Subject: Serbian fascism
Date: 14-May-99 at 20:41
From: James Blaut, 70671,2032

TO: Neil Smith,INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
   

A message responding to Neil and to Andy, followed by a long set of
attachments from the Asia History Net (H-Asia) on the embassy bombing.

Neil:

I read through your message three times and I still don't see exactly what
you are advocating in the real, immediate situation. You want to see
Milosevic dfeated. OK. You see the bombing as imperialism and I take it you
want it stopped. OK. WHICH COMES FIRST? You seem to be criticizing those of
us who shout monotonically "STOP THE BOMBING!" because we don't say much if
anything about the Serbs. But:

(1) the culpability of the Serb leadershipp is irrelevasnt to the demand to
stop the bombing, because whatever evil is taking place on the ground in
yugoslavia cannot possibly justify the NATO actions, which are simply the
opening guns of a new form of militaristic effort of the Euro-Americvan
core capitalist states to terrorize the whole world into compliance with
core-capitalist hegemony, shoving aside the UN and thumbing their
collective nose at all international law including the UN Charter and the
NATO charter, anmd saying to every country from Cuba to India to China "we
are in command! Do exactly what we tell you to do." I call this
Neo-Gunboatism: the US, from the beginning of this century on, tried to
force independent states of Middle america to act like US colonies by
sending in the gunboats and the marines whenever any one of these countries
threatened to opposre US interests. Now the core capitalist states (perhaps
excluding Japan?) want to do exactlky the same on a world scale. They no
longer can fool people with the Cold War rhetoric: now it is naked use of
military force to generate
profits and monopolize the world's natural resources -- naked but veiled in
gossamer arguments about Our virtue and Their evil deeds.

2. Neil: please reassure me that you oppose the bombing and fight agaimnst
it as you have done in previous imperialistic wars!

Andy:

It seems a bit... narrowminded? to descvribe as "conspiracy theories" all
of the arguments that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was deliberate. A
billion Chinese believe this and so does much -- I think most -- of the
Western Left, and the arguments are compelling. Direct evidence may be
lacking, but the comments which I forwarded from the H-Asia list that the
US has previously bombed embassies constitute very strong indirect
evidence. Surely you don't think that the NATO military (and presumably
other) leaders are too high-minded to do such a nasty thing? Or that they
depend on out-of-date maps?

There have been maybe a dozen postings on H-Asia, the very scholarly liston
Asian hisatory, from North Americans, Chinese, and others, on the bombings.
Most assert the possibil;ity, likelihood, or certainty, that the bombing
was deliberate, and very few postings arguing the view that thbe thing was
an accident. I am attaching some of these comments below. I apologize for
the lemngth of this message.
 ****************************************

Subject: H-ASIA: Beijing Embassy Bombing
Date: 13-May-99 at 05:51
From: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture,
INTERNET:[log in to unmask]

TO: INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
    

Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [209.119.1.27])
        by dub-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) with ESMTP id
GAA08656;
        Thu, 13 May 1999 06:51:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from peach (209.119.0.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS
v1.1a) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Thu,
13
May 1999 6:48:58 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 06:52:50 -0400
Reply-To: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Leibo, Steven A." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: H-ASIA: Beijing Embassy Bombing
To: [log in to unmask]

                H-ASIA
*****************************************************
From: van nguyen-marshall <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: H-ASIA: Beijing Embassy Bombing

This message is in reply to Shekhar Krishnan's comments about the bombing
of the Chinese embassy.

I do not think your hypothesis is crackpot at all. While it is sad to
think that such a Machiavellian maneuver would occur, the reality is that
such things have occurred all too frequently. Therefore, why should anyone
be surprised if this is the case?

While implausible things can happen, a series of implausible factors
usually indicates something else is afoot. In addition to the motives you
put forward, I would add one more: Since the cold war ended the US, if not
posturing for war with China, has positioned China as the main potential
threat to its global security for the turn of the century. Analysts in the
Pentagon, CIA, and White House can assess China's strengths and weaknesses
in terms of materiel, number of soldiers, and can spy on its war exercises,
but on a psychological level the US does not know how China would react to
a variety of situations. Unfortunately this is one way of finding out how
far China can be pushed.

