Upheaval and Slaughter in Communist China
by Donald McAlvany
Reprinted From The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June, 1989 issue
The world is shocked by the massacre of 3000 - 3600 student demonstrators at Tiananmen Square in Beijing on June 3 and 4. But why should it be? The communist leadership in The People's Republic of China is simply doing what Communists always do best and most efficiently — killing people! Since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, over 130 million people have died at the hands of Communism in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Tibet, Cuba, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Africa, etc., in 72 years of the most brutal mass killing in History. Why should we be surprised when regimes such as the USSR and the PRC, which have murdered their citizens by the tens of millions; confined dissidents to psychiatric wards, or sent them to forced labor camps (there are over 1900 such camps in the Soviet Union alone); systematically subverted all non-communist states; and recruited, trained, armed and funded terrorists worldwide — use their military/police state powers to kill a few thousand more of their own citizens?
Wasn't it Mao Tse-Tung who boasted that: "Power comes from (and is retained by) the barrel of a gun"; and Lenin who said "The only way to control the masses is through mass terror"? Mao made good on that boast by slaughtering 60 million of his fellow Chinese countrymen, and Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and their followers did likewise by slaughtering over 50 million of their own people. What did the Hungarian freedom fighters in Budapest in 1956 have in common with the Czechoslovakian freedom fighters in 1968, and the Chinese student freedom demonstrators in Beijing in 1989? They all yearned for American-style freedom and democracy (but were unarmed) and were wantonly butchered (in the first two cases, by the tens of thousands) by communist armies, tanks, and machine guns determined to retain power for their respective communist dictatorships. (In all three cases, Western governments issued statements saying: "that theydeplored the violence", but did little else to help the freedom fighters.) Brutal communist governments with guns never yield power to unarmed dissidents, or freedom fighters. That was predictable in the Soviet Union today.
Our Lady, Queen of ChinaThe sooner the Pope and the bishops consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the sooner Our Lady will save all countries under Communist domination. We pray it is very soon so that the 1.5 billion people enslaved by Communist Russia be freed.
A. The Demonstrations and Massacre
On April 15, pro-freedom demonstrations began across China, undoubtedly encouraged by the "apparent" liberalization of the regime (a liberalization which this writer believes was designed primarily to attract billions of dollars in Western aid, trade, high technology, and military equipment transfers to prop up and strengthen the bankrupt regime). By mid-May, these demonstrations had accelerated throughout China, but especially in Beijing, where over a million student/worker freedom demonstrators gathered in Tiananmen Square.
(Ed. Note: When an authoritarian country liberalizes either politically or economically, massive popular upheaval and destabilization usually follows as rapidly rising expectations run up against reality. The Shah experienced this in Iran and the PRC and USSR are experiencing this today.)
On May 20, the communist government declared martial law, climaxing a power struggle which the hardline Soviet-trained Stalinist, Prime Minister Li Peng, finally won over the reform-minded party chief, Zhao Ziyang. On June 3 and 4, under orders from the PRC leaders Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng, the 27th Army (about 120,000) marched into Beijing and began a systematic massacre of the unarmed students. Using tanks, armored personnel carriers, and machine guns, the communist troops killed at least 3600 and wounded 60,000 students, according to Chinese Red Cross officials' estimates. (Reports from the Philippines have said the Beijing death toll could be as high as 7000 and some dissidents claim it was 20,000. The real numbers will never be known since the government quickly burned or hauled away thousands of bodies.) Over 300,000 troops now surround and occupy Beijing, and the government has launched a systematic reign of terror to track down and execute student dissidents in Beijing and all across China.
On June 9, PRC leader Deng Xiaoping and Premier Li Peng congratulated the Peoples Liberation Army soldiers who brutally crushed the popular movement for democracy, claimed that no demonstrators had been killed in Tiananmen Square, and urged soldiers and fellow citizens to track down and turn in the "counter-revolutionary hooligans, rats, dregs of society, etc." To be labeled a "counter-revolutionary" in China today means instant arrest and/or execution.
