If the pain points are confirmed, it can only be regarded as the first 10% of the work of a topic report at most.

It's like a patient goes to the doctor and the doctor finds out what his illness is.

The next step is to figure out where the cutting-edge efforts have been.

It is equivalent to the doctor asking the patient what other medicines he has taken before coming to the hospital.

In this regard, Gu Biao has a slight advantage over other graduate students.

Because the other graduate students led by Kissinger have no access to the secret inside story of the decision-making of the U.S. National Institute in recent years. So they won't know exactly "how much medicine they took before coming to the hospital this time".

And Gu Biao can at least see some of the hot spot analysis decrypted by later generations, and he can take a little less detours and do a little less repetitive work.

Of course, Gu Biao didn't study this in his previous life, so he was just a layman watching the excitement. Get an idea of the tricks of the secret diplomacy of the '70s.

The other 95% of the little things, he didn't know.

The criterion for whether it is a major event depends on whether the future generations are qualified to be mentioned in the talk show "Xiaoshuo" or enter the "get" analysis course. didn't include it, Gu Biao didn't hear it on the subway when he commuted to work, so he didn't know.

He was a code farmer in his previous life, so he was busy, so how could he have time to specialize in useless trivial knowledge of liberal arts.

For example, in 71~72, Kissinger's efforts to establish diplomatic relations between China and the United States, as well as the secrets and mud of "deceiving the upper and lower levels" on both sides, this is considered a "big event", and Gu Biao knows a little detail.

It's just that there is nothing to dig up in this area.

In addition, from an international point of view, what Kissinger did that year was to sign the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" (72 years) with the Soviets to restrict the development of a ballistic missile defense system between the two countries (30 years later, the little immortal president withdrew, and the United States engaged in NMD/TMD).

From this, Gu Biao can see that on the issue of "how to deal with the Congress can only choose one of the two", the predecessors have made as much effort as possible. The main manifestation is "disguising the amendment as not like a revision, but clarifying the explanation, and deceiving the senators in the clarification and explanation".

There is no need to go into the details of the "ABM Treaty," but if we look at the overall logic, we can see why this is a treaty that is extremely necessary for secret diplomacy and is signed while deceiving one's own people.

This is because this is actually a treaty that "uses one's own country as a shield and helps one's teammates carry hatred", and like the "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty" 15 years later, if the truth is known by the people and parliamentarians of the country, it is a treaty that will never be signed.

Coincidentally, the INF Treaty was signed during Regen's tenure and remained in force for exactly 30 years, before it was torn up by the time of Donald.

The reason why Gu Biao is so clear about these is because when Donald tore up the "INF Treaty" in the later generations, the online media was very hot, and he read too many overwhelming analysis articles on those learning apps.

The technical logic of the two treaties is the same: At that time, the anti-missile systems of the United States and the Soviet Union, even if they were developed, required extremely high reaction time, so even if they were successfully developed, they could only prevent the Soviet Union and the United States from destroying each other, but they could not prevent the Soviet Union from taking nuclear bombs nearby to level Western Europe, so once the research and development began, Western Europe would be more dangerous and become a meat shield in the front row after the enemy's range was limited.

The increase in the deployment of medium-range missiles is also the same reason: the Soviet Union's medium-range missiles can only be used to destroy Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, and cannot hit the United States. Limiting the number of medium-range missiles was actually allowing the Soviet Union to tilt the same resources towards intercontinental missiles.

In other words, when the Americans signed the contract, it was equivalent to shouting to the Soviet Union: if you want to do it, you should do it directly with Lao Tzu, don't think about making the little brother angry.

It's a lot like the 2010s, when the Americans shouted at the North Stick: if you make a longer-range intercontinental missile, don't always threaten to beat the defenseless hostage of the South Stick no matter who beats you.

And these treaties were indeed helpful to the international environment of the United States at that time, which seemed to increase the proportion of hatred carried by the United States, but completely pulled Western European countries into little brothers-

The reason why Kissinger signed the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" in '72 was because in November '70, France's iron-fisted founding president, Charles de Gaulle, died and Pompidou could completely come out of the shadows. When de Gaulle was alive, France once maintained neutrality, had a good relationship with the Soviet Union, and also co-opted a large number of small Eurasian countries that stood in the middle of the box, and not only the United States took the lead.

