Commemorating the Tiananmen Square Massacre
I wrote this article for Imminent Rebellion three years ago. Today marks the 23rd Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and I'm re-posting it here because it should never be forgotten. With all the recent student resistance to budget cuts, it helps to know that we are not alone. We're part of a history of student resistance internationally, and we're still fighting back.
1. Re-evaluation of Hu Yaobang’s achievements
2. Rejection of the 1987 “anti-bourgeois liberalization campaign”[5]
3. Freedom of press
4. Increase of the education budget
5. Freedom to protest and demonstrate
6. Publication of the financial holdings of senior government officials
7. Abolition of municipal regulations controlling demonstrations
Commemorating
the Tiananmen Square Massacre
"Unless we overthrow this inhumane
government, our country will have no hope," – Cai Ling, student
organiser
Twenty years have passed since the Chinese Communist state’s massacre of
activists at Tiananmen Square at 1989. Twenty years ago, students and workers
involved in the June 4th Movement fought against the
authoritarianism, patriarchy, corruption and bureaucracy of the Chinese
Communist Party. This movement emerged from a context of economic reform that
caused high inflation and declining living standards. During this movement,
there were many inspiring acts of dissent and solidarity with worker and
student co-operation and mutual aid. There was a momentary rupture in history
where the state was under threat, and its power undermined through student and
worker resistance.
The city of Beijing was temporarily taken over by the people and became an
autonomous zone. It was a significant threat to the power of the bureaucrats in
the CCP, who then ordered army to massacre of students at Tiananmen Square. The
horrific violence of the state should never be forgotten or forgiven.
I will first look at some of
the conditions in China based on my relatives’ experiences
and describe an oral history[1] of this event from the perspective of an ex-Beijing
student who now resides in Aotearoa called Jiefang[2]. Although it is hard to completely comprehend these events
without being part of the cultural milieu and “being there”, much can be learnt
from people who were there at the grassroots. But I also want to go beyond
description and look at how and why this concept of ‘democracy’ was employed by
students; how they were represented in the west; reflect on the strategies both
authoritarian communist states and capitalist democracies use to suppress and
limit dissent by using each other to assert their legitimacy.
Some background
For many
peasants and workers the communist revolution brought hope of freedom and
equality. The ideals of Marx, Engels, Mao and Lenin were the basis for a radical
restructuring of urban and rural society in China. My maternal grandfather, who joined the
Communist Party at age 30, just after migrating to the city from the village,
believed the politics of communism would be beneficial for peasants like him and
my grandmother. While the revolution provided material benefits to the working
class and the peasantry (initially) – with relatively equal distribution of
necessities such as food and clothing – this form of authoritarian communism
made many worshippers of Mao. The regime created a personality cult around Mao,
making it a crime to question his words. Neighbours would report his critics, who then would be
arrested. An analogy my mother always likes to make is that Mao to most Chinese
people during his reign was what God is to Christians – an omnipotent and
omnipresent being, who guides the people to salvation. A colleague of hers was
imprisoned for 8 years for saying one of the Communist politicians “didn’t look like a
good guy”[3]. My paternal grandfather was also imprisoned for
three months for being an intellectual. Intellectuals or people with education
were considered dangerous and threatening to the communist regime: the Party
needed total control over thought and ideology to govern well.
With this all-powerful state in place, there was obviously
little scope for democratising power. Since
the establishment of the CCP government in 1949, there have been major
turbulent periods caused by Mao’s policies such as the Great Leap Forward and
Cultural Revolution. After Mao’s death government policies began to change. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping and other pragmatists in the CCP started making
economic reforms. This marked
the “opening up” of the Chinese economy (改革开放), and it allowed foreign
investment and greater integration with global capitalism. However, after
decades of anti-capitalism, this had to be presented to Chinese
people as part of the
‘socialist’ program, so Deng termed this change “socialism with Chinese
characteristics”. It was a program for modernisation and capital investment to
expand the Chinese economy. Consequently, the gap between the rich and poor had
greatly widened in China.
