The best books, their authors and the great people who inspire these stories / Les meilleurs livres, leurs auteurs et les grand.e.s de l'histoire qui les inspirent.
Dr. Kerry Brown, Director of the Lau China Institute and Professor of Chinese Studies (source: China Daily).
After the publication of my recent review of his insightful book about the history of China (Polity Books), Professor Kerry Brown kindly accepted to answer my questions about the relationship between the United States and China – an extremely timely subject. Without further introduction, here is the content of our exchange.
Chinese still admire some aspects of the western world, but not, anymore, its political figures.
On page 71 of your compelling book, you write that President Nixon was impressed “[…] witnessing Zhou Enlai redo the front page of the People’s Daily.” I often ask myself if any figure has a comparable influence in Xi Jinping’s entourage?
I imagine the figures from the outside world that most impress Chinese leaders today are more our business or technology leaders than our political ones. The excitement of new acquaintance from the Nixon era has long gone. Now, figures like Warren Buffett probably arouse more interest in China, or Bill Gates. I guess this is simply a sign that Chinese still admire some aspects of the western world, but not, anymore, its political figures.
I think we deceive ourselves if we do think individuals can magically find a way around the issue of the relationship between China and the US.
In the case where there would be no such influential figure, do you think it would help, notably in the relations with the US, and why?
Henry Kissinger is still listened to in China, and indeed, till recently, went there. I don’t know however whether intermediary figures are of much help now. This is not an issue of individual people being able to sort this out – the disagreements between China and the US are structurally too deep. There are maybe groups of people who might, over time, help – academics, perhaps, in trying to at least maintain some middle space. But I think we deceive ourselves if we do think individuals can magically find a way around this issue.
Upon his arrival at the presidency, any individual disposes of a considerable array of tools to influence foreign policy. The most important national security apparatus in the world is loyally at his disposal.
Since the title of President of the United States has been bestowed upon him, Donald Trump has taken great pains to devalue the work and impact of the men and women who give their best – and sometimes their lives – to protect their country.
In a brilliant and insightful exposé, CNN’s chief national security correspondent and former diplomat Jim Sciutto provides ample munitions to those who, like me, think that the 45th president is a threat for the future of the United States as a world leader. And the title of his book, The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World is reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s reckless tactics trying to bully his way to end the Vietnam War. As history recalls, his gambit failed.
One doesn’t need to spend an inordinate amount of time following international politics to understand how much Trump is in a league of his own. I was shocked to read the details about how the standard bearer of American values abandoned his Kurdish allies in the space of 2 phones calls with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – hardly the best ally of the US.
Lots of ink was spent during the current presidential campaign about Ukraine, the dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the intervention of Trump towards the Ukrainians to seek an investigation – a move Richard Nixon probably would have approved when he was in the Oval Office. Doing so, the president tossed aside the duty of reserve any normal statesman would respect and functioned outside the established channels and methods. Jim Sciutto writes that this “[…] shadow foreign policy was so far outside the normal process that it ran contradictory to it—and that appeared to be the intention.”
Donald Trump does not respect his diplomats, his machinery of government, his allies and his counterparts.
And, to the chagrin of any James Bond enthusiast (RIP Sean Connery, who passed away just a few hours ago), Donald Trump hates spies.
Let me quote the author at length:
“In his view, foreign spies do more harm than good, in particular to his personal relationships with foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin. […]” He ““believes we shouldn’t be doing that to each other,” one former Trump administration official told me. In private conversations, President Trump has repeatedly expressed opposition to the use of foreign intelligence from covert sources, including overseas spies who provide the US government with crucial information about hostile countries.”
Let’s just say I’m happy Trump was not the leader of the free world during the Cold War. We probably would be living in a much different world, and probably not the best. I think Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would agree with me.
Disliking spies who often helped prevent doomsday scenarios – as it often happened during history, but Trump doesn’t read, so how could he care – and lacking trust in his national security are alarming enough. But Trump goes even further in blindly accepting the rationale of Vladimir Putin (about Russia’s interference in US elections), not holding Kim Jong-un responsible for the death of American citizen Otto Warmbier (after his release from North Korea) or mentioning that Iran’s shooting of a US drone was probably a mistake made by a general. You can’t invent that. I could also mention how Trump capitulated to China in his trade deal with Beijing, highlighting the fact that this man is ill-equipped to occupy the function he does. But I think you get the point.
