Murder and politics – they go together quite well. Wars, assassinations, violent purges: these are the woof and warp of politics, which is, after all, nothing but organized coercion or the threat of it. Combine this with international intrigue, and the opportunism that thrives in the heart of all politicians, and you couldn’t come up with a better narrative to outline if not explain the current leadership struggle in China.
Neil Heywood was an adventurer, or so he liked to think: a British businessman with links to a company founded by "ex"-MI-6 operatives, he was close to the family of Bo Xilai, the ambitious and now disgraced former secretary of the Communist Party in Chongqing. Bo was a rising leader of what has been mistakenly referred to as China’s "new left," a popular leader who rid his city of organized crime, attracted much foreign investment, and was angling for a spot on the Politburo’s all-powerful Standing Committee. He also aroused the ire of China’s supposedly "reformist" leadership, and as such he was in their sights when the current scandal broke – a scandal that provoked rumors of a coup, caused the Chinese authorities to crack down on the internet, and brought the British government into the mix on the current leadership’s side.
When Heywood was found dead in his hotel room, after having been summoned to Chongqing, the initial verdict was that he had a heart attack, like his father before him. He had been drinking, said the local police, and his family raised no questions about his death, dismissing rumors that he had been murdered as preposterous. All that changed, however, when Bo began directly criticizing the Chinese leadership: see my previous piece on the background story here.
Bo was summarily dismissed from his post, and his wife, Gu Kailai, stands accused of Heywood’s murder. Both have disappeared from view.
In China, politicians don’t just "fall from favor" – they plummet.
The murder charge is almost certainly trumped up: the chief "witness," Wang Lijun, was Bo’s chief of police, who was himself under investigation by central authorities and had been summoned to Beijing to spill the dirt on Bo. When he returned, he showed up at Bo’s office and informed him that his wife had Heywood poisoned. Wang has also since disappeared.
The Wall Street Journal is pushing this story big-time: they have a breathless account of Heywood’s "final hours," including a sub-plot about mysterious "documents" detailing Bo’s overseas investments stashed away in England: their story cites a "friend" of Heywood’s who say he feared for his safety. There is good reason to doubt the veracity of this anonymous tipster, if only because it contradicts numerous press accounts that describe Heywood as "happy" in the days before his death: a New York Times piece says he had "moved beyond" his relationship with Bo’s family and other accounts report he hadn’t seen either Bo or anyone in his family for a year.
It is being reported that questions about Heywood’s death were raised, not by his family, but by the "British expatriate community" in Chongqing: this, however, appears to be a euphemism for the British government, as this tweet by William Hague indicates. Heywood’s James Bond-ish persona combined with his business affiliations should cause a few alarm bells to go off about this affair: in addition to his own consulting firm, Heywood-Boddington, the deceased also worked for Hakluyt & Co., founded by former officers of the British spy agency MI-6. Hakluyt is described by one top Australian government security official as "aggressive and invasive" as far as corporate intelligence companies go, and this is borne out by their record: they were caught, in 2001, infiltrating and spying on European "green" groups on behalf of Shell Oil and British Petroleum.
Hakluyt, which also operates as the "Hakluyt Foundation," is part of a pattern established by MI-6 in the 1960s, when several "consultancies" – e.g. Diversified Corporate Services, operating out of Rome, London, and New York – were set up as, essentially, fronts. As one source describes the spookish origins of Hakluyt:
"Set up in 1995 by the late Sir Fitzroy MacLean, with a board that includes a former Royal Dutch Shell managing director and a former BP deputy chair, the Hakluyt Foundation provides leading British businesses with information that clients ‘will not receive by the usual government, media and commercial routes’. Hakluyt’s managing director, Christopher James, was until 1998 in charge of MI6′s liaison with commerce, while a fellow-director, Mike Reynolds, was regarded as one of the Service’s brightest stars."
Heywood’s affiliation with Hakluyt, with its top drawer political and corporate connections – including links to British oil and mining interests – is a strong indication there’s more to his death than is at first apparent. This is an outfit that sports Javier Solana, former EU foreign minister and NATO secretary-general, and former Senator Bill Bradley on its international "advisory" board. It could be a coincidence that Royal Dutch Shell has recently been granted major oil concessions by the Chinese government – the same leadership clique that opposes Bo.
On the other hand, maybe not.