Sincerely,
Van Nguyen-Marshall
The University of British Columbia


Subject: H-ASIA: Chinese Embassy Bombing
Date: 13-May-99 at 05:49
From: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture,
INTERNET:[log in to unmask]

TO: INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
    

Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [209.119.1.27])
        by hpamgaab.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.4) with ESMTP id
GAA07378;
        Thu, 13 May 1999 06:49:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from peach (209.119.0.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS
v1.1a) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Thu,
13
May 1999 6:47:37 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 06:52:04 -0400
Reply-To: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Leibo, Steven A." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: H-ASIA: Chinese Embassy Bombing
To: [log in to unmask]

                H-ASIA
****************************************
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Chinese student demonstrations

        This is a response to Paul Rakita Goldin's questions. I am a
modern
China historian currently teaching English at the China Youth League's
college
in Beijing. I write to you at the end of several long days of "crisis
counseling" with over 150 of my 400 students, as well as lots of
conversations
over the last 6 weeks of NATO's bombing campaign. Many of my students
participated in the demonstrations at the embassy, as well as a
candle-light
vigil here. They are full of genuine rage, and after some initial
awkwardness,
have been very relieved to be able to voice their anger to an American who
will
listen without preaching, justifying, or talking down to them. When I gave
them
the opportunity to tell me what they think or feel, or to write letters to
President Clinton or to my friends, or to the American people, almost all
of
them applied themselves to the task with great seriousness of purpose.
        Here are some of their thoughts, paraphrased except where quoted.
(Some
of my adult Chinese friends' comments will be identified as such.)

1. To first address Paul's main point, i.e. why are the students reacting
in an
uncritical way after having such a critical view of their government and
media
10 years ago:
        It is important to understand their main concern as fear that, if
NATO
(read U.S.) can bomb Serbia over the treatment of ethnic minorities, it can
bomb
China over the Tibetans and the Taiwanese. I tried to explain the concept
of
genocide, and reassure them that the U.S. will not initiate an attack on
China
over Taiwan. I explained the feelings of Jews about the Holocaust, etc.
etc.
(Yet Chalmers Johnson's analysis in today's H-ASIA makes my assurance ring
false.) They don't always say this at first, but when I listen long
enough,
someone in the class always raises this issue, and others are relieved to
have
it in the open.

2. Regarding taking Chinese newspaper accounts seriously: My students
ask me
why I believe the American press and government's explanation. ( I must
admit
that the Chinese have a point here. It is very very hard to believe the CIA
is
foolish enough to use outdated maps. My American, British, and Canadian
friends
just don't buy this U.S. explanation any more than the Chinese do.)
        But when talking with my students, I just nod my head and answer,
"I
think all governments lie to their citizens." At that point, they nod, or
smile, or look at me knowingly.
          Privately in my office, older students have admitted that their
government doesn't tell them everything. They badly want to know about the
Kosovo refugees and other information. They borrow newspapers and
magazines
from me, or individually ask questions as we walk to/from class. Tonight a
student offered: "The Chinese government is partially to blame for this
crisis.
 It is too strict about human rights, and won't allow us to speak against
the
Communist Party." "Chinese leaders still are very much like traditional
authoritarian emperors."

3. Re VOA: Why should the Chinese listen to the media of the country that
just
bombed their embassy?
        And, from adults tonight: The reception of VOA has been
particularly
fuzzy of late. (???!!!)

4. Re "blood debt" and other emotional rhetoric. Some of this is the
rhetorical style of the Chinese language. Please understand the critical
importance of Yawei Liu's note in the last H-ASIA: the Chinese have been
humiliated and preyed upon since 1839, and have not forgotten any of it.
The
history of European and Japanese colonialism is brought into daily
conversation.
American lectures about human rights, Tibetan independence, Taiwan,
prisoners'
organ, and now the so-called spy, not to mention the WTO discussions, have
brought China to the end of their rope. "Why do you hate China so much???"
asked an anguished student, who usually is light-hearted and up-beat. "We
love
America and want to be friends with you! Yet all you do is criticize us
and
deny us equal status in the world! We were a proud civilization until
European
colonial powers began to exploit us in 1840. After the Opium War, we were
forced to pay indemnity to the Europeans! The Chinese were starving to
death
and in rags, yet we had to PAY Europeans!!!!!! .......We're powerless,
very,
very sad, and cannot do anything with our sorrow."
        Another student, hoarse from screaming at the U.S. Embassy for so
many
hours, added: "Our government told us that America is our friend. I
learned it
from our textbooks. But look what you've done!" (He is studying Law, and
has
been told that American rule of law is the example which China must follow.
That there are laws to ensure that people can speak in their own defense.
Now
he feels betrayed. What is he to believe about America?)

