In politics, diplomacy, and foreign relations, most would agree that people and nations are realists with a short-term or a long-term view. Sure, there is always ideology at play in the domains of politics and foreign affairs, but in the timeline of history, vast number of principal involved inevitably have yielded their principles and ideologies to reality, especially over a long time. In hindsight, history is a book of realist stories not a hypothetic theory. The case in point in this column is the UK-China relations, its recent development and historical evolvement prompted the author to ask the title question, will the current warm UK-China relation be a long-term one? This question is of great interest and importance not only to the British and the Chinese but also to the Americans and the world citizens.

The United Kingdom had a glorious history as an empire. As a nation the U.K. is not a typical democratic system; she maintains a royal crown yet she has contributed to democracy and capitalism in a significant way. As an empire the U.K. practiced colonialism zealously enabling her flag flying in sunshine twenty four hours a day (Perhaps I should say daylight, since the Sun does not seem to favor London). The British footprint or occupation was appearing all over the world, including all five continents and numerous isles in the four oceans. The U.K. is a realist in her evolution as a nation; she embraces democracy but remains as a royal kingdom to this day. She lost the entire North America yielding to the American Revolution which claimed independence from her. The fact that the British Empire did not move her palace to New York or Toronto in the eighteenth century might be interpreted as the natural result of a Royal government with limited vision. The royal family perhaps never entertained the idea of moving away from Buckingham Palace. The political figures as subjects of the Crown thought and behaved as smart short-term realists just to satisfy the ruling Crown. They never worried the day that the British isles would be the limiting factor in sustaining the empire.

China had been a great nation over several millennia. China had been called an empire only occasionally in her five thousand years of history simply because colonialism was never in the Chinese dictionary or on her emperors’ minds until she became a colonial target of the Western powers led by the British Empire.
Different from the continent of North America, China has had a rich culture and strong economy despite of the fact that China had no navy. The Ming emperors, Yongle (1402-1424), Hongxi (1424-1425) and Xuande (1425-1435) were pro-commerce to enrich their treasury. Emperor Yongle (Zhu Di) sent the famous 'Ambassador' Cheng He (1371-1435) sailing the world seven times with a fleet consisting  of ships over 400 feet long dwarfing any ship in the world at that time. Cheng's disappointing report to the Emperors, that the rest of the world were culturally backward, had made the Ming Court angry which made an edict to forbid ocean exploration to foreign land as a waste of the emperor’s treasury. Most political figures in the Chinese dynasties behaved like realists with short-term views. All the maps and records of Ming Dynasty’s ocean exploration were ordered to be burnt except a few were hidden and eventually passed on to the hands of foreigners. (Reference Matteo Ricci, 1552-1610 and Michele Ruggieri, 1543-1607 and their writings.)

The U.K.-China relation in the late 19th to early 20th century was a sad story for the Chinese. The British started the infamous Opium War forcing China to accept opium trade and to open her ports to the British merchants. As the victor of the Sino-British wars, the British Empire demanded not only huge amount of silver as reparation but also forced China to cede the Hong Kong island in perpetuity to her. Perpetuity was a very long time compared to Russia’s 25 years of rights in control of Da Lian, a Chinese freeze free northern port (Port Arthur). This right was signed over to Japan (the Portsmouth Treaty, Russia also evacuated from China’s Manchuria and recognized Korea to be Japan’s territory of influence not China’s protectorate) after Russia lost in the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. The 26th U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt was the mediator for the Portsmouth Treaty and won the Nobel Peace Prize for balancing the Russian and Japanese powers in Asia at the expense of China. Roosevelt made a realist decision far from justice and fairness. China was too weak to alter any of the unequal treaties infringed on her sovereignty. Given Hong Kong to the U.K. was just one case demonstrating that in foreign relations strong nations are realists (never idealists) and weak nations have no voices nor rights. Fortunately, China survived the invasions and WW II, the U.K. made a realist decision to return Hong Kong back to China on July 1, 1997. 

