Thoughts on Tiananmen Square

[riddler 0]

June 4 is the anniversary of when tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square in 1989 and killed hundreds (more likely thousands) of Chinese protesters that represented a desire for more democracy in China. For those that don't remember (or are too young to remember), what started out as a remembrance of a pro-capitalistic leader of the PRC, Hu Yaobang, led 100,000 Chinese students to march on Tiananmen to demand that the government recognize more reforms towards capitalism. The Chinese government rattled sabres with the protesters, and after about seven weeks, used tanks and armored vehicles to bring the city back under control. Some estimates of the number of deaths are between two and three thousand, but the "official" number is 241 dead and 7,000 wounded.

In some ways, it was the Chinese version of the Kent State shootings, but in typical Chinese tradition, hundreds or thousands died, compared to the 4 that died in Ohio. The theme was the same; young, passionate students with ideals challenging the establishment and dying for it.

This was an incredible turning point for a major financial and military power, and it shaped world history. I can't help but think how different the world would be if the Chinese government had retreated and eventually fallen, nearly the same time as the Berlin Wall came down. To this day, there are no public records in China about this incident, and the average chinese citizen cannot find information about it in any Chinese media. It is a forbidden subject.

One thing that strikes me, though, is the U.S. response to this event. Shortly after it unfolded, the world condemned the Chinese government, and U.S. President G.H.W. Bush suspended military sales and state visits to China. That was 1989. Today, 20 years later, the U.S. response from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to "urge" China to "come to terms" with the event, whatever that means Those words will probably have the same effect as "urging" China to get out of Tibet, and recognize Taiwan as a separate nation - in other words, the Chinese government will do absolutely nothing.

So what is the difference that 20 years made? For one thing, the U.S. now owes about a trillion dollars in debt to China. Could that be the reason we move from condemnation and financial retribution to soft-spoken "urging"? Of course, the U.S. has a different party in power now, but I don't think the Democrats represent a major change in international affairs for the U.S. from the Republicans - foreign relations policies don't change as frequently as domestic policy, just because there is a different POTUS, and Bush Jr. didn't do all that much to affect a change in China. Even though I liked Clinton, I very much disagreed with his restoring of Most-Favored Nation trading status to China - I think it was the biggest mistake he made.

The entire situation is disheartening to me. Hundreds or thousands of students died in China because they wanted to make a difference, and 20 years later, they are all but forgotten, and their deaths have, so far, been in vein. It makes me feel that we are at a point in the world where people no longer have any say in their government. There can no longer be change in the world that improves the lives ofpeople, because the governments and financial powers of the world now have such military, financial and media power, they they more or less dictate how we live our lives. Even the U.S. no longer stands for the hope of freedom around the world, we simply kowtow to whomever holds our banknotes.

I hope I'm wrong

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

So what is the difference that 20 years made? For one thing, the U.S. now owes about a trillion dollars in debt to China. Could that be the reason we move from condemnation and financial retribution to soft-spoken "urging"?

I don't think you're wrong.

Interesting piece on NPR this morning that catches up with three of the protestors today ... and the different paths their lives have taken.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104821771&sc=fb&cc=fp

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[lawrocket 3]

I don't know how to link it with my Blackberry, but if someone can link the photo of the lone man standing before the tank - the photo says it all.

I didn't appreciate it at the time. I regret the Tiananmen massacre ever happened and that I did not appreciate it.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Frenchy68 0]

I agree with some of your comments, but I think some of the analysis is a little simplistic, mostly due to a Westerner's view of Chinese society.
The events of 1989 leading to the June 4th crackdown are a lot more similar to May 1968 in France than to an attempt at a democratic revolution. To this day, most Chinese probably wouldn't want a democracy, or at best wouldn't know what to do with it. This is due to cultural background, where their centers of interest vary greatly from ours (Westerners).
In 1989, the students, as you mentioned, first gathered to pay their respect to a defunct party leader (Hu Yaobang). The head of the CCP at the time was Zhao Ziyang, himself a close ally to Hu. Both Hu and Zhao were put in positions of power by Deng Xiaoping. The goal was to lead China towards economic and political reforms. Zhao, up to June 4th, defended the demonstrators.
What really happened in 1989 was a the result of a power struggle within the Chinese communist party. The reformers, lead by Zhao and supported by Deng, wanted a more liberated society. The hard liners, led by Li Peng (CCP's #2), wanted a return to more traditionalist maoist values. The latter prevailed.
As one of the participants of the hunger strike mentioned one day, the tragedy was caused by the fact that on both sides, extremes prevailed. The students/workers movement radicalized itself towards mid-may, as did the government. Deng, probably more by political survival instinct than by conviction, dropped Zhao and rallied the hardliners in mid-May as well. That was the beginning of the end.
After the crackdown, China pursued its economic opening (under Deng's lead), but considerably slowed down its political liberalization.
However, today, there is as much dissidence in China as there was then. The aspirations are pretty much the same (fight low level corruption, relax censorship, etc...), but the media utilized is much different. The web is now a formidable weapon which the government finds hard to control. And there is much dissent, not as much against the regime as against low level government corruption.
In regards to the West, what can we really do? Well, forcing democratic reforms on China is the wrong thing to do. The huge majority of Chinese do not want democracy. 2000 years of Confucian teaching saw to that. So preaching democracy to the Chinese is like teaching a turtle to sing. Pointless.
The West best interest, much like the Chinese, is to see stable reforms go through. The last thing ANYONE needs is an unstable China (see what happened in Russia?). So demanding reforms is fine, it makes local constituents feel all warm and fuzzy. But encouraging them would be much more beneficial to all... China will slowly but surely develop its own brand of a political regime, and who knows, maybe some foreign countries will even be inspired by it. Just my 2 cents.

