, People's Republic of China, Daily Report [hereafter cited as FBIS/DR], March 6, 1978, p. E25.

22 Sutter, Robert G., China Watch: Toward Sino-American Reconciliation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 111-12Google Scholar.

23 Kissinger (fn. 2, 1982), 690.

24 Speech by the Chairman of the Delegation of the People's Republic of China, Teng Hsiao-Ping, at the Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1974), 4Google Scholar.

25 Editorial Department of Renmin Ribao [hereafter cited as RMRB], The Theory of the Three Worlds (New York: Books New China, 1977), 46Google Scholar (emphasis in original); New York Times, October 24, 1975, p. 6.

26 Documents of the First Session of the Fifth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1978), 101Google Scholar; RMRB, April 18, 1978, FBIS/DR, April 27, 1978, p. A3 (upper case in original).

27 “Chou En-lai's Reports on the International Situation,” Issues and Studies (Taiwan) 13 (January 1977), 113-27Google Scholar, at 127.

28 The Theory of the Three Worlds (fn. 25), 29-30.

29 Lieberthal (fn. 2), 99-100.

30 The Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents) (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1973), 23–24Google Scholar.

31 Kissinger (fn. 2, 1982), 55, 67, 690.

32 Xinhua, October 5, 1976, FBIS/DR, October 6, 1976, p. A3. Also see Beijing Domestic Service, May 22, 1976, FBIS/DR, May 24, 1976, pp. A11-12.

33 Jen Ku-ping, “The Munich Tragedy and Contemporary Appeasement, RMRB, November 26, 1977, in Peking Review, Vol. 20, No. 50 (December 9, 1977). Also see, for example, The Theory of the Three Worlds (fn. 25), 47-48.

34 Documents of the First Session ... (fn. 26), 101.

35 “Keng Piao's Talks on ‘A Turning Point in the China-U.S. Diplomatic Relations,’” Issues and Studies (Taiwan) 13 (January 1977), 129Google Scholar.

36 Ibid., 130-31.

37 “Ch'iao Kuan-hua's Address, May 20, 1975,” Issues and Studies (Taiwan) 11 (December 1975), 95Google Scholar.

38 Kissinger (fn. 2, 1982), 60-63, 691-92.

39 A. Doak Barnett, China and the Major Powers in East Asia, 206, 383-84, n. 143; Sutter (fn. 2), 38; Ford (fn. 2), 337.

40 Sutter (fn. 2), 24-25.

41 Hua's statement is in Documents of the First Session ... (fn. 26), 111-12.

42 Sutter (fn. 2), 21, 24-25, 46; Barnett (fn. 39), 384, n. 144.

43 The ambassador was Leonard Unger. On this and other aspects of U.S.-Taiwan relations, see Barnett (fn. 39), 205-07, 223-25, 383, 11. 142.

44 Vance (fn. 2), 79-83.

45 Kissinger (fn. 2, 1982), 47; Sutter (fn. 22), 115-16; Ford (fn. 2), 336-37; FBIS, Trends in Communist Media, October 27, 1977, pp. 1-4, and November 30, 1977, pp. 8-10; Xinhua, May 20, 1978, FBIS/DR, May 22, 1978, pp. A2-3. On the Carter period, see the discussion of Brzezinski's May 1978 visit to China, in FBIS, Trends in Communist Media, May 24, 1978, pp. 1-2.

46 “Chiang Ch'ing's Address to Diplomatic Cadres,” Classified Chinese Communist Documents: A Selection (Taipei: Institute of International Relations, 1978), 538-39Google Scholar.

47 Mills, William DeBerard, Sino-Soviet Interactions, May 1977-June 1980, Ph.D. diss. (University of Michigan, 1981), 76–77Google Scholar, 102-07, 138-41.

48 Zhou often encountered criticism over Taiwan. See “Chou En-lai's Report on International Situation, March 1973,” Issues and Studies (Taiwan) 13 (January 1977), 113-27Google Scholar, at 126; Kissinger (fn. 2, 1982), 679-81, 684.

49 See Sutter (fn. 2), 35; Lieberthal (fn. 2), 112-13; Barnett (fn. 39), 205.

50 Ng-Quinn (fn. 2), 212-15, overstates the case, I believe, when he argues that debates over Chinese foreign policy remained merely debates, solely reflecting attempts to secure domestic political support, and never influencing foreign policy outputs.

51 Kissinger (fn. 2, 1982), 679-81, 684.

52 , Oksenberg, “The Dynamics of the Sino-American Relationship,” in Solomon, Richard, The China Factor (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1981), 72–73Google Scholar.

53 Oksenberg, Michel, “A Decade of Sino-American Relations,” Foreign Affairs 61 (Fall 1982), 175-95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 182-83; Vance (fn. 2), 82-83; New York Times, September 7, 1977, pp. 1, 2. In 1977, Oksenberg was responsible for Chinese affairs on the National Security Council.