The U.K. is a declining empire ever since WW I and further damaged after WW II, but by her clever and realistic foreign policy allying with the rising superpower, the U.S., she remains on the center stage of the world. As a realist, the U.K. recognizes that the U.S. is the dominating player in world affairs. She acted as the strongest ally of the U.S., of course, without harming her own national interests. Being the ruler of Hong Kong over 150 years, the U.K. could not help but recognized the change of the Mainland China, especially over the recent three decades. China had struggled to build the nation avoiding the control of the Soviet Union. She had experimented with communism and learned bitter lessons. She had embraced capitalism in planned steps and had risen to be the second largest economy in the world. It is clear to the U.K. that China is no longer an “Asian Patient” and China has grown mature enough to take a proper place on the world stage. The U.K. may not be the first (nor the only) West nation to appreciate China’s transformation and continuous reform but she certainly appears to be the first to take a realist step to embrace China’s rise. In contrast, the U.S. seems to wish away China’s rise.

When China advocated a plan of stimulating the economic development for the entire world by proposing ‘the one belt and one road’ (OBOR) vision, a collaborative infrastructure development program bridging Asia, Europe and Africa in joint commerce development, the U.K., despite of the U.S. displeasure, took the initiative to join the China created Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to support the OBOR program.  Observing the current activities between the two nations, it seems that the U.K. is forming a close bond with China. One wonders whether that is a short-term foreign policy or a long-term diplomatic relation? China’s President Xi Jinping visited the U.K. and received a royal “Royal Treatment” arousing the attention and envy of many heads of states. China has promised to invest $10B in U.K. and most recently the People’s Bank of China announced plan to issue Chinese government sovereign debt in RMB in London. Do all these signal the beginning of a long-term warm relationship between China and UK forgetting the Opium Wars and colonization of Hong Kong? So far, the U.K. seems to be the beneficiary of that warm relationship. However, no one can say that the current warm UK-China relation will definitely last long but we can say that as realists both China and the U.K. currently seem to desire their warm relation to last long. The increased activities between UK and China (likewise between Germany and China) do beg the question why is the U.S. holding out a hostile policy towards China? The U.S. has always been a realist just like the U.K., must she choreograph an anti-China play to maintain her supreme position in the world? No, it does not look like a good realist play!  
 

An anonymous 50-page document discussing the brief Sino-Vietnam war (SVW) in 1979 came to my mailbox recently. The document implied that it was written by a Western analyst and translated to Mandarin by the analyst's colleague. The document was suppressed from publication because the superior of the analyst felt that too much credit and praise were given to the Chinese leader, Deng Xiao Ping. After examining this document, I found that the analyst had presented fairly accurate facts (events, dates, names, geographic locations and some statistics related to the war) which could be checked out by research. The analyses and comments in the document are quite logical, definitely making the paper deserving to see the daylight. Hence, I am summarizing this long article, Foreign Sources Revealing the Truth of Sino-Vietnam War, with my comments in this column. 

This paper started with the notion that the changes with small nations could not make enough impact to the balance or struggle of world powers. China’s strategic change from being a nominal member in the Soviet Union bloc to a de facto ally with the U.S. was the primary reason that had led the Soviet Union to collapse eventually. The Soviet and the U.S. leaders did not have any serious regard to China's presence in the world arena until Nixon-Kissinger (1972) realized and formulated a strategy of working with China against the Soviet Union. Deng Xiao Ping visited the U.S. on January 1, 1979, the date the U.S. Recognized China, and seven days later China launched a massive but a short 28 days war against Vietnam. 

