The watchword of non-violence has ended up suffering the fate of the twentieth century’s other “grand narratives”. There is no ideal, however noble, that cannot be transformed into a war ideology or slogan for bids for hegemony. In the Great Game, whilst the West’s opponents are the embodiment of violence, its friends become the new Gandhis. In the summer of 2009, large demonstrations occurred in Teheran, led by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, against a regime that was certainly challenged internally, but which was above all un popular in the West. Mousavi had a long political career behind him, formed part of the leadership group that derived from the Iranian Revolution, and can only with great difficulty be regarded as a champion of non-violence. Besides, during the demonstrations the forces of order likewise suffered some deaths. But it is as if a slogan had inspired the Western press. Mousavi, reported the International Herald Tribune, was characterized by his followers as the “Gandhi of Iran”. Indeed, reported the organ of Confindustria from Germany, he was the “Gandhi of Iran” and in fact (the authoritative Italian daily piled it on) we were dealing with a great “Ghandian democratic movement.”
Similarly, those in China opposed to the powers that be tend, by definition, to be circles and individuals dedicated to non-violence. In the spring 1989, imposing demonstrations occurred in Beijing and other cities, which seemed set to suffer the fate of the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe. After a fairly extended period of negotiations and attempts at compromise, the crisis ended with the proclamation of martial law and the intervention of tanks in Tiananmen Square. Some days later on June 9, Deng Xiaoping paid tribute to the “martyrs” of the police and army, to numerous dead and “thousands” wounded, there with alluding to bitter, large-scale clashes. On the other side, the West denounced the massacre of peaceful demonstrators. Which version is to be trusted?
In 2001, the so-called Tiananmen Papers were published and subsequently translates into the world’s principal languages. According to the (US) editors, the book reproduces secret reports and confidential minutes of the decision-making process that resulted in the repression of the protest movement. Here we have a paradox. We are dealing with papers whose authenticity is challenged by China’s leaders, who possibly find it difficult to admit the high-level confidential documents, which recount such a tormented decision-making process that it ended only thanks to the decisive intervention of the charismatic leader, Deng Xiaoping. By contrast, the publishers and editors swear to their authenticity. According to them, the documents they have published demonstrate the extreme brutality of a regime that did not hesitate to drown an absolutely peaceful, in the Gandhian sense, protest in blood .However, a reading of the book yields a very different picture of the tragedy that unfolded in Beijing.
It is true that the leaders of the movement sometimes made professions of “non-violence” However, the US editors of the Tiananmen Papers themselves underline that the troops summoned at the start of June to clear the square “encountered some anger and violence.” The names given to themselves by the most active groups speak for themselves: “Flying Tiger Group,” “Dare-to-Die Brigade,” “Army of Volunteers.” And in fact:
More than five hundred army trucks were torched at dozens of intersections . . . . On Chang’an Boulevard an army truck’s engine was turned off and two hundred rioters stormed the cab and beat the driver to death . . . at the Cuiwei intersection a truck carrying six soldiers slowed down to avoid hitting people in a crowd. The group of rioters then threw rocks, Molotov cocktails, and flaming torches at the truck, which tipped to the left when nails that the rioters had scattered punctured a tire. The rioters then flung burning objects into the truck, exploding its gas. All six soldiers burned to death.
Not only was
their repeated recourse to violence, but surprising weapons came into play:
A yellowish-green smoke suddenly arouse from one end of the bridge . It came from a broken-down armored car that was now set out to block the street . . .armored cars and tanks that had come to clear the roadblocks could do nothing but mass at the bridgehead. Suddenly a young man ran up, threw something into the armored car, and ten scurried off. A few seconds later the same yellowish-green smoke was seen pouring from vehicles as soldiers scrambled out and squatted in the street, grabbing their throats in agony. Someone said they had inhaled poison gas. But the enraged officers and soldiers managed to maintain their self-control.
Such acts of war, with repeated use of weapons banned by international conventions, coincided with initiatives that are even more thought provoking – for example, “counterfeiting the masthead of the People’s Daily.” On the other side, we see the instructions issued by the leaders of the Chines Communist Party and government to the military forces tasked with repression:
. . . even if troops should be beaten, burned, or killed by the unenlightened masses, or if they should be attacked by lawless elements with clubs, bricks, or Molotov cocktails, they must maintain control and defend themselves with nonlethal methods. Clubs should be their major weapons of self-defense, and they are not to open fire on the masses. Violators will be punished.
If the picture painted by a book published in, and propagated by, the West is reliable, it was not the demonstrators who displayed caution and moderation, but the People’s Liberation Army, even if there must have been units which, in a difficult situation, failed to maintain the stipulated self-control.*
In subsequent days, the armed character of the rebellion became more evident. A very senior leader of the Communist Party drew attention to a very alarming fact: “rioters seized armored cars and set up machine guns on top of them, just to show off.” Would they confine themselves to a threatening display? Yet the instructions issued to the army were not substantially altered: “the Martial Law Command must make it quite clear to all units that they are to open fire only as a last resort.”
