| Username |
Post |
| Biswo |
Posted
on 10-Jan-01 12:15 PM
The latest edition of Foreign Affairs (Jan/Feb,2000) published
one article which carries vast significance in terms of Chinese
politics and power play.The article talks about the much talked
about papers smuggled out from China,which reveal the intimate moments
of Chinese leaders, under the shadow of massive subversion by
students in Beijing and other cities, and evince that the decision
making process of CCP was dangerously medieval. More than that,
it also reveals the maximum flexibility the Chinese leadedrship
had displayed at the time, the misunderstanding between the
students and the apparitchiks, and the subsequent body count of
the victims of the infamous military operation.
The contents of the papers and their significance are not very new
though, and could be easily speculated. The benign face of
Zhao Ziyang, the aggressive prodding of CCP by Li Peng, the
ultimate authority of Deng Xiaoping, Zhao Ziyang and his continued
resistance for the use of force, are dramatically mentioned in
the papers. The fall of Zhao Ziyang is also vividly described in
chronologically juxtaposed papers.
Andrew Nathan, a noted Sinologist affiliated to Columbia
University, claimed the papers were 'in all probability' veracious
and so were the facts presented there. The papers also reveal
that official(but not revealed) body count of the victims was
about two hundred only, in contrast to what was transpired in the
Chinese official media (too low)and in contrast to what was
claimed in Western Media(too high).
Our giant northern neighbor, which saw the requiem of a deceased
reformist and secreatary general turned into an ugly ochlocracy
in the streets and the subsequent taming of the mob by one of the
most infamous manslaughter by PLA of its unarmed citizen, was
virtually stateless, chaotic and closed in 1989 when the
dissatisfation against Communist leadership, their and their
family's lavish lifestyle was made known to public, and the public
and their collective repugnace against the officialdom turned
into almost Cultural revolution type anarchy. However, the protest
was not against Communist party , the protesters were not
challenging the roots/authority of Communist party, a fact largely
ignored by biased media of 'free' world. And still, the old men
there in CCP saw an apparition of Kuomintang insurgence/revival
and finally, they raised arm against their own civilians , and PLA
which had shed blood for rescuing people from massive and
destructive floods, and which is ,until now, the most reverred
institution in China for its role in local development and border
security, went firing fusillades in the streets of Beijing,
leaving in its wake the heap of cadavers of innocent teenager
university students and bystanders.
Alas, the move further deterioted the credibility of CCP in China,
the blood spilled in the streets of Beijing terrorized people to
silence and economic boom witnessed thereafter provided stimulus
to heal the political scars of Chinese citizens. But the communist
leaders, who were until then credited largely for liberating the
nation of illiterate and hapless peasants from the cruel regime
of Kuomintang and ocholocracy of Cultural Revolution freaks,
stained themselves indelibly. Until now, even in their heyday
of economic bustle, a vast majority of Chinese people revile
comrade Li Peng, the premier who went to TV to declare martial
law against the students, who were furling banners in the
streets, publishing the lifestyle saga of princes(taizi) of
CCP hierarchy, and waving banners one of which read "Mom, we
have done nothing wrong!". Now CCP is just another ruling gang for
the vast Chinese people,without any idelogical foundation or
any tangible mandate from people.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 10-Jan-01 10:37 PM
Greetings,
First of all let me thank Biswoji for bringing this topic for discussion in this board. I was thinking of bringing it here, but Biswoji is a step ahead of me (to be taken as a compliment):-)
I absolutely agree with Bishowji. Tiananmen was not staged for democracy or freedom but was staged for reforms within the CCP. And the CCP leaders (except some, for example, Zhao Ziyang) were too naive to understand that.
The Tiananmen incident was bound to happen. Deng's economic reforms gave a boost to the ailing Chinese economy but at the same time created a wide class disparity in the Chinese society. Furthermore, the dismantling of the danwei (life long job) system and cut down on governmnet subsidies had angered the masses, especially the college students who didn't know what to do after graduating from colleges/unis. They on the one hand saw people cruising down the streets on their imported BMWs and Mercedees, on the otehr hand, they saw people who were struggling to make a living because of the cut down on government sponsored jobs. And at the same time, Hu Yaobang, the CCP leader who was sympathetic towards the students and intellectuals died. The students gathered in Tiananmen to mourn Hu Yaobang's death. Hu Yaobang's liberal approach and tilt toward democracy got him purged from his post in 1987. In 1989, this reformist who was sympathetic toward the students and intellectuals and who was liberal in his thinking died of heart attack. The students went in numbers to Tiannamen Square to pay their tributes to the late leader and also used this opportunity to voice their concerns. They wanted to stop the corruption and nepotism that was going on at the higher level of the party, and wanted to have some freedom. They did not necessarily want the western style multi-party democracy as it was portrayed in the western newspapers. All they wanted was to end on corruption, nepotism and too some extent the rising class trend in the Chinese society. They wanted the reforms within the CCP , they want someone who could represent them in the Party dominated by the old radicals.