Today (June 4th), everything is somewhat quiet here. The government, in its infinite paranoia, has a myriad of undercover police officers patrolling the major plazas and streets. Where as the dissent is actually online (although they have blocked a load of sites for the anniversary, but there are many ways to work around that). The ones making the most noise about it is the expat community (me included)...

Oh, and as far as Tibet is concerned, it will never be independent. And Taiwan will revert to China one day, under a HK kind of agreement. These are my picks, but that's for another thread I guess.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[riddler 0]

Quote

The events of 1989 leading to the June 4th crackdown are a lot more similar to May 1968 in France than to an attempt at a democratic revolution.

Quote

Well, forcing democratic reforms on China is the wrong thing to do. The huge majority of Chinese do not want democracy. 2000 years of Confucian teaching saw to that. So preaching democracy to the Chinese is like teaching a turtle to sing. Pointless.

I'm not sure I agree with that, since there were at least 100,000 young Chinese that obviously wanted change, and I think there are probably more in the mainland that would like to see change, as long as they don't have to sacrifice. I think it has more to do with complacency. It's the same reason the citizens in the U.S. don't force change. We all have pretty OK lives (both in China and the U.S.), and that seems to be adequate for most of us. Unfortunately, things will be slow to change (if ever) because of our complacency.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[topdocker 0]

In 1992, China held the World Championships of CRW in Anyang. Afterward, we had a few days in Beijing to soak up the sights. Tianmen Square being the most sought after for us, images of those days in 1989 still fairly fresh. I remember our guide telling us that those events "never happened" and it was "just propoganda." It struck all of us as ludicrous to deny the protests when you could still see the tank tread marks in the streets around the square.

Do they recognize those events now? Not like a holiday or anything, but at least some mention in recent history?

top

Jump more, post less!

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the reminder. It's a worth be reminded, imo.

I do remember watching news reports as the events were happening. Unquestionably it impacted me.

Some years later, I learned about the 8/8/88 student-led protests in Burma ... those aren't heard of as much because of much stricter control (than China) on media, and Burma is not China.

Which also goes to a first-order explanation of why the US behaves the way it does toward China and the ruling state power. From a political realism perspective, a state deals with who's in power and pursues stability.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the additional analysis, comments, and history.

One aspect that I've speculated on ... not to intellectually rigorous ends ... is how the experience of Tiananmen in 1989 impacted/is impacting the CCP strategy and tactics in Tibet and in Uighur areas? I've thought about looking at the three comparatively as domestic insurgencies ... maybe even throw in analysis of Mao's initial domestic insurgency as well.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

I'm not sure I agree with that, since there were at least 100,000 young Chinese that obviously wanted change, and I think there are probably more in the mainland that would like to see change, as long as they don't have to sacrifice. I think it has more to do with complacency. It's the same reason the citizens in the U.S. don't force change. We all have pretty OK lives (both in China and the U.S.), and that seems to be adequate for most of us. Unfortunately, things will be slow to change (if ever) because of our complacency.

There were obviously more than the 100,000 in Beijing. But still not that much considering the protests went on for over 2 months. It lost some traction after a bit and couldn't built upon its momentum. One of the big issue was, I believe, that once the more radical group of students took over, they lost the masses. As long as they were talking about improving conditions, fighting corruption, etc... people could relate to it. When they became more politicized, a lot of people felt they were not concerned anymore. People who make $3/day do care about improving their condition and fighting the local town bully who pockets all the government's investments. But once you start talking about concepts such as democracy, you don't really give a rat's ass. They tend to start caring about democracy after they've purchased the apartment, the house, sent the kids to college, etc... The students still involved in mid-may were idealists. The rest of the population was much more pragmatic. In my opinion...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

In 1992, China held the World Championships of CRW in Anyang. Afterward, we had a few days in Beijing to soak up the sights. Tianmen Square being the most sought after for us, images of those days in 1989 still fairly fresh. I remember our guide telling us that those events "never happened" and it was "just propoganda." It struck all of us as ludicrous to deny the protests when you could still see the tank tread marks in the streets around the square.

Do they recognize those events now? Not like a holiday or anything, but at least some mention in recent history?

top

No they do not. Much like in Orwell's 1984, the Chinese government has rewritten history. The 20 something generation knows pretty much nothing of the events. I showed videos from Youtube to my staff, and I could tell it was the first time they saw anything on that subject...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Thanks for the additional analysis, comments, and history.

One aspect that I've speculated on ... not to intellectually rigorous ends ... is how the experience of Tiananmen in 1989 impacted/is impacting the CCP strategy and tactics in Tibet and in Uighur areas? I've thought about looking at the three comparatively as domestic insurgencies ... maybe even throw in analysis of Mao's initial domestic insurgency as well.

/Marg

I would say that they are quicker to act when something breaks out. The power struggle within the CCP was so great in 1989 that nothing happened for over 2 months. Now, when something arises, they move in FAST!
Tibet and the Uighur are driven by cultural survival though, whereas the students and workers movement of 1989 was somewhat attacking not only the foundation of the party, but in some aspect was hacking at the core of Chinese society. Students DEMANDING anything goes against the basic Confucian values. And because the protesters were (mostly) Hans, the government could not dismiss them as some minority extremists.
The Uighur are obviously much easier to deal with on the domestic and international scene, with the "war on terror" and all... Jut brand any uprising as being orchestrated by local AQ friendly extremists and you get away with murder nowadays.
Tibet is trickier, as it is in the international spotlight. But at the end of the day, the regime only has to justify itself to its citizens. And realistically, the average Chinese couldn't care less about what happens in Tibet. Label it as rioting by extremists and again, you're home free...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."