On a personal side, Helmut mentioned a special sausage he was going to send me three or four different times, so I’ve got to talk to the Secret Service about getting it. They will be uncomfortable, but here’s one where we need to bend the rules a little simply because it means so much to Kohl, and, besides that, I like wurst.
That spring, the desire for democracy spread from Eastern Europe all the way to China. In April, thousands of Chinese students poured into Tiananmen Square, demanding more freedom. Despite the government’s attempts to break up the demonstrations, the crowds kept getting larger and more defiant. Finally, on June 3, tanks and troops put an end to the protest, resulting in much bloodshed. Publicly, we immediately condemned China for its action and called for sanctions. Privately, I wrote this anguished letter to an old friend:
June 20, 1989
His Excellency Deng Xiaoping
People’s Republic of China
Beijing
Dear Chairman Deng:
I write this letter to you with a heavy heart. I wish there was a way to discuss this matter in person, but regrettably that is not the case. First, I write in a spirit of genuine friendship, this letter coming as I’m sure you know from one who believes with a passion that good relations between the United States and China are in the fundamental interests of both countries. I have felt that way for many years. I feel more strongly that way today, in spite of the difficult circumstances.
Secondly, I write as one who has great respect for what you personally have done for the people of China and to help your great country move forward. There is enormous irony in the fact that you who yourself has suffered several reversals in your quest to bring reform and openness to China are now facing a situation fraught with so much danger and so much anxiety.
I recall your telling me the last time we met that you were in essence phasing out of the day-to-day management of your great country. But I also recall your unforgettable words about the need for good relations with the West, your concerns about “encirclement” and those who had done great harm to China, and your commitment to keeping China moving forward. By writing you I am not trying to bypass any individual leader of China. I am simply writing as a friend, a genuine “lao pengyou”.
It is with this in mind that I write you asking for your help in preserving this relationship that we both think is very important. I have tried very hard not to inject myself into China’s internal affairs. I have tried very hard not to appear to be dictating in any way to China about how it should manage its internal crisis. I am respectful of the differences in our two societies and in our two systems.
I have great reverence for Chinese history, culture and tradition. You have given much to the development of world civilization. But I ask you as well to remember the principles on which my young country was founded. Those principles are democracy and freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of assemblage, freedom from arbitrary authority. It is reverence for those principles which inevitably affects the way Americans view and react to events in other countries. It is not a reaction of arrogance or of a desire to force others to our beliefs but of a simple faith in the enduring value of those principles and their universal applicability.
And that leads directly to the fundamental problem. The early days of the student demonstrations, and indeed, the early treatment of the students by the Chinese Army, captured the imagination of the entire world. The wonder of TV brought the details of the events in Tiananmen Square into the homes of people not just in “Western” countries but world-wide. The early tolerance that was shown, the restraint and the generous handling of the demonstrations won worldwide respect for China’s leadership. Thoughtful people all over the world tried to understand and sympathize with the enormous problems being faced by those required to keep order; and, indeed, they saw with admiration the manifestation of policy which reflected the leaders’ words: “The Army loves the people.” The world cheered when the Chinese leaders were seen patiently meeting with students, even though there were “sit-ins” and even though disorder did interfere with normal functions.
I will leave what followed to the history books, but again, with their own eyes the people of the world saw the turmoil and the bloodshed with which the demonstrations were ended. Various countries reacted in various ways. Based on the principles I described above, the actions that I took as President of the United States could not be avoided. As you know, the clamor for stronger action remains intense. I have resisted that clamor, making clear that I did not want to see destroyed this relationship that you and I have worked hard to build. I explained to the American people that I did not want to unfairly burden the Chinese people through economic sanctions.
There is also the matter of Fang Lizhi.26 The minute I heard Fang was in our Embassy, I knew there would be a high profiled wedge driven between us. Fang was not encouraged to come to our Embassy, but under our widely accepted interpretation of international law we could not refuse him admittance.
In today’s climate I know this matter is of grave importance to you and I know it presents you with an enormous problem; a problem that adversely affects my determination and, hopefully, yours to get our relationship back on track.
We cannot now put Fang out of the Embassy without some assurance that he will not be in physical danger. Similar cases elsewhere in the world have been resolved over long periods of time or through the government quietly permitting departure or through expulsion. I simply want to assure you that we want this difficult matter resolved in a way which is both satisfactory to you and does not violate our commitment to our basic principles. When there are difficulties between friends, as now, we must find a way to talk them out.
Your able Ambassador here represents your country firmly and faithfully. I feel that Jim Lilley does the same for us; but if there is some special channel that you would favor, please let me know.
I have thought of asking you to receive a special emissary who could speak with total candor to you representing my heartfelt convictions on these matters. If you feel such an emissary could be helpful, please let me know and we will work cooperatively to see that his mission is kept in total confidence. I have insisted that all departments of the U.S. Government be guided in their statements and actions from my guidance in the White House. Sometimes in an open system such as ours it is impossible to control all leaks, but on this particular letter there are no copies, not one, outside of my own personal file. . . .
I send you this letter with great respect and deep concern. We must not let this important relationship suffer further. Please help me to keep it strong. Any statement that could be made from China that drew upon the earlier statements about peacefully resolving further disputes with protesters would be very well received here. Any clemency that could be shown the student demonstrators would be applauded worldwide. We must not let the aftermath of the tragic recent events undermine a vital relationship patiently built up over the past seventeen years. I would, of course, welcome a personal reply to this letter. This matter is too important to be left to our bureaucracies.
As I said above, I write with a heavy heart; but I also write with a frankness reserved for respected friends.
Sincerely,
George Bush
[Within twenty-four hours I had a personal reply from Deng, who accepted my idea of a personal emissary. I sent Brent Scowcroft, who asked Larry Eagleburger to go with him. Their mission was so secret that their plane was almost shot down when it entered Chinese airspace unannounced. Their trip was successful in that it conveyed to the Chinese how serious the divide was between us but also how much we respected our friendship. It kept the door open.]
On June 26 Barbara and I decided to go see the Marine Parade held every Sunday evening at the Marine Barracks. The Marines were famous for their precision and for not making mistakes. Of course the one night we were in attendance, one of the Marines dropped his rifle. I was hoping a note from his commander in chief might help:
6-27-89
CPL Cullen Plousha
Marine Barracks
Washington, D. C. 20390-5000
Dear Cpl. Plousha,
Last night’s drill was very special. I want to thank you and the others in the platoon for a super performance.
Col. Pace told me that you were the guy selected by his peers for that key inspection role—quite an honor, well deserved.
Please thank all involved in the drill—
Sincerely,
George Bush
P. S. Don’t worry about anything—you did A-OK.
June 28, 1989
Mrs. Antonin Scalia
Chamber of Justice Scalia
Washington, D. C. 20543
Dear Maureen,
As we shook hands last night, in frankness and in jest, you made a comment, a passing nice comment, about the flag decision. When I got upstairs, I got to thinking about that in the light of the Court decision.27
I’ll bet a lot of agony goes into “calling ‘em as they see ‘em”; but the point of this note is to say—my respect for your Judge’s scholarship, integrity, and honor knows no bounds. Don’t show this to Nino, but just tuck it away in your heart because it comes from mine.
George Bush
In July we headed to Paris for the annual G-7 Economic Summit meeting, which included the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. En route, we stopped in Poland and Hungary, where democracy was “busting out all over.” Our visit to Poland was emotional and came at a crucial time as Solidarity had just won a huge victory in the National Assembly elections. I dictated to my diary:
July 11
[Our security] has warned us about surveillance and electronics, and yet typically there is no evidence of such; but what I have to say, I would like for them to hear anyway, so I don’t worry about that.
I have an upbeat feeling about the politicians coming together,28 but I have a down feeling on the economic reform, and on the magnitude of the problems facing Poland. Their agriculture is chopped into small blocks; they’re inefficient; and yet, their agriculture contingent is very powerful. What I really felt the most about was the warmth of all the interlocutors, be they from Solidarity or from the government, and about the way the government and solidarity were talking to each other—dramatic progress. . . .
There’s no way to properly describe the excitement at Gdansk.29 There were thousands of people lining the street going into town, and then estimates of up to 250,000 people in the square in front of the shipyard. It was an emotional moment with grown men and women crying. There were all kinds of signs of affection for the United States all along the way, and there were flags; handwritten signs welcoming me; and friendship between the United States and Poland . . .
July 21, 1989
His Excellency Mikhail Gorbachev
Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Moscow
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing this letter to you on my way back from Europe to the United States. My mind is full of the fascinating conversations that I had with people in Hungary and Poland and with the many world leaders gathered in Paris for France’s bicentennial.
Let me get quickly to the point of this letter. I would like very much to sit down soon and talk to you, if you are agreeable to the idea. I want to do it without thousands of assistants hovering over our shoulders, without the ever-present briefing papers and certainly without the press yelling at us every 5 minutes about “who’s winning,” “what agreements have been reached,” or “has our meeting succeeded or failed.”
Up until now I have felt that a meeting would have to produce major agreements so as not to disappoint the watching world. Now my thinking is changing.
Perhaps it was my visit to Poland and Hungary or perhaps it is what I heard about your recent visits to France and Germany—whatever the cause—I just want to reduce the chances there could be misunderstandings between us. I want to get our relationship on a more personal basis. If you agree that an unstructured meeting would be productive, I would make the following suggestion.