This was the pretext of the Tiananmen incident. Students went to Tiananmen, stayed there hoping somebody would come talk to them, hear their voice and do something but nothing happened. The other group that was as confused as the students themselves was of the workers who had just lost their iron rice bowl—lifelong job security offered by the state during the Mao years. The unemployed labor force from the countryside who was also confused of what to do after the dismantling of their collectives too joined the students. Soon intellectuals joined the students. Each and every group saw their problems being reflected in students. More and more people gathered in Tiananmen. Soon there was factionalism within the people who were in the square. There was a group of radical students lead by Cai Ling who knew very well that their demands for the western style democracy would never be met, but were willing to sacrifice their lives so that people would get inspirations for an even bigger struggle which would eventually establish democracy. Then there another group of moderate students led by Wang Dan (g?) who wanted to negotiate with the state and who believed in step-by-step approach. Even when the army was called in to clear the square, the radicals ignored the repeated pleas of Wang Dan and other moderates, refused to leave the square and other areas of the city where they had been protesting. As a result the government used the force and 100s of students died.
Plus,
Tianmen was bound to happen because, at that time a Mao fever was taking China by storm. People were gloryfying the Mao days (how there were no classes and how everyone was equal), the students who were still kids during the Cultural Revolution (and who were now in Colleges) started to dream about staging a revolution (because all their lives they had heard of revolutions) and many students who belonged to this group saw the oppurtunity to stage a revolution in Tianan men. The student rebel group led by Cai Ling, belonged to this group who refused to leave the square even when other students requested them to leave.
But, as they say, there's always two sides to any story. The other side of the story is-
The students who died were asked to leave repeatedly by otehrs, including Wang Dan (anotehr student leader, and who decided to stay in China and face the court). So, the students themselves were being ignorant to the situation. They knew the army was coming, they knew they would be shot down if they didn''t leave the square and they knew everything that was about to come. Cai Ling knew this but she didn't ask the students to leave (maybe because she had already made her escape plans. Cai Ling who is also to be blamed for everything, now lives in the US and denies everything taht she said).
So, everyone's to be blamed for Tiananmen—students and the CCP leaders. Wang Dan is probably one of those few student leaders who knew what was about to come and who knew that a carefully planned protest would be more useful than just sitting in the Tiananmen for the army to come and kill them.
For more on this, please watch the PBS video, The Gate of heavenly peace by Carma Hinton.
On the new book-
I haven't read it yet, but it should be a good read. Three sinologists are putting their careers at stake. I've always liked Andrew Nathan. I have read his books and for the most part they are unbiased. Perry Link writes more on literarture. His article on Chinese lieterature of the Cultural Revolution era was a good read and my favorite articles on China. And the third prof is from UC berkley, and I am sure these three sinologists didn't put their careers at stake just like that.
So, Bishwoji, we'll continue on this one.
(i am getting the book tomorrow)
Trailokya
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 10-Jan-01 11:01 PM
Trailokyaji:
As I read your posting, I find that our views are similar on
the causes, alternatives and even repercussion of Tiananmen
massacre.
As you mentioned, it surely was a meddley of different groups,
uniting only in their opposition of the ruling coterie.(not party)
Beijing University Students were frustrated at the lack of
chance to them, because those of their seniors in school who had
no good guanxi were sent to remote areas to toil, without even
having access to libraries and overseas scholarship. It is very
easy for us to fathom anxiety of such people, because we also come
from the country which has almost similar degree of
nepotism/cronyism in practice.
The papers were revealing the fact that some students, as you
also wrote in your posting, were ready to go back to hostel after
May 19th, but others misunderstood the implorations of Zhao Ziyang
(when he said 'women lai de hen wan le'-we came very late) as the
signal of debilitating statecraft. That misunderstanding cost
their follower the precious life.
Now let's think about this:
1. Will Li Peng pay for his sins?
2. Is Qiao Shi an opportunist ? As we can see, he could have
voted along with Zhao Ziyang and Hu Qili to constitute majority
against Li Peng and Yao yilin.But instead, he abstained,using
vauge words like he opposed the the use of force.
Now that he is retired, what do you think of Qiao Shi? A good
parliamentarian or spy chief-turned-apparitchik?