To his credit, Trump has brought NATO countries to invest more of their budget on defence, which is no small feat given the manifest abhorrence of Western countries to spend more in that domain. I would also be very curious to know what’s the author’s analysis about the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries in the Persian Gulf like the UAE and Bahrain. This major development will have lasting consequences in global geopolitics and the 45th president will have played a determining role at that level. It is still unclear why and how he did it, but I’m sure this would be an excellent sequel book for Jim Sciutto.
I have been devouring books about US presidents since childhood. My understanding is that each of them had a sense of history. That was until Donald Trump came to Washington. He seems consumed with the tyranny of short-term impact, a notion that is reflected in his anti-intellectualism.
Every president who took office at the White House became a consumer of intelligence reports and information. This is a vital aspect of commanding the number 1 power on the surface of the planet. But, once again, Donald Trump defies the norm. His national security can’t get him to even read “[…] the day’s topics into three simple bullet points on a single note card”, therefore generating the need to restrict the information submitted to the man sitting in the Oval Office and making him less aware of vital threats to the country – and there are not a few.
All of this would be entertaining if the consequences were not potentially tragic.
Apart from the troubling rationale documented by Jim Sciutto, The Madman Theory is an insightful and fast-paced book that should be mandatory reading for any student of international relations.
_______________
Jim Sciutto, The Madman Theory: Trump Takes On the World, New York, Harper, 2020, 320 pages.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Jonathan Jao and Leslie Cohen of HarperCollins for providing me with a version of this book.
Few years ago, I was captivated by Professor Joseph S. Nye Jr.’s book Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. I recently approached the former Dean of the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and former Clinton administration official to submit him a few questions. He generously accepted to respond. Here is the content of our exchange.
You are the father of the term soft power. Just to make sure all my readers understand well, what would be the best short definition of this concept and why is it so important in international relations?
Power is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes you want and it is basic to international relations analysis. You can affect others by coercion, payment, and attraction. Soft power is the ability to get what you want by attraction rather than coercion or payment.
Ma fascination envers le Général de Gaulle est une vocation tardive. Pour tout dire, j’ai commencé à m’intéresser à lui un beau jour de septembre 2014, alors que je me trouvais dans un salon de barbier londonien et que j’ai fait la rencontre d’un anglais francophile dont la mère avait été la secrétaire du grand homme pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Cette agréable discussion a déposé en moi un grain qui allait germer au fil du temps.
À l’approche du 50e anniversaire de la disparition de l’homme du 18 juin, les publications à son sujet ne manquent pas et les éditions Perrin nous choient avec plusieurs titres aussi invitants les uns que les autres.
À cet égard, le sympathique journaliste et historien Éric Branca a piqué ma curiosité avec son dernier livre, De Gaulle et les grands. Parce qu’il campe le Général dans ses relations avec les autres grandes pointures de l’histoire contemporaine. Admirateur de Ben Gourion et de Kennedy, fasciné par Mao, toujours curieux de lire ce que les auteurs ont à dire au sujet de Roosevelt et Staline et irréductible de Churchill, je ne pouvais laisser ce livre trop longtemps sur ma liste de titres « à lire ». Y plonger était une gourmandise à laquelle je ne voulais pas résister.
Les relations internationales faisant partie de mes sujets de prédilection, Éric Branca m’a permis de relever à quel point de Gaulle était un réaliste (le terme revient à plusieurs reprises entre les couvertures), un pragmatique dans tous les sens du terme. À témoin, la citation suivante : « J’aime mieux voir à la tête du Parti communiste, un homme qui gardera toujours accrochée aux fesses la casserole de sa désertion plutôt qu’un authentique résistant […]. » J’ai trouvé ça délicieux.
