by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
About six months ago, the whole world’s attention was drawn to a sensational event: Mao Tse-tung had died. The pages of every newspaper were filled with lengthy obituaries, detailed reports on the circumstances of his death, and careful assessments of the event’s repercussions on China’s domestic politics, the diplomatic game in the Far East, China-Russia relations, the future of Maoism outside China, and so on.
In the West, all this publicity was, for the most part, treated with a light-hearted impartiality.
Let me explain. True impartiality focuses on the facts it is tasked with judging, not on the audience. Therefore, it is inherently informal. It states qualities without seeking to please and flaws without fearing displeasure. It does not concern itself with proving its authenticity. It is what it is. And that is that.
Frivolity, on the contrary, leads to inauthenticity. First, a frivolous person is prone to flaunting qualities he does not possess and to presenting those he does possess in a favorable light. Although authentic, these qualities take on the suspicious, tasteless sheen of a cheap imitation.
Frivolous impartiality shaped many comments about Mao.
It was to be expected, and it happened.
In my view, many newspapers—and, of course, radio and TV stations—treated Mao’s subject with an eye toward the public, as if to say, “Look how impartial I am.”
This led them to refrain from publishing much highly unfavorable information about the deceased communist leader, which, for that reason alone, could be branded as biased by the maniacs of impartiality.
Les morts vont vite! Despite all the publicity surrounding his death, Mao has already begun to be buried in general oblivion.
This is perhaps the most opportune moment to recall some facts about him that, if mentioned on the days of his funeral, might not have been well received by ultra-impartials and sentimentalists.
This leads me to inform my readers of the following facts I found in Marcel Clément’s editorial article in the influential Parisian biweekly magazine L’Homme Nouveau (September 19, 1976).
The subject matter is shocking.
Let the reader judge for themselves.
Professor Richard L. Walker is an expert on Communist China. At the request of the US Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, after extensive consultation with sources, he conducted a comprehensive study of Mao’s actions. His conscientious and lucid work was published in the American magazine Issues and Studies, vol. III, no. 12, Sept. 1971.
Prof. Walker reports that, according to the most circumspect sources, Chinese communists killed 34.3 million people. Less rigorous sources, again according to Prof. Walker, put the number of victims at 63.784 million, more than half of Brazil’s population.
I prefer citing the more conservative estimates:
Historical Events and Victims
1- First Civil War 1927-1936 250,000
2- Fighting in the Sino-Japanese War – 1937-1945 50,000
3- Second Civil War – 1945-1949 – 1,250,000
4- Land reform before the “liberation” – 500,000
5- Political liquidation campaigns 1949-1958 – 15,000,000
6- Korean War – 500,000
7- The “Great Leap Forward and the Communes” -1,000,000
8- Struggles against national minorities, including in Tibet – 500,000
9- The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and its aftermath – 250,000
10- Deaths in forced labor camps and during border disputes – 13,000,000.
Total 34,300,000
Note that there are gaps in these grim statistics. Indeed, since this report came out in 1971 and Mao died in 1976, the total should be updated to include the “fruits” of five additional years of the Chinese leader’s rule.
On the other hand, this is only the number of deaths. Under regimes of force, such as Mao’s, there is an obvious relationship among deaths, torture, mistreatment, and other abuses. When the number of deaths is high, the number of people tortured, beaten, disabled, or simply imprisoned is even higher. It seems to me that only on Judgment Day will we know the number of victims of Chinese communism who were tragically mistreated in soul or body. I will mention just one piece of data. A 1955 UN report estimated the number of prisoners in Chinese concentration camps for “re-education through labor” at 20 to 25 million. Imagine, dear reader, all that follows from this.
Furthermore, the number of deaths in the Vietnam War should be added to the table above. Although officially uninvolved on the battlefields, Chinese communists, allies of Soviet aggression, played a significant role in this war.
With this in mind, reflections abound. Let me present only two.
Prof. Walker’s valuable data undeniably presents an important aspect of the late dictator’s history. It would perhaps be difficult to explain the tangled circumstances that led a large number of media outlets to remain silent about the river of blood spilled by Maoist China. It is certain, however, that frivolous impartiality contributed to this.
Secondly, it is shocking that such prominent figures in the struggle for human rights failed to take advantage of Mao’s death to issue a worldwide appeal to his successors, urging them to agree to an impartial and exhaustive investigation into the guarantees of life, liberty, and work for the Chinese people.
For example, how fitting would such an initiative have been for certain bishops who delight in appearing at the forefront of the most extreme demands for human rights in nations under anticommunist regimes, where abuses of such rights, if any, were certainly astronomically fewer than in Maoist China!
And here is the last question in this article.
Brief, perhaps incisive, yet logically inevitable.
When so much pro-human rights furor is directed at anticommunist governments and so much silence is maintained about a communist government, favoritism toward communism becomes evident.
In this case, is this outcry really only in favor of human rights?
* * *
Summary:
It must be acknowledged that, in one respect, Mao Zedong (the famous Mao) was unique in history: 35 million victims, according to some; 64 million, according to others.
How can we explain the silence of a large number of media outlets regarding this appalling river of blood?
Why did prominent figures in the fight for human rights, such as certain bishops, not take advantage of Mao’s death to urge the current Chinese government to permit an investigation into human rights violations?
Alongside this inexplicable silence, a fierce pro-human rights wave is sweeping across anticommunist governments.
In view of this, what is really behind this pro-human rights furor?