US
Media on Tiananmen Square: A Summary and Analysis
It all started
late April 1989, when 3000 people laid outside the Government headquarters in a
hunger strike to back up their demands for “free press, better treatment of
intellectuals, and attack on corruption” (Holley). Since then, economists
have seen a massive growth in the Chinese economy in a span of a decade.
People's income doubled, and there was a significant rise in consumerism.
However, along with this development, there was a conspicuous corruption and
lack of democracy.
According to
Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times’ Beijing bureau chief, the revolution was
triggered by discontent. However, more than that, this was rooted in the fact
that the "Communist Party has been losing its grip on the country"
even long before the Tiananmen event. Statistically, the country was growing
annually, modernizing successfully, and people were better off. But people felt
that they needed something more. In the end, this was a "crisis of
confidence." Overall, the US media had started to recognize that Communism
is a failed system.
Kristof saw
that the modernization was going too fast and became unsustainable for the
government leading lot of economic mismanagement. On top of that, the
government became corrupt and people saw it. The Communist Party was slowly losing
its power and became less and less intimidating. The people, on the other hand,
were losing interest in it and trust in the party.
The
Protests
Prime Minister
Li released an aggressive statement ordering the military to disperse the
pro-democratic supporters. This caused even more people to go out on the
streets support the pro-democratic movement. Li and Deng Xiaoping, defense
leader, who were once seen as heroes were then regarded as a public enemy. Li's
statement alarmed the protesters and pushed them to put their guards up, and
set up precautionary measures in the threat of military invasion.
The protests
were very unlikely during that time. Students have been relatively loyal to the
party and have been uninterested in political disagreements (Kristof). However,
when students started to gather on April 15 to put forward their struggles and
interests it became a shock to the US media. At that time, the Sino-Soviet
split was happening and the US media had sent a lot of their reporters in the
country to cover this event.
On May 20, the
government announced a martial law. This meant that media censorship, and
restrictions of foreign media would be enforced. Despite a few warnings from
Foreign Ministry or State Security Bureau on the consequences of violating this
rule, the foreign press still conducted numerous interviews and published
regular reports following the events in the Tiananmen Square (Kristof).
On May 21, it
seemed like the movement was taking a more optimistic path. American media had
an optimistic view on how the protests would possibly end on a victorious note.
On the other hand, some Chinese protesters had already foreseen that
there would be bloodshed. At this time, there weren't a lot of violence
happening. Protesters were still able to keep the police force and the military
out of Beijing. One element that caused this to start in a peaceful manner is
the presence of US media in the center of the country.
The
protesters, despite efforts of the military to tear them down, took a peaceful approach
by bringing the troops food, drinks, cigarettes, and newspapers. The basic
strategy of protesters was to keep an open communication at all times to ensure
a great understanding between the pro-democratic movement, and the army and
ordinary citizens (Wudunnon). Some of the soldiers were prohibited from reading
newspapers and were sent to the Tiananmen Square without the prior knowledge of
why the people were there in the first place. This diplomatic discussion
softened the military forces and caused some of them to retreat.
This optimism
is intensified with the Chinese coverage of Philippine's People Power which
triumphantly ousted their dictator of 20 years, Ferdinand Marcos. Similar
tactics from that revolution were done by Chinese people in hopes that they
would achieve similar victory.
On the other
hand, thousands of Chinese have also conducted protests in US as a gesture of
support for the student protesters in Tiananmen Square. Three thousand people
have taken their demonstrations outside the Chinese embassy in Washington. Some
of the students voiced out their plea that the US government support the cause
of the pro-democracy protesters.
US
Response on the Spark of the Protest
At that time,
there was a good military relationship between China and US. According to then
President Bush, military interventions were not deemed an option as it might
affect this relationship negatively (Kristof). He had expressed his views on
foreign policy in an address in 1989. In his speech, he recognized the failure of
the Communist system, and the people’s eagerness to attain a more democratic
system. He also acknowledged the protests in Tiananmen Square and he reassured
the protesters that the world hears the plea of people for democracy and
freedom.
At the same
time, then President Bush emphasized that the strategy of the US government is
deterrence, and that he discouraged any use of weaponry against the country’s
allies. This was a statement on the elimination of war as an option in Europe,
and promotion of peaceful East-West relationship. On the other hand, this can
be seen as an indirect statement on the planned intervention (or lack thereof)
of US government on the ongoing Tiananmen protests. He highlighted that
aggression against US allies are deemed as unacceptable.
