WASHINGTON—Twenty years ago in Beijing more than one million Chinese demonstrated at Tiananmen Square, calling for an end to corruption of government officials and for democratic reform.
These protests initially began to mourn the death of a reform Party leader Hu Yaobang, yet as the numbers swelled, the aim shifted toward reform of Communist Party rule.
Beginning on April 15, 1989, with the death of Hu, the demonstrations were brought to a violent close on the early morning of June 4. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was ordered to “clear” the Square and carried it out in military fashion, killing thousands—although the exact number has never been confirmed.
A series of panel discussions were held on May 26 at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to discuss the effects the reform movement and the Chinese regime’s response during the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
“Twenty years later, the Chinese government still has not reached the truth. [What happened] is not public knowledge and the [Tiananmen Square Massacre] is still a deep wound in society,” said Xiao Qiang, director of the China Internet Project at the Graduate School of Journalism, University of California (Berkeley).
Xiao questioned that is China still cannot reach peace in its own society, “how can we trust China as a rising power to reach a peaceful rise within the world?”
Dan Blumenthal from AEI added that the Chinese regime “has taken great steps to erase [the Tiananmen Square Massacre] from Chinese history.”
The distrust towards the regime reaching down into daily life was a theme mentioned again and again by the panel.
“They wish China was a different society to begin with. The desire for more freedom is always there,” said Carol Lee Hamrin, senior associate for Global China Center, George Mason University.
Hopes for a change in the monolithic Party state culture were dashed after June 4th, explained Hamrin, adding that the Chinese people “lost confidence for reform to be led by the Party” which brought about a “crisis in faith.”
An Orchestrated Massacre
“It was a military operation, if you understand that it means it was an operations order. There were phase lines. The levels of force that were to be used at different phases of the operation were to be dictated,” said retired army Colonel Larry Wortzel, who was an eyewitness of the assault.
