By Patrick J. Buchanan            (1/5/1990)
          [From Human Events, 30 December 1989, p. 10]

            [Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

   As U.S. National  Security Adviser Brent  Scowcroft and Deputy
Secretary of  State Lawrence  Eagleburger executed  their kowtows
before  the  85-year-old  regent  of  the  Middle  Kingdom,  Deng
Xiaoping played his role perfectly.
   ``Deng was jovial as ever,'' one U.S. official confided to the
New York Times, ``but seemed  to have some difficulty focusing on
people.  While he usually looks  people directly in the face, his
eyes sort of glazed over Scowcroft.''
   And why should he not be contemptuous of these Americans, who,
with all their bombast about freedom and human rights, needed but
six months,  after that night  of terror in  Tiananmen Square, to
come crawling back to the Great Hall of the People?
   ``In both  our societies,''  Scowcroft said  in his oleaginous
toast,  ``there  are voices  of  those  who seek  to  redirect or
frustrate our  cooperation.  We both  must take  bold measures to
overcome these  negative forces.''  Then,  to sustained applause,
he concluded,  ``We extend the  hand of friendship  and hope that
you will do the same.''
   Among those ``negative forces'' are millions who voted for Mr.
Bush expecting something better than  the unbuttoned embrace of a
tyrant whose  tanks ran over  the bodies of  college students who
had offended  him by  building a crude  replica of  our Statue of
      Secretary  of  State  James  Baker  and  Press Secretary
   Marlin Fitzwater now describe what  happened last June as a
   ``tragedy.''  Orwell's observation comes  to mind: ``In our
   time, political speech and  writing are largely the defense
   of the indefensible.''
   What happened  last [3-4]  June was  not a  tragedy; it  was a
massacre, and a  damned bloody atrocity ordered  by a regime that
holds power only as  a legacy from the  greatest mass murderer of
the  20th  century,  Mao   Tse-Tung  [1893-1976],  whose  crystal
sarcophagus yet  sits in  the place of  honor in  the very square
where freedom died a bloody death.
   How to defend this renewal of ``friendship''?
   Well, it is privately argued,  in a world where Moscow remains
a great  nuclear power  and strategic  threat, America  and China
need one another.  Even though  we have our ``disagreements,'' as
the great men like to put it, we collaborated in Afghanistan, and
Beijing gives us  critical intelligence on  Soviet missile tests,
in return for U.S. military aid.
   But why must  secret collaboration with such  a regime mean we
call them ``friends''?
   An argument can be made that the superintendent of the Chicago
police would have  been right to  pay off Bugs  Moran in the '20s
for information  to convict Al  Capone.  That is  the real world.
But, even  in the real  world, there  is no need  to invite Moran
over to celebrate Thanksgiving with  the family, and toast him as
a ``friend.''
   Americans are supposed  to stand for  something in this world;
that something is freedom, human dignity and human rights.
   Our country was  a beacon to those  students; many had studied
here; we  were the model  of what  they, in their  way, wanted to
bring to  China.  That their  Statue of Democracy  was modeled on
our own Statue  of Liberty was  an immense tribute  to the United
States.  And  they went to  their deaths, that  terrible night in
Tiananmen  Square,  standing  up  for  the  things  for  which we
Americans have always stood.
   The ones still alive, in prison and penal colonies, what must
they think of us, as they read about how the two ex-partners from
Kissinger Associates came to toast  the men who ordered the tanks
to run them down?
   Even in terms of cold pragmatism, this was a mistake.
   American may well need a relationship with China.  But what is
China?  Is it  these old men, desperately  clinging to power with
their cold  and clammy  hands?  Or  is it  the millions  of young
people, now  silent, who  gathered in  Tiananmen Square?   As the
statues  of Lenin  and Stalin  fall all  over Europe,  can anyone
think Deng Xiaoping is the wave of the future?
   The true tragedy here is that Mr. Bush has elected to play the
inside game of balance-of-power politics, of Big Power diplomacy,
when the whole world is passing it by.
   Even the casual  student of history  can see we  are living in
revolutionary times.   The monstrous edifice  of communism, built
by Lenin, Stalin  and Mao, and their  lesser epigones, Ho, Castro
and Ortega, is cracking and crumbling.  The place in history that
beckons Mr.  Bush is  to be the  President who  presided over the
global collapse of  the Communist empire,  and the global triumph
of freedom.
   In a matter  of weeks, we  have seen them  trundled off to the
graveyards of  history: Kadar,  Honecker, Jakes,  Zhivkov, Husak,
Krenz.  One  day they will  be followed by  Deng, Castro, Ortega,
and, yes, Gorbachev, who is a transition figure from communism to
freedom.   For it  is  not simply  Stalinism  that the  people of
Europe are casting off.  It is ``socialism with a human face'' as
well.  In the Baltic republics and  Russia, the clamor is not for
glasnost  or perestroika,  but  freedom and  democracy.   Why cut
deals  with  the losers,  when  we  are on  the  winning  side of
   And what is the signal sent to Gorbachev?  Go ahead, send your
tanks into Lithuania, and you will face but six months' probation
for human  rights violations, after  which the  Americans will be
coming  over  to  call you  ``friend,''  and  to  disparage those
``negative forces'' back in the  United States, who simply cannot
see the big picture.

                        *       *       *

Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page