The June 4th Movement
After Mao’s death there
were several movements for democratic reform, but the most significant and
well-known one is what is now called the June 4th Movement. It
refers to the student movement[4] that fought for democratic reforms in1989. It emerged from a context of
economic reform, high inflation, and corruption and profiteering by state
officials. Many ordinary students were swept up in this wave of dissent. A
family friend, Jiefang was one of those students and from here on, the
description of the June 4th movement is based on his perspective, supported by
a chronology of events in the book Voices
From Tiananmen Square. In 1989, he was a student at a Beijing university
where he became involved in this pro-democracy movement. According to him, Deng
Xiaoping’s economic reforms provoked people to question why
there was to be no political reform,
i.e. democratisation of state power. Some students with increasing knowledge of
the outside world looked to eastern European countries for inspiration as to
how socialist democracies might work and develop. It was during this period of
reform that the pro-democracy movement led by university students sprang into
being.
The movement
began in spring after Hu Yaobang died of a heart attack on April 15th 1989. He was the General Secretary for the CCP
who had been forced to resign from the Party for his pro-democracy views two
years earlier. Many people respected him because he opposed the
authoritarianism of the CCP and argued for democracy in China. After his death,
people gathered at Tiananmen Square to pay their respects and lay wreaths. But
the next day, the CCP removed the wreaths placed by Beijing University students
and a demonstration was organised in response. About 3,000 students attended a
march to
Tiananmen Square with a petition involving seven requests:
1. Re-evaluation of Hu Yaobang’s achievements
2. Rejection of the 1987 “anti-bourgeois liberalization campaign”[5]
3. Freedom of press
4. Increase of the education budget
5. Freedom to protest and demonstrate
6. Publication of the financial holdings of senior government officials
7. Abolition of municipal regulations controlling demonstrations
A Chronology and Description of Events
On April 18th,
5000 students marched to Tiananmen Square to demand the resignation of Li Peng.
Li Peng was the Premier at the time and he held very conservative views. He was
seen as one of the main people responsible for corruption. Corruption was
viewed by students as a symptom of a centralised bureaucratic political structure,
where the state officials had monopoly over power and resources.
Protestors
increased to 30,000 later on in the day. At 11pm, 1000 students tried to take a
wreath to the gate of Zhongnanhai (CCP headquarters). At approximately midnight
on April 19th, the police arrived and demanded students leave Zhongnanhai. They
refused and stayed, so between 3am and 4am, the police started using force and
violence to remove the students. Students tried to stay as long as possible,
but police assaulted and forcibly dragged out those students who refused to
leave. This was the first clash between police and students. Later that day,
anger erupted and students started to mobilise.
In Beijing
University, there were about 300,000-400,000 students at the time. They were
angry at the state’s violent response to the anti-corruption protest so they
decided to do something on April 22nd, a date that coincided with the state
funeral for Hu Yaobang. Many students from different universities were also
organising protests against corruption while mourning the death of Hu Yaobang.
The CCP feared anti-government sentiments and there had been active surveillance
of political movements including this one.
The CCP,
fearing disorder at the state funeral, set a curfew for the evening of 21st
April, after which people were banned from entering Tiananmen Square. Students
entered before the curfew and planned to stay there until the next morning.
Normally, a CCP state funeral procession would involve the coffin of the dead
politician being walked around the square several times with “aiyue” (funeral
music), before being taken to the crematorium. The CCP, however, were afraid that
students would disrupt the state funeral, so Hu Yaobang’s coffin was sent straight to
the crematorium, bypassing the customary procession. Jiefang went to this
funeral and it was his first contact with the pro-democracy movement. At the
time, he went not so much for the politics but to experience the movement.
Chang An St, Beijing’s longest street was filled with people paying their final
respects.
At this time,
students were still demanding Li Peng’s resignation over corruption. They wanted to hand him
a petition and were physically kneeling at the doorsteps of Zhongnanhai. Li
Peng never came out.
These student
protests against corruption were organised partly to honour Hu Yaobang and
restore his reputation and dignity that was smeared by his dismissal from the
CCP. He represented a political stance against corruption, against the one
party policy and for democratic reform. Students were demanding punishment for
politicians involved in corruption who had been using their power to benefit
themselves. They were not specifically targeting Deng Xiaoping or Li Peng, but
were using them as symbols of corruption.