(Ed. Note: This writer has a real sense of deja vu and foreboding, remembering another period of liberalization, self-examination, and glasnost in China between 1951 and '53. Chairman Mao and the communist leadership launched a campaign of "openness", calling on students, professionals, intellectuals, etc., to criticize the regime, to tell them where the regime had been excessive, or had gone wrong, so that they could reform the revolution.
About 1-1/2 million Chinese took Mao's suggestion and began to criticize the regime. The government quietly, systematically, gathered the names of these dissidents, and then went out and executed them all — 1-1/2 million "counter-revolutionaries" were systematically exterminated, like so many rats.
A similar slaughter took place during Mao's Cultural Revolution in the mid-'60s, in what historian Paul Johnson has called "the greatest witch hunt in history". Mao's Red Guards hunted down and murdered millions of Chinese before Mao called off the killing frenzy.
Could another reign of terror now be emerging to end China's most recent era of glasnost?)
B. America's Role in China Since the Early 1970s
America's Liberal Eastern Establishment has long had an interest in China. In the late 1940s, this group pushed for the cutoff of US arms to anti-communist Nationalist Chiang Kai-Shek (claiming he was a corrupt violator of human rights) and US support for the agrarian reform movement of Mao Tse-Tung. Mao subsequently came to power. Over 20 years later, this group (which today is epitomized by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and some of the most powerful bankers, corporate leaders, and politicians in America) began to reopen the door to China in the early '70s, pushing through the PRC's admission to the UN in 1971. In 1979, America de-recognized the free Chinese on Taiwan and recognized the PRC.
In 1974 and '75, George Bush was sent as Ambassador to the PRC, and there became close friends with the present communist leadership. He has been in the forefront of the US drive for better business, political, and military relations with the communist giant ever since. From the early 1970s through the present, US liberals, led by Kissinger, Rockefeller, Bush, and the Council on Foreign Relations have been pushing for massive expansion of US aid, trade, high tech, and military transfers to the PRC — the playing of the so-called "China Card". Until recently, Winston Lord, the former Chairman of the CFR and a member of the Skull and Bones Society (The Order), was our US Ambassador to the PRC.
(Ed. Note: America's foreign policy for the past four decades has been dominated by the Liberal Eastern Establishment, who have a two-fold motivation: l ) global government, and 2) advancement of their own corporate, financial interests and agenda. In China, they see the world's largest market and huge profit potential. And as David Rockefeller said a few years ago: "There is a certain stability in doing business with a communist country."(Especially if the communist government grants monopoly powers.) Current developments, however, would seem to argue otherwise.)
So, in the 1970s, Chase Manhattan arrived on the scene in China, followed by PepsiCo, Bechtel, Chrysler, AT&T, General Electric, IBM, McDonnell Douglas, Eastman Kodak, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Xerox, and through June of '89, a total of 450 American companies are represented there. A large volume of technology transfers, co-production agreements, and equity joint ventures have been launched, culminating in $14 billion of US-PRC trade and 269 projects worth $370 million in 1988 alone.
America's most powerful and sophisticated computers are being shipped to the PRC; $600 million of high tech military equipment (including sophisticated jet aircraft and submarine equipment) is in the pipeline for 1989; and Chrysler, in a joint venture with Beijing Jeep, is producing the very military jeeps which communist troops just rode into Tiananmen Square on their killing binge. Since 1979, the US has sold $750 million in arms to the PRC.
Bechtel, the establishment company from which former Secretary of State George Schultz came, is building nuclear power plants in the PRC, while McDonnell Douglas and other US defense contractors are helping to build up the PRC's military jet aircraft industry and other weapons manufacturing plants.
(Ed. Note: Once again this writer gets a sense of deja vu as he contemplates this US military/high tech buildup of communist China. During the 1930s, American corporations such as General Electric, Ford, General Aniline and Film, Standard Oil of New Jersey, etc., helped to build up Nazi Germany's armaments industry — some of these even continued this trade through subsidiaries during the War. Likewise, America's corporate and financial giants (led by Rockefeller, Dwayne Andreas, Armand Hammer, the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council, etc.) have been aiding, trading, and building up the USSR militarily and technologically for the past four decades. Chevron Oil, Texaco, and other US multi-nationals have kept the communist government in Angola alive for years by pumping billions of dollars annually into its economy.