54 See, for example, the statement of the Central Committee of the CCP, the Standing Committee of the National Peoples' Congress, the State Council, and the Military Commission of the CCP, Xinhua, November 2, 1976, FBIS/DR, November 2, 1976, pp. A1-2; Chiao Guanhua's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Xinhua, October 5, 1976, FBIS/PRC, October 6, 1976, pp. A1-6; Agence France Presse, November 1, 1976, FBIS/DR, November 2, 1976, pp. A2-3. Also see FBIS, Trends in Communist Media, September 22, 1976, p. 7; October 6, 1976, pp. 10-11; November 3, 1976, pp. 6-7; November 17, 1976, p. 7.

55 Mills (fn. 47), 76-77, 82-85, 132-33.

56 Haig (fn. 1), 201-02.

57 On Carter's changing Soviet policy, see Brzezinski (fn. 2).

58 Ibid., 203-04; Vance (fn. 2), 116.

59 Sutler (fn. 2), 83-84.

60 Oksenberg (fn. 53), 191. On Brown's visit, see Sutter (fn. 2), 86.

61 Qing, Zeng, “Meiguo dui Su zhanlue de dongxiang” [The trend in U.S. strategy toward the Soviet Union], Shijie Zhishi, No. 6 (March 16, 1979), 5Google Scholar. Unless otherwise noted, translations are by the present author.

62 Qubing, Zhuang, “Meiguo dui Meisu junshi liliang duibi de jizhong kanfa” [Various U.S. views of the U.S.-Soviet balance of military strength], Shijie Zhishi, No. 2 (January 16, 1979), 14–15Google Scholar. Also see, for example, Xiong, Chen and Mei, Yao, “‘Lianggeban zhangzheng’ yu ‘yigeban zhanzheng’” [Two-and-a-half war and one-and-a-half war], Shijie Zhishi, No. 23 (December 1, 1979), 3–5Google Scholar; Fang Zhidan, “Illusion and Reality,” RMRB, May 14, 1979, FBIS/DR, May 24, 1979, pp. A1-4; Bu Qing, “Contention in the Persian Gulf,” RMRB, August 7, 1979, FBIS/DR, August 15, 1979, pp. A1-2.

63 Qubing, Zhuang, “Meiguo dui Su zhengce de xin quxiang” [The new trend in United States policy toward the Soviet Union], Shijie Zhishi, No. 3 (February 1, 1980), 2–3Google Scholar; Zhengqing, Hu and Qubing, Zhuang, “Meiguo weishenma xiuding hezhanlue” [Why did the U.S. revise its nuclear strategy?], Shijie Zhishi, No. 18 (September 16, 1980), 10–11Google Scholar.

64 Juan Xiang, “New Development of U.S. Military Posture Toward the Soviet Union,” RMRB, March 25, 1980, FBIS/DR, March 27, 1980, pp. B1-4.

65 See, for example, Commentary, “New ‘Proposal,’ Old Tricks,” Xinhua, May 24, 1980, FEIS/DR, June 3, 1980, pp. C1-2; Zhang Qihua, “The European Security Conference and the Security of the Mediterranean,” RMRB, September 12, 1980, FBIS/DR, September 22, 1980, p. A3-5; Fang Min, “The Unpredictable New Round of U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Talks,” RMRB, October 15, 1980, FBIS/DR, October 23, 1980, pp. A2-3. Also see Dai, Li, “Afuhan shijian qiangdongle quanshijie” [The Afghanistan incident affected the whole world], Shijie Zhishi, No. 6 (March 16, 1980), pp. 2–5Google Scholar.

66 Pollack, Jonathan, The Lessons of Coalition Politics: Sino-American Security Relations (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1984), 76–77Google Scholar.

67 On the nuances of China's Soviet policy, see Lieberthal (fn. 2); Harding (fn. 2).

68 For early, relatively sanguine views of the Soviet Union, see Xiong, Chen, “Dangqian Sumei zhanlue taishi” [The current Soviet-U.S. strategic situation], Shijie Zhishi, No. 12 (June 16, 1979), 1–5Google Scholar; “New ‘Proposal,’ Old Tricks” (fn. 65).

69 See William Hyland, “The Sino-Soviet Conflict: Dilemmas of the Strategic Triangle,” in Solomon (fn. 52), 141-45: Kyodo News Service, October 18, 1979, FBIS/PRC, October 18, 1979, p. C1.

70 Mills (fn. 47), 248-50.

71 Hyland (fn. 69), 140.

72 Deng Xiaoping Wenxuan [Selected works of Deng Xiaoping] (Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe, 1983), 203-04Google Scholar.