Le Général de Gaulle et le Président Nixon en 1969 (Source: Richard Nixon Foundation)
Mais de Gaulle était aussi un anticonformiste déclaré et assumé. C’est ainsi que l’homme d’État demeurait de glace devant les approches de Tito, puisque celui-ci était un usurpateur profitant des actions posées par « le vrai héros national », Draža Mihailović (que Tito fera liquider), celui « […] qui a fait perdre deux ou trois mois à la Wehrmacht au printemps 1941 (en utilisant les méthodes de la guérilla). Il a empêché les Allemands d’atteindre Moscou et Leningrad avant l’hiver. C’est peut-être lui qui a causé la perte de Hitler », selon le Général.
Ou encore la réponse du Général à son ambassadeur à Washington qui lui recommande de ne pas rencontrer le candidat à l’investiture républicaine en 1968, Richard Nixon, puisqu’on accorde à ce dernier bien peu de chances d’arriver premier au fil d’arrivée. Sur le télégramme apportant ce conseil, de Gaulle griffonne : « Je le recevrai donc. »
Je mentionne une dernière anecdote, probablement la plus savoureuse selon moi, au sujet de l’intervention du président français dans l’élection du successeur du pape Pie XII. Dès le lendemain du décès de celui-ci, il envoie l’avion présidentiel chercher l’ambassadeur français à Rome pour déterminer quel candidat répondra le mieux aux intérêts de l’Hexagone. C’est sur le patriache de Venise, le cardinal Roncalli, que se jette le dévolu de l’Élysée. Au dixième tour de scrutin, le parti français au Conclave parvient à faire pencher le résultat en faveur de celui qui deviendra le pape Jean XXIII. À lui seul, le chapitre consacré à la relation de de Gaulle avec l’initiateur du Concile Vatican II mériterait certainement un livre entier.
Chacun des chapitres du livre est rempli d’anecdotes similaires, qui viennent soutenir les affirmations de l’auteur quant aux principes géopolitiques et dispositions personnelles du Général.
Puisque ce pays effectue son ascension au rang de grande puissance, la relation entre de Gaulle et Mao représente un très grand intérêt actuellement. Je sais bien qu’il n’est pas évident de faire abstraction de la Covid-19, mais il serait peut-être approprié, en envisageant le long terme, de méditer ces paroles visionnaires du Général : « Un jour ou l’autre, peut-être plus proche qu’on ne croit, la Chine sera une grande réalité politique, économique et même militaire… » 50 ans plus tard, force est d’admettre que celui qui a couché cette formule sur papier avait très bien compris que les idéologies, qu’elles soient politiques ou commerciales, constituent une entrave à ce réalisme qui permet aux relations internationales de vivre dans un équilibre dont le monde a grand besoin. Plus que jamais.
Ce livre figure d’ores et déjà dans mon classement des meilleurs livres d’histoire. Parce qu’il dévoile comment un homme qui a toujours su que « le vrai courage est d’affronter les malheurs » a pris place parmi les grands. Incontestablement, de Gaulle figure parmi les grands, j’avancerais même parmi les plus grands.
Puisque le pragmatisme, le réalisme et le progressisme (à la Nixon et de Gaulle) sont des valeurs qui me rejoignent, Éric Branca a probablement fait naître un gaulliste en moi en nous offrant ce livre exceptionnel et opportun.
Éric Branca, De Gaulle et les grands : Churchill, Hitler, Roosevelt, Staline, Tito, Adenauer, Jean XXIII, Houphouët-Boigny, Kennedy, Ben Gourion, Nasser, Nixon, Franco, Mao…, Paris, Perrin, 2020, 432 pages.
Je tiens à remercier sincèrement les Éditions Perrin de m’avoir offert un exemplaire du livre et pour leur amical soutien envers ce blogue.
Ma fascination envers le Général de Gaulle est une vocation tardive. Pour tout dire, j’ai commencé à m’intéresser à lui un beau jour de septembre 2014, alors que je me trouvais dans un salon de barbier londonien et que j’ai fait la rencontre d’un anglais francophile dont la mère avait été la secrétaire du grand homme pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Cette agréable discussion a déposé en moi un grain qui allait germer au fil du temps.
BookMarc 