Efforts during the cold war to dominate countries in asia, africa, and latin america. The event was cohosted by the Woodrow Wilson center and the National History center. It is about an hour and a half. It is my privilege this afternoon to introduce our speaker, jeremy friedman, who is an assistant professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business school. Previously he was the associate director of the Brady Johnson program and grand strategy at yale university. After he received his phd from princeton in 2011. In addition to his current book, shadow cold war, the sinosoviet competition for the third world which was published by the university of North Carolina press, he has published articles in such journals as and chinaistory studies. His current project modeling revolution looks of the attempt to find a workable model of socialism for developing countries. And today he will be speaking on , shadow cold war, the sinosoviet competition for the third world. Jeremy thank you. First, thank you to eric, amanda, and kristin. I thank you everybody for coming. So the cold war. The cold war has been generally studied as a competition of , aslogies, great powers projected by the superpowers onto the world. Certainly the competition between the United States and the soviet union for influence and power elsewhere. I think a lot of what the book is about is looking at the impact of the world on the cold war, especially the developing world, what was known during the cold war as the third world, and how the war sort of shakes the rest of the world going back to the superpower. In particular the question of decolonization. Decolonization seems to me to be important Inflection Point in history both of the cold war and the history of war more broadly in the attempt to define a Development Model alternative to 19th century capitalism. So how did decolonization influence the socialist revolution . I thinkkes this it is actually a very relevant question right now. Has echoes in the present women talk about economics related to politics. A lot of those are echoes that you see in this book and come out of this. Period in the 1960s and the transformation of the left. Because marxism has a fundamental problem. Marxism is the ideology of 19th century industrial europe. Marxism relies on factories, a workingclass. And it relies upon these things not only for the mechanism of political struggle that you have to have class struggle for the military to take over proletariat to take over, but in order to construct a society that will exist after the revolution. So without the sort of capital into the it is difficult to imagine how you apply marxism as a model to an agrarian preindustrial state, a formal former colony without factories or industry, workingclass, large urban centers, without much political infrastructure where religion still holds sway. Where oppression perhaps is seen as primarily being the result of race or ethnicity or last sorry race or ethnicity or , religion as opposed to classbased. There is a difficulty in adapting marxism to the d colonized world. So the 1930s, kind of the golden age of international communism, there was the potential for the sort of oldfashioned marxist model to work. There was a depression in the capitalist world. It was not going very well. Democracy was falling. There was the great depression. Maybe stalin did have the model of the future. You can imagine perhaps workingclass revolution in the centers of global industry, new york, washington, london, paris, and berlin. But both the west, the americans and especially the british, and the soviets, expected the world to go back into depression after world war ii. And that didnt happen. Essentially the west failed to go back. That was sort of what the soviet postwar plan was built upon. Instead you have you know this 30 glorious years that goes from 1945 and 1973. What happens is that lennon always claimed that the capitalists would not allow the workingclass to share in the consumption economy. But yet we have the social worker. We have unions, welfare, and the workingclass is actually benefiting from economic growth. They are buying into the system. And they had a workingclass revolution in the developed world. They became more and more remote during the 1950s and 1960s. Harder to imagine a workingclass in washington and london and paris, so on and so forth. But there are revolutions happening in the they are 1960s. Happening in cuba, algeria, vietnam, congo, all over, not in the industrialized capitalist world. And so this is where marxists face the problem. How do you adapt marxism tway to a revolution of the battleground is now in these preindustrial, post colonial states . And so that really opens up the marxist world to what i would call kind of a marxist reformation. It is like the 16th century catholic reformation. Once upon a time moscow had tried to present itself as the keeper of the holy writ, the vatican of marxism. With greater or lesser degree of success, they never managed to completely eliminate challengers. But it is that problem that marxism is facing the world it was not designed for that leads to all sorts of other contenders. Challenging moscows domination. The first one was the chinese, mao. Mao was sort of like the Martin Luther of the marxist reformation. You can imagine you want to pick out john calvin, ho chi minh, people all over the world, but now is the big mao is the big challenger. If you look at the history are e history auger fee history of the split it tends to be focused on bilateral relation. Who is going to be the leader of the communist bloc mao thinks it is his turn. Or great power conflict, border conflict in central asia, on the river these are the kinds of things that come out. The vast majority was written before the end of the cold war. So most of it is written without the benefit of much time. If you look at it bilaterally, the ideological debate seemed almost besides the point. It is almost like the ideology it is phenomenal, it is the head of a pen. But from the perspective of the world, if you are sitting not in moscow or beijing, but in havana, or in dar es salaam, or in delhi or jakarta, the important. The ideological debates are important. From that perspective they are the most. The reason is because they are not angels dancing on the head of a pen. Their fundamental debates about about how you adapt marxism to this new world. The question is, it is important to you if youre trying to build an economy in a former political state. If you are trying to build a political system in jakarta or havana or dar es salaam. Those of the questions theyre debating. So they are important. My arguments in the book is that let me just, i have slides here. Here you go. There is the postcolonial world. Ok. Thank you. Jeremy friedman can everybody see the slide . No . Is this good . Ok. A little more. Jeremy friedman a little more. I was told i could not move too far because of the camera. Let me know if im in trouble. Yes. This is actually better. I can stand up and see that too. This is the postcolonial world. So the argument of the book is that there are two different revolutionary agendas, two different revolutionary programs that are being confused here, an anticapitalist and an antiimperialist they have one. Different genealogies. One comes from the marxist. One is from opposition to capitalism the 19th century