3. Why elder leaders like Chen Yun and Wang Zhen always
interpreted the nature of mass struggle wrong way? because of
fear of repeatation of culturul revolution?
And I am little bit vexed as you mentioned one fact: that the
students could have been enamored with the 'heroic' and 'chaotic'
life of the students in cultural revolution period and enacted
Tiananmen protest as replica.(It is well known fact that Beida
students manhandled president Liu shaoqi, and were indirectly
responsible for his untimely death at the time.) I will be glad
if you provide me any reference for such analysis,though I
also think it is entirely possible for them to be impressionable
of such stories of heroics.
4. And a remote guess/pabulum for political exercise: who can be
responsible for smuggling out those papers? Bao Tong?
Share with me if you have any idea.
Thanks for your response!
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 10-Jan-01 11:19 PM
Trailokyaji:
And ,oh, thanks for your compliments. I actually was thinking you
would post the article,as the papers were leaked in Time/Asia
when it was published in Foreign Affairs.But as you delayed, I
got chance to become first(this is not routine,however)!
What I think is Chinese politics can influence Nepalese diplomatic
clout over India to an extent.A weaker China is not in our interest, and we
can't afford to make them angry. However, at the same time, we
need to be vigilant not to yield to their any demand that are not
justifiable.So let's learn about them,let's teach our posterity
their behavior/nature.While friendly ties with China are salutory,
friendly distance with China is also very much necessary.As
Napolean once said:
( I read this quotation first in the prologue of "Mao and Deng:
Two Emperors")
"Let China Sleep. The day she wakes up, the world will be sorry."
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 11-Jan-01 01:16 AM
Namaste Bishwoji,
I too found our views similar. As you hinted in your posting, maybe this is because we both come from the same background.
>
> As you mentioned, it surely was a meddley
>of different groups,
>uniting only in their opposition of the
>ruling coterie.(not party)
Exactly. When I started to read American journal of Anthropology and East Asian Studies for my senior thesis, I started to think from an anthropolical standpoint and which was very helpful in understanding the "massacre".
> Beijing University Students were
>frustrated at the lack of
>chance to them, because those of their
>seniors in school who had
>no good guanxi were sent to remote areas to
>toil, without even
>having access to libraries and overseas
>scholarship. It is very
>easy for us to fathom anxiety of such people,
> because we also come
>from the country which has almost similar
>degree of
>nepotism/cronyism in practice.
Exactly. Now, social scientists say the reforms were carried out in haste, without a proper planning (and I see nothing wrong with this view). How can you have a capitalist economy in a socialist country without antagonizing the masses?
> The papers were revealing the fact that
>some students, as you
>also wrote in your posting, were ready to go
>back to hostel after
>May 19th, but others misunderstood the
>implorations of Zhao Ziyang
>(when he said 'women lai de hen wan le'-we
>came very late) as the
>signal of debilitating statecraft. That
>misunderstanding cost
>their follower the precious life.
I saw Cai Ling's interview on the Carma Hinton movie I mentioned. If you geta chance, please see it. The movie, which was banned in China by the CCP govt and strongly criticized by Cai Ling for being Sympathetic towards the CCP, is a must watch to understand the tiananmen incident.
> Now let's think about this:
>
> 1. Will Li Peng pay for his sins?
I hope he does. he is facing criticisms for the rescue operation of the 1998 Yang Zi flood and his role in Three Gorges Damn is also being questioned. I am sure, Zhu will do something.
> 2. Is Qiao Shi an opportunist ?
Yes, he is. As you said, he could have decided to vote against using the force (and could have advised Deng to use peaceful majors), but he abstained. At least, Zhao was brave enough to rasie his voice.
>
> 3. Why elder leaders like Chen Yun and Wang
>Zhen always
>interpreted the nature of mass struggle
>wrong way? because of
>fear of repeatation of culturul revolution?
Yes, this is exactly what happened. If you read deng's speech televised in China after the massacre, it explains everything. DEng says (orw as made to say) that he feared another Cultural revolution and it was necessary to use the force.
> And I am little bit vexed as you mentioned
>one fact: that the
>students could have been enamored with the '
>heroic' and 'chaotic'
>life of the students in cultural revolution
>period and enacted
>Tiananmen protest as replica.(It is well
>known fact that Beida
>students manhandled president Liu shaoqi,
>and were indirectly
>responsible for his untimely death at the
>time.) I will be glad
>if you provide me any reference for such
>analysis,though I
>also think it is entirely possible for them
>to be impressionable
>of such stories of heroics.