5. This same student answered Paul's question about the government
"staging"
the demonstrations: "....If the government had not controlled the
demonstrations, students would have burned down everything within view of
the
embassy...."
        I must say that the Chinese government is damned either way: We
condemn
them for suppressing freedom of expression, then condemn them for allowing
a
demonstration. I remember being here in 1996 when the students desperately
wanted to demonstrate against the Japanese. The government wouldn't allow
any
demonstrations, fearing further damage to Sino-Japanese relations, as well
as to
domestic social order. This time, the government really couldn't have
stopped
the outpouring of emotion. I feel their crowd-control techniques were
commendable.
        Some of my adult students offered the information that of course
the
government was reaping political benefits from this incident. (Perhaps the
NATO
commanders should have considered this before assessing the "collateral
damage"
of the mistaken bombing.) But the fact that the government gains from this
does
 not negate the genuine feelings of the population.

6. The Chinese students will not soon forget this incident: "Remember
Vietnam.
 We are stronger than Vietnam. (Implies China might go to war over this
affront, but adds that everyone loses during a war.)
        "I wish our country will be powerful enough to be genuinely equal
to
yours. As long as China is powerful, you'll know you'll always be wrong if
you
want to get benefits by doing damage to our Chinese."
        "Chinese limitation of endurance is not endless."
        "China cannot easily be bullied. We admire the advantage of
America,
but we don't fear it. In the future we will becme more and more strong."
        "China will become stronger after 60-100 years. Now, what we are
only
able to do is to bear it, but in the future, we will not. We know dignity
depends on strength. We, all Chinese, will keep the country calm and try
our
best to build it. We wil not give in, for our freedom, right, true
independence."
        "You retaliated when your embassies were bombed, but we are too
weak
militarily so we can't bomb the U.S.!"

7. Regarding the U.S. apology: The Chinese do know, now, of Clinton,
NATO,
and
Albright's apologies. However their reaction, as mine, was to feel the
apologies were just not sincere or strong enough. In effect, it was as if
someone killed your sister in a car accident, said a token,"I'm sorry," but
in
the same breath, continued: "but she shouldn't have been jay-walking."
That
may be true, but it only rubs salt in the wounds. For the NATO leaders to
say
the real blame for the embassy attack falls on Milosevic simply dismisses
the
Chinese feelings and denies the seriousness of the bombing.

        The student demonstrations were not stupid, and the rhetoric not
nonsense. Rather, this incident has become the O.J. Simpson trial of
Sino-American relations: Like the O.J. trial, which exposed the
deep-seated,
underlying tensions between the races in the U.S., the bombing of the
Chinese
embassy and subsequent reactions expose multi-faceted, long-standing sore
points
 between the two countries.
        Everyone I meet--strangers as well as acquaintances and
friends--goes
out of his/her way to be friendly and reassure me that they do not hold
this
against me personally. Further, they are eager to put this behind us and
get on
with building a constructive relationship with the U.S. But the citizens
of
Beijing are somber and heavy-hearted. They need for the U.S. government to
take
moves to restore their assaulted dignity. I fear the consequences if the
Americans do not understand this fundamental point.
===================================================




[log in to unmask]
=================================================

Subject: H-ASIA: Beijing Embassy Bombing
Date: 12-May-99 at 20:43
From: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture,
INTERNET:[log in to unmask]

TO: INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
    

Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [209.119.1.27])
        by hpamgaaa.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.4) with ESMTP id
VAA11764;
        Wed, 12 May 1999 21:43:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from peach (209.119.0.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS
v1.1a) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Wed,
12 May 1999 21:40:51 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 21:35:15 -0400
Reply-To: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Leibo, Steven A." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: H-ASIA: Beijing Embassy Bombing
To: [log in to unmask]