What is happening in China today is very similar to what happened in Russia after the Communist implosion: the "reformist" leadership in Beijing is quietly selling off the nation’s "socially owned" resources to the highest bidder, creating a class of ostensibly "Communist" princelings – the sons and daughters of high-ranking leaders from the "revolutionary" era – who are living off the fat of the land. They are making themselves fantastically wealthy by establishing cozy relationships with Western corporate interests, taking bribes, allying with China’s gangster underworld, and handing out favors and concessions to the highest bidder. If and when the full story of China’s "Yeltsin years" is ever told, it will no doubt resemble the large-scale looting of the post-Communist Russian economy, which gave rise to the infamous Russian "oligarchs." With one difference: there is a lot more wealth in China to loot.
Just because of who he was, the murky circumstances surrounding Heywood’s death are inextricably intertwined with the struggle of competing corporate interests to profit from the China market – and the factional struggle this has set off within the ranks of the Chinese Communist Party’s top leadership, the first such battle in 20 years.
In China, we are seeing a changing of the guard, as the old "reformist" leadership grouped around the late Deng Xiaoping, passes its legacy to a new generation of "collective leadership." The plan is that, with the "princelings" in charge, and China’s crony-capitalist oligarchy firmly in the saddle, the nation would advance on the road to the "Four Modernizations."
Bo was an obstacle on that road: with his anti-corruption initiatives, his smashing of gangster networks, and his expressed desire to have ordinary Chinese benefit from the enormous wealth pouring into the country, the now-disappeared Chongqing party secretary and populist hero posed the first serious threat to the leadership in many years. The linking of his wife to Heywood’s death is clearly just the beginning of a smear campaign, the full ferocity of which has yet to be unleashed.
China’s oligarchs fear their restive people, and they acted quickly when rumors of a military coup swept the Chinese internet: the censors moved in and tried to stem the tide of speculation, as the government propaganda machine went into high gear, linking Bo to "leftists" who want to bring back the Bad Old Days of the Cultural Revolution. I would be surprised if Bo and his wife reappear as defendants in a public show trial, similar to the trial of the Gang of Four – after all, the less public discussion of the affair, the better for the ruling elite – but I wouldn’t rule it out altogether. If it happens, you can be sure it will be a carefully staged affair, with little if any opportunity for the accused to mount a real defense.
In Russia, Communism fell with a thunderous crash, scattering all kinds of debris across the international landscape and leaving an open power vacuum that was quickly filled by a perpetually inebriated "leader" and various gangster networks. In China, Communism fell as a leaf falls from a tree: slowly, even languidly gliding down to earth. That this soft landing is being helped along by numerous corporate interests with links to Western governments — who are profiting enormously in the process – is a story largely untold. The Heywood affair, mystifying and murky on the surface, illuminates yet another chapter in the long-running serial, which might be entitled "How the East Was Won."
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Antiwar.com vs. the FBI – May 21st, 2013
- Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ – May 19th, 2013
- Our Civil Liberties, RIP – May 16th, 2013
- Raping the World – May 14th, 2013
- The Price of Peace – May 12th, 2013





skulz fontaine
April 12th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
The Heywood affair, mystifying and murky on the surface, illuminates yet another chapter in the long-running serial, which might be entitled "How the East Was Won."
Or -
'How the East Became West'?
Johnny in Wi.
April 12th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
This remands me of the ending of ' Animal Farm ' where the pigs and their capitalist human neighbors all become one.
Duglarri
April 12th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
They've been at this a long time. It was in 1994 that a very senior provincial deputy minister, who happened to be of Chinese descent, told me that the way to make money in China was simple: set up a phone and a fax machine in an office building, and find a son or daughter of a communist party bigwig in China. Then sign an exclusive deal to "market" the production of a Chinese factory that makes- say- paper cups. The cups sell for 10 cents. Buy them from the factory for one cent. Make nine cents per cup. Expenses? The phone bill. Split millions in profits with the communist party youngling.
Cost of production: five cents. The four cents per cup the factory loses on every cup? Government loans. Forgiven when they can't be repaid. Rinse and repeat.
"So there are entire floors of people sitting next to phones and fax machines?"
China is the purest of capitalism. No contracts, no accounting either. Just looting, plain and simple.
"There are whole buildings full of people sitting next to phones and fax machines."
John V. Walsh
April 13th, 2012 at 6:10 am
There is one important thing to remember about the events in China.
Whoever wins this power struggle, if indeed there is one, China's foreign policy will not change.
It has been the same for millennia. Except for trading, stay home.
Or as Mao told Nixon (or Kissinger), China's army stays at home.
And that remains true – it is now the world's second largest economy but has not a single overseas military base. We should be glad that China has not imitated the West, most notably the Anglo-American West which has an irrepressible itch for global domination.