Meanwhile in
other cities such as Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan, Tianjin and Xi’an, protests
were happening in support of the Beijing students’ demands.
Hundreds of students from Tianjin planned to catch a train to Beijing, but
university authorities stopped most of them by cancelling their tickets.
On April 26th,
the CCP issued a press statement labelling the
student protests an “anti-government and anti-society movement” causing “turmoil” (动乱) –
a negative term used to discredit the students’ demands.
On April 27th, 200,000 students from all over Beijing marched to Tiananmen
Square to protest this press statement and misrepresentation of the movement.
Over a million citizens supported them along the route. The march lasted from
7am to 9pm and it covered around 20km. It was one of the biggest demonstrations
since the Cultural Revolution.
The state refused to change its press statement
and the movement grew even bigger. On April 28th, the Autonomous Student Union of Beijing Universities
was established for students to organise together around pro-democracy demands.
Students outside of Beijing were also organising and demonstrating: on the same
day ASUBU was set up, 6000 students demonstrated in Tianjin.
By May 4th
there was still a deadlock and students continued to demonstrate. May 4th is an
important historical date in Chinese political history. In 1919, the May 4th
Movement was an anti-imperialist movement in Beijing that lead
to the end of feudalism and marked the birth of Chinese communism. It was also
characterised by significant student involvement and working class dissent and
revolutionary activity. To mark the 70th anniversary of the May 4th Movement,
Beijing students held a demonstration at Tiananmen Square. Not long afterwards,
other groups in society became involved, and journalists started demonstrating
for free press with slogans like “I want to tell the truth”. On hearing
the news of a Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, planning to visit Beijing,
ASUBU decided to organise a protest coinciding with his visit.
Hunger strike
begins
On May 13th,
about 3000 students from Beijing University began a hunger strike in Tiananmen
Square to protest the government's reluctance to engage in dialogue. By this
time, many students were living and sleeping in the square. Makeshift shelters
were made and living conditions were rough. The next day, a few politicians
visited the students in the square and promised dialogue, but no agreement was
reached. On May 15th, Gorbachev arrived
in Beijing. Welcoming of foreign leaders is usually conducted at Tiananmen
Square, but this was stopped by the student occupation whose aim was to
embarrass the CCP in front of foreign visitors. By May 17th, all of Beijing had
been mobilised and there was a huge demonstration participated by millions of
people from all walks of life, workers, students and pretty much the whole of
society. They were pro-democracy and against the CCP’s authoritarian
reign. Meanwhile every day, hundreds and thousands of students were being
hospitalised due to the hunger strike, their depleting health gained a lot of
sympathy from other areas of society. On May 19th, the Beijing Workers'
Autonomous Federation (BWAF) was set up in support of the students. It was the
first independent trade union since the establishment of the CCP government.
On May 20th,
the government declared martial law. No protests, petitions or strikes were
allowed. Curfews were put in place and there was to be military control of
Beijing. However, although martial law was declared, it could not be
implemented.
The whole city
of Beijing was now involved in this movement and the army was blockaded from
entering the city. Beijing became an autonomous zone. Workers didn’t have to go to
work and everyday routines were disrupted. It was a moment in time where
political dissent and activism involved the whole of society and everyone was a
comrade (同志) and stood in solidarity with each other. There were
no police in Beijing, so traffic was being directed by students. Food and
drinks were free to all the students because they had workers’ support.
During this time of crisis and social upheaval, people showed more politeness
to each other and solidarity. Even thieves stopped stealing.
After a
deadlock for 10 days, the government still refused to accept the demands of the
movement. By this time, students from all over China started coming to Beijing.
Trains were free because workers supported this movement. On May 31st/June 1st,
the government started to crackdown harder on the movement. But at the time,
the army still could not enter Tiananmen Square because of the blockades.
Undercover soldiers attempted to sneak into the square with weapons. On June
3rd, around midday, a car with guns in Zhongnanhai was discovered and exposed
by students. The students confiscated the weapons and ammunition. The army was
still determined to enter but had to get through blockades defended by 20,000
people.