My suggestion is that you decide, on your own, to come to speak at the U.N. early in the General Assembly session—perhaps around the end of September (the 27th and 28th of September would be perfect for me, but so would other dates). Immediately following your public announcement that you were coming to the United Nations, I would invite you to come to meet with me for an informal, “no agenda” visit. In my view, it would be preferable to avoid the word “summit” which is, at best, overworked and, at worst, a word whose connotation is one of a momentous happening.
I would propose inviting you to visit me for a day or two of private chats.
There are two alternative ways I would suggest to do this. One way would be for you to fly from New York to Washington where I would meet you at Andrews Air Force Base. We could then go by helicopter to Camp David. There, in a relaxed setting with neckties off, we could talk about any and all subjects. The very nature of the invitation would guard against the danger of “overpromise.” I would propose no more than a handful of advisers on each side. I would visualize long chats between you and me alone and, also, good discussions with my Secretary of State, NSC Adviser, and Chief of Staff present, along with their counterparts, of course.
Another option would be for you to visit Barbara and me at our seaside house in Maine. Late September can be very nice there. You could fly to Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire, about 40 minutes from New York and helicopter another 15 minutes to our home, for the same kind of talks.
Camp David perhaps would offer the most privacy, but Maine would offer you a glimpse of our Atlantic seacoast. It would also give me a chance to take you for a ride in my speed boat and maybe catch a fish.
Perhaps there is some entirely different way more convenient for you, and I would welcome a suggestion. The General Assembly seems to me to provide the ideal cover needed for a “spontaneous” invitation to an unstructured, informal meeting. I do not intend in any way to put you in an awkward position and I will understand completely if, for whatever reason, you do not feel you can respond positively to my suggestion.
General Brent Scowcroft and Secretary Jim Baker, plus my Chief of Staff John Sununu, are the only ones who know of this letter, which I have personally written. I hope I can demonstrate to you that some things need not “leak.”
My respects and sincere regards,
Sincerely,
George Bush
[Gorbachev agreed to meet, but we had great trouble settling on a time or place. Eventually we would meet at Malta, off the coast of Italy, in December.]
Obviously I was in the mood on July 21 to write world leaders:
July 21, 1989
His Excellency Deng Xiaoping
People’s Republic of China
Beijing
Dear Chairman Deng, Dear Friend:
I use this unique form of salutation because General Scowcroft told me that if I would continue to treat you as a friend, you would welcome that—no matter the outcome of the difficulties now between us.
Of course, I, too, want it to be that way.
First, let me thank you and Li Peng for receiving General Scowcroft and Larry Eagleburger. The minute General Scowcroft returned to the USA, he came to Maine to brief me on your talks.
I have waited to send you this letter. I wanted first to go to Eastern Europe and the Economic Summit Conference at Paris, because I wanted to listen carefully to their views on their relations with China.
Also, in waiting, I was hoping against hope that some new development would take place that would enable us both to move towards improved relations. Unfortunately, no such development has occurred.
The G-7 Communiqué in Paris made reference to events in China. I can tell you in total confidence that the U.S. and the Japanese removed some rather inflammatory language from the Communiqué. It was
still a Communiqué which I’m sure you’d rather not have had at all, but in the final form it did not urge new action affecting China.
Brent Scowcroft told me of your reference to the Chinese proverb: “It is up to the person who tied the knot to untie the knot.”
Herein lies our major dilemma. You feel we “tied the knot” by our actions, especially regarding military sales.30
We feel that those actions taken against peacefully demonstrating (non-violent) students and the nationwide crackdown against those simply speaking for reform “tied the knot.”
Please understand, my friend, that when I use the word “we” in the preceding sentence, I am not simply referring to the United States. Rather, I am referring to many, many countries from North and South, East and West.
Let me emphasize, if there is anyone on the World Stage who understands how China views interference in its internal affairs, it is I. Likewise, I could indeed identify with the problems China’s government faced when, as Li Peng told General Scowcroft, it felt that Zhongnanhai itself might be invaded or overrun. Li Peng pointedly asked General Scowcroft how we would feel if the White House were threatened by a mob out of control.
But here’s the big problem. Given the all-penetrating (but not comprehensive) nature of television, people all around the world first saw massive but peaceful demonstrations, peacefully contained. With approval and respect, they saw Chinese leaders meeting with the students. They heard authoritative voices saying, “The Army loves the People;” and they saw soldiers showing amazing restraint. And people around the world saluted China and its leaders.
It is what happened next that we believe “tied the knot.” You and Li Peng frankly described what you thought happened to the character of the demonstrations and what you felt you had to do. But people all around the world, with their own eyes, saw other happenings, too; and China, which had been praised for restraint, was widely criticized.
I have great respect for China’s long-standing position about non-intervention in its internal affairs.
All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings Page 47