europe. One comes from opposition to the colonial world. And they get confused because of this. Imperialism and capitalism, the very famous example put up by lenin in 1916, this was the example of not only communist political strategy but communist doctrine. To be antiimperialist is to be anticapitalist. To be anticapitalist is to be antiimperialist. They are one in the same struggle. This is why the soviets and chinese it is not the case of the soviets they both think they are both. To be communist means that york you are antiimperialist, anticapitalist, you identified as the same thing. In reality, they are different. They have different priorities. That reveals itself as the soviets and chinese attempt to deal with the developing world. And so that is really what matters is how marxism pushes these two together, even though they are actually different, and the soviets and chinese fight out essentially for the leadership because of this. So the first main issue is the issue of war and peace. That divides the soviets and chinese. So this is a poster. This is a soviet poster. Good morning, africa. This is 1960. This is a soviet view of africa being born as a newborn child. This is a remarkably and peaceful and optimistic view of the end of colonialism. This is maybe applicable to some parts of africa but certainly not to others. The soviets embraced the doctrine called peaceful coexistence. They embrace peace in 1956. The simple reason being that nuclear war is unthinkable. Lenin believes war was inevitable. Khrushchev says we cannot have nuclear war, therefore there must be a way to resolve this peacefully. His solution is peaceful coexistence. That means we exist peacefully compete peacefully in the military spear but compete economically. At the same time the soviet economy wanted to prove themselves to be superior over time leading people to adopt communist economics. People in the developing world will come to adopt socialist policies because they will understand the superiority of the system. And this is khrushchevs idea. He is not in favor of any local wars. He is afraid local wars could beat desperately to big war. That meant vietnam algeria, all , sorts of places. The soviets did not support these wars. The chinese so this is the chinese view. This is a chinese propaganda poster from the 1960s. The bottom says [speaking chinese], which means firmly support the asian african, latin American People antiimperialist rivals. This is a picture of asia and america uniting with guns in their hands fighting imperials. This is the chinese version of anticolonialism. The chinese said that the soviets basically were using peaceful coexistence. This promotion of peace, coexistence with the west, as a main way of maintaining white power in the world. The soviets are fundamentally a white imperialist country. They are an industrialized country. They will always prioritize the interests of europeans and americans over the developing world. So there really betraying the postcolonial world. The only way the postcolonial world will ever be free is by fighting for their freedom. This is the chinese story. Algeria is a perfect example. I will talk more about this later, but algeria is kind of the best case of fighting for your freedom an actual war , against the colonial power that is successful. The soviets do not support the fln, the National Liberation front of algeria. They do not recognize the algerian government. The reason is is that they were afraid of supporting the government would support the communist party in paris. They prioritize the interests of the french communists over the people in algeria. The chinese recognized the flight. They are training the fln. So this is the distinction. One supports fighting algerians, one prioritizes the french communist power coming to party in paris. The division between war and peace is where it starts. Eventually most of these countries become independent. Some militarily and some peacefully more or less. But the question does not end there. After they are independent the question becomes, how do you build society . What do you do first . Have you build an economy . How do you build an Economic System . Independence was not necessarily its own reward free and for asians and africans. The idea is with it comes prosperity. Independence meant more poverty, and they assumed that was keeping them for. Legitimacy of the government depended upon the illusion of prosperity. It is important to realize when we talk about the cold war as the clash of ideologies and a clash of systems, it is a situation in which you have motivated sellers, like the americans, soviets, chinese, and others trying to push models, but also motivated buyers. Dozens of newly independent states in the market for a socioeconomic political system. And that is what creates the dynamic. The market between the buyers and sellers. Not to say the market is equal. There are powerful oppositions. There is also violence. But then, how many markets really are equal . In Business School we talk about economist like there is perfect information, but that is not how markets work anywhere in the world. So what does it look like when you start to build a system . What do you do when you get past this stage, independence, now you have to build politics . Competing models. They developed a model for what you are supposed to do. One says, dont go after capitalism. You are fighting a cold war. These countries do not want to be capitalist as they believe capitalism is what enslaved them for 100 years or more. You have to make socialism work to skip the capitalist stage. The soviets are focused on anticapitalist. They want socialist economies. These priorities reflect that. First of all, peaceful coexistence, that means you dont fight for independence, that is too risky, coexist. So once you do get your independence, you want to focus on heavy industry. What you need to do is build mythological factories metallurgical factories mining, geology this is how you get a heavy industrial base. This space would produce a working class which would produce a communist party, and then you have the proper political and social. You do that with state ownership. There is no reason to have private investment. There is not enough in the country anyway. If youre going to build industry, you might as well put them in the control of the state. If you do it with foreign aid it is easy. The building of industry is what is primary. And so they will allow foreign investment. In many of these postcolonial states, you have british companies, french companies, Dutch Companies portuguese, west , germanamerican companies as well that owned industrial concerns. Let them stay in place. You want to keep your industrial base. It is more important to have a workingclass and a capitalist economy that it is essentially to have control autonomy over , your own economy. This is the soviet economy. This is how i postcolonial state should develop. At the chinese priorities. First of all armed struggles, fight for independence. The chinese are very suspicious of any government that comes to power that did not have to fight for independence instead of first. Going right away to build iron and steel, first textiles, Food Processing right . The kinds of things get people choose. The kinds of things that improve peoples living standards. The reason for this is that the chinese are fundamentally