“A TOLERABLE STATE OF ORDER”: THE UNITED STATES, TAIWAN, AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, 1949-1979 A Dissertation by BRIAN PAUL HILTON Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Terry H. Anderson Committee Members, Jeffrey Engel Randy Kluver Jason Parker Di Wang Head of Department, David Vaught December 2012 Major Subject: History Copyright 2012 Brian Paul Hilton ABSTRACT American policy toward the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China from 1949-1979 was geared primarily toward the accomplishment of one objective: to achieve a reorientation of Chinese Communist revolutionary foreign policy that would contribute to the establishment of a “tolerable state of order” in the international community based on the principles of respect for each nations’ territorial integrity and political sovereignty. China’s revolutionary approach to its foreign relations constituted a threat to this objective. During the 1960s and ‘70s, however, Beijing gradually began accepting views conducive to the achievement of the “tolerable state of order” that Washington hoped to create, thus contributing significantly to the relaxation of Sino-American tensions and the normalization of relations in 1979. From this basic thesis four subsidiary arguments emerge. First, the seven presidential administrations from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter pursued a common set of objectives toward which their respective China policies conformed, thus granting American China policy a degree of consistency that historians of Sino-American relations have not previously recognized. Second, the most significant dilemma American officials faced was striking an effective balance between containment (to punish aggression) and engagement (to emphasize the benefits of cooperation). Third, American policy toward the ROC throughout virtually the entire period in question remained a function of Washington’s effort to reorient Beijing’s foreign policy approach. ii Fourth, domestic American opinion was of secondary importance in determining the nature and implementation of American China policy. iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the late Dr. Russell J. Linnemann, dear friend and mentor, who showed a young scholar what it really means to be passionate about history. iv PREFACE When I first began researching Sino-American relations, I began by asking what I assumed was a relatively straightforward question: Why did the United States government, from 1949 through 1979, refuse to recognize the communist government of the People’s Republic of China, and why and how did that policy change? Primary research on the administrations of Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, the presidents who initially refused and ultimately granted recognition, respectively, revealed striking similarities in terms of their fundamental goals and in the place they envisioned for China in the global order. Both Truman and Carter presided during times of revolutionary change in China, and both hoped that the changes would allow the emergence of a Chinese regime that favored a cooperative, constructive approach to international affairs. Truman was disappointed; Carter was not. From this comparison, my analysis broadened beyond the policy of recognition, attempting to discern whether the intervening presidential administrations also shared these objectives, and to what extent these shaped the course of American policy toward China. I do not intend to validate the American approach to China, but rather to understand how American officials validated themselves. This dissertation’s focus on the underlying internationalist principles guiding American foreign policy, as opposed to offering a more complex multi-causal framework, is justified on a number of grounds. First, the chronological scope of this project – spanning three decades – does not provide space to analyze in sufficient detail v the array of forces acting on policymaking. Second, this project views these principles as the most significant factors affecting the formulation and implementation of China policy. And finally, for this reason, these principles deserve far greater attention than the historical literature has yet provided. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Throughout the years of researching and writing this dissertation, I have relied upon the generosity of numerous individuals to whom I owe a considerable debt. While conducting my master’s and doctoral studies in College Station, the faculty and my fellow graduate students provided hours of much needed camaraderie and intellectual stimulation, most particularly my good friends and colleagues Brittany Bounds, Bill Collopy, Matt Irwin, and my fellow China policy enthusiast Jeff Crean, who graciously took time out of his busy schedule to read and comment on portions of this dissertation. I am also indebted to Jeffrey Engel, Randy Kluver, Jason Parker, and Di Wang, four outstanding scholars who generously agreed to serve on my dissertation committee, and whose insightful comments and suggestions contributed to the overall quality of this work. I am also deeply indebted to Terry H. Anderson who provided invaluable advice and guidance on a range of issues as this project grew from a humble seminar paper to an expansive dissertation. For years he put up with my hard-headedness and verbose e- mails, responding with an open door, an ever-ready supply of jokes and anecdotes, and some of the best gumbo I have ever had the pleasure to eat, courtesy of his equally accommodating wife, Rose. A significant part of any historians’ success derives from the opportunities that are made available to him. Professionally, I have benefitted from research funding provided by the Department of History and the Glasscock Center for Humanities vii Research at Texas A&M University, as well as a generous grant from the family of Charles Keeble. I have also had the opportunity to present and refine my ideas at conferences hosted by the U.S. Department of State, the Elliott School of International Relations at the George Washington University, the London School of Economics, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. Their acceptance of my proposals and the warm reception my ideas received on those occasions continue to impel me forward in my academic pursuits. The keepers of primary sources – the lifeblood of the historian’s craft – deserve special mention. The archivists of both the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter Presidential Libraries provided invaluable assistance in identifying and obtaining relevant source material for the pages that follow. Carter archivist Keith Shuler stands out in this regard for his able assistance, professional courtesies, and his ability to inject droll archival research with a healthy dose of good-humored conversation. Completing this dissertation would not have been possible without my close friends and family members who provided constant support and encouragement over the years. Special thanks go to my long-time friend, James Arthur McKanna, and to Katherine and Micah Wright, whose kindheartedness and companionship helped carry me through two particularly difficult years of scholarship. In addition, I have been the recipient of the overwhelming kindness and hospitality of Wu Ming-fang, Yang Tian- Huang, and the entire Wu family that welcomed me with open arms into their ranks. Because of their efforts, my sojourns in Taiwan feel as though I’ve returned home again. viii Sincere thanks also go to my parents, Jan and Paul Hilton, whose loving support and generosity for their children know no bounds. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Hui-Ling. Together we have passed through the fires of two dissertations, and have emerged unscathed only because of the strength we gave each other. I am forever grateful. ix NOTE ON SOURCES Historians of 20th century American foreign relations benefit from the increasing and unprecedented availability of relevant internet-based primary source material. With this in mind, and for the sake of convenience for the reader, the footnotes do not include full citation information for the document collections consulted if those collections are readily available online. These collections and access information are as follows: The Department of State’s Foreign Relations of the United States series contains documents considered necessary for the reader to obtain an overall understanding of the development of American foreign policy. The University of Wisconsin Digital Collections (http://uwdc.library.wisc.edu/collections/FRUS) include all volumes through 1960, and are searchable by both keyword and page number. The Department of State’s Office of the Historian (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ebooks) has complete holdings from 1955 through the most recent volumes, and is designed to be browsed by date and document number. The annual Yearbook of the United Nations provides a detailed overview of U.N. discussions and activities, including all major General Assembly, Security Council, and Economic and Social Council resolutions. The entire collection from 1946 to the present can be accessed at http://unyearbook.un.org/. The collection is keyword searchable, and can be browsed by sections dealing with specific topics. The Public Papers of the Presidents is a database of public statements and messages made by the Presidents of the United