Snipers in the US Embassy, Beijing.

The Tiananmen Enquiry

In a previous three-part post, we saw that inflation, not ideology, triggered the Tiananmen demonstrations, and George Soros, the CIA and MI6 seized the moment to stage their unsuccessful Color Revolution. The demonstrations, which capped Deng Xiaoping’s disastrous decade, might have led to serious unrest were it not for Maos’ ten-year Cultural Revolution, during which everyone studied handling contradictions between people. This post, the first of three from Beijing Review, July 17-23, 1989, examines the players, their motives and actions though the eyes of the responsible Chinese officials.

Embassy Snipers

The report begins: “What should be noted is that some people used their embassy premises and the residences of their embassy personnel for purposes incompatible with the functions of an embassy and even gave refuge to offenders for whom arrest warrants have been issued by Chinese public security organs, in gross violation of the norms of international law.

“When martial law troops were marching from east to west along Chang'an Boulevard, approaching the flyover at Jianguomen at about 10:00 am on June 7, t h e y were fired on from two directions: one from a diplomats' apartment building and the

other from the southern side of Chang'an Boulevard. One soldier was killed and two others were wounded. The troops were forced to fire back and besieged the diplomats' compound but soon withdrew. The Chinese media reported the incident on the same day. The sources point out the fact that snipers in a diplomats' apartment building and a building on the opposite side of the street fired at the troops simultaneously proved the attack had been elaborately planned. 

“It can be concluded the sniper in the diplomats' apartment building was either a resident or a ruffian who was hiding there. However, in its report, the VOA avoided mentioning the fact that some sixty shots were fired at the Chinese troops from the diplomats' building. Instead, it said the incident was "elaborately planned" by the Chinese troops. 

“The Voice Of America said that evidence had been collected to show that Chinese troops had deliberately fired at the foreign diplomats' compound last month. It also said that it was an elaborately planned incident rather than an impulsive act by the army as China had claimed. What gives rise to suspicion is that on July 2, one day before it made representations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at 4:00 pm, July 3, the US embassy had already leaked the information to the public through American correspondents. 

“Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Huaqiu subsequently met US ambassador Lilley¹ on July 6 and handed him a note stating that the Foreign Ministry "categorically rejects the US embassy's groundless accusation and strong protest against the Chinese government" contained in the embassy's July 3 note. "The Chinese government has always observed the norms of international law and attached great importance to security arrangements for foreign diplom-atic missions in China”. In its note, the US embassy stated that the firing 'was probably deliberate and premeditated.' Basing political representations on such a groundless `probability' is irresponsible and unserious.

"Since the VOA has gathered enough evidence as it claimed, then why does it not bring such evidence to the public?" Chinese sources asked. “The martial law troops encountered an unexpected attack and suffered casualties. Under such circumstances, they had the right to fire in self-defense in the directions from where the snipers' shots came. China had never said that the counter-attack by the martial law troops was out of sheer impulse. 

China is no longer a vassal of any foreign power. It is a sovereign state and condemns the VOA for going too far in interfering in China's internal affairs in the past few months and urged it to show restraint. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already begun dealing with the aftermath of the incident. Yet at a time when the matter is being resolved fairly and reasonably, the US embassy has come out to complicate it and create problems.

It is entirely futile for the US embassy to attempt to exert pressure on the Chinese government by making a big fuss about an incident which has already been resolved. Facts show that, during the period of martial law in parts of Beijing, the safety of foreign embassies and their members was fully guaranteed so long as they strictly abided by the relevant decrees and regulations of the Beijing Municipal Government and the Martial Law Headquarters.

1. President Bush the Elder, formerly CIA Director General, installed CIA agent James Lilley as ambassador weeks before the demonstration because he was an expert in infiltration and exfiltration of foreign agents across national borders.