Therefore, as soon as De Gaulle died, Kissinger immediately promoted the ABM Treaty and made a gesture of goodwill to the whole of Western Europe, and Pompidou changed his previous "Gaullist" diplomacy and turned to the United States.

The Americans actually won a large number of votes in the international community, and the Soviets never really launched a nuclear bomb, so the United States actually exchanged the nihilistic risk for actual benefits. Later, the "INF Treaty" of '87 was even more so, which greatly wooed Europe and other countries around the Soviet Union, and for them to persist in low international oil prices for many years, dragging down the Soviet economy, and bleeding from the war in Afghanistan, and finally the collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, it is precisely this kind of content that leads to the fact that the US signatories of these two treaties must be carried out in secret, and absolutely must not let the people at home know the truth.

Otherwise, the people and parliamentarians will find out that "it turns out that your secretary of state is pulling hatred from the Soviets, and let the Soviets carry all the hatred values that were originally flat on the heads of the allies of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, in exchange for the French and German convincing you as a little brother", and then the people will be chaotic, and the parliamentarians will frantically vote for boycott.

But treaties written in black and white always have to be voted on in the end, how can this be a secret?

There is a way.

It's to take advantage of the fact that the senators are all liberal arts students and don't understand technology!

They have been given a large list of technical parameters on the ABM Treaty and the INF Treaty, and they have no idea what the restricted things are for and what they are encouraged for.

In the eyes of liberal arts students, ballistic missiles and anti-missile systems with all parameters seem to look the same! They should also be used for one purpose, right? What does it mean to restrict one and encourage the other? It seems to be the same!

At this time, Kissinger and other diplomats, as well as the technical generals of the ballistic missile forces who had been invited from the Pentagon for hearings, were responsible for accepting questions from senators and answering their questions.

They can fool around with these technical details when answering questions.

The key lies in this "interpretation".

Then manage the media well, don't let people who know how to expose the interpretation article within the contract period, and it'll be fine.

(At this time, the most feared thing is that in a foreign journal, such as "Foreign Affairs Review", killing someone like Gu Biao, writing an in-depth interpretation paper, and sending it to the opposition think tank, the fun will be great.)

If anyone can take advantage of such an opportunity, then you're welcome. After writing the article, either a certain American foundation will take tens of millions of dollars to gag you, or a certain CIA agent will try his best to kill you, and risks and opportunities coexist. ）

In Kissinger's 72 years, he did this by concealing the ABM Treaty.

After brushing up this string of contexts, Gu Biao suddenly got a little inspiration:

In real politics, it is impossible to force a break through the voting stage stipulated in the constitution and only vote, and not to revise this iron law, compromise and mud.

Because the constitution stipulates this, it is for the purpose of separating powers, ensuring that those who legislate are only in charge of the legislature, those who are executive are only in charge of the executive, and those who enforce the law are only in charge of enforcing the law.

This is the most basic requirement of the separation of powers, which concerns the US national system and is absolutely impossible to shake.

Otherwise, if "compromise" is allowed, it would be tantamount to allowing the executive and secretary of state to provide instigating and even misleading opinions when legislating Congress.

This is just like in any country with a two-instance final adjudication system, the procedural law will stipulate that "if the second instance finds an error in the value judgment and application of law in the first instance, it can directly change the judgment." and where it is discovered that the determination of facts is unclear or that there is new evidence that must be admitted, it shall be remanded for a new trial."

This is to prevent someone from deliberately concealing important evidence and bringing evidence to sneak attack at the second instance, without giving the other party time and a chance to "do it again" after thinking about it, and directly passing the test in confusion.

If your secretary of state and the president want to make changes on the spot, why did you go there earlier? I just won't let you change them on the spot, and we won't let you get over while the congressmen are still confused. Be sure to hit it back, let the parliamentarians read it fully, calm their minds, and vote again.

And what the secretary of state is doing is the kind of "you listen to my explanation, I haven't changed, in fact, I don't want to change, I'm just afraid that you won't understand, and now I'm explaining to you, this is an explanation, not a change."

Sneak into the village like this, don't let go of the gun, see who has a more vicious brain, and has a stronger ability to keep the brain awake for a long time, and finally fools the other party.

Eight years ago, Kissinger did a good job, and when he finally dealt with the internal enemy, he fooled more than 20 senators to ask questions, and did not let them see the ABM treaty's attribute of "helping the younger brother carry hatred."

However, this kind of unpleasant experience of being yin more or less also accumulated a lot of "anger trough" for the congressmen of the people's pig stall who later frantically scolded Nixon for stepping down, which is a later story.