Then the
shooting started…
In the middle
of the night on June 3rd to the early hours of June 4th, the army started
firing. At first, students thought they were using rubber bullets but soon
realised they were real. The army and the people of Beijing started fighting.
As the army started entering, people were fighting back with Molotov cocktails,
stones and bricks. Around 11-12am, the killing started. Jiefang was at
university when this was happening and it was being reported on the radio. When
they heard the news, him and his friends jumped on their bikes and rode to
Tiananmen Square. As they were riding, they passed burning cars, buses, army
vehicles, which people had ignited to act as a barricade preventing the army
from coming in further. They also saw injured people being carried away and
transported by bike trailers. The army was firing both warning shots and shots
at people. People were angry and afraid, calling the army “Fascists!” (法西斯).
People beside him were hurt and had been shot. All around him people were
carrying injured students. Blood was everywhere. There were countless deaths
and injuries. The exact statistics are still unknown, only estimates. Nobody
could sleep while bullets were firing.
Meanwhile at
Tiananmen Square, thousands of students stayed staunch and kept their
occupation of the square. The government tried to negotiate with movement
leaders but they refused to move. When the army arrived at Tiananmen Square at
about 2.30am, the atmosphere was full of fear and chaos. Over the megaphones in
the square, the government were sending warning messages about this “暴乱” (riot, chaos)
and the crackdown. Messages to the square occupants included “This is your
life, your responsibility; take it at your own risk”. By 4am, the
army surrounded Tiananmen Square. Lights were turned off and tanks drove in and
fired into the crowds to drive the students out of the square. Many walked away
“shoulder to
shoulder, hand in hand” crying as they left the square. People were
emotionally distressed, traumatized and afraid and many could not believe what
was happening. Some soldiers were also injured and killed. After the massacre,
the government regained control of the square. Many of the students left the
country and went into exile, while the leaders were arrested and imprisoned.
Millions of students had been involved and most just returned back to their own
lives. Within the army, there were some non-cooperative soldiers and generals
who refused to take government orders, they were sacked in the aftermath of the
massacre.
This story
based on one student’s experience of the June 4th movement is one amongst
many others. There are still Chinese people of my generation who deny the
massacre ever happened and consider it “Western
propaganda”. While the way it has been portrayed in the West is
no doubt with western bias, and the event was utilised in a way to demonstrate
the western democracy as “the way of the future” and proclaim a
kind of civilisational superiority, it is not an event that can be denied. Unlike many western portrayals of the
movement, its goal was not to set up a capitalist democracy, rather to
democratize and decentralise power within a socialist economy.
Solidarity and mutual aid
One of the inspiring features that characterised the
pro-democracy movement of '89 is the mutual aid and solidarity between students
and workers. This was a conscious recognition of the importance of the working
class in winning this struggle for democratic socialism. Ren Wanding, one of
the students involved in the June 4th Movement made a speech looking the
lessons learnt from previous student movements for democracy: the Democracy
Wall Movement and the Student Movement 1986. His/her critique was that they had
no concrete programme for long-term goals and were not connected to working
class struggles. But workers involved were arrested and jailed in both
movements.
"Students should join the
workers, who in their turn should fight for independent trade unions. Only when
several million production workers understand that their democratic rights are
not handed down to them, but are something that must be fought for, and take
command of the situation, will democracy be realised." - Ren Wanding,
April 21,1989, Tiananmen square[6]
Students reflected on their role in society and took
their privileges into consideration. Out of most sections of society excluded
from participation in government, some students saw themselves as having the
most freedom to act and protest. Hue Yu, a student writing in '89 before the
massacre argues:
We can see that in China the people who are under the
iron first of arbitrary rule and slavery are not the students, but the workers,
peasants and other strata of society. In the Democracy Movement the students,
who have the greater freedom than others, are making the loudest demands for
democracy and freedom. This should change, and the people who should speak are
not students, but the people.[7]
Why democracy?
Coming from an
anarchist position, I think it's important to understand why democracy was fought for in China, but
also to critically support demands
for democracy. Under authoritarian communist reign and within the global
context of western cultural dominance, this idea of democracy was perhaps the
most available and accessible political ideal to use as a strategy
for liberation. They saw rights such as free speech, freedom to demonstrate and
protest and participation in decision-making as part of “democracy”.
