20 Years Later, Is Tiananmen Square History?
Twenty years ago this week, Qi Zhiyong was in Beijing's Tiananmen Square the night Chinese soldiers fired on student protestors who had occupied the square for nearly two months.
Qi recently agreed to let ABC News accompany him on his first trip back to the square since the night that changed his life.
"The tanks just ran into people," Qi recalled. "I saw a person's head crack open, and he fell back, dead."
Qi was not a student then but a construction worker who had come to the square to see what was happening and because he was looking to form his own political ideas, he said.
He said he was fleeing the square when he was shot in the leg. He saw people dying all around him.
Qi's left leg had to be amputated. For many years, he struggled with the memories of what he'd seen that night but kept quiet about what had happened to him.
But Qi has since been speaking out and wants the Chinese government to acknowledge what unfolded.
"It was the biggest maneuver by the Communist Party of China to mobilize troops, tanks and armed police to shoot and kill its own people," he told ABC News.
It is still not known exactly how many people were killed during the crackdown. On Wednesday, one day before the June 4, anniversary, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the Chinese government to release a full accounting of the incident.
"A China that has made enormous progress economically and is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal," Clinton said in the statement.
The Chinese government has said the death toll was about 200, a figure considered incredibly low by many observers, but the Chinese never set up an independent probe into what happened that night.
Clinton also called on the government to release from jail anyone still imprisoned in the wake of the trajedy.
Today, Tiananmen Square looks very different. It is full of tourists, not protestors, a far cry from 20 years ago and the iconic image of a lone protestor facing down a Chinese tank on the square.
But soldiers and police still keep a watchful eye. Our cameras were turned away when we recently visited, as the soldiers have been told to prevent journalists from capturing events there during this politically sensitive anniversary. At a security checkpoint, the guards took the information from our press cards, and when we subsequently tried to shoot video from outside the perimeter of the square, plainclothes police officers blocked our cameras with umbrellas.
CNN International and BBC World are the only two Western news channels available here. But this week, when they air their stories about Tiananmen Square, the Chinese censors will step in and the signal will go black. Twitter is blocked, as well as several Internet search engines. There is no coverage of the 1989 crackdown in the state-run media.
What Happened in Tiananmen Square?
When the Chinese leaders decided to use force against pro-democracy protesters, they sent tanks and troops armed with submachine guns to take back Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3. The move was the culmination of almost seven weeks of peaceful demonstrations that erupted after the death of reformist leader Hu Yaobang.
When university students decided to go on a hunger strike May 13, it quickly blossomed into a virtual occupation of Tiananmen Square. The Chinese leaders were humiliated two days later when they couldn't hold the welcoming ceremony for the visiting Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev in a designated area near the square. They decided to declare martial law, but the first batch of soldiers were blocked by the residents, and they failed to enter the square. After a stalemate of almost two weeks, the soldiers finally opened fire and made their way to the square.
Chinese authorities have continued to defend the use of deadly force against what they once described as a "counterrevolutionary riot." But they have modified their characterizations with the passage of time. They have started to refer to the demonstrations as "turmoil" and a "political disturbance" and more recently settled for calling it "the Tiananmen incident."
When asked recently by a reporter if the Chinese government would ever apologize for what it did 20 years ago, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu replied, "It is not appropriate for you to use the word apologize."
He reiterated the government's position: "Facts have proven that the path taken by China is in line with the actual situation in China and in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people."
While China has undergone a massive transformation in the years since the Tiananmen Square massacre, many things have remained the same.
Young Chinese Largely Unmoved by Tiananmen History
Young Chinese people here today are largely unaware of the significance of this day. Those who use the Internet find pages referencing Tiananmen Square blocked. Many know that some sort of incident occurred June 4, 1989, but they don't know much more. And largely, it seems they don't really care. The younger generation believes what happened in Tiananmen Square does not affect their lives.
One 25-year-old Chinese professional in Beijing told ABC News that "We are worried about getting a good job and making money. Whatever happened 20 years ago does not affect us today. It's history."
Indeed, China has experienced an unparalleled economic boom. The Chinese people, as a whole, have more money today than ever before. For many here, that is enough progress.
We did several interviews with those involved in the pro-democracy protests. We had to do them two months in advance because activists always run the risk of being placed under lockdown during sensitive times in China.
Jiang Qisheng is still a pro-democracy activist and was a student leader in 1989. He has been imprisoned several times and is under constant surveillance, but he talks to foreign journalists because he still believes he must do something. He was involved with Charter '08, an open letter calling for democratic reforms that was signed by dozens of activists and scholars, many of whom have been arrested. But Jiang has no regrets.
"I will live on like this," he told ABC News. "I will keep speaking out and writing about the truth to let the world know it and tell the people about my ideas, to work with others who would like to pay the price to realize democracy in China."
His goal will not be an easy one to accomplish. Today, on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the brutal crackdown on Tiananmen Square, Jiang and his family are under house arrest with police guarding their home.