concerned with making that government that took power popular. The way to win peoples hearts is to raise the living standards. That will give you the Political Capital you need to stand up as a country. Light industry and agriculture, smallscale private trade. This sounds a lot like the net of the 1920s. The chinese say the best way to get the economy going at first is to allow private trade. This will produce more food in the market, more clothes. The kind of goods people need. So instead of these state ownership models, the chinese are ok with smallscale. The most and port in thing is to eliminate western influence. You have to get the imperialist out of the country. You want to take over the assets come up within put them in the hands of locals, allow market trading. This is a model where priority is to get the imperials out of the country. The soviet model is about how the economy is structured. Even if colonialists are still in there. You want the economy still to be largescale heavy industry. So this is sort of a model that the soviets and chinese work with. They are selling to various countries in the 1960s and 1970s. This is a photo of the largest one in the soviet world, the aswan dam in egypt. Those are egyptian schoolchildren posing. This is the largest chinese aid project in the developing world, this railway, which is antiimperialist and almost a literal form. The reason the railway was built was to allow zambian copper to find a way to port without going through rhodesia which had declared for white role. The chinese were enabling zambia to stay away from the imperialists by building their largest aid project in africa. So this is the general structure. I want to talk about what happens in individual cases. I want to talk about two regular case studies. This conflict reached its peak in 1965. It does so for a number of reasons. One reason is because it is the first full year of the new soviet leadership after khrushchev in office after 1964. Second, this is the year that american involvement in vietnam really gets going at a large scale. The third reason is the second conference. It was a conference of heads of states of the newly independent countries of asia and africa. And so china was going to hold a second meeting of 1965, which was going in theory, to cement africaeader place in the and asian countries. So the peak comes in 1965. I want to talk about these two countries, algeria and indonesia, in 1965. The two are, both countries fought for independence. They are countries led by leaders who become basically icons of the independence movement, jakarta. Both leaders will be overthrown before the end of 1965. On the second band letstogether, the original meeting in jakarta decided to hold it in algiers, then it was canceled. The second conference revolves around these two countries. And the two of them, if you look at their stories carefully, illustrates what happens with the sinosoviet competition. Algeria, this is a picture of the flm. It is the classic case of fighting for independence. It seems like a perfect case for the chinese. So the soviet favor their rent french communist party. Algeria becomes independent. It seems like a perfect case for the chinese. It is proof that you have to fight. Lonnes,n the french co many of them leave. The algerian government decide to give out land to algerians. So instead of nationalizing them, they divide up the property of the imperialists. The following year the remaining French Properties are parceled out to algerians. And so it seems to me they are following the antiimperialist model, the chinese sort of model. Theyre looking for Light Industry, agriculture, smallscale trade. Not really worried about heavy industry yet. Initially china seems to have the upper hand with algeria. The soviets will ultimately win. And by wind, i mean china is pressuring the algerians not to invite the ussr to the second conference in 1965, and the algerians will ultimately cave, but the question is why. So the explanation is often given that it is the predominance of aid, but i will say why that is incorrect. The first time the defense minister, who later becomes president in algeria came to moscow in 1963. He asked about aid from the soviets. They put three conditions on the aid. They say, you have to oppose the chinese. You have to embrace coexistence, and you have to legalize the communist party. The communist party was illegal in algeria at this time. So he said, i dont know. And then the other guy comes back. They make up. Khrushchev basically caved. They give them aid even though ben doesnt go after the communist party or oppose the chinese. They give them aid, but the algerians really have not budged. In 1965, they did though. The reason i do so is not because they came to the soviet but because the soviets come to embrace them instead. The new leadership in moscow changes its position on peaceful coexistence. Start arming rebels in the congo. If you are ben bella, soviets did not embrace it before so now if you are benbella, you dont have to take your people and tell them to take money from moscow. Now you can say, we are promoscow and propalestinian. We are also antiimperialist. Moscow is with us. They moved towards them in the antiimperialist stage. As far as legalizing the communist party here is a soviet writer in 1964 talking about the policy in algeria. Selfmanagement that is the term they use for the yugoslav economy. It doesnt come to the soviet economy, it is the yugoslav it one. Is the objective result of the socialist revolution, which has already begun. So what he is basically saying, if you read between the lines here is that socialism is already on the agenda in algeria. Therefore the party in power is already a socialist party. And so you dont need to legalize the communist party anymore because we have just made the fln socialist. If you think about the conditions given in 1963, oppose the chinese, embrace coexistence and it legalized communism the soviets have given up on two things. Now the algerians are ok fighting with the soviets over the chinese. So it is actually after the aid comes, more than a change in policy after, the aid is given. Much that soviets trapped out year. Think about the dynamics. They are moving towards the algerian position. This is made possible by the chinese challenge. The Chinese Force Dynamic International policy moves the soviet position. Now the indonesian case, which is the opposite. Indonesia seems like the perfect for the soviet union. The foreign minister was a master to moscow. Close relation with the soviets in the 1960s. The Indonesian Communist Party is the largest in the world. Some, party itself any country of 100 Million People has three or 4 million members. Add in the womens organization, youth organization, organizations affiliated with the communist party, it might be up to 25 Million People. A quarter of the indonesian population is a member of some communist party by the mid1960s. This Party Started out well for moscow. He visits moscow twice. The soviets give massive amount of aid. The line share of military aid goes towards indonesia. Things like this is a perfect case. You can see the number of chinese inhabitants per thousand in 1930s. They are incredibly unpopular with open independence. There is a wall battle between chinese and the indonesians over the state of chinese property and chinese citizenship. In indonesia. It