MvGuy
April 13th, 2012 at 6:26 am
WOW……….. What an eye opener…….!!!!! Any pretense of good intentions MIA……. Pure larceny… and nuclear armed too……. It seems to be a different species of corruption than the one here… in the U.S.. The one here, get an INC. and set up a virtual, or actual factory…. Ask your local politicians to send you and your INC. work… Make the "work" for double, triple, even a hundred times of true value and send a portion of the "profits" to your politician patron as "campaign contributions"….. GOOD job Duglarri..
gary
April 13th, 2012 at 8:21 am
THere are naval bases in Burma.
Strider55
April 13th, 2012 at 8:59 am
How times have changed. When Mao Tse-tung ruled China, bigwigs who incurred his wrath, or who were deemed no longer useful, died in convenient plane crashes, a la Ron Brown.
mickperry
April 13th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Seconded. Kudos also to Justin for getting this conversation going. Two important pieces of work.
MoT
April 13th, 2012 at 9:40 am
or like Vince Foster you surface in a park, conveniently dead, with no soil on your shoes and your hands to your sides.
MoT
April 13th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Chinese corruption, like its so-called "economy", is as oily and slick as no other. That they haven't perfected the art of global theatrics like the American pols is only due to their recent lack of practice. Maybe they just need to flood K street with billions of off shored loot and watch themselves suddenly become rehabilitated.
John V. Walsh
April 13th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
There may be bases to patrol shared inland waterways with Burma, but those are not to project power overseas.
They are equivalent to US or Canadian Coast Guard bases on the Great Lakes – a far cry from Diego Garcia or the American fortresses spread across the Middle East and Central Asia etc.
John V. Walsh
April 13th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Fifty years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the Chinese, then the pre-eminent naval power sent ships which dwarfed those of Columbus to explore far and wide, reaching Africa and the Middle East. The came, they saw, they traded – and they went home. They did not enslave, did not conquer,etc.
Even Henry Kissinger has to acknowledge that the Chinese exceptionalism is that of a superior culture which cares little about others adopting it. In contrast HK points out that American exceptionalism is of a "missionary" sort, a desire to make the world over in our image. Of course "missionary" is a slippery term for the murder and mayhem, the death and destruction which HK and his colleagues have visited on the world.
Old Mao said that "US Imperialism is the number one enemy of the peoples of the world." And sadly that saying has only grown truer with the passage of time.
HHLongview
April 13th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
http://www.e-reading.org.ua/bookreader.php/88571/…
Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China
in continuum….
MoT
April 13th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
One of the great mysteries of history is why they did not continue with their trading as they once did. It was as if they shut the door and threw away the key.
Bianca
April 13th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
And then, may be it is just the opposite. There should be alarm bells going off whenever someone is glorified as "fighting corruption", "crime gangs", "populist", etc. He was doing exactly what his "friends" from front companies advised. Get a name for himself in the public, establish the right image, get inside the exclusive club, then challenge them from inside. Chinese collective leadership seems to be more resilient then it is generally thought. To assume that the entire leadership is corrupt and that China looks like Yeltzin Russia — is not ringing true. If he pushes his luck, there will be further developments. This may already be the case — and the warning shot accross the bow is the murder charge. He reminds me of another "populist" in Thailand, who was taken down by a military coup. He ran, of course, to London. His populism created a fanatical following, and now his sister is a place holder that will eventually undermine the Thai monarchy. Bo was to be another Taksin, and we will find out if he was a good investment.
Eric
April 14th, 2012 at 5:24 am
What is most striking is that a total ignorance of even the basics of Chinese politics is not barrier to Right-Wing bloggers and fantasy-mongers. Read the FT and you think they are on drugs – read the blogs and you know it!
Goldilocks
April 14th, 2012 at 8:44 am
So, we're supposed to believe that he was a 43 year old sucessful business man who was yet an alcoholic, who drank himself to death because no one was returning his calls? That doesn't seem likely. You haven't discussed the probabilty of that. Have you looked up actuarial tables (ok so his father died of a heart attack, how many points for that?)? Was he known to drink a lot? What did his Chinese wife think about getting hitched to a hard drinking foreigner? No I don't think so. I never heard of high flying drunks turning up bright and early to do business with hard-nosed Chinese.
Goldilocks
April 14th, 2012 at 9:00 am
John V. Walsh. You know of course that when the Chinese landed in "America" in 1412 they found all those Asian looking peoples and they asked them how they got there. "Over the top of the World", they replied, "We walked". So embarassing. So the Chinese went back home and told the Emperor that it was easier to walk to the New World. They packed up their Naval Imperialism. Nothing to do with some bleeding heart Chinese humanitarianism. Believe me – ask Menzies, the amateur historian.