Massacre at the Gate of Heavenly Peace

Not Settled” (courtesy Purpleslog).

While ZenPundit and Catholicgauze pat America on the back for the Liberation of Europe, there is work yet to be done.

As we remember the Battle for Normandy, we cannot forget the Massacre at the Gate of Heavenly Peace

Tiananmen Square Massacre

When we defend Taiwan from the Chinese People’s Republic, is it not the Taiwanese “holding us hostage.” It is preventing this from happening to an entire nation. Again. And again.

America’s policy is and must be the destruction — the transformation or revolution — of the current regime in Beiping. To the extent the Communist government in those lands wants to “modernize,” we can be friends and help them. But to the extent the Communist Party will use violence to widen the political gap between them the Chinese, the Tibetans, the Turkmen, the Taiwanese, or any other people, we cannot.

5 thoughts on “Massacre at the Gate of Heavenly Peace”

  1. Before you play god with 1.2 billion people with your “destruction”, better get your facts straight.

    I'd like to offer couple more reference in addition to PBS Frontline's “The Tank Man”, where it reported the fact Chinese government did investigate this, and release casualty figure of 240 some dead (incidentally in-line with our own NSA intel estimate.)

    An article by Gregory Clark on pack journalism:

    “the so-called massacre was in fact a mini civil war as irate Beijing citizens sought to stop initially unarmed soldiers sent to remove students who had been demonstrating freely in the square for weeks. When the soldiers finally reached the square there was no massacre.”

    An article by Columbia Journal Review on passive journalism:

    “as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square.

    Hundreds of people, most of them workers and passersby, did die that night, but in a different place and under different circumstances.”

    [Just for reference, throwing molotov cocktail at riot police is a crime in US.]

  2. Bobby,

    I was going to reply noting that the defense you give the Chinese People's Republic is very similar to defenses I've heard of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. Apparently this is because the same groups defended both late-stage communist states. From the first link you sent

    “The death of former Yugoslav and Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic saw pack journalism at its worst. “Butcher of Belgrade” was the favorite accusation. Few were interested in the background, which begins with the fact that during the wartime German occupation of the former Yugoslavia, up to one million resisting Serbs were butchered by the Nazis and their fascist Muslim and Croatian allies — the Ustashi — whose brutalities were said to have shocked even the Nazis.”


    No, but I could have framed the issue better. The Normandy invasion was more or less irrelevent to the defeat of Nazism. The Germans were facing an order-of-magnitude greater threat to the east, and our late invasion of Europe is similar in many ways to the USSR's late invasion of Asia.

    The Normandy's Invasion HUGE contribution, however, was to limit Soviet gains in Europe. They fought a monstrous war with Hitler, and for their efforts did not conquer a single western Europe city. (As Stalin supposedly once said, even Alexander I had a parade in Paris.)

    The Normandy invasion thus begins the defensive, implicit war against Communism in all its forms. Our actions in Asia have been far less, distinguished, though. From early sympathy to Mao (and hostility towards our ally Kaicheck) and other such actions, we weakened our own position over those billions. Too bad.

  3. Sorry, didn't mean to hit submit yet. Beiping, as far as I know, is the ROC name for Beijing, and calling it that is senselessly irredentist. They lost.

    Hadn't seen the video before. Probably few people died in the actual square, and we'll never know the actual number who died anywhere due to the confusion of the situation, the politically charged nature of the data, and the fact the Chinese aren't known for releasing accurate figures on such matters. It doesn't matter, anyway. They showed they were willing to crush domestic unrest, and they succeeded. Innocent people died, as did soldiers and not-so-innocent people. The point is that China met with an identity crisis and responded with military force. It doesn't have any better method.

    Destroy the CCP? That requires a very charitable interpretation to be reasonable. I don't think too many people are big fans of the party, but what and where is the alternative government? China has been plagued by poor government for more than a century; I think the current one is a vast improvement despite its obvious shortcomings.

  4. I roundly disagree. Ralph Peters and Robert Kaplan have explained it at length far better than I can, but a democratic China that unleashes a nationalistic furor (led by opportunistic politicians) would be a worrisome state of affairs in Asia.

    A less corrupt, more streamlined government that tackles AIDS, environmental devastation and property issues with the urgency and careful study they deserve would be the best possible outcome for the Chinese people and for the region.

  5. Mike,

    A suffix meaning “peace” (either -ping or -an) is often used in Chinese history to denote an capital city that isn't. (Beiping – Northern Peace – under the KMT, Xian – Western Peace – now, etc.). My purpose in this post is the inherent illegitimacy of the China Communist Party over the provinces they now control. This doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't work with them, but that arguments that it's “fair” to abandon Taiwan (which some commentators come perilously close to at times) are absurd.

    China's most peaceful road to democracy involves economic growth and an expansion of suffrage. Attempts to hold a party primary in 2007 [1] would be an important part of this. Hopefully the China Communist Party will assist in her own transformation. But if she doesn't transform, she must be destroyed.


    We hear similar excuses from Arab governments about the Islamists. The “nationalism” that now exists in China is created and primed by the China Communist Party. The Chinese People's Republic's pernicious desire to humiliate Taiwan and Japan has already created a worrisome state of affairs.

    Regardless, it's now clear what “nationalism” post-CCP would mean. China, as Harm de Blij [2] argues, is much closer to an Empire than a State. Pearl River nationalism would indeed be an interesting beast…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *