Are you seriously going to be asking this question? Or are you just being obtuse. I would not have taken your background and educational pedigree to be this uninformed as to the purpose of the Sino-American rapprochement initiated by Henry "War Criminal" Kissinger and then culminated with the meeting between Chairman Mao and Pres. Richard Nixon in 1972.
Yes, at the time, China was concerned about Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet Split, but it never got to existential threat, since China had already have nukes and hydrogen bombs. China did built a lot of underground tunnels and bunkers in anticipation of nuclear war, but re-approachment with United States occurred after the failures of Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. China wanted diplomatic leverage against Soviet Union, but it also wanted access to Western tech and capital.
The partnership was made at the behest of the geopolitical factors of that time which was the cold war and how important it was for the U.S. to sever the already frayed relationship between the two socialist allies of Soviet Russia and China.
If that was only reason, then China wouldn't have privatized and liberalized it's economy. Yes, China wanted diplomatic leverage against Soviet Union, but it also wanted access to Western tech and capital. I like how you didn't even mention the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and generally how ass-backwards and piss-poor China was back then before re-approachment.
In other words the strategic plan was all about geopolitics and grand strategy nothing more, nothing less.
Right, if it was purely geopolitics, then China wouldn't have given up state-control over economy and economically liberalized. It was more than Soviet boogeyman, China wanted to modernize after the failures of Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Foreign investment helps that, particularly from HK and Taiwan and overseas Chinese diaspora.
It has nothing to do with benign and benevolent intentions from the U.S. ever a fact that you ought to have already understood based on your reading and observations on the current geopolitical challenges.
Who says US intentions was benign and benevolent? Every nation operates with it's self-interests first and foremost, there is no free lunch in international relations.
What I said is if you are so eager to conduct another 'Long March' and 'Eat Grass for 10 years' campaign against US, then good luck with another Cold War v2.0 with your best-buddy Russia.... let me know how it goes.
This is what former Harvard professor Graham Allison wrote in his famous book Destined for War: How to avoid the Thucydides Trap which discusses, examined how 6 countries engaged in war when a rising power emerges to challenge the dominant power. Please take some time away from your very busy and demanding rigour of your current academic pursuit to read this book. It may or may not shed light to better understand the current shift in politics and policies of the U.S. towards China.
US already fought China in the Korean Wars (stalemate) and Vietnam War (lost) and indirectly with US-backed KMT ROC (basically lost).
So yea, I spoke with a US Marine and they know they can't beat China in Korean War again, too many bodies. So what other area of conflict will they go to war? South China Sea? Taiwan? Judging by how quickly US abandoned Afghanistan, I highly doubt it would go to war over SCS or Taiwan, which are nowhere remotely related to US national security interests. The only conflict I can see really is Korea and maybe Taiwan, but as China gets stronger, I think the Taiwan intervention is getting more remote and unlikely.
You are far too generous towards your adopted country in giving them almost all the gains and achievements that China made these successive years.
Who says US make China rich?
Who says China's achievements is solely due to US?
If you are going to argue in good faith, you atleast have to acknowledge that foreign direct investment (FDI) and access to consumer markets of the West is one of the biggest reasons why China is "world's factory" export giant and the 2nd largest economy today. I understand your desire for self-sufficiency, but it shouldn't lead to complete technological de-coupling and returning to Mao-era of self-sufficiency and isolation and Cold War v2.0.... that's bad for China.
China achieved it's success largely to the system it has and the overwhelming support of the common people in the country who yearned and wanted to see the country strong and vibrant. That's the absolute truth.
Spare me of your propaganda. If "hard work" and "support from common people" is sufficient, then Mao's Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution would have been sufficient and successful.