However, as
most of us are aware of, western capitalist democracies are far from free. In
comparison to totalitarian regimes, it seems like an ideal option, but
ultimately state power is always oppressive. Western democracies are just
better at hiding and governing populations by creating an illusion of freedom
and using ideological and political technologies to keep people in line. When
there is a small elite governing the majority, even when there is token
participation like voting, social hierarchy and inequality is still maintained.
Crackdown on
dissent also happens but in less visibly violent forms. It is done through
surveillance, the police, the court system, the prison system and the education
system. Western democracies give an illusion of freedom by allowing voting
every few years, but these political systems are still very much tied up to
economic forces and conservative social attitudes of the dominant Pakeha culture.
In Chinese pop
culture’s representations of the communist revolution, there
is still a deep romanticism of a classless society through struggle, sacrifice
and hardship. There are countless television dramas representing the stories of
peasants or workers with the background context being the communist revolution.
With this relatively new economic condition of “socialism with Chinese
characteristics”, which is essentially state capitalism using
nationalist rhetoric, the ideals of communism, working class and peasant
struggle are part of a romanticised past; a memory. Ideals that started off as a
liberating force have reverted back to oppression. The ideal of democracy, Western
liberal representative democracy, was a liberating idea from the authoritarian
conditions of state communism. Similarly, people in capitalist democracies looked to communist
systems for inspiration and liberation. But are they ultimately futile in the
scheme of things if hierarchical structures
are maintained?
Ideological strategies
employed to discredit dissent
Authoritarian communism and capitalist democracy are
really two sides of same coin. It is convenient for the ruling class of both
systems to construct themselves in opposition to each other. Often in
capitalist democracies, people are taught to think that the opposite of
democracy is communism. They are afraid of the economic idea of communism because they think it necessarily
involves the political system of
dictatorship. Similarly, CCP propaganda equates the political system of democracy with the economic system of capitalism.
This deliberate confusion of political
and economic systems operates in both oppressive state systems to justify the
existence of the state and centralised power. Although their justifications
rest on different political ideologies, they both operate to restrict dissent
and construct an illusion of freedom. The CCP labelled pro-democracy activists
as “bourgeois” as a way to connect democracy ideals to the evils of capitalism.
Meanwhile in western capitalist democracies, the label of “communist” has been
used in a derogatory way to connect anti-capitalists to totalitarian
dictatorships. Using ideologies for liberation to justify oppression happens in
both contexts, communism in China and other 'communist' states are not actually
communist.
Western capitalist democracies such as the US or NZ always
emphasise that they are a “democracy”, but never call themselves “capitalist”.
Likewise, Chinese political discourse emphasises and refers to China as a “communist”
or “socialist” country but never a “totalitarian dictatorship”. I think this is
a way both states tries to connect to people on the grassroots and dupe them
into thinking they are free and equal, and at the same time masking the systems
that cause more inequality and oppression.
What these idealised visions of freedom and equality
also did was sow the seed for criticism when the reality of the situation is
the opposite. The student movement in '89 argued that the CCP was “practicing
capitalism under the name of socialism”[8]. Similarly, democracies in western countries are sometimes
critiqued by its citizens as not being real democracies. But they are just
enough to pass it as such to provide the illusion that people have freedom.
Both systems use each other to prop up themselves, but it creates a false
dichotomy of just two options in the way politics can be organised.
Anarchism as an alternative has been suppressed,
misrepresented and dismissed in both contexts so hierarchical power structures
can continue to exist. But the real danger to the state and capitalism is when
communism is combined with anarchism, which is when there is potential for
meaningful revolutionary change.
Politicians tell us that grassroots demands that
threaten their power are “unrealistic” or “impossible” because they’re “not
practical” or “against human nature”. By using media, political rituals,
symbols and imagery, they create and construct a sense of 'reality' that helps
to maintain their power. Because the state has the power to define what
constitutes “reality”, it becomes hard to think outside of their framework of
possibilities. When people internalise these dominant ideas of realism and
pragmatism, it limits our imagination of alternative forms of socio-political
and economic organisation. Despite these strategies to suppress dissent in
state societies, many people can still see right through these ideas which
ignores or justify their oppression and organise collectively to challenge
injustice.
