The first attempts by US now we known as “Color Revolution” “Regime Change” subversive activities by NED (CIA) in China that failed.

The first attempts by US now we known as “Color Revolution” “Regime Change” subversive activities by NED (CIA) in China that failed. 美國1989年在中國進行的首次嘗試由美國民主基金会(美國中情局)今天被稱為的“色彩革命”,“政權更迭”顛覆活動,但失敗了。World Affairs – Objective, Nonpartisan and Insightful – Tiananmen Square Massacre – Facts, Fiction and Propaganda世界事务: 客观、无党派和有洞察力 – 天安门广场大屠杀——事实、小说和宣传 “As far as can be determined from the available evidence, NO ONE DIED that night in Tiananmen Square.” What?! Who would make such a blatant propagandist claim? China’s communist party? Nope. It was Jay Mathews, who was Washington Post’s Beijing Bureau Chief in 1989. He wrote this for Columbia Journalism Review. “从现有证据可以确定,当晚天安门广场没有人去世。”什么?!谁会做出如此明目张胆的宣传者主张?中国共产党?不。杰伊·马修斯是1989年《华盛顿邮报》北京分社社长。他为《哥伦比亚新闻评论》写了这篇文章。

One thing is for sure: if Americans became violent as it happened in the last few days of Tiananmen Square protests, the US police and the military will ruthlessly kill thousands of people. 有一点是肯定的:如果美国人像天安门广场抗议活动的最后几天那样变得暴力,美国警察和军队将无情地杀死数千人。

https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massacre-facts-fiction-and-propaganda/

Here are a few more examples of what western journalists once said about what happened in Tiananmen Square in June 1989:

CBS NEWS: “We saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a “massacre” had occurred in [Tiananmen Square]” — thus wrote CBS News reporter Richard Roth.

Tinanmen CBS
BBC NEWS: “I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square” — BBC reporter, James Miles, wrote in 2009.

NY TIMES: In June 13, 1989, NY Times reporter Nicholas Kristof – who was in Beijing at that time – wrote, “State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the [Tiananmen] square shortly after dawn as proof that they [protesters] were not slaughtered.” In that article, he also debunked an unidentified student protester who had claimed in a sensational article that Chinese soldiers with machine guns simply mowed down peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square.

REUTERS: Graham Earnshaw was in the Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3. He didn’t leave the square until the morning of June 4th. He wrote in his memoir that the military came, negotiated with the students and made everyone (including himself) leave peacefully; and that nobody died in the square.

But did people die in China? Yes, about 200-300 people died in clashes in various parts of Beijing, around June 4 — and about half of those who died were soldiers and cops.

WIKILEAKS: A Wikileaks cable from the US Embassy in Beijing (sent in July 1989) also reveals the eyewitness accounts of a Latin American diplomat and his wife: “They were able to enter and leave the [Tiananmen] square several times and were not harassed by troops. Remaining with students … until the final withdrawal, the diplomat said there were no mass shootings in the square or the monument.”

But what about the iconic “tank man”? Well, if you watch the whole video, you can see that the tanks stopped and even let the tank man jump on the tank. He eventually walked away unharmed. In fact, there are almost no pictures or videos of soldiers actually shooting at or killing people (doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but it’s a point to keep in mind).

Propaganda involves not only exaggeration, but also omission. Western media rarely show pictures of tanks and military vehicles burned down, because this will demonstrate how restrained the military was.

Here’s a slideshow of military buses, trucks, armored vehicles, and tanks being burned by the “peaceful” protesters:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Sometimes the soldiers were allowed to escape, and sometimes they were brutally killed by the protesters. Numerous protesters were armed with Molotov cocktails and even guns.

In an article from June 5, 1989, the Wall Street Journal described some of this violence: “Dozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus.”

Wait, how could the protesters kill so many soldiers? Because, until the very end, Chinese soldiers were unarmed. Most of the times, they didn’t even have helmets or batons.