leaves the military to be suspicious of the chinese. Country ase dangerous. Chinese relations are incredibly rocky through the early 1960s. Soviet relations are much better. The opposite result. The indonesian start siding with the chinese. Why does this happen . Indonesia was fighting for independence of the western half of the island of new guinea which is still under dutch control. Military aid given was going to liberation. The soviets figured once it becomes part of indonesia, stopped all the military spending, focus on the economy. Had this plan eight yards eight years towards the democracy party. , or very little interest in focusing on the economy. He starts a Larger Program to essentially overthrow the International Power system. This is the games of the russian forces. In 1953. Ld it ends on the 22nd, the day of the kennedy assassination. There is Something Else called efo, it was also to be alternative of United Nations. There is supposed to be a you and based on afro asian power. Constitutedrently is an organization of the alleys allies for world war ii and is dominated by the west. China is not in the United Nations, at least mainland china. 1963, 1964 and 1965. The idea is to have a new asian structure. He is now fighting malaysia, which he thinks is in british creation to control indonesian power. Jakarta is finding new causes. Hethis upsets the soviets. It greatly gladdened the chinese. August 17, 1954, he gives the speech and there is a new emerging asian access. A jakarta access. He was not happy to be included in that access. He is moving towards the chinese order of antiimperialism. Soviets are getting more frustrated. In june of 1954, one of the leave the leading members of the soviet power comes to meet the Indonesian Communist Party. After the 1958 there was a rebellion and attempt in indonesia. After then, a lot of Indonesian Military training went on with the soviet. Officersa lot of trained by 1964. Weekly on he threatens them. Act thedecided to indonesian bourgeoisie would have an attitude towards the pki and it would not be good towards the pki. They are saying they will six bortion mercy on you urgeoisie on you. They are not happy with the communist party. A year later, the pki is mastered over the next couple of years in one of the bloodiest episodes of the cold war. The soviet and chinese have opposite reactions. The chinese decry the new government as being fascist, militarist. They retained their relationship with jakarta. This is an interesting parallel chile. Into a in the chinese quietly maintained relations. Soviet reaction to a happen in indonesia in 1965 tells you what they thought about the policy of the pki. They reject their own for antiimperialistic policy. They rejected the International Global order, which benefited the soviets. Antiimperialism for the soviets had a certain limit. They embrace to a certain degree but not if it ran their own power and the International Power structure they were a part of. Shows, theyian embraced antiimperialism on a local level. This is something they didnt want not want to do. I the mid1960s they embrace the aspect of the chinese agenda. June 20, 1967, this is right after the aftermath of the war in the middle east. Public story is that israel was the aggressor. Relations with israel in 1967. Israel is the aggressor. Im the scenes behind the says the full orientation will be useful for embers to know the following, according to the data of our Events Development of strengthen, the mood in favor prevented a strike on israel. Even ahead of the staff and the conversation with the military line. Lties approved the there are similar passages. Behind closed doors, what brezhnev is telling his people is that the arabs did not start the war, some of them wanted the war and some of them provoked the war. Avidly they understand. The problem is, the soviets did not want the war before it happened either. They put themselves in a position where they could not publicly oppose any sort of actions that would make them look weak on imperialism. It put themselves in a position where they had to be in front in order not to be threatened with the accusation of being weak on imperialism are not antiimperialist. They are trying to push nessie trying to push him back and and end up dragging him to war they did not want. These consequences will lead the soviets to live towards greater political control over the allies. If response will be that they want military aid, they will get military advisers, it will get military planning and egypt will not be able to go to war without the soviet sayso. That is part of the reason why they will kick the soviet advisers out in 1972. Otherwise egypt does not have a ton of its own military policy. Chinese, but only by adopting the chinese strategy. They did not want to be fighting wars. Same thing happens in vietnam. The soviets have a good reason not to support the north vietnamese. The soviets do not believe the United States will ever vietnam. Themhave to support because of vietnam is the case that brings it to everybodys if you are not in vietnam, what are you . That is a revolution everybody sees. You have to be behind vietnamese. There is one famous quote in a book about vietnamese officials telling soviet journalist, you give 90 of the eight and have 5 of the influence. They basically have no leverage. For the moment, the shift creates other problems. It defeats chinese influence for the moment. Mired in the cultural revolution. China will reemerge in the cultural revolution. Time, china gets cemented back to the u. N. In 1971 and it the thirdright when walled unit in the United Nations begins to crash. What has happened is that Development Policy in the 1960s has largely failed. Not met expectations. Many of the countrys that became independent in 1960s believe development would bring them prosperity. They are not much better off than they were years ago. They believe the solution can no longer be about aid programs, it has to be about changing the system. Something about International Terms of trade. The developing world from catching up with the developed world. It will become the new International Economic order. It is proposed in 1974 at the u. N. How did that go . There we go. This is a cartoon about the opec whenn bargo embargo their economic power makes itself manifest. It controls the world economy. This is when china is rejoining the United Nations. Champion ofe the the new economic order. China will be the champion in terms of trade. China champions in cartels. China champions in International Zones were 200 miles out. Latin american countries are pushing for that. They want to keep american ships out of peruvian fishing waters. China champions this too. For the soviets dependency hearing, the idea that the inequality is International System and not domestic economies, there is to problems. Number one, it puts the world north versus south and set it east versus west. The source for reform is international. Domestic revolution will not solve the problem. Soviets are against this and the chinese are for it. Once again the chinese gain adherents, which is popular. The soviets ultimately cave. I will spare you all the details about how the soviets oppose this. By 1976 a have embraced it. The complete liquidation of all alls of oppression ifestations of inequality this is now soviet foreign policy. It is now the soviet unions