The Truman administration failed to recognize it when New China was founded. The reasons for this are quite complex.

Everyone may be wondering what is the reason behind this, whether it is the pressure of public opinion from Congress, or other more complicated reasons. This is exactly what makes this incident worth digging into.

At that time, New China had just been founded and the international situation was complicated.

On the other side of the world, the United States was in the Truman administration.

The United States has an important influence in international affairs.

The Truman administration's attitude towards New China was firmly not to recognize it.

Its attitude affected the direction of Sino-US relations at that time.

Many diplomatic actions, exchanges, etc. are affected by this decision.

At this stage, the domestic political environment in the United States is equally complex. Many forces have interfered with the government's foreign policy decisions to varying degrees.

Moreover, during this period, the United States was in the stage of global strategic layout.

It has many interests to consider in Asia.

The establishment of New China broke the established plans of the United States in Asia, causing the Truman administration to become more cautious and strict in dealing with New China. This went far beyond the question of whether to admit it.

The Truman administration was deeply influenced by anti-communism.

In the international situation at that time, communism and capitalism were the two major camps.

The United States viewed communism as the antithesis of its ideology.

New China is governed by the Communist Party. This characteristic has led to the United States' rejection of New China in terms of beliefs and values.

For example, many American officials at that time would reveal their rejection of communism in their speeches.

They regard the new national model under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party as a challenge to the Western model, and therefore intend to resist the new China ideologically.

Observing the diplomatic practice of the United States, it is not difficult to find that in many diplomatic incidents, when dealings with communist countries are involved, the United States usually behaves extremely cautiously, and sometimes even chooses to sever ties.

This hostility to communism seriously affected the United States' attitude toward the new China.

They are more inclined not to recognize the actual existence of New China, and are even less willing to engage in diplomatic interactions with countries run by the Communist Party.

The myth of Sino-US relations was another important factor influencing the Truman administration’s decision-making at that time.

For a long time, American people and some officials have formed a fixed concept of Sino-US relations, which is called the myth of Sino-US relations.

This view tends to glorify the United States' role in past interactions with China.

In the past, the United States saw itself as a savior in matters such as commerce and missionary work.

After the founding of New China, this old model of building Sino-US relations was broken.

A new China led by a strong Communist Party does not fit the consistent image in their mythology.

So it is difficult to accept psychologically.

Under this mythical concept, they subconsciously feel that New China should not be what it is now.

This makes American policymakers emotionally unable to extend an olive branch to New China.

Acheson's decision-making at the time was deeply influenced by anti-communism and the myth of Sino-US relations.

He did not consider recognizing New China at all.

In the past, scholars believed that he was a flexible realist, but this is not the case in reality.

He only handles Sino-US relations within the existing ideological framework.

If he is a realist, he should recognize the fait accompli of the founding of New China and deal with problems based on actual interests.

His failure to do so suggests that our previous view of Acheson was greatly skewed.

The so-called “missed opportunity” argument no longer applies, and that’s because it is based on faulty inferences and assumptions.

The Truman administration showed far more hostility to New China than any other country.

This hostility complicates the international relations situation.

Many European countries wait and see the attitude of the United States before deciding whether to establish diplomatic relations with New China.

This makes it more difficult for New China to carry out diplomacy.

The United States continues to exert diplomatic pressure on New China and imposes restrictions on New China's development in the economic field.

For example, in the import and export trade, the United States united with some allies to blockade New China.

The deep root of this hostility is still the unique ideology against China.

At a certain period, the United States needs to promote its values ​​to the world, and the establishment of New China poses a challenge to it. In order to maintain its leadership in the global ideological field, the United States chose to achieve this goal by suppressing New China.

Looking back on this historical event can give many enlightenments to modern international diplomacy.

There are still ideological differences among countries in the world.

But most modern countries realize that peaceful coexistence is the prerequisite for common development.

At that time, we should try our best to avoid the practice of the United States abandoning a country based solely on its ideology.

Countries should respect the development path of sovereign countries.

Although there are still differences between China and the United States, both sides have learned how to find the right balance between cooperation and competition.

Countries have different development paths. The key to truly achieving international harmony lies in mutual respect for each other's development paths.

When discussing the future development of international relations, how do you think we can prevent the breakdown of diplomatic relations due to ideological differences alone?