China\'s Quest. The History of the Foreign Relations of the People\'s Republic of China - John Garver

(Steven Felgate) #1

804 { Notes to pages 178–189



  1. Lei Yingfu, Zai zuigao tongshuaibu dang canmou: Lei Ying fu huiyilu (Serving on
    the staff of the high command: Memoir of General Lei Yingfu), Nanchang: Baihuazhou
    wenyi chubanshe. Quoted in Garver, “China’s Decision,” p. 108.

  2. Wang Bingnan, Zhong mei huitan jiu nian huigu (Recollection of nine years of
    Sino-American talks), Beijing: Shijie zhishi chubanshe, 1985, pp. 85–90.

  3. Garver, “China’s Decision,” p. 115.

  4. Lei Yingfu memoir, quoted in Garver, “China’s Decision,” p. 120.

  5. The first detailed study of Establishment 22 was Kenneth Conboy and James
    Morrison, The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet, Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2002, pp.
    17 1– 97.

  6. John Garver, “The Indian Factor in Recent Sino-Soviet Relations,” China Quarterly,
    no. 125 (Summer 1991), pp. 55–85.

  7. John Garver, The China-India-U.S. Triangle:  Strategic Relations in the Post-Cold
    War Era, Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2002.

  8. The United States, on the other hand, did not seize Chinese territory, although it
    did participate in territorial “concessions” set up in China’s east coast cities. This relatively
    non-aggressive history of the United States during China’s “century of national humilia-
    tion” has been stressed to China by US leaders from Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman
    to Richard Nixon to George H. W. Bush. On the history of Russo-Chinese relations, see
    O. Edmund Clubb, China and Russia: The “Great Game,” New York: Columbia University
    Press, 1971. Harry Schwartz, Tsars, Mandarins, and Commissars, New York: Doubleday
    Anchor, 1973. Aitchen K. Wu, China and the Soviet Union, London: Methuen, 1950.

  9. Accounts of the Sino-Soviet border conflict: Tai Sung An, The Sino-Soviet Territorial
    Dispute, Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1973. Dennis J.  Doolin, Territorial Claims in
    the Sino-Soviet Conflict: Documents and Analysis, Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1965.

  10. “Munich” here refers to the 1938 British and French sacrifice of Czechoslovakia to
    Nazi Germany in hopes of satisfying Hitler’s territorial demands and thus averting war.

  11. Quoted in An, Territorial Dispute, p. 76.

  12. Quoted in An, Territorial Dispute, p. 82.

  13. An, Territorial Dispute, p. 82.

  14. This section draws from William Burr and Jeffrey T.  Richelson, “Whether to
    ‘Strangle the Baby in the Cradle,” International Security, vol. 25, no. 3 (Winter 2000/10),
    pp. 54–99. Also Gordon H. Chang, Friends and Enemies: The United States, China, and the
    Soviet Union, 1948–1972, Stanford University Press, 1990.

  15. This interpretation comes from Radchenko, Two Suns, pp. 65–6.

  16. See Walter C.  Clemens, The Arms Race and Sino-Soviet Relations, Hoover
    Institution Press, 1968. Morton H. Halperin, China and the Bomb, London: Pall Mall Press,

  17. Morton H. Halperin and Dwight H. Perkins, Communist China and Arms Control,
    New York: Praeger, 1965. Alice Langley Hsieh, “The Sino-Soviet Nuclear Dialogue: 1963,”
    in Sino-Soviet Military Relations, edited by Raymond L.  Garthoff, New  York:  Praeger,
    1966, pp. 150–70.

  18. Peking Review, August 15, 1963, p. 7.

  19. Saturday Evening Post, September 28 and October 26, 1963. Quoted in Burr and
    Richelson, Strangle, p. 74.

  20. Wu, Shinian lunzhan, pp. 745, 753.

  21. Barry Naughton, “The Third Front:  Defense Industrialization in the Chinese
    Interior,” China Quarterly, no. 115 (September 1988), pp. 351–86.

Free download pdf