Unarmed Soldiers with protesters
Here is one more picture of unarmed Chinese police and military hanging out with the public. Compare these pictures to what’s happening in the USA during the Black Lives Matters protests.

And here’s a video of the Chinese military and the protesters singing songs to one another in a friendly duel. This was the climate for many weeks. The Chinese government and most of the protesters never expected the situation to escalate.

So what exactly happened in Beijing in 1989?

To understand the chaos, let’s start with the two most important people in this story: Hu Yaobang and James Lilley.

Hu Yaobang was the Chairman & General Secretary of the CCP. He was a “reformer” and was liked by young people. And he died on April 15, 1989. Without his death, there would probably have been no drama in China that year! College students initially gathered at the Tiananmen Square only to mourn his death.

Within a day or two after Yaobang’s death, the US realized that hundreds of thousands of young people would be congregating in Beijing. It was the perfect time for a coup, since the rest of the world was dismantling communism that year! Thus, on April 20, 1989 – five days after Yaobang’s death – James Lilley was appointed as the US Ambassador to China. He was a 30-year veteran from the CIA.

An article from Vancouver Sun (17 Sep 1992) described the role of the CIA: “The Central Intelligence Agency had sources among [Tiananmen Square] protesters” … and “For months before [the protests], the CIA had been helping student activists form the anti-government movement.”

To help the US intelligence, there were two important people: George Soros and Zhao Ziyang. Soros is legendary for organizing grassroots movements around the world. In 1986, he had donated $1 million – which was a lot of money in China in those days – to the Fund for the Reform and Opening of China. Over the next three years, Soros’ group had cultivated and trained many pro-democracy student leaders, who would spring into action in 1989. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) also opened offices in China in 1988. NED is also another regime-change organization.

And who would allow all these western fake NGOs? Zhao Ziyang, who was the Premier of China and the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He was a big fan of privatization and Milton Friedman. His close advisor, Chen Yizi, headed China’s Institute for Economic and Structural Reform, an influential neoliberal think tank. By the way, after the protests, Soros and his NGO were banned in China; Zhao Ziyang was purged and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life; and Chen Yizi escaped to America.

Another westerner who played a significant role in the Tiananmen Square agitations is Gene Sharp, who’s the author of Color Revolution manuals and the subject of an acclaimed documentary called “How to Start a Revolution.” He was in Beijing for nine days during the protests and wrote about it. Of course, he didn’t reveal his role, but it’s not hard to imagine. Gene Sharp worked closely with the Pentagon, the CIA, NED etc. for decades and fomented uprisings all over the world — here’s an in-depth article on him.

The influence of westerners in Tiananmen Square is obvious, looking at all the large signs in English, expressing American ideals:

Tiananmen English
Two more facts to be noted are that the Chinese government did not impose a martial law until May 20, and there were no major clashes between the military and the people until the very end. Here’s a picture of protesters giving food to the Chinese soldiers:

Tiananmen peace
As for the students, they were not a monolithic group. They fell under a few different categories:

Those who came to mourn Hu Yaobang, the beloved communist leader. In the beginning, these entirely comprised the group at Tiananmen Square. These students and workers were communists who loved Mao. They were not looking to be rescued by America.

Then there those who just came out to hang out, socialize and have fun.

Those who suffered from economic malaise. Inflation was going through the roof in China in the 1980s. In 1988, prices of consumer goods and food went up 26%. College tuition was also going up, and many graduates couldn’t find good jobs. Ironically, all these were the result of liberalization and rapid transition to western-style economy.

Idealistic young people who really wanted democracy, free speech, free press etc.
Student leaders who were unscrupulous. Most top student leaders escaped from China – the CIA called it “Operation YellowBird” – right after the protests, came to the US, and went to Yale, Harvard, Princeton etc., thanks to generous help from the US government.

