GOOD MORNING FROM LONDON
————————
THE TIANANMEN DEATHS
GRAHAM PERRY
—————————-
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;-
The Good Morning from London Column is more positive than negative about China. This approach goes against the tradition of the UK media which is almost unflinching in its commitment to Talk Up the Bad and Talk Down the Good where China is concerned. The Hong Kong based Lau Institute completed a methodical investigation into the UK media’s coverage of China and found it to be the most negative in the Western World. So, there is a strong case for “righting the balance” and providing a narrative on China – internally and externally – which is more balanced, more favourable and less prejudiced than the Times, the Guardian, Sky TV and the rest.
Hence this Column has identified itself with comments on Life in China; China and the World; the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the future of China-U.S. relations as tensions rise and relationships deteriorate. Some dismiss this Column. Some absorb it and Some want more. This Column is not going away because China is not going way. As the Future becomes the Present there is an increasing need for knowledge, information and comment about China to be more widely disseminated and explained. Not the prejudiced anti-China coverage of successive Western governments but the more balanced assessment of where China stands today and why China is going to become an ever-increasing factor in the day-to-day affairs of the UK.
CREDIBILITY
But there is another point. To have credibility with the readers of this Column, attention has to be given to the negative aspects of China’s development. China is not perfect. Things have gone wrong and it is not possible to pretend that they never happened. The Great Leap Forward was a misguided attempt to accelerate economic development that caused famine and deaths. The Cultural Revolution was the biggest catastrophe to befall the New China and led to death and destruction as the leadership of the country was seized by Left Wing Fanatics who were slaves to dogmatic unthinking policies of mechanical Marxism.
Today this Column focuses on the Tiananmen Killings of 4th June 1989. What Happened? What Went Wrong? Who Was At Fault?
CHINA AND THE WEST – DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT
Critics of China are quick off the mark. Their approach focuses on what they consider to be the dictatorial anti-democratic nature of China’s system of government with the leading role of the Communist Party of China identified for particular attention. The starting point is the belief in the liberal democratic system followed in the West – the Separation of Powers as between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary; the Rule of Law; Periodic Elections based on One Man One Vote; Habeas Corpus and the freedom to form Political Parties and create an independent media free of State control.
The Chinese system is quite different. Following the 1949 victory of the Party in the Civil War against the KMT, the popularity of the Party led to the adoption of a Marxist based system of government which has always antagonised Western governments led by the U.S. and the U.K. It is based on the leading role of the Communist Party which applies the principles of Democratic Centralism to the core principal – the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Cultural Revolution was a disaster for China when, for a period of ten years, the control of the Party was seized by hardline Left Marxists who whipped up a frenzy of political purity that stimulated conflict and confrontation among the people and within the Party. Division reigned supreme and there was widespread celebration when the Gang of Four were arrested in October 1976.
CHINA AFTER THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION
The priority was to re-activate the economy and to focus on raising the living standards of the people. The leadership of the country remained with the Party but with a far reaching change of personnel and policy within the Party. Deng Hsiaoping emerged as the paramount Leader who recognised that the people needed to see, feel and experience a speedy increase in living standards. Deng sensed the mood of the people who had seen little or no progress during the strife dominated ten year period to 1976. Material prosperity was the priority summarised in Dengs’s famous comment that he did not mind whether it was a white cat or a black cat that killed the mouse. He did not mind whether it was the State Economy or the Socialist Market Economy which brought about a rise in the living standards of the people. Reform was the order of the day in pursuit of more clothes, better housing, and an improved life style.
Progress was made and living standards improved. The people began to enjoy a better standard of living. But at a price. Corruption became apparent especially in positions of power and influence within the Party. A re-embrace of some of the capitalist principles of business led to a situation where the gap between Haves and Haves-Nots widened. It caused resentment among the people and animosity towards the Party. Yes, living standards were rising and people were beginning to experience some of the good things of life but some of the people in authority were becoming corrupt and prioritising the well-being of their Families ahead of the well-being of the People.
THE ROLE OF HU YAOBANG
At the same time there was growing discord within the Party as to the most appropriate system of government. The Cultural Revolution had undermined the leading role of the Party amongst the people. Mao Tsetung was no longer free of criticism and the phrase 70-30 was used to re-assess his role in the history of China. 70% Good and 30% Bad. This prompted what came to be named Western Ideology with greater emphasis on freedom of expression, liberal values, new political parties, popular elections and a re-assessment of the leading role of the Communist Party. Individuals came to the fore – in particular the Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang – formerly a protégé of Deng Hsiaoping but now emerging as a spokesman for the adoption of elements of Western democracy.
4TH JUNE 1989
Initially, Hu promoted a series of economic and political reforms. Deng supported him but divisions emerged within the all-powerful Central Committee over the issue of free-market reforms and a reassessment of the role of the Party. Coupled with growing popular resentment at the perception of a “Them And Us” divide triggered by widening wage differentials and corruption, student protests occurred China in December 1986 and January 1987. This led to Hu’s resignation as General Secretary of the Party on the grounds that he had shown tolerance of “bourgeois liberalisation“ by which was meant a preference for a more open society, freer forms of expression, the introduction of democratic voting structures and a downgrading of the leading role of the Party. Hu died in April 1989 and the day following his death an unofficial commemoration took place in Beijing which formed the rallying call for the start of popular protests in Tiananmen Square in May/June 1989.