73 Xinhua, May 14, 1980, FBIS/DR, May 14, 1980, p. D2.

74 “FX” was the name of two models of aircraft considered for sale to Taiwan. On the issue involved, see Barnett, A. Doak, The FX Decision: “Another Crucial Moment” in U.S.-China-Taiwan Relations (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1981)Google Scholar; Sutter (fn. 2), 81.

75 See Vance (fn. 2), 117; Brzezinski (fn. 2), 231.

76 Commentary, “Do No Harm to Sino-U.S. Relations,” Xinhua, June 20, 1980, FBIS/DR, June 23, 1980, pp. B2-3. Also see FBIS, Trends in Communist Media, June 25, 1980, pp. 7-8. For a later indirect threat of greater conflict with the U.S., see the pro-P.R.C. Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po, October 22, 1980, FBIS/DR, October 27, 1980, pp. U1-2.

77 On the protest note, see Xinhua, October 15, 1980, FBIS/PRC, October 16, 1980, p. B1; Agence France Presse, October 11, 1980, FBIS/DR, October 14, 1980, p. B1. The Commentator article cited is “An Inadvisable Move” RMRB, October 9, 1980, FBIS/DR, October 9, 1980, pp. B1-2. Shijie Zhishi issued a similar warning; see Wen Fu, “Sunhai Zhongmei guanxi de Meiguo ‘yu Taiwan guanxifa’ “[The United States “Taiwan Relations Act,” which harms U.S.-China relations], Shijie Zhishi, No. 21 (November 1, 1980), 14-15. For additional information, see FBIS, Trends in Communist Media, October 16, 1980, pp. 1-3.

78 Zhou Lifang and Zhou Cipu, “George Bush's Difficult Mission,” Xinhua, August 23, 1980, and RMRB, August 24, 1980, FBIS/DR, August 25, 1980, pp. B2-3.

79 Benkan Pinglunyuan [RMRB Commentator], “Ligen xiang ba Zhongmei guanxi yin-xiang nali?” [Where does Reagan intend to lead Sino-U.S. relations?], RMRB, August 28, 1980.

80 Also see Pollack (fn. 66), 67-68.

81 Bianzhu, Yi, Cong Haolaiwu dao Baigong (Beijing: Shishi Chubanshe, 1981), 56–59Google Scholar.

82 Qubing, Zhuang, “Ligen de waijiao qiju” [Reagan's diplomatic chessboard], Shijie Zhishi, No. 6 (March 16, 1981), 2–3Google Scholar (emphasis in original). On Reagan's arms control policy, see Talbott, Strobe, Deadly Gambits (New York: Harper & Row, 1984)Google Scholar.

83 Qianqi, Wang, “Ligen zhengfu de junshi zhanlue” [The military strategy of the Reagan administration], Xiandai Guoji Guanxi, No. 1 (October 1981), 22Google Scholar. Also see Bo, Gao and Lei, Yu, “Sulian nanxia zhanlue ji qi mianlin de zuli” [The Soviet strategy of thrusting southward and the impediments it faces], Xiandai Guoji Guanxi, No. 1 (October 1981), 12–15Google Scholar.

84 Jin Junhui, “Ligen zhengfu de duiwai zhengce” [The foreign policy of the Reagan administration], Guoji Wenti Yanjiu, No. 1, (January 1982), 3.

85 Yuan Xianlu, “A New Round of Struggle,” RMRB, September 27, 1981, FBIS/DR, September 28, 1981, pp. B1-2.

86 Fang Min, “On the Eve of the U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Talks,” RMRB, November 30, 1981, FBIS/DR, November 30, 1981, pp. A1-2.

87 Lu Shipu, “A New Round of the Arms Race Between the Soviet Union and the United States,” RMRB, June 2, 1982, FBIS/DR, June 3, 1982, pp. A1-3. Also see Chen Weibin, “A Prolonged and Fruitless Process,” Xinhua, January 12, 1982, FBIS/DR, January 13, 1982, p. A1; Fang Min, “Reasons for Reagan's Disarmament Statement and His Stand,” RMRB, April 7, 1982, FBIS/DR, April 8, 1982, pp. B1-3; Fang Min, Special Commentary, “U.S. Dual Tactics Toward the Soviet Union,” RMRB, June 29, 1982, FBIS/DR, June 29, 1982, PP. B1-3.

88 See Barnett, A. Doak, “China's International Posture: Signs of Change,” in Bush, Richard, ed., China Briefing, 1982 (Boulder: CO: Westview Press, 1983), 90Google Scholar.

89 Ibid., 93-96.

90 See Barnett (fn. 74), 29; Zagoria, Donald, “The Moscow-Beijing Detente,” Foreign Affairs 61 (Spring 1983), 853-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 856. Also see Barnett (fn. 88), 92-93.