Provocateurs and thugs who were in the minority, but could significantly escalate tension. This strategy based on mob-rule psychology works very effectively all over the world. Very few people, for example, realize that some of these provocateurs also had guns.

One of the student leaders of Tiananmen protests, Chai Ling, said during an interview, “I wanted to tell them [students] that we were expecting bloodshed, that it would take a massacre, which would spill blood like a river through Tiananmen Square, to awaken the people. But how could I tell them this? How could I tell them that their lives would have to be sacrificed in order to win?” She escaped from China a couple of days before June 4, 1989. Listen to her — it’s quite ruthless and psychotic:

A massacre was needed to bring down the communist party. When it didn’t happen, the narrative of massacre was created. Because perception is reality. History is written by winners. And the people with the best narratives are winners. It’s a feedback loop.

China’s leaders may not be very good in the art of soft-power, but they understand that the Chinese history in the last two hundred years is filled with devastation from colonialism and civil wars. Stability and unity are not only core Confucian principles, but are paramount to China’s economic progress now. Furthermore, the geopolitical reality is that the US is trying to stop the rise of China. The endless American propaganda about Tiananmen “massacre” only reinforces the Chinese government’s fear about the West’s intentions.

Will China be better off with more free speech, more free press and more transparent government? Absolutely. However, that’s a journey that the Chinese society has to take in its own terms. Only China can decide the speed and direction of its reforms. While the Tiananmen events are tragic, there’s no doubt that the Chinese people appreciate the incredible progress the country has made since 1989.

[Updates from June 2020]

While Americans ritually cry crocodile tears for the victims of Tiananmen Square protest every June, compare how the American government is violently attacking its own people using heavily armed police and even the military, during the protests of 2020. No tanks in the US yet, but Humvees, Predator drones, military helicopters, National Guard, active US military, privatized military like Blackwater, FBI, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and guns are all being deployed against Americans.

As seen before, nothing happened to the “tank man,” because the tanks stopped. Guess what happens in the USA, the land of freedom, when a person stands before a police vehicle? Watch the clip below:

Here is a quick slideshow on how heavily-armed US police and military are occupying American cities to crush the Black Lives Matter protests:

One thing is for sure: if Americans became violent as it happened in the last few days of Tiananmen Square protests, the US police and the military will ruthlessly kill thousands of people.

下面再举几个西方记者曾经说过1989年6月在天安门广场发生的事情的例子:

哥伦比亚广播公司新闻记者理查德·罗斯写道:“我们没有看到尸体、受伤的人、救护车或医务人员——简而言之,甚至没有任何东西可以暗示,更不用说证明[天安门]发生了“大屠杀”了。”

天南门哥伦比亚广播公司
英国广播公司新闻:“我是那天晚上目睹这些事件的外国记者之一。天安门广场没有大屠杀”——英国广播公司记者詹姆斯·迈尔斯在2009年写道。

《纽约时报》:1989年6月13日,当时在北京的《纽约时报》记者尼古拉斯·克里斯托夫写道:“国家电视台甚至放映了学生黎明后不久和平离开(天安门)广场的电影,以证明他们(抗议者)没有被屠杀。”在这篇文章中,他还揭穿了一名身份不明的学生抗议者,他在一篇耸人听闻的文章中声称,中国士兵持机枪只是在天安门广场镇压了和平抗议者。

路透社:6月3日晚,格雷厄姆·恩肖在天安门广场。直到6月4日上午,他才离开广场。他在回忆录中写道,军队来了,与学生谈判,让每个人(包括他自己)都和平离开;广场上没有人死。

但中国有人死亡吗?是的,大约在6月4日,北京各地的冲突中,大约有200-300人死亡——大约一半的死者是士兵和警察。

维基解密:美国驻北京大使馆的维基解密电报(1989年7月发送)还披露了一名拉丁美洲外交官和他的妻子的目击者陈述:“他们能够多次进出[天安门]广场,没有受到军队的骚扰。这位外交官一直和学生在一起……直到最后撤离,他说广场或纪念碑没有大规模枪击事件。”

