Perhaps the most amazing thing about Jung Chang’s and Jon Halliday’s new biography of Chairman Mao is that they were given access to what must have been extremely high level party archives. They quote Mao’s diary, personal letters, disillusioned poems from his second wife, high level telegraphs, etc. The telegraphs, especially the early ones, are usually to or from the USSR, so they could have just had access to the Soviet archives. (By the by, saying that the CCP was the USSR’s marionette before 1949 gives the CCP far too much autonomy). But many of the other things could only be in Chinese archives, and as they tend to be the most explosive evidence against the myth of Mao, it is clear that they have been well guarded. There is a note saying that the authors are unable to give a list of the Chinese archives which they consulted. They have clearly been allowed to see things which the official regime would not have allowed.
There are three options. The first is that the authors have lied. This seems unlikely, but perhaps someone who wishes to go through their massive bibliography could prove otherwise. The second is that there are high level officials who want to prompt liberalization, and allowed the authors access to force the regime to change. Something similar happened five or six years ago, when politburo memos from the Tiananmen Square protests were leaked to the west and published. The other possibility is that this is all incredibly involved strategic maneuvering planned by the heads of the party to manipulate the country and the world in order to increase China’s global significance. If Mao were still in charge, this would be the most likely option. And I think the present government would still be able to shame Machiavelli. A UN inspector was recently allowed to investigate charges of torture in China, and was also allowed to find evidence of torture. In the end the report was still favorable to the central government, though. It stated that the torture was continuing despite the central government’s efforts to stop it, and that the government had had some success, as torture was less common now than ten years ago. (The report is still a very good sign—the regime must know that the people will find out about it through the internet, so it seems like a true commitment to end torture.) Or perhaps a mixture of the last two options is best: that the authors were allowed some access, but were not supposed to have found as much as they did or to have been so merciless towards the cult of Mao. All of these options--except the first--would be really good signs for China.
Having said all of this, I can’t imagine that the CCP is happy with the book. It destroys their founding myth, and since Mao has never been censured (as Stalin was), this is a grievous blow. If people actually read this book (and it is extraordinarily readable), it will be a harbinger of a new sun over China.