The document went into depth describing Vietnam and her wars with France and the U.S. which had built her confidence in winning brutal wars; indeed, the Vietnam soldiers (even civilians) were credited as tough fighters, persistent, deadly and cruel. Though Vietnam essentially won the Vietnam war but she was resentful that China did not support her all the way and China was courted by the U.S. (1972-). Although receiving military aid from China, Vietnam acted alone and hostile to her neighbors, Khmer, Laos and Cambodia; She conquered the South Vietnam in 55 days (1975). Vietnam's over confidence in her ability to fight and her obvious ambition reminded China about Japan's behavior towards China and Indochina prior to WW II. The Chinese Premier Zhou En Lai was alarmed and passed on instructions to Deng to watch out for Vietnam and to prepare a strategy to check her ambitions.

The Vietnam leader, Li Yi, went to Beijing (11/1977) asking for more military aid, but Deng refused him, and then he turned to the Soviet Union. The Soviet wanted to suppress China and granted Li's full request; a year later they signed a peace and cooperation treaty. Then within one year, Vietnam armed all her military forces with Russian equipment. In 12/1978, Vietnam attacked Khmer, captured Jin Bian in 14 days and destroyed Khmer, but it was both a strategic and a tactic mistake. China was wary of Vietnam's ambition in Indochina and had been preparing for war with Vietnam. Destroying Khmer essentially enhanced China's resolve to teach Vietnam a lesson. Hence, during Deng's visit to the U.S., he told President Carter his plan of attacking Vietnam. Carter, with the Vietnam War experience, warned Deng and did not want to get involved in any battle against the war hardened Vietnam. Deng, of course, had all figured out how to fight Vietnam, including stationing troops on China’s Northern border in case Russia invading in the name of helping Vietnam.

Deng originally planned to attack in January, 1980, but khmer's fall in the end of 1978, hastened Deng's plan. Tactically, military maneuver and fighting in the Monsoon season (March and April), are not desirable. Vietnam's attack on Khmer in December and won in 14 days gave China a whole two months to act. Since China had well prepared for a number of years, this two months window was perfect for China to move up her plan. Deng, an excellent and avid bridge player, after touched base with Carter and calculated Russia’s inability to mobilize during the winter, then made a decisive decision to punish the Vietnam with a quick and devastating attack by moving 300,000 Chinese troops with overwhelming fire power across the border (7/8/1979). Though the Vietnam troops were tough and loyal, but they were caught by surprise, outnumbered, outgunned, ill trained for large scale war and poorly equipped with communication gear, thus, suffered great casualty.

In sixteen days, China took Liang Shan, threatening to sweep the open flat capital, Ho Nui, but next day Deng ordered troops to withdraw to return home, on the way back destroying any resistance and industrial bases. Deng regarded Vietnam as the Soviet's Cuba in the East but he only wanted to punish her not conquer her. Tactically, Deng did not want to prolong the war into the Monsoon season. Given Vietnam's fearless or martyr style resistance, the fighting would drag into the rain season. The SVW lasted only a total of 28 days; Deng essentially achieved his objectives, seriously if not permanently quenched Vietnam's ambition of conquering Indochina and her aggression in the Sino-Vietnam border. Vietnam would need a decade or two to recover from the SVW. 

This brief war was regarded as a huge success and a brilliant strategic execution produced a lasting impact to Vietnam. After the war, China became firmer in defending any Sino-Vietnam border conflict including the dispute in the South China Sea; China threatened to teach Vietnam a second lesson. This pressure had kept Vietnam to keep one million troops along the border and cost the Soviet Union $2-2.5 million a day to support them. The Cuba show-down with the U.S. made Khrushchev lose face but the U.S. had to promise not attacking Cuba, hence Cuba was never harmed other than being sanctioned till President Obama Visited Cuba normalizing their relationship (2016). The SVW made the Soviet Union lose more than face. It caused the Soviet Union to decline because of her heavy burden in foreign aid. The Soviet Union’s inaction during the SVW cost her so much prestige that many members in the Soviet bloc begin to defect. 