The
Crackdown
On June 3, the
Chinese government had increased their press restriction and press coverage of
the Tiananmen protest. Interviewing of the protesters and taking photographs of
the scene were prohibited in Tiananmen. During the early morning of June 3,
soldiers started advancing to the square but were constantly blocked off by
protesters as they remain outnumbered. Correspondents from US media had been
visible despite the increasing risk on the safety of the people present in the
square. There have been reports of military brutality against foreign
journalists, however, the US media kept a good coverage on the events.
By the night
of June 3, Deng imposed to the military the use of force and violence to anyone
who would defy them. This is an order to carry out the martial law as planned,
and go on extreme measures to disperse the protesters. An announcement by
martial law authorities urged people to stay at home to avoid any unnecessary
losses. The aggressive move of the military to penetrate the Tiananmen and the
pro-democratic protester’s hard resistance caused massive casualties.
It appears
that despite the aggressive protests, Communist hard-liners still have total
control, and Communist members who were in favor of conciliation have very weak
influence (Kristof). However, as the chaos ensued there was still no spokesman
for the party (Mann and Holley). The party remained weak and without political
leadership.
Aftermath
Chinese Government
Then Prime
Minister Li had his first public appearance on a televised message
congratulating the success of the troops and the people who fought against the
pro-democratic movement. New Martial law rule prohibits any kind of writing and
posts that are critical of the government. Days after the crackdown, government
forces were still on high alert, guns were still fired occasionally, and troops
were still deployed all over Beijing, although no further protest ensued.
Thousands of
protesters died on the day of June 4. On top of that, a handful of those who took
part in the pro-democratic movement were detained or imprisoned. Government
forces even raided universities and arrested at least a dozen of students who
are linked to the movement. Many more leaders were detained, while some went
into hiding. The pro-democratic movement was continued to be vilified by the
Chinese media after the event, with media labeling them as
“counter-revolutionaries, anti-social elements, rumormongers, arsonists and
anti-government sloganeers” (Holley and Williams). Televised coverage of the
Tiananmen event in Chinese media showed only activists resisting, burning
military vehicles, and attacking troops. Soldiers, on the other hand, were
shown to die and get injured, not throwing a single attack. They campaigned on
a widespread dissinfornation to regain public loyalty they had once lost.
Their security
heightened as they limit distribution of passport. People were required to
bring their identification at all times. One criteria of acquiring a passport
includes proving your political loyalty, and proving your role in the
pro-democratic protest (Pear).
US Government on the
Communist Government
Former President Bush had made a statement after the
incident criticizing the Chinese government’s resort to violence. He also
expressed that while the US government may take reasonable measures as a
response to Chinese government’s suppression of freedom, they should also make
sure that the former’s short and long term goals are taken into account. His
first step in condemning China’s action was to suspend all
“government-to-government sales and commercial exports of weapon.” Bush also
promised medical aid to those affected by the crackdown through the help of Red
Cross, On the other hand, Bush stated that he doesn’t want any act of violence
on his part that might risk China to go back to its “previous policy of
restraint.” It was not until 1972 when China started to open its doors to
international relationships and developed diplomatic ties with the United
States. The goal, according to Bush, is to develop a careful response that
would protect the democracy while maintaining and strengthening the US’s
relationship with China. Furthermore, he also expressed that it is not the best
time to sever ties or withdraw their relationship with a country that might
further break down. Despite constant suggestions that he pulls out US
ambassador from China, he refuses to do so as he believes that the ambassador
serves as a “listening post” and that he still wants to get as involved as he
can. Bush’s main concern is to not make any move that would isolate China.
However, then
Secretary of State James Baker had refused to comment on what penalties the US
government would impose on China. While Bush had mentioned military suspension
between China and US, he is still skeptical on imposing economic sanctions
given that he does not want to damage the US-China relationship. They have kept
their silence regarding what measures the government would take on the
aftermath of the Tiananmen crackdown despite the increasing criticisms and
pressure coming from the congress and the human rights group (Jehl). Instead,
Secretary Baker had stated that the government is still looking into what might
happen before taking any concrete action against the Communist government. There
had been proposals of sanctions which tackle the problem very loosely and
broadly. However, these discussions were always pushed back as Baker explained
that they need to interpret their actions before implementation (Mann). In the
end, the US government had chosen not to interfere with China’s political
affairs.
