The Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989

In 1989 the Tiananmen Square Massacre had occurred inside China between the government and pro-democracy protesters (who were mostly Chinese students). The American people were deeply troubled with the slaughter of peaceful protesters who wanted freedoms that Americans stand for and take for granted. Congress was listening to the American people and were also outraged about the massacre inside China and wanted to place harsh actions against the Chinese government. On the other hand, there was the Bush administration who wished to maintain peaceful relations with China. Bush and his staff viewed the Soviet Union as a greater threat to the United States, and wanted the Chinese to act as a counter balance to the Soviets. The Executive branch also saw that there were internal struggles between the old guard and parts of the government friendlier to the U.S. The outcome in the very end of the whole debate between the executive branch and the legislations was some limited sanctions, but in the end nothing really substantial occurred against the Chinese.

There were several different interests involved in the dealing with the Chinese government over the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The main and largest interests were from the legislative branch and general populace of the American People. Their wanted to punish the Chinese government for denying people the right to the American way that the people inside the United States hold dear. Then other big player was the Bush administrations who were following on the footsteps of preceding administrations who dealt with the Chinese as more beneficial to the U.S. The previous administrations, mainly Nixon, knew that there are many cultural differences between the United States and the Chinese, but that does not mean that we do not share a common thinking about how we want the region to develop. There were also small groups of people, like Kissinger, who wanted the American government to act gently with the Chinese for National Security reasons.

When viewing this from the levels of analysis every side was looking at what was best. The U.S. people and the Legislative Branch are looking more at the National setting, and most importantly by our deep democratic values. While the Executive Branch was looking at a realistic international setting and what was best for the region and the U.S. as a whole. The U.S. trade policy decisions, in my opinion, were mainly one of the U.S. government was putting on a two sided face for the Chinese government and the American people. The primary national interest in the area was more important to the stability of the region than for nationalist ideals to be put front and center of peace and stability.

At the very end of section A when Congress forced President Bush into action with the passage of legislation that would allow Chinese students to stay inside the country until the Chinese region was more stable. This meant that Bush either had to veto the legislation or sign the bill into law. At this point President Bush would need to veto the legislation to give the Chinese government some offerings of peace and to prove stability in the branch of government. It would be illogical for the President to promote relations with the Chinese government and then to sign a bill into law that would hold its citizens from returning to the country (even if the Chinese citizens wanted to say). The one thing that President Bush did not due that would be beneficial is the appearance of being able to sway with the congressional legislations, which would have given the Chinese government a little more fear on how they would respond to the demands of the United States.

Presidents Bush decision was to comply follow the Chinese demands in order to try to maintain peace and stability in the region. Every act that Congress tried to enact on the Chinese government was eventually overturned by the executive branch, and the legislative branch fell short on overturning the Presidents veto. This case was best used to show the example of who wanted to gain hold of foreign policy inside the United States government. Congress could try to pass bills that would enact foreign policy, but it had to have a 2/3 majority to go over the executive branch.

Human rights in U.S. foreign policy are not as important as it probably should be, since the national interest is always put in the forefront. Another example is the genocide inside Sudan that is accruing right at this moment. The United States is not personally threatened by these killings and the region is fairly stable internationally between the governments in the region. The Tiananmen Square Massacre shows that the United States government cares more about the interest of the U.S., but the U.S. people are usually more concerned more about the values. The most important, in my opinion, between values and interests need to both be taken, since we as a nation historically care about the freedoms of other people but need to maintain this country's security.

The best way to help promote human rights in China and elsewhere is to be able to put on a two sided attack on how we treat a country that is equal to all countries. The first thing is that we need to treat democratic governments with the best standing and respect. We would need to put restrictions on trade with any country that has human rights violations regardless of their standing in the international community. This does not mean that we would purposely make them view the United States as enemies, but put economic barriers like tariffs on these countries. Personally, we should have never opened our economy to a country that view their people with such little respect without applying some sort of economic crutch to their imports inside the United States. Right now we have no real leverage with these types of governments and have more leverage with the Iranian people who we do not speak with (might change under President Obama).

Sources: Values Vs. Interests: The U.S. Response to the Tiananmen Square Massacre by Eric Hyer