job to change the system for the benefit of the previously colorized test, nice country. What is the soviets position in 1976 . In 1976 china turns to turns towards domestic reform. Increasesudget tremendously. The soviets have once again outside them and the soviets have won the war. Where does this lead . By 1980, the soviets are supporting the governments of angola, ethiopia, mozambique. They are fighting counter insurgencies in some places. It does not look good. It is a drain on the soviet budget, credibility and the idea of revolutions throughout the world. All of a sudden it is unpopular if your supporting sandinistas and a socialist government in afghanistan. The chinese meanwhile are forming their economy. The beginnings of a capitalist system. It has its own struggles. Part of the reason, you go back to the original division, to the revolution, i would argue as to why china can make this deal and soviets cannot. For china it was about china coming strong and united and standing up to outside powers. The famous line about how it doesnt matter if it is capitalism or socialism is on is it builds a powerful, rich, dignified united china. That is what helped the Chinese Government maintain a legitimacy. Even in the wake of capitalistic reform. So in the wake of tiananmen square, your populism saying people wanted to hear a colonial china as if democracy and capitalism, whatever it meant was a colonial china. Not a capitalist china. The soviet party is not anticapitalist, so the soviet communist party could not make this same pivot. So thats why we would argue that for all the people especially in moscow, why why could we not follow chinas path . At the end of the day, only the chinese patent was able to shift because the imperialist revolution succeeded and the other failed. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. [applause] here are the ground rules for those who dont know them. Please wait for the microphone to reach you. After i call you, please identify yourself before you speak. Use the microphone. Lets start right here. It is coming. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the interesting presentation. There is one question that i have, you talk about the differences in the chinese and soviet positions in terms of responding to developments in the developed world. Third world as we call it. I am wondering to what extent you see this as responsive to the bilateral conflict between the ussr and china. Along the very border. The late 1960s. Up until the 1970s were a time of tension. Apparently a lot of fighting on the border. It strikes me that a lot of what you are talking about in terms of these reallyis that, are they responding to their competition in the developing world, or are they changing positions as a result of direct competition with each other . Thank you. Jeremy a couple points. One of the things i said in my introduction is it depends how the soviets split works depends on where you are standing. The importance of the border conflict this one thing in moscow and beijing and one thing somewhere else. The ideological conflict matters more. Even if you are standing in moscow and beijing, if you look at the history of the border conflicts and the chronology, it is not clear those are things that lead to sort of the split. It seems like they come after. That river is 1969. Chinese claims and particular i think go back and forth. Depending on other things. The chinese will make claims about 19th century treaties and so on. But those will disappear of relations in other ways are better in the soviet union. It seems to me if you are looking for the root cause as opposed to other manifestations of the split, i do not think it is a border conflict as frequently the root cause. Rate appear. Ight appear. Up here. Dane kennedy, National History center. It is a fascinating story you tell him and a lot of it is unfamiliar to me. I am struck by what seems to be a paradox in that story. The chinese win, as you put it by making the case this is in antiimperial struggle. In the aftermath of decolonization, imperialism as we conventionally understand it as a colonial territory, it is done. These places are politically independent and at the same time their victory occurs in the context of the deterioration of the economy, right . So the failure of the ability to succeed in a sense in this international environment. So i guess my question is, how is it that the chinese are most successful in making and antiimperial case than the soviets are in making and anticapitalist case if the real struggle is that it seems to me economic one. Is there a way in which the chinese are turning the antiimperial argument against the soviets themselves in that they too are empire. Jeremy yes. They certainly are. As i said in the beginning, there are two soviet and the soviets respond in a very literal way, most of the soviet union is actually in asia. They actually insist they be referred to as a eurasian power. They start sending representatives to nonslavic, noneuropean nationalities. Soviets physically look not white. They do take it very literally very they have foreign visitors who come in they take them to josh and show them what we have done in noneuropean areas. As far as the economic story. Into a 1960s precultural revolution period. Itselfure of the split and ideological conflict changes. In the 1960s, there is a lot of fighting to do. Remains, in goal a, vietnam, which is again seen as antiimperialist struggle if not anticolonial struggle. As the situation shifts, the ideologue shifts. They both make an economic argument. The chinese say this is a system of the International Capitalism keeping the world undeveloped. The soviets argue you have to develop economy to mystically. The chinese is not that one is political. Ares an anticolonial anticapitalistic version. One says the enemy is at home the other one says it is in washington are london. The chinese are making a better case in saying that the enemy is the International System is posting your own domestic capitalism. Ande have a hand back here we will go to the table. Back to your right. Going. To jim stein. I have a question about how consistent china adhered to the categories. You have these nice competing models. In Light Industry versus our model, certainly in the light 1950s, they tried to do these industries. Interesting goals with steel and these kind of things. They did try to follow the sector but when youre talking about state ownership versus private trade, in 1950s china was only 10 years after liberation but it was 40 years after liberation for the soviets so im not sure if youre comparing apples and oranges. Jeremy there mightve been a bit of ambiguity about what i meant with the model slide. This was exports, not what they were doing at home so is interesting in a sense if you look at what they did in the second revolution at home, it makes sense to flip the slide. The chinese developed at home with a lot of state ownership and the soviets developed with the new Economic Policy and Light Industry agriculture not quite to that degree but the chinese model was for the 1920s and the other was for what the soviets did in the 1950s. What the chinese dead in the 1950s they did what the soviets did. That was the soviets exporting it. There is a very clear distinction between what they did home, between the models exporting. One thing china is selling is