                H-ASIA
*******************************************
From: scott savitt <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: H-ASIA: Beijing Embassy Bombing

Hey folks:

For whatever it's worth, the seige of the US Embassy in Beijing ended
Wednesday night (Beijing time). It's Thursday morning, and the road blocks
around the entire downtown embassy district are gone for the first time
since last Saturday. Traffic and work are returning to normal. US
Ambassador James Sasser (btw Gore's new campaign manager, you can be sure
he'll be advising on China policy) emerged from the embassy after five
straight days of being trapped inside by rock, egg and molotov
cocktail-throwing crowds. He looked tired and drained, but was abjectly
apologetic as the Chinese expect and quite frankly don't feel they're
getting from the US in general. The official press printed Clinton's
apology for the "mistaken" bombing for the first time on Wednesday.

Nine out of ten local Chinese believe the bombing was deliberate and
resentment of privileged Westerners, never far below the surface here, is
very much out in the open. A walk down the street by an American is met
with angry scowls and occassional remarks like "Yankee go home." I suspect
the immediate, open hostility will dissipate, and just leave another layer
of resentment of the West superimposed on the collective Chinese psyche.

The Politburo's reaffirmation that "economics is the key link," attests to
the Cultural Revolution-like dynamic of these protests. The attack couldn't
have come at a worse time for US-China relations. Delicate WTO negotiations
were progressing, now many citizens and certainly hard-liners in the
government have equated Chinese trade concessions with the issue of
sovereignty (unfortunately not a long stretch).

As I've said continually since 1989, more acts in this drama remain to
unfold.

=================================

Subject: H-ASIA: Chinese embassy bombing
Date: 12-May-99 at 20:40
From: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture,
INTERNET:[log in to unmask]

TO: INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
    

Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [209.119.1.27])
        by hil-img-6.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) with ESMTP id
VAA21892;
        Wed, 12 May 1999 21:40:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from peach (209.119.0.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS
v1.1a) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Wed,
12
May 1999 21:38:11 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 21:34:28 -0400
Reply-To: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Leibo, Steven A." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: H-ASIA: Chinese embassy bombing
To: [log in to unmask]

                H-ASIA
****************************************
From: Pingchao Zhu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: H-ASIA: Chinese embassy bombing

Dear All:

 I can't help responding to some of Christian Henriot's comments from
France.

First, we should NOT automatically place the Chinese students or population
on
the opposite side of their government. The June 4th event of 1989 was a
political disaster for the Chinese leadership in transition. The Chinese
nation
and people have learned a bitter lesson and also learned to move on. Since
then
China has experienced great changes both in economic and political areas.
I
believe that the Chinese population has objectively acknowledged such
changes.
The current protests and rage in China against NATO bombing of its Embassy
in
Belgrade should not be viewed as an equivalence to 1989's students'
demonstration. We are now talking about the national sovereignty here.
Whether
the sentiment called "nationalism" has fanned the flame of the current
protests, it is obvious that the Chinese people are behind its government
defending their national interests being violated by NATO bombing. I would
very
much agree with Andy Yang's comments in this case. While the 1989 event
reflected the problems in China's domestic reforms, the current event is
about a
nation venting its anger toward an illegal warfare that also killed its own
people. The bloodshed in 1989 and 1999 should be paid by different sources
in
different ways. Maybe the 1999 bloodshed will cost us more. Both the
Chinese
government and people have learned an expensive lesson in 1989 and are
still
learning to rebuild their relationships toward a better future. It is very
important to point out that the Chinese government and students are not
enemies
in the country. They were once angry with each other, they didn't and
still
don't see eye to eye with each other over many issues, but they are not
foes.
When it comes to national interests, they stand hand in hand. The
Americans
did
and will do the same under similar circumstance. If Sino-U.S. relations
have
been damaged as a result of the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy, NATO
bombing and consequent U.S. attitude toward China, not the Chinese
protests,
should be held accountable. As historians and scholars of Chinese studies,
if
we can't influence policymaking process of both governments, we can at
least
provide useful information to the world to help it understand why the
Chinese
reacted the way they did.