The CCP tried to discredit the June 4th Movement by branding as causing “turmoil” and the previous
student movement as a “bourgeois liberalization campaign”. When Helen
Clark branded the Tino Rangatiranga movement against the Seabed and Foreshore
bill confiscating more Maori land as “haters and wreckers”, or when the
Crown branded Maori and Pakeha anarchists and political activists as “terrorists”[9], it's the same shit, different context. Except in
capitalist democracies the repression and violence is less visible and more
sophisticated. The state doesn't need to massacre people to stay in power. The
violence at Tiananmen Square in '89 showed the depleting power and legitimacy
of the CCP and violence was subsequently used to re-establish authority and
control.
The Tiananmen
Square massacre showed the state’s capability for violence and dissolution of dissent.
Blood, sweat and tears were shed for justice and liberation, as it always has
been. But twenty years later, the struggle is not over. While no event since
the Tiananmen Square massacre has garnered the same amount of global and
national attention, media coverage and the effect on Chinese politics,
resistance against state power and capitalism continues. The political and
economic situation in China has not changed much since 1989, rather it has
become worse: unemployment rates are extremely high; the gap between rich and
poor is widening more and more; inflation is rampant; and there have been
attempts to privatise industries. The power of the state is still strong and
people have little say in most aspects of their lives. Within the first three
months of this year, there were news of 58,000 “mass incidents”, which is the
state’s term for protest actions, uprisings, strikes, road blocks and rioting[10]. More recently in China, steelworkers clashed with
riot police to stop plans to privatise state-owned Tonghua Steel in Jilin
province. The state was forced to listen to their demands[11]. These recent examples of political activity and the
June 4th Movement are all part of the same struggle to take back
power nationally and globally, slowly chipping away the power of corporations
and the state. Listening to a participant of the movement talk about the
bloodshed, the death of freedom fighters and the injustice of the situation
makes me angry and upset. The trauma it has caused Jiefang and other students
like him, the workers involved and the soldiers who disobeyed orders and the
people who have lived through that is immense. It explains why my family here
and in China are always concerned about my safety for being involved in
political dissent. But I think it would be more tragic and insulting to those
who fought and suffered for wanting freedom if the rest of us are too paralysed
by fear to fight back. In honouring the people involved in this movement and
others like it, the least we can do is to keep creating 'turmoil' wherever
oppression exists.
Bibliography and further reading
Zhou, Qin andZi Jin, trans. 1989. June Four: A
Chronicle of the Chinese Democratic Uprising. Fayetteville : University of Arkansas
Press
Barme, Geremie and Linga Jaivin, eds. 1992. New Ghosts, Old Dreams: Chinese Rebel
Voices. New York: Random House Inc.
Yu, Mok Chiu and J. Frank Harrison. 1990. Voices from Tiananmen Square: Beijing Spring
and the Democracy Movement. Canada: Black Rose Books.
Saich, Tony, ed. 1990. The Chinese People’s Movement: Perspectives on Spring 1989. New
York: An East Gate Book.
[1] It is fairly easy to access Western and Chinese
histories of the event written from an “objective” historical approach, but I
think that can easily lose the subjective human elements of people’s actual
experience.
[2]Pseudonym
[3] “他长得不像好人”
[4] It was named after the Tiananmen Square massacre happened on that date.
[5]That was the
state's reaction to the student movement that existed in '86-'87, who were
labeled as bourgeois liberals for wanting democracy.
[6](cited in Yu
and Harrison, eds 1989: 46)
[7] (cited in Yu
and Harrison 1989:64)
[8] (Yu
and Harrison, eds 1989:56).
[9] I think because communism
worldwide is no longer really a threat to capitalist societies, since countries
like China have already assimilated capitalist policies, the new derogatory
term since 9/11 has shifted to “terrorist” rather than “communist”.
Forces should clear that place with army and my opinion about this is that Tiananmen Square presenting the beautiful view in night and also in the morning. I fist time see this view and if you have more picture kindly share with me because i am the student of archeology and it's my assignment. tiananmen square
ReplyDelete