selfreliance. That is their slogan. They look for that slogan elsewhere. Selfreliance would only become new slogan in china after 1960. So china is selling the model it claims to have right now but it does not really show how it built itself up in the aftermath of the revolution. Thank you for pointing that out. I teach history in brooklyn, new york. Thank you for the presentation and a very good book. For those of us who study during the cold war, i think this is important book. That is the reason i i read very carefully. I participate in roundtable review of book and also more importantly i think it should be introduced to our chinese colleagues so that is a reason i wrote a review in chinese and it will be published very soon. I look forward to it being published. I read the book very carefully, it gave us a lot to think about and i still have many questions. I have two here. I think this is not a book about per se, it is a book about how does the soviets and the chinese try to sell their notion to newly independent third world countries. Im not sure i understand right because when i write in chinese i have to put it for the Chinese People to understand because many of us, i talked to my colleagues in chinese who studied, they may not all agree with some of your interpretation, that is all right. My second question is, interactively or directly or both, it is stunning. If you got through 1964, the more challenge of relations in the way where the split was still to happen, and stalin dies 10 years later, these are the question which i think is crushing. Some understanding about thank you so much. Jeremy thank you. I agree it is interesting. The original title was and it was change. They took sinosoviet out of the title. That was unc press. Maybe that tells you something. I think this goes back to the point of it depends where you are looking at it from, right . Most are studying from moscow. You may see certain issues being more trouble in. Especially in the maokhrushchev era. He saw himself senior to khrushchev and not stalin. I think there is another aspect that is counterfactual which i was thinking about as you talked about it. I am not sure stalin would of attempted to at lease build socialism in the stalin had not done night you wouldve had a very different cold war altogether. You might have had a post world wet not have had because would have had no model, no aid, no experts. It wouldve been kind of, the way stalin reacted when indiana india became independent was that it was a neocolonial state. Stalin continued to think that way. The african countries became independent in 1960. It mightve meant you do not have the same cold war in the third world altogether. We can go very far with counterfactuals but i think that is one element. The Wilson Center, don wolf. You made a comment about rene dumont starting in africa. The great impact that had in the decision to go with agrarian socialism and so on in how that ended up was not all that pretty but i was there when this is being undertaken in the 1960s and for a french man to have that kind of influence and really i think shift or direct the communist collective farm model was very interesting to observe. Jeremy it is funny you mention that because im in the middle of writing my second book and chapter two is about that. I spent most of the summer in tanzania and presented a paper on it to yale last week so i have an awful lot to say about it. He is a fascinating case because he believes in socialism but he also explicitly says he is not a marxist, he does not believe in class struggle. Does not want to have a Vanguard Party. One thing i got from him, who is no longer with us, he had a religious background. ,any of the people around him for example the people i interviewed, many of them said they could not be marxist or because he was atheist. Because they were atheist. So there is a lot of sort of interesting socialist influence. In an number, socialist influence. About the tensions between them and the soviets because on one hand they understand he was not a socialist but at the same time they became hopeful that perhaps towards socialism for africa. And maybe one day they went embrace class struggle in a Vanguard Party model and yet they were very suspicious of any nonformal communist. The university in the 1960s became a hotbed of radicalism. Lots of people spent time. On the one hand, the western embassies didnt like them very much because they were socialist but at the same time the soviet embassy did not like them because they were westerners and they were simply counting the number of westerners teaching at the college for the high party a elite and they did not trust any of them because they were real marxist. I would love to talk about it more in depth but the short answer is despite the fast he was not a marxist and they knew that they were still optimistic initially about the program and hoped it had the potential to help in africa but then they abandoned it because he was not a marxist. I would like to ask a question that centers around where your book fits into cold war history today. One of the themes that comes out is these are not puppets that many of these newly decolonize countries are quite adept at manipulating either the soviets or the chinese to get what they want. This is a very different thrust than what we might have read 30 years ago. Could you talk about the book in light of historic changes and where its at in the history historiography today. Jeremy i am working on the second book now. In the first, i dont resented his controlling countries paired countries. But still it is sort of just a moscowbeijing story. From the second book, i am trying to tell it from jakarta in santiago and chile and places like that. It is a market of buyers and sellers. Of course there are power gaps and things like that and violence but it is part of the nature of socialism in such that it is ideology and that means ideas count. Kind of like Martin Luther and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had tremendous amounts of power and men and things like that but it Martin Luther was a threat because he has ideas. In the context of a debate over socialism, it is not really a question over how many divisions, because influence matters. Ideas matters. It matters in the click kremlin when people are marching in the and peopleberkeley, are cheering from chairman mao but not fresh snow. That matters. The same thing happened in paris and west berlin. It is partly that we have to kind of rethink our notions of the International Relation but it is hard to imagine the same thing happening in the capitalist world. Dominated in as capitalistic world. We have the swedish model for example. Sweden looks very nice to a lot of people but it is still hard for sweden to put itself forward and say we are the correct version of capitalism and the entire world should copy sweden. If people point to sweden and say you dont have to defend yourself, you have a highly uniform at the population. These are a lot of things that makes it so United States can not follow sweden or tanzania cant. But yet albania can say, we are the only true marxist nation in the world. Weve gotten it right. The reason albania can do it in and sweden cant is the idea of socialism. The notion of ideology and the notion of correct the elegy. That is what enables these smaller and countries to compete with the