(copyright ABC.News)
特別是當時的中國共產黨內部政治環境......天安門事件，一直都是被各界拿來撻伐中共的主要事件
雖然對天安門事件了解程度，不夠！那是因為，沒有親眼目睹天安門事件。
可是呢!是非的第六感證明，如果不是解放軍，絕對無法安全而又仔細的目睹這場暴力屠殺。
但是？如果沒有親眼看見，事情真偽又如何探清？窮小子絕對的相信：沒有一個政府會不屠殺該政府之下的一等公民〈非殖民地〉
從新反省，天安門事件與二二八事件，發現一個類似點─他們都非法的在政府〈或者當地政府〉最高行政單位前的廣場聚集，形成一股非和平的異樣氣氛。
再看看美國這個宣稱人道、自由、和平的國家遇到此種局面的作為。
1932年，美國,Washington.D.C.,政府前的中央廣場，被第一次世界大戰的老兵佔據〈因為918年美國宣稱不會虧待他們〉。
但美國怎麼做呢？想當然!偉大的麥克阿瑟將軍〈二次世界大戰亞洲戰區的五星上將〉帶領著艾森豪、巴頓，進行武力驅逐，無數無辜群眾傷亡。
美國進軍柬埔寨，美國大學生反對激烈，又有幾名學生被槍殺！
另言之中國共產黨: 中國共產黨的作為固然是不可原諒，但是否可以構成理解呢？
不可匪言！就是需要，也正是窮小子所追求的：中國共產黨當時的政治狀況，是不是達到有分崩離析的威脅？
因為鄧小平這麼說的：美國之音太不像話，你們一批批的撒謊....我們中國人那麼多，底子那麼薄，沒有安定團結的政治環境、沒有穩定的社會環境，那真的什麼事情也做不成.....
**********
所以!窮小子以為這是連串事件匯聚的結果 : 因為
1.1978年鄧小平三度上台，得到軍系元老的支持，成為中國實際的領導人，鄧先生主導經濟上的開放改革。
2. 開放的成效顯現後,全世界的資訊也同時入中國，青年學生要求更多的民主改革
1986年上海發生自發性的學生運動，但被當時上海的領導人江澤民鎮壓。
共產黨內的保守派(以陳雲為首)挑戰鄧的領導權，認為過度開放會侵蝕共黨的統治權!
借八六學運為名把鄧先生欽點的總書記胡耀邦拉下台，由趙紫陽升任總書記，李鵬當總理!
實質上是保守派把行政權從鄧先生手中奪走。
3.1987年，保守派有意收緊開放政策，中央政策分歧，鄧小平被迫南巡。在地方部署反擊保守勢力。
4.1989 年隨著幾個經濟特區的成功，鄧小平的地位不致動搖，但中共內部不滿鄧先生過度開放的聲音依然存在!
且學生要求民主的動作沒有停止，民主意味著開放參政權和投票權，這會直接動搖中共一黨專政的統治!
這是共黨統治階層不能接受的事，所以保守派很聰明地把學生追求民主與經濟開放政策作了結合!
是故鄧先生必須要為學生的事負責。
同時也受到黨內保守派與學生民主派的夾攻，所以鄧先生心中對不懂事的學生也不滿意。
5.1989年胡耀邦死亡，學生自發性的在天安門廣場組織記念活動，這就是民運的導火綫。
6.此時的總書記趙紫陽傾向同情學生，但行政權掌於李鵬之手，決策權則由鄧小平掌握!
有名無實的總書記也一肚子火氣，也想找機會來改變一下。
7.1989年5月蘇聯總統戈巴契夫訪中，趙紫陽在與戈巴契夫會談時說出，鄧小平仍是中國唯一的決策者!
鄧先生認為趙先生出賣自已，把所有事情都推到鄧先生身上!
自已培養的人都不可靠，也沒有人可以討論和分擔，此事是造成鄧先生走上極端的主因。
8.天安門上集結的學生都沒有大腦，只會開始不會退場，他們高估了自已，認為政府會屈服!
所以提出的要求越來越過份，但實現他們的!就等於要共產黨交出統治權!
這是所有成年人都不會相信能達成他們的要求。
9.當時的行政負責人是總理李鵬，李主張強硬，而學生也不滿意李鵬，黨的名義上領導人趙紫陽實際上已經出局。
保守派其實是等著看鄧小平挎台。當時鄧先生對學生已轉變為痛恨。
10.北京戒嚴與調動軍隊圍城是必要的警戒措施，也是當時共黨統治階層唯一能做的事。
11.透過媒體的報導，支持學生的民眾不斷增加!
學生的氣焰更盛，除了認同學生的要求外，已經沒有和平收場的可能!
但若是政府讓步?則以後所有的民眾和學生在任何問題下都可以用相同的行為來壓迫政府!
這是一個在世界上沒有任何政府能接受。
12.保守派雖然坐著看鄧先生的笑話，但他們的選擇也只有兩個:
武力鎮壓或是把所有責任推到鄧先生和趙先生身上，犧牲這兩人。
趙先生固然可已犧牲，但沒人敢說出要犧牲鄧小平的話。
鄧小平明白這點，但他沒有其他選擇，要別人怕你只能比別人更狠，於是鄧先生下令對學生使用武力。
13.別的領導人不必背負惡名又能維持原來地位與權力，當然沒有人反對!
於是鄧先生當了罪人，一直到1997去世前再沒人敢挑戰他的領袖地位。
鄧先生不想把權力交給保守派，於是提拔了有鎮壓學運前科的江澤民接班，這也是保守派亦能接受的人選。
opyright © 2009 ABC News
留言列表
【蔡英文說想想】:【中華民國國家作戰系統安全藍圖】 