Second, I would like to comment on Henriot's statement that "Belgrade is a
city
under siege from the air. A war is going on. People who do not deserve it
are
dying every day. Only the naive can believe in the 'clean war' discourse
of
NATO." In the first place, war in Kosovo was never declared by either
sides.
Therefore, no war is going on. It is only a de facto war in Yugoslavia.
Secondly, there has been no legal ground for the NATO and US to conduct
airstrike against Yugoslavia under either the UN Charter or NATO Charter or
any
international law. So, this "war" has been illegal and NATO bombing should
also
be considered a war crime. The fault of killing the Chinese in Belgrade
and
other civilian should be placed on the persons who dropped the bombs, not
the
innocent or naive people who stayed or chose to stay in "a city under
seige."
The 3 Chinese journalists did not happen to be in the wrong place at the
wrong
time. They are the victims of this wrong war.

As far as Clinton's informal attire is concerned, I assume that the
President
should have been fully aware that his demeanor in public occasions,
official
or
casual, would send different but clear messages to his audience. If
Clinton
chose to be in what he was when he was delivering an official statement to
the
Chinese people about the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, I believe we all
got
his message.

Obviously, Henriot and I disagree with what Clinton did in the Oval Office.

We
should then go our separate ways, as we have all made our points.

Thank you.

Pingchao Zhu
History Department
University of Idaho
====================================


Subject: H-ASIA: Bombing of Chinese Embassy
Date: 12-May-99 at 20:35
From: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture,
INTERNET:[log in to unmask]

TO: INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
    

Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [209.119.1.27])
        by hpdmgaaa.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.4) with ESMTP id
VAA24888;
        Wed, 12 May 1999 21:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from peach (209.119.0.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS
v1.1a) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Wed,
12
May 1999 21:32:51 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 21:33:32 -0400
Reply-To: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Leibo, Steven A." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: H-ASIA: Bombing of Chinese Embassy
To: [log in to unmask]

        H-ASIA
************************************
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Bombing of Chinese Embassy


Attached is the original text of my article, released by Pacific News
Service on Monday May 10, on analogies between this Embassy bombing and
similar episodes in the Vietnam War:

The recent bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade looks like a
replay from the Vietnam War era. Once again we have seen the
bombing of a political target, and specifically an emb
assy:
an attack which threatens to nullify diplomacy at the precise
moment when international peace initiatives look promising.

The attack on the Chinese Embassy came
one day after Russia and leading NATO
nations agreed to a set of general principles for ending
the conflict over Kosovo. NATO has called the incident unintentional,
but the Chinese have claimed that three different precision
missiles hit the Embassy. Eyewitness reports appear to corroborate
the Chinese version.

The threat to the peace process is obvious. The draft peace plan calls
for approval by the UN Security Council, where China, a bitter opponent
of the bombing, exercises a veto.

This conflicted situation
recalls the events of December 1966, when the Rumanian
Premier visited Hanoi, in support of the secret Polish peace
initative "Marigold." Mid-December saw unprecedented US bombing of
downtown Hanoi, after months when the city's center had been
off-limits to American planes. During the raids an American rocket
damaged three adjacent Embassies: the Rumanian, the Polish, and the
Chinese. The result of the attacks was to terminate
"Marigold." The US called the Embassy bombings unintentional.

But the correlation of such third-nation bombings to
peace feelers in Vietnam was repeated over and over. In April 1966
bombs dropped near a Polish vessel in a Vietnamese harbor, just as
a Polish diplomat was arriving in Hanoi to initiate "Marigold."
In June 1967 the Soviet freighter Turkestan was bombed by two US
fighter planes,
just after the White House-Kremlin hot line had been first used
in a search for a diplomatic solution.

In three almost identical circumstances of peace opportunities,
other Polish and Soviet vessels were later attacked.
When in 1967 two French emissaries with an American peace message
arrived in Hanoi, the city experienced yet another surge in the bombing.
My 1972 book \fIThe War Conspiracy\fR analyzed more
than a dozen such incidents,
building upon an earlier pattern described in \fIThe Politics of
Escalation in Vietnam\fR.