soviets and chinese. In the back behind the pillar. I am an independent researcher. In terms of these smaller countries competing, i am wondering about the person who just died, fidel castro, to what extent is he pushing the soviets into taking a more antiimperialistic as well as exporting his version of antiimperialist communism elsewhere . Jeremy as i am sure you know, the relationship is long and complicated story. They were very excited about it in 1960, 1961, certainly khrushchev talks about it felt like 1917 all over again. Then came the cuban missile crisis. Castro and che guevara will feel betrayed by the soviets. Castro talks about how he wouldve had a nuclear war and the United States. Students would die on the barricade. The chinese play this up around the world. The soviets are chicken, we are not. The chinese are beating the soviets over the head with this in the fall of 1962 and 1963. So castro makes up with the soviets but then relations of course in the 1960s, part of this was also che guevara who is going around trying to start a revolution in africa, latin america. Latin american communist partys are set up because they are trying to follow parliamentary passion. And che guevara is trying to start guerrilla wars. Certainly the soviet told the Bolivian Communist Party not to help che guevara when he got to bolivia. It is hard to find real documentation but there is certain reason to believe and people speculate that soviets either had a hand in killing che guevara or were certainly happy he was gone. Fidel castro had to disavow che guevara to allow them to do that. Relations almost came to a breaking point in the late 1960s between cuba and the soviets until czechoslovakia and then that was sort of a defining moment for both havana and hanoi when they failed to condemned the soviet invasion like the chinese wanted them to. They said this is as far as we go, we stay with the soviets on this one. They thought they would be the next czechoslovakia. From that point on, that was kind of the nature of the soviet relations will stop we can back up towards the mid 1970s but that is still a process. An intense debate over exactly what happened in angola. Did the cubans my first . Did the soviets move first . I dont necessarily i cant give you the answer on that one. What happens in ethiopia . They worked Better Together after that. Cubans were dependent on the soviets in the 1970s more than the 1980s. It was difficult for a long time and i think that of course at the end, castro was one of the strongest independent opponents of gorbachev. You mentioned angola. You dont deal with it a lot in the book and it does make an appearance so given your discussion of marxism and socialism as a theology, how does that notion of the chinese in bed with the Apartheid Regime in south africa . Can you say more about the dynamics between the soviets and the chinese and their allies in that conflict . Jeremy the dynamics, one of my chapters is about angola. Angola is fascinating in terms of what you end up with. For example, cuban guerrillas defending American Oil Companies from americanbacked companies. The chinese get themselves this antiimperialist notion. What they are trying to do in the 1970s, unite the third world against the first world. This was the u. N. In 1974. The superpowers in the first world. The second world, japan, canada, and so on. The third world the rest of the developing world. It is not the way the western economy of second and third world works. What they are trying to do is unite the third world. So they see and there is a whole series of leaders who come to beijing in the early 1970s. Mobutu for example who would not seem to be a a likely candidate. They are trying to again, it is important to them in every single communicate that china ends up as third world countries. Same with the soviets are trying to say. Your countries, this is important. This was the argument for supporting pinochet. We are going to ally with the leaders of every country. It got them into trouble. It got them in trouble because of chile. It got them in trouble because they refuse to recognize bangladesh in the United Nations. The final straw, in terms of na being, losing out because it was angola. They ended up on the same side of the africans. He ended up there because their story was that soviet in. Lose him was the threat. Soviet imperialism was the biggest threat. Soviets were the rising power and americans were the falling power. To them, their antiimperialist. The biggest imperialist threat is the soviet union. The soviets are trying to impose the impeller up and pla. Mpla excessively mean to be west africans, but they meant to oppose the soviets that meant to be on the same side as the africans. Yes, ray here. Right here. Hello. From George Washington. What do you think really motivated the chinese model . Wasnt there desire to be strong and influential on the western stage or was it a genuine ideological belief in what are model could produce or do these factors really tie into each other and motivate . Jeremy the question of motivation is always difficult for a historian. These are not countries with completely open archives. We are still a long way from having complete records from chinese politics. I dont know if i will ever live to see that, maybe somebody else will live to see that. [laughter] jeremy but even if you had all of the archives, the question is, what are they really thinking . What are they saying to each other . How do you know what they are saying to each other is what they really mean . So getting at the question of motivation is a tricky one. That is more of a question for a psychologist on for an historian. In terms of at a national level, why are they trying to do this . I go through this in the book in a couple different ways. I think it is a combination of ideology and politics. When you think about the way people act, you might look at a way people are acting and say it is completely cynical. I will give you a justification. They dont think of themselves as acting completely cynically. It might seem that way to an observer. As historians or scientists you tend to be dismissive because you think theyre acting cynically. Getting back to angola, i heard so many accounts about the suez about what soviets are doing in angola. The suez canal and how they can interdict the shipments of oil to the end angoliand going in coast. I have not seen a single bit of evidence in the soviet archives that look like that but if you look at through the west, you might think it is cynical. I dont think the two are separate. To a certain degree we believe that justification but there is a story here, which is that there is always a threat to china. China feels threatened by the United States. Troops in japan, south korea, japan. There is a border threat and the soviets are moving more and more trips to asia. They need a constituency. That has to come from somewhere so in a large part that is the developing world. When they are in the u. N. One day, having both the General Assembly means china has international clout. In the 1960s it is the case that if they can get parties behind them or liberation behind them or other leaders behind them, then the soviets of the warsaw pact, the United States has nato, who has chinas act . It was supposed be soviet union but that was precisely the problem. This was an attempt to build a constituency. Charles