The very episode of the young demonstrator blocking a tank with his body, celebrated in the West as a symbol of non-violent heroism at gripsdwith a blind, indisciminate violence, was viewed very differently by China’s leaders, according to The Tiananmen Papers:
We’ve all seen that videotape of the young man blocking the tank. Our tank gave way time and time again, but he just stayed there, right in the way, and even crawled up on the tank, and still the soldiers held their fire. That says it all! If our soldiers had fired, the repercussions would have been very different. Our soldiers carried out Party Central’s orders with precision. It’s amazing they could stay cool and patient in a spot like that!
The use of asphyxiating or poison gas by demonstrators, and especially the pirate edition of the People’ Daily, clearly indicate that the incidents in Tiananmen Square were not exclusively internal to China. We can infer what the West, and especially the United States, aimed at from another book, written by two proudly anti-Communist authors. They report how at the time Winston Lord, former ambassador in Beijing and leading advisor to future President Clinton, tirelessly repeated that the fall of the Communist regime was ‘a matter of weeks or months” away. This forecast seem all the more justified because at the summit of the government and party stood Zhao Ziyang, who (stress the two US authors) is to be regarded as “probably the most pro-American senior Chinese leader in recent history.”**
In retrospect, the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989 seemed to be a dress rehearsal for the “color revolutions” that occurred in subsequent years.
*John Pomfret described troops as ‘firing low’ when they did. Demonstrators in Tiananmen Square itself were not attacked but allowed to leave peacefully. Four days passed after the declaration of martial law before the PLA actually entered Beijing, affording demonstrators ample time to leave off their protests. See also Minqi Li’s account:
https://johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2009/05/tiananmen-square-by-minqui-li.html
** Ricard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, The Coming Conflict with China, 1997
A yellowish-green smoke suddenly arouse from one end of the bridge . It came from a broken-down armored car that was now set out to block the street . . .armored cars and tanks that had come to clear the roadblocks could do nothing but mass at the bridgehead. Suddenly a young man ran up, threw something into the armored car, and ten scurried off. A few seconds later the same yellowish-green smoke was seen pouring from vehicles as soldiers scrambled out and squatted in the street, grabbing their throats in agony. Someone said they had inhaled poison gas. But the enraged officers and soldiers managed to maintain their self-control.
Such acts of war, with repeated use of weapons banned by international conventions, coincided with initiatives that are even more thought provoking – for example, “counterfeiting the masthead of the People’s Daily.” On the other side, we see the instructions issued by the leaders of the Chines Communist Party and government to the military forces tasked with repression:
. . . even if troops should be beaten, burned, or killed by the unenlightened masses, or if they should be attacked by lawless elements with clubs, bricks, or Molotov cocktails, they must maintain control and defend themselves with nonlethal methods. Clubs should be their major weapons of self-defense, and they are not to open fire on the masses. Violators will be punished.
If the picture painted by a book published in, and propagated by, the West is reliable, it was not the demonstrators who displayed caution and moderation, but the People’s Liberation Army, even if there must have been units which, in a difficult situation, failed to maintain the stipulated self-control.*
In subsequent days, the armed character of the rebellion became more evident. A very senior leader of the Communist Party drew attention to a very alarming fact: “rioters seized armored cars and set up machine guns on top of them, just to show off.” Would they confine themselves to a threatening display? Yet the instructions issued to the army were not substantially altered: “the Martial Law Command must make it quite clear to all units that they are to open fire only as a last resort.”
The very episode of the young demonstrator blocking a tank with his body, celebrated in the West as a symbol of non-violent heroism at gripsdwith a blind, indisciminate violence, was viewed very differently by China’s leaders, according to The Tiananmen Papers:
We’ve all seen that videotape of the young man blocking the tank. Our tank gave way time and time again, but he just stayed there, right in the way, and even crawled up on the tank, and still the soldiers held their fire. That says it all! If our soldiers had fired, the repercussions would have been very different. Our soldiers carried out Party Central’s orders with precision. It’s amazing they could stay cool and patient in a spot like that!
The use of asphyxiating or poison gas by demonstrators, and especially the pirate edition of the People’ Daily, clearly indicate that the incidents in Tiananmen Square were not exclusively internal to China. We can infer what the West, and especially the United States, aimed at from another book, written by two proudly anti-Communist authors. They report how at the time Winston Lord, former ambassador in Beijing and leading advisor to future President Clinton, tirelessly repeated that the fall of the Communist regime was ‘a matter of weeks or months” away. This forecast seem all the more justified because at the summit of the government and party stood Zhao Ziyang, who (stress the two US authors) is to be regarded as “probably the most pro-American senior Chinese leader in recent history.”**
In retrospect, the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989 seemed to be a dress rehearsal for the “color revolutions” that occurred in subsequent years.
*John Pomfret described troops as ‘firing low’ when they did. Demonstrators in Tiananmen Square itself were not attacked but allowed to leave peacefully. Four days passed after the declaration of martial law before the PLA actually entered Beijing, affording demonstrators ample time to leave off their protests. See also Minqi Li’s account:
https://johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2009/05/tiananmen-square-by-minqui-li.html
** Ricard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, The Coming Conflict with China, 1997
No comments:
Post a Comment