The Foreign Service Journal, May 2005

with leadership, organization and a program.” It was this view that they presented to Deng Xiaoping the next day. When Deng heard the report of Li Peng and Yang Shangkun (Yang was not a member of the Politburo Standing Committee, but was allowed to attend its ses- sions), the leader, who always adopted a hardline atti- tude toward student movements, immediately labeled them as “anti-party, anti-socialist turmoil.” Zhao com- ments that it was Deng’s nature that if he had been pre- sented with a contrary point of view, he would not have been so harsh. “When I went to Deng’s on April 19,” Zhao says, “he completely agreed with my view. But on the 25th, as soon as Li Peng and Yang Shangkun spoke, he [Deng] agreed with their views. This was because this was completely in accord with [Deng’s] long-stand- ing proposal” (p. 602). The critical turning point came when Li Peng decid- ed to disseminate Deng’s words throughout the party and to write an editorial, which was published on April 26, 1989. This apparently was not in accordance with any institutional procedures, but was within Li’s authority as acting general secretary while Zhao was out of the coun- try. Zhao declares that prior to his departure for North Korea, Li had never discussed these views with him, but this judgment completely changed the Politburo’s previ- ous analysis and direction (p. 603). Zhao makes very clear that the minutes of the Politburo Standing Committee and Deng’s talk were transmitted to him in North Korea and that he expressed agreement with the latter. Zhao says, “When these doc- uments were transmitted to me, I had to express an opin- ion. This was the established procedure that had devel- oped in the party over many years, and it was impossible to express a differing viewpoint. I was outside the coun- try and did not understand the circumstances. I also never thought they would be like this” (p. 604). Zhao did not express an opinion about the Politburo Standing Committee’s views, however; nor was he ever sent a text of the April 26 editorial. F O C U S 50 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 5