This silence
displeased the congress, as well as both the Democrats and Republicans, as they
insist that US government should not appear complacent on Deng Xiaoping’s
violent response to the protests. According to then Senate Foreign Relations
Chairman Alan Cranston, this attitude of US government to the Chinese
authorities is a compromise for Communism and a loss for democracy. On the
other hand, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina had expressed his
disappointment in what had ensued, urging the government to take steps to
castigate the Chinese government. He said that one of the first steps he would
want to make after the Tiananmen event was to cut the “US military cooperation
and sharing of technology with the Communist Government.” Similarly, then
Senator Paul Simon, Illinois Democrat, had suggested suspension of military
aid, and New York Representative Bill Paxton had told then President to impose
economic sanctions.
Brent Scowcroft, US National Security Advisor, went to
China a month after the Tiananmen massacre. Then Senator George J. Mitchell,
Democrat of Maine, majority leader, expressed his disappointment that this had
happened a month after the brutal killings of pro-democratic protesters. The
public had also openly condemned this move by the US government. This is
especially because these actions were not consistent with President Bush’s
statement on the Chinese-US interaction. At that time, President Bush had
suspended high-level exchanges between the US and Chinese government (Dowd).
However Bush defended this move by his subordinates as this is aimed to “make
diplomatic overtures after the killings.”
Analysts
have agreed that the president sees that any aggressive action from US can
damage the relationship of Washington and Beijing (Mann). Despite the constant
pressure from the media, public, the congress, and other government leaders,
Former President Bush chose that their relationship with China be preserved.
Analysts have also agreed that the government officials were hopeful that this
uproar from American public would settle down after a period of time and there
would eventually be a change in Chinese leadership (Mann). This expectation
from the US government is one of the reasons as to why the action has been very
mild.
US Business
US Companies
operating in China were taken aback as the events caused instability in the
economy. There had been different proposals on how businesses should respond to
the Tiananmen events. Charles Conroy, a partner at Baker & McKenzie law
firm, considered suspending operations if the situation worsens. On the other
hand, Albert Y. P’an of Transcapital International Inc. suggested not to halt
any ongoing operations, but agreed that there should not be any new operations
in the future until the situation in China becomes more certain.
Aside from the
worry about the operations and its profitability, US business owners were also
worried about the condition and the safety of their workers in China
(Kreisler). According to Michael Oskenberg, political science professor in
University of Michigan, the US business operations would only return to normal
once the military presence subsides, and there is a maintained regular contact
between US and China for joint ventures.
US Public
The State
Department had restricted the presence of employees of American Embassy in
Tiananmen Square. The State also discouraged Americans to travel to China after
the incident (Pear). There were also reports of foreigner “mass evacuation,”
which was seen as a sign of the damage on the diplomatic and economic ties
caused by the massacre that went down in Tiananmen Square (Williams and
Holley).
This backlash
raised the need for a new leadership, to which a few Hong Kong-based diplomats
agreed on. Chinese and Chinese Americans had organized peaceful public protests
across US, like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and New Orleans,
and other cities to denounce the Chinese government (McFadden). Ultimately,
this was a call for the US government to penalize the Chinese government. On
the other hand, Chinese students who were in the US plead for an extended stay
in America as things remained unstable in China. The bill that allows Chinese
students to stay in the country even after their visas expired was, however,
vetoed by Bush.
US Media on Tiananmen Events
US media
had widely televised the events during and after the massacre happened. News outlets
reported the events with emphasis on key elements such as the large military
presence, extreme brutality, and the casualties. Recordings of interviews and
the cruelty in the Tiananmen Square were watched all over America. The young
students who were involved in the tragic crackdown were hailed as heroes in US
media (Goodman).
On the other
hand, the media did not tolerate the actions of the Communist government, and
deplored the use of heavy force on unarmed students and protesters. Jim Laurie
of ABC described the Tiananmen event as “obscene and unforgivable,” while CBS
recorded an announcer on Radio Beijing speaking to the foreign government to
perform apt action against the “barbarous” event. Goodman described the
television scene to have a presumption of judgement beyond the television
standards.
A mandatory
report that was published on February 21, 1990 described the events as brutal
and the “massacre” violated almost every human rights. The White House
initially discouraged officials to criticize China on their human rights
violation. However, despite being reviewed by the White House and the staff of
the National Security Council, they have decided to publish the report without
censoring as constricting it might cause more uproar from the public. The
report includes China’s deteriorating human rights, and the government’s
defense with “massive disinformation campaign, expulsion and harassment of
foreign journalists.” The report aimed to express an objective report on the
criticisms of events which has been much more blatant than Bush’s previous
statements (Pear).
NBC summarized
the report as follows. People who were involved in the protests were detained
and subjected to torture in an attempt to get as much information as possible.