Egypt was the first to defect. President Anwar Sadat was in talks with Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, but hesitated to sign a treaty, but three months after the SVW, Sadat became braver and signed a peace treaty with Israel on 3/26/1979. Next was Afghanistan where a coup removed the pro-Soviet leader; Russia had to send 100,000 troops to topple the coup. Then there was Iran where an Islam revolution started 6 days before the SVW to topple the pro-U.S. King. Due to the SVW and the Afghan war, the Soviet Union had no time to take advantage of the Iran revolution. Supporting Vietnam and Afghanistan was an unbearable burden and cost the East Europe a recession. Poland first rebelled (8/14/1980), although the union revolt was put down but a cleavage between Poland and the Soviet Union formed and others followed.

Post SVW, the Sino-Vietnam border conflicts continued until Liyi died (7/1986). Then Vietnam had a naval battle with China in the South China Sea in 1988 but was defeated; Vietnam officially recognized China's claim and occupation of the Paracel islands. Cambodia revived post SVW and kept fighting Vietnam, a bleeding wound for the Soviet Union. With Egypt’s defection, the Soviet began to lose her advantages in the Middle-East; Afghanistan became another bleeding wound for her. Both SVW and Afghan war made the U.S. (Reagan) more confident to engage a struggle with the Soviet not only in the Middle-East but also in Africa (Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia), then Africa became the third bleeding wound for the Soviet.

Tracing events back to 1979, we can conclude logically that the SVW was the tipping point for the decline of the Soviet Union. The SVW made the U.S. to see the weakness and vulnerability of the Vietnam and Soviet Union. The short SVW was the only war China initiated against a sovereign country in her modern history. In the other wars, China was either passive or being attacked. The 28 days SVW with low casualty on the Chinese side (<10,000) had two very significant consequences. One, It stopped Vietnam's ambition of conquering the entire Indochina and laid foundation for a peaceful Indochina. Two, due to Soviet Union's strategic mistake of supporting the Vietnam against China, the SVW was the tipping point for the Soviet Union to collapse. The U.S. working with China against the Soviet Union was a winning strategy.

Recently, I came across a Chinese article by Xue Zong Zhang (张雪忠),Why is Hu Shi (a famous Chinese intellect and author in 20th century; he is regarded as a promoter of liberalism not only in his time but beyond through his writings) a Half Baked Liberal?, on the "Baodiao Forum" (an intellectual  forum devoted to discussions on Chinese governance and Chinese Sovereignty issues such as the Chinese sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands) . Mr. Zhang criticized Hu Shi not really understanding liberalism, but the article written in a Q&A format did not leave a clear description of liberalism and how it should be promoted. Personally, I find myself constantly swinging between liberalism and conservatism when facing different issues. The above article with its fuzzy arguments on true liberalism has triggered my long time desire to define liberalism and its workability in real world. This desire is confined to define liberalism from basic philosophical principles and how it may be practiced under different real world conditions and political systems. The following is my attempt of doing an intellectual exercise to define liberalism and the constraints the real world will bring to limit liberalism. These constraints working against liberalism, for convenience, may be characterized by the term, conservatism, which often restricts and works against liberalism.
 
From dictionaries, liberalism has the following definitions:

The above definitions seem to be fine but they do not touch on the essential aspect of how liberalism can be easily understood and how it works when constraints are applied. Therefore, I prefer to take the approach of starting with broad acceptable principles to define liberalism and then to add layers of descriptions from real world constraints to arrive at the workable (practical and conditional) liberalism. Let's begin with the following principles I assume that are generally acceptable:

1. Human is the most intelligent species on earth. Human desires physical and intellectual liberty.

2. Human beings are born as unique individuals with one's own intrinsic ability and one's acquired ability through one's own will.

3. Human beings with intelligence deserve to have intellectual liberty that is to freely exercise one’s intellectual capability.