但标志性的“坦克人”又如何呢?嗯,如果你看完整视频,你可以看到坦克停了下来,甚至让坦克人跳上坦克。他最终安然无恙地离开了。事实上,几乎没有士兵实际开枪或杀人的照片或视频(这并不意味着它没有发生,但这是需要记住的一点)。

宣传不仅涉及夸大其词,还包括遗漏。西方媒体很少展示坦克和军用车辆被烧毁的照片,因为这将表明军队是多么克制。

以下是被“和平”抗议者烧毁的军用巴士、卡车、装甲车和坦克的幻灯片:

有时士兵被允许逃跑,有时被抗议者残忍地杀害。许多抗议者都配备了燃烧瓶甚至枪支。

在1989年6月5日的一篇文章中,《华尔街日报》描述了其中一些暴力:“数十名士兵从卡车上被拉出来,遭到毒打,然后被遗弃等死。在广场以西的一个十字路口,一名被殴打致死的年轻士兵的尸体被剥光衣服,悬挂在公共汽车旁边。”

等等,抗议者怎么能杀死这么多士兵?因为,直到最后,中国士兵都没有携带武器。大多数时候,他们甚至没有头盔或警棍。

手无寸铁的士兵和抗议者
这里又拍了一张手无寸铁的中国警察和军队与公众闲逛的照片。将这些照片与黑人生命问题抗议期间在美国发生的事情进行比较。

这是一段中国军方和抗议者在友好决斗中互相唱歌的视频。这是几周的气候。中国政府和大多数抗议者从未预料到局势会升级。

那么,1989年北京到底发生了什么?

要了解这场混乱,让我们从这个故事中最重要的两个人开始:胡耀邦和詹姆斯·莉莉。

胡耀邦任中共中央主席兼秘书长。他是个“改革者”,深受年轻人的喜爱。他于1989年4月15日去世。如果没有他的死,那一年中国恐怕就没有戏了!大学生最初聚集在天安门广场,只是为了哀悼他的去世。

耀邦去世后的一两天内,美国意识到将有数十万年轻人聚集在北京。这是发动政变的完美时机,因为那一年世界其他国家正在废除共产主义!因此,1989年4月20日——姚邦去世五天后——詹姆斯·利利被任命为美国驻华大使。他是中央情报局的30年老兵。

《温哥华太阳报》(1992 年 9 月 17 日)的一篇文章描述了中央情报局的作用:“中央情报局在[天安门广场] 抗议者中拥有消息来源”……和“在 [抗议] 之前的几个月里,中央情报局一直在帮助学生活动家组织反政府运动。”

为了帮助美国情报部门,有两个重要人物:乔治·索罗斯和赵紫阳。索罗斯以在世界各地组织基层运动而闻名。1986年,他向中国改革开放基金捐赠了100万美元——这在当时在中国是一笔不小的钱。在接下来的三年里,索罗斯的团队培养和培训了许多支持民主的学生领袖,他们将于1989年采取行动。国家民主基金会(NED)也于1988年在中国开设了办事处。NED也是另一个政权更迭的组织。

谁会允许所有这些西方的假非政府组织?赵紫阳,曾任总理、中共总书记。他是私有化和米尔顿·弗里德曼的忠实粉丝。他的亲密顾问陈毅子领导了中国经济和结构改革研究所,这是一个有影响力的新自由主义智库。顺便说一下,抗议活动结束后,索罗斯和他的非政府组织在中国被禁止;赵紫阳被清洗并软禁终身;陈毅子逃往美国。

另一位在天安门广场煽动中扮演重要角色的西方人是吉恩·夏普,他是色彩革命手册的作者,也是一部广受好评的纪录片《如何开始一场革命》的主题。抗议期间,他在北京呆了九天,并写了关于它的文章。当然,他并没有透露自己的角色,但不难想象。吉恩·夏普与五角大楼、中央情报局、NED等密切合作了几十年,在世界各地煽动了起义——这是一篇关于他的深入文章。