So far, Gu Biao has figured out "what medicines this patient has taken before coming to the hospital this time".

……

Later, there is "prescribing new drugs".

Theory is theory, and deceptive practice is deceitful practice.

In the actual implementation, whether you are making a "compromise/substantive modification" of the secret covenant or merely providing "Q&A/explanation" is far more difficult to judge than the metaphysical deduction of legal principles.

Theoretically, everything that involves "factual judgments" cannot be changed, and things that involve "value judgments" can be explained.

But what is considered "fact" and what is "value"? The real top-level international law can definitely make senators, let alone ordinary people, dizzy.

To give an inappropriate example, but it is helpful to understand, there is no doubt that on this side of the ocean, the laws are made by the General Assembly. However, the highest judicial organ can issue a "judicial interpretation". When it comes to "explaining," there is still a lot of room for manipulation, and those who have studied the Fa should know it in their own hearts.

"Therefore, the core idea of Kee's protection of the achievements of secret diplomacy is to disguise 'substantive amendments' as 'non-substantive amendments', or even disguise 'amendments' as 'clarifications/explanations', and pass Senate inquiries. ”

Summing up this step, Gu Biao is really tired,

He had already written a dozen pages of drafts, and he had also rubbed out seven or eight sheets, and he had gained a lot in his heart.

He could figure it out, but the more he thought about it, the more he realized that he really didn't want to learn this skill.

Because it's useless for him for the rest of his life.

He only came to the United States for further study, not to be an official in the United States.

This set of spicy chicken will be completely useless when I go back in the future!

He crumpled the last piece of deduction waste paper, threw it into the fireplace, and sighed: "Alas, it's still *** right: the biggest drawback of Western people's pig politics is that the leaders have to lie in order to cater to the people and their representatives!"

What is the use of practicing this skill? As long as it is beneficial to the country, we should concentrate our efforts on doing great things, why do we think about how to deceive the legislators?

As for the eloquence of deceiving leeks, it is even more useless. It would be nice to carry out in-depth and meticulous ideological education on leeks and enhance their political consciousness of dedication. ”

Spit and complain, now that he is ready to fly, the preparations have been done to this point, Gu Biao can only be regarded as "brainstorming" and exercise his intellectual game.

The important thing in life is not the stock of knowledge, but the ability to learn and think. A study, regardless of whether the conclusion is useful or not, is at least a refinement of brain power.

"The biggest risk of disguising 'amendment' as 'explanation' is that once the opposition party exposes your attempt to get through in a short period of time, then the party responsible for providing the explanation will be extremely risky. So much so that they don't dare to talk nonsense often with their eyes open, for fear that they will bump into ghosts when they walk too much at night in the future.

In the United States, perjury and other similar offenses of attempting to obstruct justice/legislation are serious. And there is a strong tendency for these charges to be over-abused. This is also one of the side reasons why the Brzezinski era did not dare to be as arrogant as the Kissinger era......"

Gu Biao reasoned downward, and when he thought of this step, it was already the second half of the night, and there were actually many unfeasible detours in the middle, so I won't repeat it.

After thinking of this, he knew that all his research results today would probably not be published in academic journals.

Because if there was really any dry goods, Kissinger would definitely not allow it to be published, but secretly printed and distributed it secretly, and only showed it to the president, secretary of state, core whip, and a few other people in his own class.

Because, this skill has always been the rising tide of the prosecution and defense. During the Brzezinski period, the reason why he was timid was because the lying skills of the previous Kissinger era were gradually recalled by the parliamentarians.

It's hard to deceive.

By the way, in '86, how did Li Gen cover up the bad influence of the 'Iran-Contra secret deal? I don't remember exactly, but it seems to have been a failure.

During Clinton's tenure, how did he cover up the 'perjury' charges in the 'Zippergate' (Lewinsky case......)?

The jurisprudence for dealing with "perjury" and "providing false opinions" should be the same, right?

The former is classified as "obstruction of judicial justice" in the U.S. legal system, while the latter is classified as "obstruction of legislative independence".

From the level of legal benefits, this can be compared to this.

"It is necessary to quickly find out the verdicts and interpretations of the Supreme FA Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in recent years, all the cases of perjury and innocence!"

Gu Fu, who was looking for a pharmacy in the vast sea of questions, finally grasped the direction of the medicine primer with a little effort.