On the other hand, as security measures after the crackdown, Chinese government
increased their surveillance of their citizens by installing cameras, and
monitoring the people’s mails, phone calls, and any form of communications. The
report also stated that ''China reject[ed] the concept of universal human
rights” as they refuse to discuss their violations. In line with the report
also mmentions the government’s demolition of a human rights group named
Amnesty 89 making it clear that any group advocating human rights will not be
tolerated. Continuous human rights violation were reported such as Ganzu
province’s sterilization of people with low IQ to ensure that no children with
“severe mental handicap” were born. The report also publicized the harsh
condition inside prisons where most of the time, a person is often help under
their custody without charges, and automatically found guilty.
Summary
There had been
a great divide as to how the US should approach the problem. The major dilemma
was whether Former President Bush should have given sanctions to the Chinese
government, or he should remain passive in his response to the Tiananmen
Square. Choosing intervention on political affairs of China and penalizing them
for the casualty would lead to a weakened diplomatic relationship between US
and China. He had been very vocal about how he fears that China may isolate
itself again. On the other hand, imposing a lenient response is a blow on US’s
stand and principles on democracy, and tolerance on human rights violations. Although
the US government has expressed their grief on what had happened in the
Tiananmen, they chose to maintain a positive relationship with China refraining
from doing any aggressive measure. While he had promise humanitarian aid and
medical assistance, he did not do any further penalties on the Chinese
Government aside from suspending any import and export of weaponry between US
and China. Overall, Bush’s approach is not to isolate the Beijing, but instead
to maintain diplomatic talks as he sees cutting any more ties would lead to
further collapse of the Chinese government.
On the other
hand, other government officials, and the US media had been tougher on their
opinions as they blatantly condemned the massacre. The public had also marched
out to protest and plead for aid to the Chinese people, and aggressive response
from US.
Works
Cited
Dowd,
Maureen. "2 U.S. Officials Went to Beijing Secretly in July." The
New York Times 18 Dec. 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Goodman,
Walter. "Review/Television; Many Big News Stories to Tell, but the Biggest
of All Is China." The New York Times 5 June 1989: n. pag. The
New York Times. Web.
Holley,
David, and Daniel Williams. "China Hard-Liners Appear in Control." LA
Times 9 June 1989: n. pag. LA Times. Web.
Holley,
David, and Daniel Williams. "Economic Reforms to Continue, Deng
Vows." LA Times 10 June 1989: n. pag. LA Times. Web.
Holley,
David. "Small Group Creating Chaos." LA Times. 25 May 1989. LA
Times. Web.
Jehl,
Douglas. "Congress Steps Up Pressure for China Sanctions." The New
York Times 5 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Kreisler,
Nancy H. "U.S. Companies Consider Options for Business in China." The
New York Times 12 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Kristof,
Nicholas D. "BEIJING TIGHTENS PRESS RESTRICTION." The New York Times.
N.p., 2 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Kristof,
Nicholas D. "CHINA ERUPTS . . . THE REASONS WHY." The New York
Times 04 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Kristof,
Nicholas D. "CRACKDOWN IN BEIJING; TROOPS ATTACK AND CRUSH BEIJING
PROTEST; THOUSANDS FIGHT BACK, SCORES ARE KILLED." The New York Times
04 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Kristof,
Nicholas D. "UPHEAVAL IN CHINA; BIGGEST BEIJING CROWDS SO FAR KEEP TROOPS
FROM CITY CENTER; PARTY REPORTED IN BITTER FIGHT." The New York Times
21 May 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Mann,
Kim. "U.S. Easing Sanctions on China." The New York Times 4
Sept. 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
McFadden,
Robert. "The West Condemns the Crackdown." The New York Times
5 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
McFadden,
Robert D. "UPHEAVAL IN CHINA; Thousands of Chinese Rally in the U.S."
The New York Times. N.p., 21 May 1989: n. pag. The New York Times.
Web.
Pear,
Robert. "CRACKDOWN IN BEIJING; PRESIDENT ASSAILS SHOOTINGS IN CHINA."
The New York Times 4 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times. Web.
Pear, Robert. "U.S. Report Accuses China of Grave Rights
Abuses." The New York Times 4 Feb. 1990: n. pag. The
New York Times. Web.
Wudunn,
Sheryl. "UPHEAVAL IN CHINA; Facing the People, the Soldiers Fall
Back." The New York Times 21 May 1989: n. pag. The New York
Times. Web. 13 Feb. 2017.
"CRACKDOWN IN BEIJING; Excerpts From Bush's News Session." The
New York Times 6 June 1989: n. pag. The New York Times.
Web.
"Excerpts
From President's Address." The New York Times 25 May 1989: n. pag. The
New York Times. Web.