krause with the Wilson Center and also a phd candidate at George Washington university. Thank you for your talk. A few months got the wilson a few months ago here at the Wilson Center we organized a seminar on the chinayugoslavia competition , today we have yours. We are having one on the sinoamerican competition for the third world during the cold war. We havent done an event on a but i imagine you could probably do one on the sinoindian competition in the third world, or in asia. My question for you is, from chinas perspective, what extent is this chinasoviet competition you talked about unique and its own distinct thing versus to what extent is it actually part of a much is it only one thread in a much broader push fight china to sort of export its model to the third world . Thank you. Jeremy thank you. I think it is unique in the sense this is the one that leadership in the world is at stake. Counterfactual about stalin and khrushchev does not make sense if you say, if 10 years earlier he had died would it have happened sooner . This is essential to who they are. The very notion of communist revolution as there is a unified world communist revolution and therefore, you know, if it is uniform and should have a leader and a center. When they founded the soviet union, the Union Associates social republics, the ukrainian delegate got up and said, you know, we cant limited to europe and asia. That was the idea. That is where the legacy that china is trying to take over here. That is why that is more central. The leader of the World Revolution into have to unseat the soviet union. It does not mean unseating india or the United States. Unseating the United States may mean the world competition but worlds top power, competition but not that composition. As far as yugoslavia, that is another story. [laughter] hello. My name is catherine white. I am also from George Washington university. I have a question about you talked about the switch from the capitalist, antiimperialist event in the 1960s and i wonder if you see a distinct shift in rhetoric in terms of solidarity initially initiatives at home or the education and initiatives in terms of teaching use about the third world. Is there also a distinction in the rhetoric . World festivale views of students. I am trying to think about how much rhetoric went from priority being antiimperialist and focused . World jeremy that is not quite as much what i study. If i were to look at it i would say look at what items, there is a list of slogans. A list of items to be discussed. What items are being discussed . Look at 1960. What are they saying about congo , is congo on the agenda . Is nigeria on the agenda . Is palestinians on the agenda . In 1970, you know, you will find a angola and new guinea and mozambique and other things. They might use the world imperialism in both, but look how it please inform policy. I talked to people and they remember the solidarity campaigns with victims of pinochet. Some with nicaragua. They remember those things from the 1970s, they remember the from 1960. I want to get another question if i may. This has to do with the from 1960. Revolutionary states and the question of intelligence. What struck me throughout the book was how little the soviets and especially the chinese actually knew about the people they were interacting with and the countries they were trying to influence. From a little bit of antiimperialistic rhetoric went a long way but it seems time and time again they actually do not really know the parties on the ground. They have very little conception outside of their theoretical framework tells them, to prioritize who was calling the shots and with the forces at work are. Does this impede their success or does the rhetoric of antiimperialism really compensate for that and carry them farther than otherwise they would have gone . Jeremy that is a complicated question. I think soviets get better as they go along so one thing, i mean we have to remember, when decolonization happened, the British Government the french, the dutch, the portuguese, they had been ruling these places. They had people on the ground, they knew them, the elite was trained there. Khrushchev spoke russian. Compared to the numbers who went to school in london, paris, amsterdam, it is very, very small. They dont have those personal connections. They do not have the languages. Russia has, you know, a history of orientalism as a discipline. So russia does have academic credentials to call on. At least when it comes to asia especially. Turkey, japan, asia, africa, ethiopia. China has much less of this to call on. They are both starting from way behind the west and the soviets doing the job. They build institutes, journals, they send people to train. Late 1960s and early 1970s they get better. A lot more asians and africans studying in the soviet union. They get better at it as time goes on but they still have certainly the problem and that there is a doctrinal element of understanding. Limits of understanding the islamic world of you dont have an understanding of religion. For some people, not for everyone. The soviet reaction to the iranian revolution is fascinating. The chinese are further behind. A lot of what the chinese are doing when they develop institutes in the 1960s as they are translating scholarship from elsewhere as opposed to producing their own. Then the revolution shuts everything down. So china, in 1966, everything is shut down for about 12 years and that makes things worse. In that sense, the soviets had an advantage. They have an advantage in this advantage help them. The americans have an advantage of the soviets. The chinese are still more appealing. They are getting their information from people actually on the ground. Instead of paper pushers back in beijing. If you get the right people, they would come without preconception and it might actually help in that way. Anyone else . All right. On that note, we will draw this to a close. First let me say, there are copies of shadow cold war outside the store ready for purchase and perhaps signing by our speaker. Next week will be our final session of the season when Susan Carothers of Rutgers University will be speaking on her new book the good occupation american soldiers and the hazards of peace after the second world war. There will be a reception in the dining room in a few moments. Thank you to our audience and thank you to jeremy friedman. [applause] interested in American History tv, visit our website, cspan. Org history. You can be our Upcoming Schedule or watch a recent program. American artifact, wrote to the white house we rind, lectures in history and more. At cspan. Org history. The state of the net conference was held here in washington dc this past week at monday night on the communicators. We will speak with three attendees about upcoming issues facing the internet. Mark jamieson, key adviser on the trump transit transition. Talk about future communication policy. Merryman corps on the u. S. Efforts to counter online radicalism. Like the secs ability to be on the field and make sure networks are fast, fair and open. There can be a lot of up improvement with the fcc and the structure needs to a debt. Google, facebook and other to create counter messaging. They are not any good position to be a counter messenger. Privatean issue that sector has started to step up. Watch the communicators on cspan2