The habit of timing bombs to peace initiatives seems at the
beginning to have been a deliberate policy of Lyndon Johnson, who
habitually balanced concessions to his hawks and his doves.
Thus the December 1966 raids on Hanoi were authorized by Johnson at the
LBJ ranch in November, one day after his roving ambassador
Averell Harriman reported to him about "Marigold." In this way
Johnson ensured that, if the North Vietnamese did negotiate, it
would be in a context of humiliating air strength.

But by June 1967 a different pattern had emerged: rebellious hawkish
military attacks which the President had forbidden. When activating
the Washington-Moscow hot line in late May, Johnson had ordered US
pilots to stay away from Hanoi and Haiphong, where there were Soviet
ships. The two pilots who had attacked the Turkestan knew that they
were violating presidential orders. They and their commander tried
to conceal the incident, the latter by destroying the planes'
flight film.

In his memoir former Defense Secretary McNamara
himself recalled the "scathing denial" he erroneously issued after
the June 1967 incident, based on "an outright lie by a
military officer." He added that the colonel responsible for
the bombing "was later court-martialed and fined."

But McNamara did not mention that the colonel's
court-martial conviction and $600 fine were soon set aside. The
two pilots furthermore were found not guilty and remained on active
duty, even though their unauthorized action had killed a Soviet seaman.
This suggests that such political bombing of off-limits targets had
high-level military support at the time.

A similar Air Force rebellion in 1971 temporarily ended
the series of secret meetings which Kissinger had been holding
with North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho. To help the meetings
President Nixon had limited air strikes against North Vietnam to
"protective reaction," after enemy attacks.

But the USAF general in
charge of the air war, John Lavelle, continued to target
North Vietnam, instructing the pilots to suppress the fact that there
had been no enemy provocation. Thus Kissinger was caught off guard
when Le Duc Tho broke off the talks in November, insisting
(over Kissinger's misinformed denials) that the bombing went beyond
"protective reaction."

It is clear that, in the past, US military commanders
have resorted to unauthorized bombing at times of significant
peace initiatives, of which they apparently did not approve.
Congress should thus insist on a thorough accounting from
those responsible for bombing the Chinese Embassy.

It is of course too early to analyze with confidence how this bombing
occurred. But our history demonstrates unequivocally that
such incidents have the result of frustrating diplomacy and prolonging
war.

Peter Dale Scott

The writer is a former Canadian diplomat and professor of English at
the University of California, Berkeley.

510 848-6812
2740 Belrose Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94705

======================================


Subject: H-ASIA: Chinese embassy bombing
Date: 12-May-99 at 20:24
From: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture,
INTERNET:[log in to unmask]

TO: INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
    

Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [209.119.1.27])
        by hpdmgaaa.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.4) with ESMTP id
VAA05179;
        Wed, 12 May 1999 21:24:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from peach (209.119.0.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS
v1.1a) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Wed,
12
May 1999 21:22:39 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 21:26:55 -0400
Reply-To: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: H-Net list for Asian History and Culture <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Leibo, Steven A." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: H-ASIA: Chinese embassy bombing
To: [log in to unmask]

        H-ASIA
*********************************
From: "R. L. Hardgrave" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: H-ASIA: Chinese embassy bombing

From: R. L. Hardgrave [log in to unmask]
Re: Chinese embassy bombing

A Chinese friend in Beijing sent the following assessment of the embassy
bombing:

 Nearly every Chinese analyst believes that the
bombing of the Chinese Embassy was approved by the highest commander.
The excuse of "mistaken bombing can only fool those decision-makers
themselves. I am not sure if this tragedy will constitute a "China
Embassy Gate". Three reasons:
        1. Punish China for its firm support for Milosevic and test Chinese
will and determination;
        2. intentionally delay the process of diplomatic resolution
sponsored
by Russia, and this process hinders the accomplishment of the Nato's
strategic goal in KOSOVO; and
        3. Destroy the "Safety Heaven" of Yugoslavian VIP and the workable
communication of telling to the world what is really happening there.
        I believe that the stable and cooperative relationship between
China
and the U.S. is in the interests of the two great countries and peace
and stability of the region. The U. S. policymakers will never expect
China to bow to the Uncle Sam. This bombing has exploded apart the good
image of the U. S. in the minds of our younger generation. This is the
real and irreversible setback for the US policy toward China.
=========================


  


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%