Well, many similarities can be drawn between the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen incident. My basis of compariosn was, both started at the Tiananmen, both were against the growing class trend in Chinese society and both were criticizing the top leadership for nepotism and corruption. However, the vast difference was - The cultural revolution was a state sponsored revolution and the Tiananmen 89 was a sponteneous event.
>4. And a remote guess/pabulum for political
>exercise: who can be
>responsible for smuggling out those papers?
>Bao Tong?
> Share with me if you have any idea.
>> Thanks for your response!
Actually i have been thinking the same thing. Who is this guy who goes with the pseudonym of Zhang Liang and who supplied all the materials to the western Sinologists?
Thanks for bringing in this topic for discussion.
Now, to your second message
yes, A strong China is in our advantage because a trong china can counter the Indian hegemony (in the same way a strong China countered the Russian hegemony during the Cold war). But as you said, (and what Fiarbank said)- its always good to keepa friendly distance from China.
But, that shouldn't be interpreted as we should be happy withw what we have now.
I don't think China has ever made any unjustifiable demand to Nepal. China has been supportive of nepal in many issues (including the sagarmatha issue).
Trailokya
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 11-Jan-01 02:23 PM
>>yes, A strong China is in our advantage because a trong china can counter the Indian hegemony (in
the same way a strong China countered the Russian hegemony during the Cold war). But as you said,
(and what Fiarbank said)- its always good to keepa friendly distance from China.
But, that shouldn't be interpreted as we should be happy withw what we have now.
I don't think China has ever made any unjustifiable demand to Nepal. China has been supportive of
nepal in many issues (including the sagarmatha issue).
Hi Trailokyaji:
One of the lessons I learned from SinoNepalese relation is that
we shouldn't let bilateral problems unsolved for a long, because
the older it gets, the more difficult it becomes to solve this.
For example,if Sagarmatha issues hadn't been solved as soon as it
cropped up, it could have created furor in both China and Nepal
by now.
Issues with Nepal,as against issues with Russia or Japan or
India, doesn't evoke strong interest from Chinese citizens since
they see us as a friendly nation. Leaders also try to address
problem sympathetically, but the inequality inherent in 'sympathy'
doesn't feature in our relation.If the leadership in India was
as judicious as the Chinese one,probably we could be in amity
with India also. It is very strange that we need to view India
as a colonial power,because Indian as a whole in the world fora
has been advocating right of poor and third world countries like
Cuba to live dignifyingly in front of their mighty neighbors. But
their behaviour with us doesn't conform their propogated view.
My point of making China distant is: however friendly a nation is
towards you, you still need to make yourself powerful and self
relying. A support from some country shouldn't be taken as
granted.If we become very friendly with some country, and start
talking of 'special' relation( I hate this term as a whole, as all
relations except normal relations implies 'inequality') we will
prejudice our own sovereignity. While closer economic and cultural
ties with China are necessary, a respectful distance with her
(and also with India, man I hate those mawkish speeches of leaders
of Nepal and India who say we have immemorable and friendly ties)
in diplomatic front is in our interest! I think appreciating
cooperation and help is one thing, but we should not intertwine
our body so tightly that we become unable to separate ourselves
from the poison exuded from her.
|
| Trai-LuKai |
Posted
on 12-Jan-01 12:11 AM
Namaste Bishwoji,
I agree with you. The term "special relations" don't have much meaning in today's world, and we shouldn't be advocating this "special relations" with India. When will ours leaders learn this simple diplomatic lesson?
As for our relations with China, I guess we haven't been doing much to strengthen the friendly ties. All we do is learn about China in our 7 grade's social science text book and many nepalese now (even the ones who are self-proclaimed sinologists of the China Studies Center) don;t know anything about China. I remember, when I took my first socio-cultural anthropology class, I had a reading on China and when I was reading it, I really felt bad. I didn't know anything about this huge country that lies right next to us and in the class, the american students seemed to know more than me about China.. All i knew until then was, Beijing is the capital of China. Didn't know anything about the similarities and differences and this is what made me take Chinese studies as my major.
So, lots of things have to be done. One thing I suggest is, we should waive the VIsa fee for the Chinese tourists and have more cultural exchanges etc. so that a bonding between the people takes place.
And, here's what i wrote for the People's Weekly, 2-3 years ago on Bhattrai's India Tilt-
After reading Bhattarai's remarks on India-Nepal relation and other things I just couldn't resist the strong temptation to write how I feel as a Nepali citizen.
Bhattarai gives top most priority to the relationship between India and Nepal.
