Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Tiananmen Memories Resuscitated by Death
This post is overdue and it's been sitting around for a few days. So much has been going on that I had a hard time trying to make it as succinct and relevant as possible.
Monday, January 17 - Ousted Chinese reformist leader, Zhao Ziyang, closes another chapter on modern Chinese history after 15 years of house arrest. Zhao is most remembered for his tearful plea to the students to stop protesting before the June 4 military crackdown, but he also did a lot for agrarian and industrial reform for China to move forward from Communist to pseudo-capitalism with communist ideals.
I draw a lot of information for this post from reading an excerpt article from a book The Tiananmen Papers by Andrew J. Nathan - the article was published in Foreign Affairs in 2001. It is a bit long, but I find the actual dialogue between the Politiburo Standing Committee an amazing (but incredibly sad) account of how Chinese politics are made. If Chinese politics piques your interest, it is definitely worth a look.
Since this is one of my interests (Chinese economic, political, and social development), here's my attempt to offer some background on how it's relevant today.
1989: Tiananmen Square Massacre
The history of the Tiananmen Square Massacre began in April 1989 with a peaceful student desire to mourn Hu Yaobang's death. This eventually led to a mass student protest for democratic reforms. On May 13, it turned into a 2-week long hunger strike, and the hunger strikers gained the support of tens of millions of other citizens, who took to the streets in scores of cities to demand a response from the government.
The government at first tried to wait out the hunger strikers, then engaged them in limited dialogue, and finally issued orders to force them from the square leading to the terror on June 4.
In reaching that decision, the party suffered its worst high-level split since the Cultural Revolution. Those favoring political reform lost out and their cause has been in the deep freeze ever since.
Zhao's Legacy - How People Remember Him
At 4 am on May 19, 1989, following the close of the Politburo Standing Committee meeting, Zhao Ziyang and Li Peng visited Tiananmen Square. Knowing his political career was near an end, Zhao made remarks that brought tears to the eyes of those who heard him. "We have come too late," he said, and he begged the students to protect their health, to end the hunger strike, and to leave the Square before it was too late.
"We demonstrated and lay across railroad tracks when we were young, too, and took no thought for the future. But I have to ask you to think carefully about the future. Many issues will be resolved eventually. I beg you to end the hunger strike." -- Zhao Ziyang
When History Was Made
There are critical moments in time when history is made. The Politburo Standing Committee meeting of May 17, 1989 that finalized the mobilization of the PLA (People's Liberation Army) was such a moment.
In the crucial 5-person vote to authorize martial law, Zhao Ziyang and Hu Qili voted against, two were in favor, and one abstained. The Committee split and Zhao resigned, deferring to the Elder's decision in favor of Martial Law (if you can find the excerpt in the article, the actual dialogue that occurred within the Standing Committee and the Elders (including Deng Xiaoping) are that of verbal brinkmanship and crossing of the Rubicon).
Precedence Created - Western Capitalism Shot Down: China Marches to Its Own Tune
Hypothetically, if the student protest and call for reform had been peacefully accepted, China's recent history and its relations with the West would have been very different. Dialogue with the students would have tipped the balance toward political reform. Instead, China has experienced more than a decade of political stasis at home and strained relations with the West. This is apparent in the late 90s reaction by Beijing to the Falung Gong movement.
The Party believes it has learned from Tiananmen that democratization is not an irresistible force. There is a widespread view in the West that where globalization and modernization occur, fundamental changes in the party-state system are inevitable, leading to the rise of civil society and some form of democracy. Whether this is right or wrong, the leaders in power in China do not believe it. For them, the lesson of Tiananmen is that at its core, politics is about force.
Opinions by Overseas Chinese and Hong Kong - Is Zhao Relevant Today?
Reading Opinions - 'What Will Zhao's Legacy Be?' has been extremely interesting. Just go and see it for yourself. Witnesses of Tiananmen Square and young Chinese vocalize about China and democracy here.
HK media is one of the most liberal in Asia and you can get uncensored coverage. In contrast, little was shown or discussed in Beijing - China Central Television (CCTV) was not even allowed to telecast about Zhao's death.
The response in Hong Kong is that of sympathy and democratic hopefulness - at least the South China Morning Post (SCMP) expresses so. Personally, I recall the half-baked response of the HK public for the June 4th vigil, where the pro-democracy ralleyed and emoted while a complacent majority strolled the streets went on with business as usual.
There will be a vigil this Friday at Victoria Park in mourning for Zhao and Tiananmen Square victims. HK Legislative Council (Legco) had a bit of a ruckus yesterday when pro-democracy legislators held a moment of silence and the pro-government side walked out of the meeting: it's testy waters here and a very uncomfortable divide is occurring with the watchful eyes of Beijing.
And On a Side Note...
I had dinner with a Japanese AIESEC alumni on Tuesday - we were discussing about "mianzi" (or "mentsu" in Japanese). Both have to do with maintaining one's pride in public, which is very central to Asian culture. However, she pointed out that the angle which we use it is very different. The diffence is subtle - the reaction and perception is probably the dividing line.
The Japanese try to avoid "smashing one's mentsu" because it makes one feel shameful and fearful of bringing such shame to themselves and others. The Japanese apologize profusely when such things happen - or - try to brush it under the rug as much as possible.
The Chinese try to evade "losing mianzi" because the repercussion is fury, ill-fate to the family, and scorched guanxi (family-bound, good relationships). The Chinese will never admit that they were wrong, and if it happens, they will pursue the perpetrator to the edge of the earth and make sure that he/she who made you lose face will go down in misery.