91 “Quarterly Chronicle and Documentation,” The China Quarterly, No. 91 (September 1982), 564-65Google Scholar; Barnett (fn. 88), 90.

92 Qubing, Zhuang, Hongzeng, Zhang, and Tongwen, Pan, “Ping Meiguo de ‘yu Taiwan guanxi fa'” [Criticize the U.S. ‘Taiwan Relations Act'], Guoji Wenti Yanjiu, No. 1 (July 1981), 21–27Google Scholar, at 25.

93 Ibid., 26. Also see Commentary, “A Key Link in the Development of Sino-U.S. Relations,” Xinhua, June 18, 1981, FBIS/DR, June 19, 1981, pp. B1-2.

94 Guoji Wenti Yanjiu (fn. 92), 26.

95 Haig (fn. 1), 204-05, 206-07; Barnett (fn. 74), 29. On China's response to U.S. policy of evenhanded arms sales, also see, for example, Xiu, Hua, “China Won't Accept U.S. ‘Balanced Arms Sales,’” Beijing Review, Vol. 24 (June 22, 1981), 11–12Google Scholar.

96 See Deng's statement in Pollack (fn. 66), 89. For additional Chinese warnings, see Haig (fn. 1), 208.

97 Haig (fn. 1), 209-10.

98 Special Commentator, “Zhongmei guanxi de zhengjie hezai?” [Where lies the crux of Sino-American relations?], Guoji Wenti Yanjiu, No. 2 (April 1982), 6–7Google Scholar.

99 Haig (fn. 1), 211-15. This has been confirmed in discussion with former Reagan administration officials. Also see Garrett, Banning, “China Policy and the Constraints of Triangular Logic,” in Oye, Kenneth A., Lieber, Robert J., and Rothchild, Donald, eds., Eagle Defiant: United States Foreign Policy in the 1980s (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983), 237-71Google Scholar.

100 See Lieberthal, Kenneth, “Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy,” in Harding, Harry, ed., China's Foreign Relations in the 1980s (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 55–66Google Scholar; Hamrin (fn. 1); Barnett (fn. 74). Also see FBIS, Trends in Communist Media, August 6, 1980, PP. 3-5.

101 Cited in Lieberthal (fn. 100), 65.

102 Hamrin (fn. 1); Lieberthal (fn. 100), 55-66.

103 Hamrin (fn. 1); Lieberthal (fn. 100); and Barnett (fn. 74).

104 Indeed, in his January 1980 speech placing reunification on the agenda for the 1980s, Deng suggested that combatting hegemonism was of greater importance; see Deng Xiaoping Wenxuan (fn. 72), 203-04. Also see Mills (fn. 47), 251; Barnett, A. Doak, U.S. Arms Sales: The China-Taiwan Tangle (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1982)Google Scholar. For Deng's remarks on U.S.-China relations, see “Deng fuzongli tong Meiguo guangbo dianshijie de tanpan” [Vice Premier Deng's talk with people in U.S. television circles], Shijie Zhishi, No. 5 (March 1, 1979), 1–4Google Scholar.

105 Pollack (fn. 66), 89.

106 Hamrin (fn. 1), 226-27.

107 See, for example, Barnett (fn. 74). For a critique of the argument that Reagan's policy errors can explain the deterioration of relations, see Steven I. Levine, “China and the United States: The Limits of Interaction,” in Kim (fn. 6), 123-25.

108 On U.S.-China relations, see Ibid., 118-31. For Sino-Soviet relations, see Chi Su, “China and the Soviet Union: ‘Principled, Salutary, and Tempered’ Management of Conflict,” in Kim (fn. 6), 136-41. China's third-world posture is discussed by Harry Harding, “China's Changing Roles in the Contemporary World,” in Harding (fn. 100), 195-201.

109 Also see Dittmer (fn. 1), 504-07.

110 For a harsh P.R.C. response to the shift in Reagan's Asia policy, see Jialin, Zhang, “The New Romanticism in the Reagan Administration's Asian Policy,” Asian Survey 10 (October 1984), 997–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For P.R.C. analyses of U.S. assertiveness and confidence in world affairs, and its recent “ascendency over the Soviet Union,” see, for example, Junhui, Jin, “Reagan's Diplomacy: An Overview,” Beijing Review 28 (June 17, 1985), 21–25Google Scholar; Jirong, Zhou, Baoqin, Wang, and Guanfu, Gu, “Sumei zhengba taishi de bianhua yu qianjing” [Change and the prospect for the Soviet-U.S. struggle for hegemony], Xiandai Guoji Guanxi 6 (March 1984), 1–6Google Scholar; Su'an, Huang and Changjiu, Li, “Meiguo jingji liliang de huifu yu duiwai zhengce” [U.S. economic recovery and foreign policy], Guoji Wenti Yanjiu 3 (July 1985), 1–7Google Scholar.