But what about the relationship between Nepal and China? Why do our leaders keep on forgetting or "pretend" to forget that we not only share our borders with India but with China too. The argument that we have historic relationship with India and our close ties culturally and economically make India our important neighbour does not fit quite well in today's world. It just makes me laugh at the ability of our "nationalist" leaders who remember everything between India and Nepal since the time of Janak and Sita but don't remember anything of "historic significance" between China and Nepal. Our pan-chewing leaders take pride in talking about our relationship with India from the time of Ramayana and in displaying their knowledge of Indian history. But why does even a single leader talk about Araniko, Anshuverma and Bhrikuti and their contributions? If Sita married Ram then Bhrikuti married Shren Cheng Gompo. Araniko went all the way to Beijing more than 700 hundred years ago and built some great monuments tha are still preserved by the Chinese government.
The pointI am trying to make here is we have many things of historical significance with China too and we just can't let our relationship with China deteriorate just because of the leaders who don't even know what they are saying. Bhattarai, as I believe is all qualified to go to Varanasi and become a priest but not at all qualified to sit on the PM's Chair at Singha Durbar.
I still remember hearing him say "India is our second home". Maybe for him -- definitely not for me and 20 million people of Nepal.
I think Bhattari speaks without thinking of the consequences. That does not suit a political leader. If I am not mistaken he was the only one in the whole world who was happy at India's nuclear tests. I think he said something like "India having nuclear missiles is a strength to the Hindu world". What does this mean? What about the Chinese missiles then? They must be strength for some world.
Well, (un)fortunately Bhattari will be forming a new government soon and he will probably "enlighten" us more with his vast knowledge ranging from "picking up good paan" to "the narrow streets of Varanasi".
Wow, what a leader! A few more leaders like him and India will become our first home! As for our relationship with China I won't be surprised if one day Bhattarai claims that China does not exist on this planet. Who can argue with him? Hey! Bhagwaan..
Trailokya Aryal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 12-Jan-01 01:43 PM
Trai-LuKai xiansheng:
It's really pathetic that most of the highschool graduates
Nepalese don't know the name of more than five cities of China.
Eventhough almost every family in Nepal uses Chinese goods in one
or other way.Greatwall Pencil, White rabbit chocolates, Warrior
rubber shoes, Panda shoes, Hitachi Fujian TV, untold brands of
umbrella and ceramics etc. Still, China can be an important
destiny for all of us, not only to tour around the vast stretch
of Tibetan grassland, or to Shanghainese development, but also
to Man Sarowar like religious destiny. And as in cities like
Xian, where religious zeal of local Moslem population has fueled
the latent religious zeal of local Hans, and which boasts more
and more Buddhist thesedays,Nepal can be a good cultural
destination. I ,in fact, envisage need of a consulate office in
either Xian, or Chengdu or Chongqing.A communication link
between Xian and Lumbini will actually be economic lifeline
for people living along the way.
I liked your proposal for blanket repealing of Visa provision,
but I guess, since often such provisions are subjected to
reciprocation, Chinese may or may not agree to that. I know
Chinese have such treaty even with distant countries like Sudan
and neighbors like Mangolia. I think you can guess more
effectively and realistically ,given large Tibetan population in
Nepal and their subversive mood, whether China will agree on that.
Proposals like frequent exchange of acadamicians, organization of
indigenuous cultural shows, encouragement of Nepalese investment
in tourism industry of nearby Tibet and Qinghai and Sichuan, more
scholarships for students of both countries ,if implemented, are
surely going to impact bilateral relationship positively.
Two years ago, China daily floated one idea of greater
cooperation between Nepal and India which riveted my attention at
the time: amelioration of existing facility in Nepalese trekking
route area, and connecting it with Tibet. The Annual influx of
more than one hundred thousand tourists in Nepal's trekking area
is something phenomenon even to Chinese government. China wants
these high paying , nonpolitical, and nontroublesome tourists to
visit Tibet while trekking in Nepal. So China wants to make better
trekking facility around Tibetan area adjacent to Annapurna zone,
and also help Nepal to upgrade its facility in Nepal. Such
cooperation between China and Nepal will only be possible if the
area remains tranquil and security arrangements satisfactory. But
that will be a very successful project.(Such projects , I suggest,
should be agreed upon only with consent of local Nepalese
businessmen.)
Nepal until now has been run by those who flaunt connection in
South.Like Bhattarai.(BTW, Bhattarai's levity is well known!)
Slowly, people from northern side ,for whom India is as far as
China politically, are trickling down to Capital, and I think
pro-Indianism will vanish very soon anyway as the public is
vehemently anti-Indian.However, we shouldn't forget that
anti-Indianism or anti-Chinaism will not foster our national
interest, and what we need is strong Pro-Nepalism, whether in
dealing with China or whether in dealing with India.Both are
equal, specially when we talk about our national interest.
|
