This is always a very legitimate worry - and always there is a big risk that opportunists could use any kind of revolution to their advantage.
Personally, I would deeply desire to see a democratic China, with its people freely choosing their own way forward. I also do not like these kinds of people who think that democracy can come only from the West, and that the West should therefore colonise the country (or 'guide' the way). That is not to say that the West does not have some fine things to offer - it certainly does - but democracy must grow in people's own hearts and minds and cannot be transplanted, imposed, or nurtured even by a well-meaning but foreign hand.
At the same time, nor am I for isolation. It is a not always easy balance to find.
I fear however, that the chance for more peaceful change was lost in 1989, and a future change would unlikely be free of violence, and would probably be at greater risk of instability and extremes than in 1989.
Here in Russia, internet is not controlled (yet), and there is media coverage (though neutral to negative in tone) of the events in the Middle East and North Africa. The govt here is just counting on people's passiveness not to put them on the list of endangered leaders. They always play on people's fear of instability and chaos, showing on TV what a terrible thing these revolutions are, because it creates chaos. The govt in both Russia and China uses this deep old fear of instability a lot to suppress people's appetite for revolution. In Russia, people are always worried too that even though they know the people in power have robbed the country and are corrupt, if a new lot comes to power, they will just start robbing the country all over again, redividing the assets all over again, and perhaps be even more greedy. It comes down to the idea of 'better the devil you know...'
Yizheng, I could see you have compassion for the Chinese people, as well as a strong inclination and love for the Chinese history.
The China matter perhaps hinges on the coming collapse of its huge real estate bubble.
The ultimate outcome from any future Chinese uproar over the financial disaster ensuing from the coming bubble bursting could be dependent upon the position and stand-grounds of the U.S. government. (The U.S. has a full house of the sons and daughters of the CCP leadership to use as 'hostage' as well as a full cache of their deposits. - This is one important bargaining chip for the U.S. government to exert influence over the CCP should there be contemplated another military crackdown in the future.)
Inside of the U.S., I saw two powerful forces pulling the China string. One force from the establishments in the U.S. and on the Wall Street (i.e., the Goldman Sachs gang and the deficit spending gang) wants the CCP [and China] to continue the financing for the U.S. treasuries and debts in return for commission rebates, not to mention the other benefit of cheap labor that China provides, while another force from the establishments in the U.S. and on the Wall Street wants to see China disintegrating into chaos and plans to reap profits such as shorting the Chinese market. (Though, have to acknowledge that there are bona fide U.S. congressmen and congresswomen who want to see a democratic and free China, and I myself often think of the ancient poem about the commoners' exclamation to die together with despotic ruler.) The gang which wants to elongate the life expectancy of the CCP and help extend the CCP's tenuous hold over China, would be like the guy called Robert Zoellick who wrote a typical propaganda entitled "Whither China: From Membership To Responsibility" See
http://www.ncuscr.or...er_spring_0.pdf for details as to how they justify the CCP to be a responsible stakeholder.
I was disappointed over the role the U.S. played in 1989, and especially so after reading James Liley's memoirs. I hope Obama is different. So far, I saw little from Obama, and he is surrounded by the "China hands" who take the CCP leadership as friends, unfortunately. (I found corroboration of the George Bush gang's indifference and complicity in the 1989 massacre in an article written by Ruan Ying, former president of the CCP party academy.)