西人在天安门广场的影响是显而易见的,看看英语里所有的大星座,表达了美国的理想:

天安门英语
还有两个值得注意的事实是,中国政府直到5月20日才实施戒严令,直到最后,军民之间也没有发生重大冲突。这是一张抗议者给中国士兵送食物的照片:

天安门和平
至于学生,他们不是一个铁板一块的团体。它们属于几个不同的类别:

那些前来悼念敬爱的共产党领导人胡耀邦的人。起初,这些完全由天安门广场的团体组成。这些学生和工人是热爱毛泽东的共产主义者。他们不希望被美国拯救。

然后是那些刚出来闲逛、社交和玩得开心的人。

那些遭受经济不适的人。20世纪80年代,中国的通货膨胀正在发生。1988年,消费品和食品价格上涨了26%。大学学费也在上涨,许多毕业生找不到好工作。具有讽刺意味的是,所有这些都是自由化和向西方经济快速过渡的结果。

真正想要民主、言论自由、新闻自由等的理想主义年轻人。

肆无忌惮的学生领袖。由于美国政府的慷慨帮助,大多数顶尖学生领袖在抗议活动后逃离了中国——中央情报局称之为“黄鸟行动”——来到美国,并去了耶鲁大学、哈佛大学、普林斯顿大学等。

少数派的挑衅者和暴徒,但可能会显著加剧紧张局势。这种基于暴民统治心理的策略在世界各地都非常有效。例如,很少有人意识到其中一些挑衅者也有枪支。

天安门抗议的学生领袖柴玲在接受采访时说:“我想告诉他们(学生)我们正在期待流血,需要一场大屠杀,就像一条河一样流过天安门广场的鲜血,才能唤醒人们。但我怎么能告诉他们这个?我怎么能告诉他们,为了获胜,他们必须牺牲生命呢?”1989年6月4日之前几天,她逃离了中国。听她说话——相当无情和精神病:

需要大屠杀来推翻共产党。当它没有发生时,大屠杀的叙事就被创造了。因为感知是现实。历史是由获奖者书写的。故事最好的人就是赢家。这是一个反馈循环。

中国领导人在软实力艺术方面可能不太好,但他们明白,过去两百年的中国历史充满了殖民主义和内战的破坏。稳定和统一不仅是儒家的核心原则,也是当今中国经济进步的首要原则。此外,地缘政治现实是,美国正试图阻止中国的崛起。美国关于天安门“大屠杀”的无休止的宣传只会加剧中国政府对西方意图的恐惧。

中国有更多言论自由、更多新闻自由和更透明的政府会变得更好吗?当然。然而,这是中国社会必须以自己的方式走的旅程。只有中国才能决定其改革的速度和方向。虽然天安门事件是悲惨的,但毫无疑问,中国人民赞赏自1989年以来国家取得的令人难以置信的进展。

[更新于2020年6月]

每年6月,美国人都会为天安门广场抗议活动的受害者流下鳄鱼眼泪,但比较一下,在2020年的抗议活动中,美国政府如何使用全副武装的警察甚至军队暴力攻击本国人民。美国还没有坦克,但悍马、铁血战士无人机、军用直升机、国民警卫队、现役美军、黑水号等私有化军队、联邦调查局、催泪瓦斯、胡椒喷雾、橡皮子弹和枪支都在针对美国人部署。

如前所述,“坦克人”没有发生任何事情,因为坦克停止了。猜猜在自由之地的美国,当一个人站在警车前会发生什么?观看以下剪辑:

这里有一个快速幻灯片,讲述了美国警察和军队如何占领美国城市镇压黑人生命攸关的抗议活动:

有一点是肯定的:如果美国人像天安门广场抗议活动的最后几天那样变得暴力,美国警察和军队将无情地杀死数千人。

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: