-Caveat Lector- >From Wash (DC) Post Bombing Intended, Chinese Believe U.S. Explanations Widely Discounted By John Pomfret and Michael Laris Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, May 12, 1999; Page A24 BEIJING, May 11�The most remarkable thing about the protests that have erupted across China over the last four days is that the great majority of China's best and brightest, from software engineers to academics to busines smen, believe deeply that the United States planned to destroy their embassy in Belgrade. Millions more people in the world's most populous country seem convinced that the United States is out to get them. From posters around the campus of Beijing University to headlines in the state-controlled press, the NATO attack on the Belgrade embassy is being viewed here as part of a long-standing American plot to contain China. "After the breakup of the Soviet Union, China has become United States' No. 1 strategic enemy, not only today but into the 21st century," read a poster that received close attention today near the Beijing University campu s. "While we are calling: 'Down with the USA,' " the poster said, "the United States is seriously engaging in work to overthrow China." The depth of these beliefs, which is hard to exaggerate, helps explain why China has been reluctant to accept apologies made by President Clinton. Chinese, from well-connected security officials to university professors, complained that Clinton's words lacked sincerity; several said they were surprised that the United States did not attempt to send an envoy to smooth the waters. Moreover, for a complex web of reasons, many people in China have no interest in believing the attack was a mistake. The Communist Party does not want to believe the embassy was bombed in error, because it can use the incident to deflect attention from the 10th anniversary of the June 4 government crackdown on democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. China also faces enormous social problems, such as unemployment and official corruption, so a round of full-throated nationalism, despite its inherent risks, is seen by the party as a welcome distraction from domestic concerns. China's army and hard-line factions within the party and government also are uncomfortable with the country's current direction; it is becoming more capitalistic, less restrictive and more open to Western ideas. A round of nativist, anti- foreign demonstrations could be the antidote to such trends, these people think. Nevertheless, whether they were marching in angry mobs, gathered on university campuses or relaxing at a McDonald's, the Chinese view of the bombing has been unmistakable. Several dozen people have charged in interviews that the United States intentionally bombed the Belgrade embassy because it wants to keep China down. Over and over, people declared that the United States never would have killed three Chinese citizens if China were as strong as America. "It wasn't an attack on the embassy; it was that America wanted to make a point," said Zhang Bin, a Beijing software engineer. "America has a strategy. It wants to feel out China. It wants to do an experiment -- to hit you and see if you respond, to see if Chinese people will submit to this kind of American power politics." U.S. officials have said the attack was a tragic mistake caused by military planners who had relied on an outdated map. But people here said their respect for America's technological prowess makes it impossible for them to believe that explanation. "You have the best science in the world. How could you lie and say it was a mistake?" said Wang Yali, a 33-year-old award-winning documentary filmmaker, who has lived in New York. The background of Chinese nationalism offers clues to the depth of feeling about these issues here, where nativist sentiments coexist uneasily with a desire to be open to the world. The same people who are protesting today could be applying for U.S. visas tomorrow. For decades, the Beijing government's propaganda apparatus has beaten the drum of nationalism, exploiting a history of invasion by Western powers and the Japanese. The ruling Communist Party bases its legitimacy on its role in helping Chinese "stand up" in the world after more than 100 years of foreign humiliation. On the street, NATO is routinely compared to the alliance of eight foreign armies that, at the beginning of this century, crushed the Boxer Rebellion, an uprising of Chinese farmers against the depredations of Western imperialist powers. The government-approved slogans are also laden with history: "Down with American imperialism" has its roots in the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76. "America, paper tiger" dates to the Korean War of the 1950s. Conspiracy theories have always had great currency in Chinese society, in part because of people's restricted access to information. But the conspiracy theories stemming from the embassy attack border on the wacky. A Chinese businessman who travels routinely to the United States argued that the anger caused by the attack would give NATO the excuse it needs to end its mission in the Balkans. A doctoral candidate in economics at prestigious Qinghua University asserted that the attack was related to the Asian financial crisis. "The United States caused that crisis to get all the money from Asia onto American soil," he said. "They attacked our embassy because China so far has avoided much of the pitfalls of the crisis." � Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: China and the Bombing Campaign Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________ Wednesday, May 12, 1999 CHINA AND THE BOMBING CAMPAIGN ROBERT WEIL, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of "Red Cat, White Cat: China and the Contradictions of 'Market Socialism,'" Weil said: "The anger in China is widespread and is no doubt very genuine. Either it will stiffen the Chinese government reaction to the U.S., which would have its own serious consequences; or they won't stand up to the U.S., which might result in a domestic backlash. There's widespread feeling in China that the U.S. is bullying them, practicing gunboat diplomacy and this may be a final straw. There's already a lot of political discontent about the economic situation -- the increased class polarization, unemployment, corruption and crime. The government might tap into the reaction to the embassy bombing, but will be nervous about protests going too far. But the domestic discontent could fuse with a sense of China being weakened internationally. Such feelings in the past in China have led to radical movements for social change." ROBERT NAIMAN, [EMAIL PROTECTED],http://www.preamble.org/greensign.html Naiman, who is research associate with the Preamble Center, has organized a petition of American Jews urging the Green Party of Germany (which is part of the coalition government and is meeting tomorrow) to oppose the war and reject analogies to the Nazi Holocaust. The petition, signed by over 200 prominent American Jews, states: "The Holocaust is being invoked in order to justify an unjust bombing campaign against the civilian population of Yugoslavia. Many of us have friends who lost family members in the Holocaust, or have lost relatives ourselves. We are deeply aware of our own history and the need for the world community to intervene in situations where there is a threat of genocide, in order to prevent it. However, this is clearly not what is happening in Yugoslavia today. We do not believe that our government's war against Yugoslavia is motivated by humanitarian concerns. This is evidenced by their refusal to airlift food and water to desperate refugees within Kosovo, as well as the paltry sums allocated for refugee relief as compared to the billions of dollars spent on the bombing. The Clinton Administration's great reluctance to pursue a negotiated solution to the conflict also indicates that this intervention is mainly about power: showing the world that the United States (and NATO, which it largely controls) is the self-appointed international policeman, and stands above international law..." JERRY STARR, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of sociology at West Virginia University and author of "The Lessons of the Vietnam War," Starr said: "In President Clinton's current game of international jeopardy, bombing is his answer, but what is the question? In recent months, Clinton has rejected a world ban on land mines and a proposal for an international criminal court. He has committed intentional acts of war on four separate nations (Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia) and ignored United Nations mediation and peacekeeping forces in favor of a bombing campaign by a military alliance left over from the Cold War. Whatever the claimed justification, I don't think the President's question could be 'How do we promote peace and human rights in the world?' -- but it should be ours." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 >From wsws.org WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : The Balkan Crisis After the bombing of the Belgrade embassy US media denounces Chinese protests By David Walsh 12 May 1999 Even if one were inclined to suppress all doubts and accept Washington�s claims that the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was entirely accidental, the vitriolic response of the American media to the protests in Beijing and other cities reveals an extraordinary level of anti-China sentiment within the US ruling elite. Far from expressing genuine regret at the loss of Chinese life, the anger of the American media reflects precisely the type of militaristic and ruthless mindset capable of producing a deliberate decision to bomb the embassy of a country not directly involved in the war against Yugoslavia. Why should the US media be outraged by the anger of China�s people to an attack on their embassy? The bombing of an embassy is, in international law, a direct attack on that country�s sovereignty. In this instance, the US bombs struck the Chinese embassy with such force that, according to journalists, they could be heard miles away. They landed in the sleeping quarters of the embassy, demolishing whole floors. Zhu Ying, 27, and her husband, Xu Xinghu, 31, were in bed when the bombs hit. Also killed was Shao Yunhuan. Her husband remains in the intensive care unity in Central Hospital in Belgrade; he was blinded in the attack. He apparently has not yet been told of his wife's death. As of two days ago, four other Chinese citizens remained in the intensive care unit. One, Ren Baokai, a military attach�, lay in the bombed building for eight hours before he was discovered and rescued. US and NATO spokesmen, without providing any evidence, describe the attack on the embassy as a mistake. The Associated Press published Monday a list of "Accidental Military Attacks" that have taken place over the past 13 years. Its purpose was to reassure the public that accidents in war do happen. Perhaps they do. But not all "mistakes" are the same, and those who make them are not without legal, political and moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The "mistakes" of the White House, State Department and Pentagon are the all but inevitable product of definite strategic aims, policies, decisions, and, we might add, social attitudes. The most essential characteristics of American policy are a vast carelessness, callousness and indifference to human life. The list of "Accidental Military Attacks" served to remind the observant reader of one factor common to all the "mistakes," whether it was the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988 in which 290 people were killed, or the bombing of a shelter in Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, killing more than 300-- each one was carried out by the US military on the territory of other countries, in the course of one reckless adventure or another. The embassy bombing evoked a deep response within the Chinese people. Demonstrations have been held in numerous cities, with the participation of hundreds of thousands. US Ambassador to China James Sasser, barricaded in the American embassy, told journalists that he thought officials were surprised by the ferocity and numbers of protesters. He reported that from what he could see "the crowd was extraordinarily difficult to control. And some were attacking the police." Despite the perfunctory apologies of the Clinton Administration, the real attitude of American ruling circles toward the Chinese people can be better gauged from the indignant, bellicose and threatening response of the US media to the protests. The Times' resident thug, Thomas L Friedman, defends the bombing in a manner so brazen that it gives an insight into why the attack was carried out. "I am sorry about the Chinese Embassy," he writes, "but we have no reason to be defensive here. We are at war with the Serbian nation, and anyone hanging around Belgrade needs to understand that." Far from suggesting an accidental bombing, the words of Friedman � whose views reflect the outlook of his close friends and contacts in the highest echelons of the State Department and Pentagon � provide an insight into what might well have been a motive for targeting the Chinese Embassy. Notwithstanding the posture of regret, the bombing was a way of sending an unmistakable message to the Chinese or anyone else who may be tempted to get in the way of American war aims Other media voices adopted a tone of outrage over the display of popular anger in the streets of Beijing, as though it was impossible that this was the genuine feeling of the Chinese people. US Today headlined a May 11 article "Anti-U.S. vitriol continuing to gush from Beijing." It noted that "China's state- run media, which stoked the anti-U.S. frenzy over the weekend, continued to run sensational stories Monday about the bombing." In an editorial, the newspaper reminded the Chinese of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 and its eventual outcome, the invasion of Beijing by US marines. "If both nations aren't careful, the aftermath of NATO's accidental bombing of China's Belgrade embassy may prove equally catastrophic.... China has not been careful." They continue, "This is not a time for greater concessions to China for the bombing. That would reward Beijing's hostility." "China's True Colors" reads the headline of Tuesday's Washington Post editorial. "China has reacted to the mistaken NATO bombing of its Belgrade embassy suspiciously like a totalitarian nation. The state-controlled media, which is to say China's only media, have whipped people into a fury with inaccurate and incomplete reporting. Newspapers have failed to report U.S. explanations or apologies.... The Clinton administration and NATO should not allow China thus to bully them into any unwise concessions ... " In the Times Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes in an op-ed piece entitled "China's No. 1 enemy" that "China's leaders make no effort to conceal the fact they consider the United States an enemy, or, more precisely, the enemy." The Chinese denunciations of the US-led war against Serbia fit "within the broader anti- American line Beijing has been spouting for years: that the United States is an imperialist aggressor, bent on world domination, and at China's expense." In regard to the mass protests over the bombing, Kagan criticizes "the lack of indignation expressed so far by White House officials in the face of China's behavior." George Melloan in the Wall Street Journal ("China's Unspoken Goal Is to Destroy America's Power") observes that "China hasn't made a secret of its desire to see America humbled. It would particularly like to have the American presence in Asia give way to a hegemonic China.... What the current circumstances should make clear to Americans is that even though the Cold War is over, the world is still a dangerous place." In these comments the world is turned upside down. The victim of a violent attack is a "bully." If he protests against the attack, that proves he's an "enemy" and out to "destroy" us. And, moreover, if the "bully" isn't "careful," he's really going to get a beating next time. This is Washington's threat to every regime that doesn't go along with its policies. What about the US media complaint that the Chinese popular anger is merely the product of one-sided coverage of the NATO war against Serbia? In their descriptions of the role played by their counterparts in China, or what they imagine it to be, the American media, first of all, paint something of a self- portrait. The Washington Post's picture of a tightly controlled press and television that whip "people into a fury with inaccurate and incomplete reporting" resembles nothing so much as the situation in the US, where the corporate-controlled mass media bombards an unsuspecting public night and day with government claims passed off as objective facts. Or, more precisely, this is the situation as the media would like it to be. The American media falls into line with government policy on a dime, but it increasingly lacks credibility. It has failed during the current war, as they did during the Clinton impeachment drive, and during the confrontation with Iraq last year, to carry the population with them. The media commentators more and more are talking to each other, and not to the broad masses, expressing the viewpoint and addressing the concerns of an isolated and socially privileged elite. The response of the Chinese people to the embassy bombing is far more spontaneous and profound than any sentiments so far expressed by the American public on the war. Up to now what has prevailed in America is a kind of benumbed apathy. There is neither war fever nor deep interest. People in the US do not know what to make of events. They instinctively distrust the government and media version, but they have no worked-out alternative take on the whole business. Broad layers of the population in the US tolerate or ignore the war at this point because it does not yet seem to affect them directly. Were the war to become "serious," were it to "come home," the chasm between the bellicosity of the media and the wealthy elite, on the one hand, and the feelings of the broad masses, on the other, would become manifest. This bellicosity is very real. In their efforts to explain the "error" in Belgrade, the US government and military have revealed something about their plans and appetite for war. See Also: Balkan war Embassy protests reflect deeper currents [11 May 1999] Mass demonstrations in China express outrage at NATO bombing [10 May 1999] How could the bombing of the Chinese embassy have been a mistake? [10 May 1999] US-NATO attack on Yugoslavia [Complete list of WSWS articles] Top of page Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1998-99 World Socialist Web Site All rights reserved >From Slate.CoM frame game Excuses, Excuses By William Saletan Last August, after finally admitting to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury that he had carried on and covered up an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton went on national TV to apologize. He began by calling his behavior "wrong" and taking "complete responsibility" for it. But within seconds, Clinton tarnished his apology by lapsing into excuses, self-justifications, and blame-shifting. This week, as he tries to explain NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, he's doing the same thing. How did the bombing happen? According to Secretary of Defense William Cohen, NATO "attacked the wrong target because the bombing instructions were based on an outdated map," which "inaccurately located the embassy in a different part of Belgrade." Henceforth, said Cohen, "the State Department will report to the intelligence community whenever foreign embassies move." In other words, people in the U.S. government who knew the embassy had moved hadn't bothered to tell their colleagues who were deciding which buildings to bomb. There's nothing for the United States to say about this except that we perpetrated a moral outrage through inexcusable stupidity and recklessness. But as usual, Clinton is finding plenty of other things to say. 1) I've already apologized. Last year, when asked to apologize, Clinton repeatedly insisted that he had already done so. But saying you have already apologized is the opposite of apologizing. The latter is a way of accepting criticism; the former is a way of deflecting it. Saturday, in his initial remarks about the bombing, Clinton expressed "regret" and "condolences" to China but never used the word "apologize." Two days later, he declared, "I have already expressed our apology." When asked about American responsibility for the tragedy, Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin reiterated that Clinton had already "apologized." 2) My actions were minimal. In his speech last August, Clinton used weasel words and passive verbs to minimize his deceit. "While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information," he allowed. "My public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression." To minimize this week's embassy bombing, Clinton called it a "mistake," "accident," and "tragic event" (other U.S. officials called it "regrettable" and an "error" entailing "loss of life"). Clinton used the passive voice to obscure his responsibility ("the Chinese Embassy was inadvertently damaged and people lost their lives") and offered good intentions as an excuse ("We're doing everything that we can to avoid innocent civilian casualties"). 3) Everybody does it. In 1992, Clinton smothered questions about his adultery by confessing to "causing pain in my marriage," refusing to say more, and pointing out that many American couples were in a similar position. In his August 1998 speech, he offered the same defense. Likewise, Clinton suggested this week that in war the occasional embassy bombing is to be expected. "This will happen if you drop this much [ordnance]," he argued Saturday. Cohen echoed that line Monday ("In combat, accidents will happen"), as did White House spokesman Joe Lockhart ("Mistakes happen"). 4) It's the economy, stupid. Unable to convince Americans last year that he was truly sorry for offending their values, Clinton appealed instead to their material interests, vowing incessantly to "keep working for the American people." This week, having bombed the Chinese Embassy, Clinton is making a similar appeal to China's prudence. On Monday, he reminded China of his "commitment to strengthen our relationship," while Albright and Lockhart emphasized that "good relations are manifestly in the interest of both nations" and that "a broad-based relationship ... serves both our interests." 5) It's my enemy's fault. Clinton ruined his speech last August by blaming Starr and Paula Jones' lawyers for forcing him to shade the truth to fend off Starr's investigation, which had "gone on too long, cost too much, and hurt too many innocent people." This week, Clinton again buried his apology under a recitation of his enemy's wrongs. He even used the same word-- "proportion"--to deflect scrutiny. "We need some sense of proportion" in evaluating the bombing, Clinton pleaded. "This was an isolated, tragic event, while the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo ... is a deliberate and systematic crime." Albright, Rubin, and other U.S. officials reasserted that distinction, and Defense Department spokesman Ken Bacon pointed out that the other guy started the fight: "This was not a fight that NATO sought. It was a fight that could have been avoided, but Mr. Milosevic decided not to avoid it." It's true that the Serbs' crimes dwarf NATO's in scale and malice. It's true that China's financial interests are best served by stifling its anger. It's true that wars always cause unintended civilian casualties. It's true that NATO is trying to avoid such casualties. And it's true that Clinton has apologized. These are all perfectly good spins. But the point of an apology is to accept responsibility for what you did and otherwise to shut up. To apologize, in short, is to abstain from spin--one of the few feats of which Clinton seems incapable. A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