The Chinese government was split. Some leaders wanted to clear the Square, if necessary by force, whereas others preferred to negotiate with the emerging student leaders. A statue of the “Goddess of Democracy” achieved a central position in the protests and the world’s media took advantage of the opportunity to highlight the protest. China was in trouble. Some of the leaders, including Premier Zhao Zyiyang went to the Square and urged the students to terminate the protest and disperse. They failed. At this point Deng secured a majority vote within the Politburo for action to clear the Square. The military were called in. Violence flared up. The Square was cleared and a number of people were killed. Exact numbers have never been provided but commentary suggests 500-750 deaths.
Similar demonstrations rose up in a number of other Chinese cities, reportedly in Shanghai, Nanjing, Xi’an, Changsha and Chengdu but the main media coverage was in Beijing because these events coincided with the visit to China of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in mid-May which attracted the attention of the international media.
CONCLUSIONS
It was a bad day for China. There was a serious loss of life as Chinese soldiers killed Chinese protestors. Serious damage was done to the international reputation of China. The cause of Communism took a knock and the Tiananmen Incident – often referred to in the West as the Tiananmen Massacre – is regularly mentioned on its anniversary and in any reports of political issues in China. Just as Hungary in 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968 are recalled to damage the reputation of the USSR so the Tiananmen Deaths are part of the China Narrative.
This is not a surprise. The 4th June Confrontation is a fact of life and is referred to by historians and correspondents frequently in a summary of China After Mao. But How to Assess? What consequences flowed from the 4th June? Has China been irredeemably damaged?
CHINA REVIEW
The Chinese government has used numerous names to describe the event since 1989. As the events unfolded, it was labelled a “counter-revolutionary rebellion” which was later changed to a “riot” and then to “political turmoil” and more recently to “the 1989 storm”. The tone has softened as the Party accepts that many, but not all, of the protesters were well-intentioned citizens with a list of well-founded complaints. At the same time, the Party contends that within the Party there were those well-placed members who sought to use popular discontent to blow China off course and to replace the Deng Agenda with the Hu Agenda. Inner-party strife was acute.
Within the Party – 98 million members – China will have followed their well-trodden path of thorough investigation. All aspects of the Deaths will have been reviewed and re-examined and a candid re-appraisal made of the blunders that were committed by the Party leadership that paralysed the government in the run-up to 4 June. The trigger was the death of Hu Yaobang and the use made by his supporters to demand fundamental changes in the style of government. Had the protestors succeeded in forcing a change in the Party leadership it is quite possible that Western principles of government would have been adopted – free press, popular elections, wider Party accountability.
But there is a context that needs to be borne in mind. China was at a low ebb in October 1976 following the death of Mao and the arrest of the Gang of Four. A ten year diet of constant Left Wing political rhetoric had sapped the enthusiasm of the people for the Socialist experiment. Action was needed to restore people’s faith which recalls the well known slogan – “Mao saved the Country. Deng saved the Economy and Xi saved the Party.” In 1978 Deng assumed control and brought the free enterprise spirit of China’s capitalists into play.
CHINA POST THE TIANANMEN DEATHS
Critics of China, who are usually critics of any Marxist inspired government, return time and again to the Tiananmen deaths in an effort to damage the reputation of Communist tending governments. Ever since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, there has been a constant assault on the principles of Marx and Engels which are viewed as a threat to the West’s Capitalist system of government. That will not go away and we can predict that just as China makes more and more progress in bringing progress and prosperity to its 1.4 billion people so the throwback references to the Tiananmen Deaths will continue to appear.
But there is another narrative. As Singapore’s scholar-diplomat has written in his 2020 book Has China Won?, “The Chinese people have just experienced the best forty years of human development in four thousand years of China history… China today is a happy civilisation.”
No matter whether one agrees with Professor Kishore Mahbubani, China’s post-Tiananmen transformation has been astonishing. Its rise has reshaped the global economy — lifting millions out of poverty and lowering the cost of consumer goods. That affordability is due to China’s ability to manufacture at scale, with efficiency and sophistication few nations can rival. From electric vehicles to solar panels, China has surged ahead in key sectors.
Affluence has grown under one-party rule. In 1989, China’s economy was smaller than those of Spain, Russia, and Brazil, according to World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). Then the bicycle was the primary mode of transport. Today, China is the world’s largest car market and second only to the United States in civil aviation. The U.S. knows its principal rival in world economic affairs is not India or Russia or the EU or Japan/South Korea and Malaysia – but China. If China is to be blamed for the Tiananmen Deaths it is entitled to praise for its subsequent surge in economic development.
And a relevant comment about freedom in China – the West likes to bracket Xi’s China with Stalin’s USSR but there is one significant figure to be borne in mind. It is not the 1 billion people lifted out of poverty or the 800+ billionaires. It is the figure produced by Travelux, an international company that focuses on the numbers of international travellers. The company has predicted that in 2030 the number of Chinese tourists travelling to foreign destinations will be 200 million. In the last full year – 2019 – before COVID the figure was 137m. The point is that there have been no reports of any Chinese seeking political asylum whilst abroad. None take advantage of the opportunity to apply for political asylum while on their travels. The Chinese people are much happier with the Chinese Government than the West likes to admit. The USSR Experiment may have failed but the Communist Experiment in China is working.
China is not perfect and three problems feature prominently as challenges to the Government going forward – first, the rising expectations of the people; second, the future of the approximate 150 million people who slipped through the educational net and risk long term unemployment, and, third, the effect on employment of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics.
There is a fourth issue which is uppermost in the minds of the leaders in Beijing – never to take the people for granted. It is a familiar slogan from the days of Mao but the Party thrives if it continues to Serve The People every hour of every day. That is the only guarantee that there will be no repetition of the events of 4 June 1989. Do we in the West understand the true meaning of the slogan?
GRAHAM PERRY