Excerpts (link to the full article at
http://www.kanzhongguo.com/node/392357 )
第四，自由国家特别是美国政府，在自由与共产党奴役制度的历史性角斗中，站到了历史的错误一边。
“六四”屠杀通过美国CNN电视实况报导，震惊了世界。美国政治领袖当时采取两面手法：一面向公众表示谴责屠夫、制裁暴政；一面暗通款曲，向屠夫示好，寻求与其“合作”，助其“稳定”，以维持自由大国与共产奴役制度大国之间的“力量均衡”（balanceofpower）。
1989年6月29日，美国众议院以418票对0票通过《制裁中国修正案》，第二天（6月30日）布什总统就遣特使史考克罗夫特（BrentScowcroft）和伊戈尔伯格（LawrenceEagleburger）秘密访问北京，向邓小平示好。他们遭到邓小平一顿痛斥，无功而返。邓小平说：
“中国没有触犯美国，任何一个小问题都没有触犯。问题出在美国。美国在很大范围内直接触犯了中国的利益和尊严。我明确告诉阁下，中国的内政绝不允许任何人加以干涉，不管后果如何，中国都不会让步。中国内政要由中国来管，什么灾难到来，中国都可以承受，绝不会让步。”
邓小平敢于如此蛮横对待老布什的特使，因为他看透了美国软弱可欺。早在密使派出一周之前（6月23日），邓小平收到老布什密信。信中说：
“对于阁下对贵国人民的贡献及引导贵国进步，本人极为敬重，有鉴于此，敝人提笔写这封信，请求阁下协助维系这层贵我双方都认为至为重要的关系。敝人已经竭尽所能，不干预中国内政，敝人尊重贵我两国社会、制度之歧异。敝人只是要向阁下保证，我们希望这个难题能获得解决，既能令阁下满意，又不违我们对基本原则的主张。朋友之间有歧见必须设法消弭。”
这封信让邓小平一眼看穿，美国政府的所谓制裁，不过是应付国会和公众舆论的姿态。因而采取寸步不让的强硬态度，逼老布什全线退却。同时在北京、上海等地继续扩大搜捕和公开处决参加民主运动的中国青年。
两名密使在北京碰壁回来，布什在7月9日的日记中写道：“我真的很希望中国采取行动解决目前关系紧绷的问题，可惜未能如愿。”他再次借口通报七国高峰会写信给邓小平，说：“美国和日本曾把一些非常令人激怒的措词从指责中国的公报中删去”等等。
邓小平回信继续指责美国“深深地卷入了中国的内政，对中国进行制裁，触犯了中国的利益和尊严，由此引起中美关系的困难，责任完全在美国方面，应由美国来改变。”
布什见邓小平态度强硬，于10月、11月连续请尼克松和季辛吉访问北京充当说客。邓小平面对这两位中国的“老朋友”，嘴里还是说硬话，态度上开始缓和下来。他一面对尼克松说：“北京的动乱和反革命暴乱，首先是国际上反共反社会主义思潮煽动起来的。美国在这个问题上卷入太深，美国之音太不象话，一批撒谎的人在干事。如果美国领导人根据美国之音制定国策，要吃亏的。”一面又说：“你是中美关系非常严峻的时刻到中国访问的，我们同美国也应该结束这几个月的过去，开辟未来。请你告诉布什总统，结束过去，美国可以采取一些主动行动。美国利用中国市场还有很多事情能够做，我们欢迎美国商人继续进行对华商业活动，这恐怕也是结束过去的一个重要内容。”
尼克松从邓小平那里回来，在美国《时代》杂志发表的文章〈中美关系的危机〉中说：
“东亚安全问题上，日本已经是一个经济上的超级大国，而且有能力成为一个军事和政治超级大国。与此同时，苏联在这一地区仍具有相当影响力。在此种情况下，如果有一个强大的、稳定的、与美国保持友好关系的国家，对于美国平衡亚洲力量，特别是平衡日本和苏联在远东的力量，就是必不可少的。美国维护同中国的合作符合美国的利益，美国可利用中国的力量来平衡其它的力量，以在太平洋地区取得有利于美国的大国均衡。”
这就是尼克松、基辛格主张的联中制日、联中制俄大战略。老布什看来接受了他的主张。邓小平在11月6日接到老布什来信，信中表示：“当初尼克松访华的地缘政治原因依然存在，今天，美中两国在许多重要领域有着相似的利益。”来信建议，在老布什同戈尔巴乔夫会晤后，美国将帕特使访华，向邓小平通报会晤情况，探讨如何使美中关系正常化。
12月9日，老布什的特使史考克罗夫一行再度访问北京。这一回是公开的。美国终于接受了邓小平的“一揽子方案”，包括：“美国取消制裁”，“落实几项较大的中美经济合作项目”；邓小平的报答是：“同意方励之夫妇离开美国驻华使馆到美国或某第三国去。”
老布什如此急切地帮邓小平从“六四”屠杀的内外困境中走出，受到了美国舆论的强烈批评。
美国参议院民主党领袖米契尔（GeorgeMitchell）在国会抨击这是“美国总统以最不恰当、最令人尴尬的方式向中共政府屈服，是对高压的共产中国政权表里不一的磕头外交。”
《华盛顿邮报》批评老布什的决定是“对一个实行镇压和沾满鲜血的政府做出的安抚性让步。”
Edited by ahxiang, 23 February 2011 - 01:04 AM.
This topic is locked