4. Following principles 1, 2 and 3, unconditional or unconstrained liberalism can be defined as individuals have rights to think, say and do anything according to one’s desire and to one's ability. (Any individual has liberal rights to think, say and do anything or whatever one wants. For example, an individual living by oneself in one's own universe)
 
The above definition of unconstrained liberalism cannot work. Since no two individuals are completely (100%) alike, unconditional liberalism will have intrinsic limitations due to one's ability. Furthermore, human beings live in a society (not practical to live by oneself totally cut off from any society), then they face other limitations due to one's environment, such as natural and physical living condition and other man-made conditions imposed by marriage, family, society, nation and world organizations in terms of ethics, laws and regulations. If we add constraints to liberalism, we shall have the following definitions:
 
5. Come with the above discussed intrinsic limitations and other constraints are liberal rights infringement. Thus conditional liberalism can be defined as individual's unconditional liberal rights being reduced to avoid liberal rights infringement. For example, an individual lives with a family will have to reduce one's unconditional liberal rights (singing loudly at two o'clock in the morning) to avoid infringing liberal rights of other family member (sleep undisturbed under quietness).

6. Conditional liberalism can also be defined as individual's unconditional liberal rights being reduced to tolerate liberal rights infringement caused by one's environment one's in. For example, an individual lives with a family will have to reduce one's unconditional liberal rights (sleep undisturbed at any time) to tolerate liberal rights being infringed by other family member (practicing singing for audition) So conditional liberalism must have ‘give and take’ conditions.

7. Unconditional liberalism cannot be accepted in an environment where family, society or nation exists simply because an individual's unconditional liberalism will infringe on other individual's unconditional liberal rights. Therefore, unconditional liberalism is not a workable liberalism.

8. Avoidance and tolerance of liberal right infringement really define the degree of constraints placed on unconditional liberalism.

9. Conditional liberalism is thus defined as unconditional liberalism with proper constraints applied in an environment, family, society and nation. ‘Proper Constraints’ of course can be subjective.

10. Within a family, conditional liberalism is constrained by family structure, hierarchy, generation, and sibling relationship. These relationships define responsibilities, range of liberal rights limited by constraints. Voluntary constraints are guided by human nature (good versus evil both exist), human knowledge (more or less by education) and infringing and tolerance trade-off (give and take). Involuntary constraints are defined by moral principles and laws.

11. Going beyond family to community, society and nation, more individuals are involved and more constraints will apply. These constraints will be guided by community/society rules, laws and constitutions depending on the social structure, political system and economic condition.

12. The constraints applicable to the liberal rights can be created, regulated and altered by political system, for example, a communist system tends to restrict individual's liberal rights more, thus limiting individuals to achieve their full capability and capacity; a socialistic system tends to make trade-offs in individual liberal rights with a bias to side with the poor and disadvantaged population. A liberal society tends to maximize tolerance (reduce avoidance) to enhance individual liberalism.

13. The methods employed in the political system to apply constraints to individual liberalism is democracy with a variety of practicing methods, from one person one vote to various hierarchical  representation systems to only one person decides. (dictatorship, one supreme individual above everyone) The various representation systems define various degrees of democracy. How well does a political system work depend on how liberalism is practiced and what constraints are properly applied, which are dependent on economic condition.
 
Ideally, human liberalism should be promoted with minimal constraints and maximal tolerance. Unfortunately, human beings have faulty traits such as selfishness, greed, laziness and intolerance, therefore, ideal liberalism (minimum constraints and maximum tolerance) does not work. For example, under a democratic system, voters tend to vote for getting the maximum benefits (take more from the government than give to the government) until the system (government) breaks down (Greece is an example) Therefore, there must be a proper balance to limit or constrain liberalism. To achieve this proper balance, conservatism comes to play. So liberalism must be counter-balanced by conservatism. I hope this column offered you some useful information to understand and interpret the dictionary definitions of liberalism and its necessary constraints. Hopefully this information can help voters calibrating, comparing and judging the workability of the liberal (versus conservative) ideas made by political candidates in their campaign statements.