The macabre annual remembrance of what the US, Europeans, and their global allies call the “Tiananmen Square Massacre” takes on a new character in the wake of increasingly transparent color revolutions orchestrated by the US in foreign countries and increasingly accompanied by likewise, US-engineered violence. Could the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident have been a proto-color revolution complete with violence orchestrated by foreign sponsors? A growing body of evidence suggests so, and the political leveraging of the incident by China’s enemies appears to be more of a case of exploiting tragedy than an attempt to learn a collective lesson regarding human rights or democracy.
What’s worse is that media talking points this year are calling for another “Tiananmen.” With the US clearly backing violent separatists within China, and encouraging confrontations along its borders, fears the US will attempt to stoke political subversion and another catastrophe within China are becoming increasingly heightened.
America’s Great Regime-Change Industrial Complex
From what we know about the Euromaidan in Ukraine this year, the Arab Spring in 2011, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine starting in 2004, and Otpor’s activities in Serbia during the late 1990’s, it is clear that the United States possesses the means and regularly employs methods used to destabilize and overthrow foreign governments and then subsequently replace them with a regime more favorable to Washington’s hegemonic designs.
Starting with the Euromaidan protests, US Senator John McCain would fly to Kiev and take the stage with ultra-right demonstrators in a show of undeniable support for regime change. During the Arab Spring, the New York Times in an article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” would admit that multiple US government agencies trained, funded, and equipped protesters across the Arab World in a coordinated campaign of geopolitical destabilization constituting a deliberate attempt by the US to reorder the Middle East and North Africa to align with its interests.
The Ukrainian Orange Revolution, to which the Euromaidan was the successor of, was also admittedly drawn up and supported by US policy makers. The British Guardian in an article titled, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev” admits that “while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years.” The Guardian also concedes that the demonstrations were, “funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations,” and that, “the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
And of course, that campaign in Belgrade in 2000 was led by the US-backed Otpor movement of which an entire, very lengthy Foreign Policy article titled, “Revolution U” exposed what is essentially a regime-change industrial complex owned and operated globally by the United States government and the various special interests that direct its agenda.
Decades of Confronting China
What emerges from this documented, 20 year global campaign of US-backed subversion is the very real possibility that what took place in China in 1989 was a similar attempted “regime change” aimed at subverting China and overthrowing the political order in Beijing.
Disturbing revelations were made regarding America’s belligerent stance toward China with the discovery of the 1969 “Pentagon Papers,” officially titled, “United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense.” Within the documents, the Vietnam War was revealed to be in fact part of a wider strategy of confronting, encircling, and containing China.
Three important quotes from the papers reveal the extent of Washington’s adversarial posture toward China. It stated first that, “the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.” It admitted that, “China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30’s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.” Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged against China in by stating, “there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.”
With the US ultimately losing the Vietnam War, whatever hopes of a US-aligned Vietnam being used to confront, contain, and help encircle China were lost. But the campaign for containing China would continue.
It is clear that the United States, from as early as the 1950’s, politically, financially, and even militarily backed political dissidents within China itself. From Harvard University’s peer-reviewed Journal of Cold War Studies can be found an entry titled, “The Tibetan Rebellion of 1959 and China’s Changing Relations with India and the Soviet Union” (.pdf). In it it states, “as a result, many Tibetans, from both upper and lower classes, rebelled against Chinese rule and formed the “Four Rivers and Six Ranges” guerrilla group. The rebels, as we now know, received carious kinds of support from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).” Within the publication’s footnotes, it elaborates further by stating, “Washington made the decision to support the Tibetan resistance in the summer of 1956 and the first group of Tibetan rebels was secretly brought to Saipan for training in December 1956. The trainees were then sent back to Tibet in 1957 to help the Tibetan rebels to establish contacts with the CIA and to join the resistance themselves. Available Chinese sources give no indication that the Chinese Communists were aware of America’s secret involvement in promoting the rebellion in Tibet during this period.”
While the Chinese appear not to have known of US hands behind Tibetan violence in the 1950’s they certainly suspected American influence behind the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. A 1999 Washington Post article titled, “Beijing Blames America For Tiananmen Protests” stated, “China accused the United States Sunday of inciting the massive democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, which rocked Beijing a decade ago, as part of a strategy to promote political chaos in China.”
Another article, “TIANANMEN – CIA man misread reaction, sources say,” claimed, “for months before the June 3 attack on the demonstrators, the CIA had been helping student activists form the anti-government movement, providing typewriters, facsimile machines and other equipment to help them spread their message, said one official. The CIA declined all comment.”
Clearly, the Tiananmen incident was just one of many manifestations of the ongoing US campaign against China, a campaign pursued decades before the incident, and continued for decades afterwards. Brutal violence emanating from China’s Xinjiang province in its northwestern most region constitutes the armed fist of America’s confrontational agenda inside of China today, while the US maintains nationwide networks of political sedition, and is cultivating geopolitical confrontations between China and its East Asian and Southeast Asian neighbors.
As more evidence emerges regarding the true nature of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, and the memories and impact of the event (and the propaganda surrounding it) fade, attempts to find a new Tiananmen are intensifying. Understanding that US hegemony, not a desire for democracy, are attempting to stoke political chaos inside of China, will help both the international community and the Chinese people themselves understand and avert this impending tragedy, saving the Chinese people from another tragic and senseless loss of life for the sake of foreign interests rather than national unity and progress.
Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.