The Establishment likes to say that big business knows no politics. That may or may not be true, but it also knows no morality or patriotism as it helps amass its profits by building up the bloodiest, mass murdering regimes in history. It is ironic, and in some ways poetic justice, that many of these large multi-national American companies could now lose hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars in investments in this newest upheaval in communist China.)
C. The American Response to the Beijing Massacre
The Bush Administration has been cautious in its response to the massacre. The President is in a delicate position — it was his friends who pulled the trigger and his other friends who are making the big profits from US/PRC trade. In April, the White House, refusing to lend its support to the demands of the Chinese students for democracy, said that it "did not know precisely what the protesters had in mind." Bush recommended that they conduct themselves in "the non-violent, constructive manner of Martin Luther King's demonstrators". Bush is very wary, as one White House insider put it: "of harming the relationship, the ten-year strategic partnership, he has worked so long on".
For several days after the slaughter Bush was very muted in his criticism, uttering weak statements such as: "We deplore the violence"; "We are disturbed by what happened"; "We call for non-violence, restraint and dialogue"; "This is not the time for an emotional response, but for a reasoned, careful action that takes into account our long term interests." Finally, congressional liberals and conservatives as far apart as Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) began to demand action out of Bush.
Solarz, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Asia Subcommittee said: "We have to make it clear that we will not continue to do business as usual with a government which engages in the wanton slaughter of its own people. If the President doesn't take the initiative in changing American policy in this regard, the Congress will do it for him. It simply is not sufficient to say that we are disturbed by what happened."
Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-OK) criticizing the Administration's "excessive cautiousness" said:"Diplomatic messages of disapproval are a pretty puny reaction to the murdering of innocent citizens, whose only crime is to want the same freedoms we in the West take for granted."
Jesse Helms recommended cutting off US military assistance to the PRC. Finally, Bush agreed to suspend US military aid and visits to Washington by Chinese military leaders, let 40,000 Chinese students in America extend their visas, and to send Red Cross medical aid. To date,Congress has taken a much tougher line than Bush on the massacre, but then, they don't have the ties to the PRC communist leaders or to the big multi-nationals doing business in China which the President does.
Bush did say America would not break relations with the PRC, impose economic sanctions or withdraw our ambassador; and Henry Kissinger (one of the architects of our China policy since 1972) warned that "we should take a very cautious response and be very careful about cutting our relationship". Other establishment leaders, with lots of business and profits at stake, are also urging caution, moderation, and conciliation in our response. Leftist Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) agreed that "it doesn't help to get too involved".
(Ed. Note: The Liberal Eastern Establishment and the Establishment's liberal media have egg on their faces. For years they have portrayed the PRC and its leadership as a big, friendly, benevolent Panda — morally pure, and interested only in the betterment of its people. This has been deception and disinformation, just as their benevolent portrayal of the Soviet Union is deception. Now they must try to recoup their losses, and keep the US/PRC relationship and their huge potential profits on track. "Operation damage control" is about to be launched.)
D. Chinese/Soviet Rapprochement and the Death of the China Card
Back in the '70s we were told by Nixon, Kissinger, Bush, Rockefeller, et al, that we had to play our "China Card". (That meant to cooperate with the PRC, so as to make sure the PRC did not cooperate with Russia) — the two of them then ganging up on America and the West. The idea was: "my enemy's enemy will be my friend"; and if war with Russia ever broke out, China would be on our side. Intelligence friends told this writer back in the 1960s that the split between China and Russia over differences in communist ideology was phony and would be used to seduce America into aiding both China and the USSR.
Continued: Gorbachev brilliantly neutralizes Western Europe and NATO while Soviet Military strength continues to grow. See article "The Great Soviet Deception".