VI. Case Study: The U.S. Bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade

VI. Case Study: The U.S. Bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade

Since NATO began bombing targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without UN authorization on March 24, 1999, Beijing feared that a resurgent United States was putting humanitarian intervention above the traditional concept of state sovereignty and that it planned to use a non-UN mechanism as its preferred tool. Furthermore, facing domestic opposition, Premier Zhu Rongji traveled to Washington to secure China’s accession to the WTO in early April. However, the United States rejected the offer and thus gravely undermined the position of Chinese leaders who wanted to compromise with the United States. These two events together provoked strong anti-American sentiments among China’s elites and the Chinese public at large. Nevertheless, Beijing did not intend to manipulate nationalism to confront the United States. Beijing did not encourage its citizens to protest nor did it adopt more assertive policy against the United States prior to the U.S. mistaken bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.⁶⁶

However, on May 8 (Beijing time) five bombs from an American plane slammed into the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three and wounding more than twenty others. Despite the explanation that the embassy had been misidentified as a legitimate Serb military target, on May 9 up to 100,000 demonstrators besieged the U.S. embassy in the biggest protests seen in Beijing since the 1989 pro-democracy movement. Tens of thousands of protestors marched past the U.S. and British embassies, throwing stones, burning the U.S. flag and effigies of President Bill Clinton and shouting slogans like “Down with U.S. imperialism.” In addition, according to China’s official media, more than 100,000 people protested in other major Chinese cities, including Xian, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chengdu, Shenyang, and Guilin. Demonstrators set fire to the U.S. consulate in Chengdu and all consulate personnel were evacuated.⁶⁷

During the demonstrations, the Chinese government not only helped transport demonstrators but police seemed indifferent to the damage inflicted on U.S. property. The Chinese explanation, as David Lampton points out, was that by allowing a “controlled” reaction a bigger explosion was averted.⁶⁸ Beijing understood full well, as Joseph Fewsmith and Stanley Rosen argue, that “students are going to take to the streets in any event and that if they did not throw stones at the American embassy they would throw them at Zhongnanhai (the leadership compound).”⁶⁹ If students and others had not been permitted to vent their feelings against the United States, they no doubt would have found release through criticism of the Chinese government.

After allowing the Chinese people to vent their frustration with the United States, the Chinese government tried to control the damage and maintain its focus on economic development. First, Beijing emphasized the importance of social stability and reassured foreign investors that China would continue its reform and opening policy and protect foreigners and their assets. In his televised speech on May 9, Chinese Vice President Hu Jintao said, “The Chinese government firmly supports and protects all the protests that tally with the law…. [However,] we must guard against any overreactions, watch out for people who may take advantage of the opportunity to disrupt the normal social order, and take firm actions to safeguard social stability…. We will uphold the reform and opening up policy. To fully demonstrate the fine, civilized traditions of the Chinese nation, we will…protect foreign diplomatic establishments and their personnel in China, foreign nationals in China, and foreign personnel who are in China for economic, trade, educational and cultural activities.” [emphasis added]⁷⁰

Second, Beijing tried to divert the people’s focus back to economic development with its emphasis on social stability and continuing reform and opening. On May 11, President Jiang Zemin said, “[The demonstrations against the United States have] demonstrated the enthusiasm, will, and power of the great patriotism of the Chinese people. The whole country is now determined to study and work harder, so as to develop the national economy continuously, enhance national strength, and fight back with concrete deeds against the barbaric act of U.S.-led NATO.” [emphasis added]⁷¹ On May 13, he emphasized, “China will unswervingly take economic construction as its central task.” In addition, he asserted that China “will continue to unswervingly adhere to the policy of reform and opening up, which is the only way to invigorate the country” and “continue to unremittingly maintain the social stability, which is the fundamental assurance for implementing our reform and construction tasks.” [emphasis added]⁷²

On May 18, the Renmin Ribao urged the Chinese people to put aside the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia and make efforts to improve the investment environment.⁷³ On May 25, a Renmin Ribao editorial repeated President Jiang Zemin’s call on the whole country to focus on economic development. The paper said that taking economic development as the central task all the time was the key to the resolution of all problems China faced. The editorial went on to say, “We must focus on economic development while handling both domestic and international issues.” [emphasis added]⁷⁴

On June 2, a Renmin Ribao editorial again emphasized, “Stability is of utmost significance for the Chinese people who are now concentrating their efforts on launching reform, opening up to the outside world, and embarking on socialist modernization drive…. Stability is of paramount importance…. Unrest will result in destruction, catastrophe, and regression…. Why China cannot afford to be in chaos must be stressed over and over again openly…. All forms of conduct that undermine political stability and unity must be immediately stopped decisively and lawfully no matter when and where they appear.” [emphasis added]⁷⁵

The following three examples of U.S.-China relations further demonstrate Beijing’s emphasis on stability and economic development. First, in early May 2000, Beijing reportedly issued a nationwide circular calling on university students to cancel their plans to conduct demonstrations marking the first anniversary of the bombing event. The circular emphasized that the most important and urgent issue was to maintain social and political stability.⁷⁶

Second, at a joint meeting with members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference on March 6, 2001, Vice Premier Qian Qichen said that it was impossible to change the U.S. basic standpoint on the Taiwan and human right issues, but China and the United States had common economic interests. He emphasized that China should bring the contradictions between China and the United States “under control and not have an outburst. We should reason things out and, if we fail, we should put aside minor differences so as to seek common ground [economic interests].”⁷⁷

Third, on April 1, 2001, China held onto 24 U.S. military personnel and a U.S. Navy surveillance plane that made an emergency landing on Hainan Island after an airborne collision with a Chinese fighter jet. This triggered a severe standoff between the United States and China. Despite arousing rhetoric in official media, the Chinese government strictly prohibited or stopped protests against the United States on the streets and campuses of China. On April 11, Beijing decided to release the American crew despite the fact that the United States did not formally apologize to China. In a letter written by the American Ambassador to Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, the U.S. only went as far as saying “very sorry” twice, not an official apology by Chinese standards.⁷⁸ On the next day, a commentary article in the Renmin Ribao stated, “We must…gather up our strong patriotic fervor into all the work of promoting reform, opening up, and socialist modernization.”⁷⁹

On May 8, speaking to the Fortune Global Forum, President Jiang Zemin publicly reconfirmed China’s national agendas, “The Chinese government will unswervingly implement the opening up policy…continued efforts will be made to promote economic growth and social progress, with development as the main theme, restructuring the key link, reform, opening up and technological advancement the driving force, and higher living standards the ultimate goal…. A peaceful environment is indispensable for national, regional and even global development. Without peace or political stability, there would be no economic progress to speak of.”⁸⁰

Although most Chinese scholars strongly suspect U.S. intentions of containing China, Beijing continues to expand cooperation and economic exchange with the U.S. in order to develop its economy. For example, an international relations senior scholar in Shanghai candidly explained the Chinese position, “Even while western countries want to confront, westernize, and split China, China still wants to expand cooperation and economic exchange with the West.”⁸¹ An international relations senior scholar in Beijing asserted, “The U.S. was too hegemonic and China was the victim in these incidents. In addition, the U.S. obviously intends to restrain China’s rising. However, China as a developing country would not and could not afford to antagonize the United States.”⁸²

Another international relations senior scholar in Beijing stressed, “Sino-U.S. relations reflect the importance of economic development to China. China makes every effort to maintain stable Sino-U.S. relations. It is impossible for China to face off with the United States. The Sino-U.S. relationship is not a question of face, but of economic development. China also showed extraordinary restraint in its reaction to Lee Teng-hui’s visits to the U.S. and Japan, and Chen Shui-bian’s visit to the United States [in 2001]. All these reflect the importance of economic development to the Chinese government.”⁸³ An American studies senior scholar in Beijing elaborated, “The Sino-U.S. economic relationship is very important for China. Trade accounts for 40 percent of China’s GDP, and 40 percent of China’s trade goes to the United States. As a result, China must maintain a good relationship with the United States. The importance of the U.S. to China is much greater than China’s importance to the United States. If Sino-U.S. relations worsen, it will bring severe damage to China.”⁸⁴

Many other Chinese scholars had the same perspective. For instance, an international relations senior scholar in Beijing underscored, “China wants economic development, not Sino-U.S. confrontation.”⁸⁵ An American studies senior scholar in Beijing emphasized, “Regarding the issue of the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy and the airplane collision, China does not want conflict. All China wants is to develop its economy!”⁸⁶ Two other American studies senior fellows in Beijing, an American studies senior scholar in Shanghai, and a Taiwan studies senior scholar in Beijing agreed that economic interest is the essential consideration for China to deal with the issues of the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy and the airplane collision.⁸⁷