TOTALITARIAN RULE was necessary in China because it was the only way to achieve progress in a nation of one billion people, Jack Lynch wrote in a report on his official visit to the country in May 1980.
The report was prepared at the request of Charles Haughey, who had succeeded Mr Lynch as taoiseach six months earlier.
Also at Mr Haughey’s request, a shortened version of the document was distributed to other European heads of government.
Although a covering letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs describes the enclosed report as “slightly abbreviated”, it is in fact only five typewritten foolscap pages compared to the original 13, and does not contain Mr Lynch’s views on the need for totalitarian rule.
In the original document, Mr Lynch writes: “I believe that totalitarianism is in present circumstances necessary for the progress, slow though it must be, of China. Otherwise it would be obviously impossible to face one billion people in the same direction as to economic progress and the means of obtaining it.
“Democratisation would, of course, inevitably throw up different factions and different thinking, so that it would be impossible to attain or maintain the unity of purpose that now appears to pervade the entire nation,” the former taoiseach adds.
During his 10-day visit, which was at the invitation of the Institute of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic, Mr Lynch met with the main Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping (1903-1997) for over an hour.
In the course of their meeting, Mr Deng said his aim was that income per head in China would be US$1,000 by the year 2000, but that GNP would have to be increased threefold for that to come about.
The Chinese veteran complained that the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan the previous year and sponsored the 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia/Kampuchea, “was smashing its way through the world and throwing its weight about”.
He predicted western Europe would be threatened with a Soviet takeover and be faced with only two choices: “One would be to surrender and the other would be war.”
Also in his original report on the visit, Mr Lynch praises the “commitment and dedication to work” of the Chinese people. He added: “There may be an element of fear in this dedication, but one got the very solid impression that there was a high degree of conviction as well.”
As a barrister, he observed that there were “only 3,000 trained lawyers” in the whole of China. “The result is that justice is rather summary; even high-ranking officials are liable to be sent to ‘education camps’ if they in any instance display ‘improper thinking’.”
Looking to the future, Mr Lynch writes: “It is impossible to anticipate trends or policies in a totalitarian state, depending, as they must, on the views and personalities of factions who for the time being are in control.”