Somehow this is still relevant in Chinese politics today.
Monday, January 17 - Ousted Chinese reformist leader, Zhao Ziyang, closes another chapter on modern Chinese history after 15 years of house arrest. Zhao is most remembered for his tearful plea to the students to stop protesting before the June 4 military crackdown, but he also did a lot for agrarian and industrial reform for China to move forward from Communist to pseudo-capitalism with communist ideals.
I draw a lot of information for this post from reading an excerpt article from a book The Tiananmen Papers by Andrew J. Nathan - the article was published in Foreign Affairs in 2001. It is a bit long, but I find the actual dialogue between the Politiburo Standing Committee an amazing (but incredibly sad) account of how Chinese politics are made. If Chinese politics piques your interest, it is definitely worth a look.
Since this is one of my interests (Chinese economic, political, and social development), here's my attempt to offer some background on how it's relevant today.
1989: Tiananmen Square Massacre
The history of the Tiananmen Square Massacre began in April 1989 with a peaceful student desire to mourn Hu Yaobang's death. This eventually led to a mass student protest for democratic reforms. On May 13, it turned into a 2-week long hunger strike, and the hunger strikers gained the support of tens of millions of other citizens, who took to the streets in scores of cities to demand a response from the government.
The government at first tried to wait out the hunger strikers, then engaged them in limited dialogue, and finally issued orders to force them from the square leading to the terror on June 4.
In reaching that decision, the party suffered its worst high-level split since the Cultural Revolution. Those favoring political reform lost out and their cause has been in the deep freeze ever since.
Zhao's Legacy - How People Remember Him
At 4 am on May 19, 1989, following the close of the Politburo Standing Committee meeting, Zhao Ziyang and Li Peng visited Tiananmen Square. Knowing his political career was near an end, Zhao made remarks that brought tears to the eyes of those who heard him. "We have come too late," he said, and he begged the students to protect their health, to end the hunger strike, and to leave the Square before it was too late.
"We demonstrated and lay across railroad tracks when we were young, too, and took no thought for the future. But I have to ask you to think carefully about the future. Many issues will be resolved eventually. I beg you to end the hunger strike." -- Zhao Ziyang
When History Was Made
There are critical moments in time when history is made. The Politburo Standing Committee meeting of May 17, 1989 that finalized the mobilization of the PLA (People's Liberation Army) was such a moment.
In the crucial 5-person vote to authorize martial law, Zhao Ziyang and Hu Qili voted against, two were in favor, and one abstained. The Committee split and Zhao resigned, deferring to the Elder's decision in favor of Martial Law (if you can find the excerpt in the article, the actual dialogue that occurred within the Standing Committee and the Elders (including Deng Xiaoping) are that of verbal brinkmanship and crossing of the Rubicon).
Precedence Created - Western Capitalism Shot Down: China Marches to Its Own Tune
Hypothetically, if the student protest and call for reform had been peacefully accepted, China's recent history and its relations with the West would have been very different. Dialogue with the students would have tipped the balance toward political reform. Instead, China has experienced more than a decade of political stasis at home and strained relations with the West. This is apparent in the late 90s reaction by Beijing to the Falung Gong movement.
The Party believes it has learned from Tiananmen that democratization is not an irresistible force. There is a widespread view in the West that where globalization and modernization occur, fundamental changes in the party-state system are inevitable, leading to the rise of civil society and some form of democracy. Whether this is right or wrong, the leaders in power in China do not believe it. For them, the lesson of Tiananmen is that at its core, politics is about force.
Opinions by Overseas Chinese and Hong Kong - Is Zhao Relevant Today?
Reading Opinions - 'What Will Zhao's Legacy Be?' has been extremely interesting. Just go and see it for yourself. Witnesses of Tiananmen Square and young Chinese vocalize about China and democracy here.
HK media is one of the most liberal in Asia and you can get uncensored coverage. In contrast, little was shown or discussed in Beijing - China Central Television (CCTV) was not even allowed to telecast about Zhao's death.
The response in Hong Kong is that of sympathy and democratic hopefulness - at least the South China Morning Post (SCMP) expresses so. Personally, I recall the half-baked response of the HK public for the June 4th vigil, where the pro-democracy ralleyed and emoted while a complacent majority strolled the streets went on with business as usual.
There will be a vigil this Friday at Victoria Park in mourning for Zhao and Tiananmen Square victims. HK Legislative Council (Legco) had a bit of a ruckus yesterday when pro-democracy legislators held a moment of silence and the pro-government side walked out of the meeting: it's testy waters here and a very uncomfortable divide is occurring with the watchful eyes of Beijing.
And On a Side Note...
I had dinner with a Japanese AIESEC alumni on Tuesday - we were discussing about "mianzi" (or "mentsu" in Japanese). Both have to do with maintaining one's pride in public, which is very central to Asian culture. However, she pointed out that the angle which we use it is very different. The diffence is subtle - the reaction and perception is probably the dividing line.
The Japanese try to avoid "smashing one's mentsu" because it makes one feel shameful and fearful of bringing such shame to themselves and others. The Japanese apologize profusely when such things happen - or - try to brush it under the rug as much as possible.
The Chinese try to evade "losing mianzi" because the repercussion is fury, ill-fate to the family, and scorched guanxi (family-bound, good relationships). The Chinese will never admit that they were wrong, and if it happens, they will pursue the perpetrator to the edge of the earth and make sure that he/she who made you lose face will go down in misery.
Somehow this is still relevant in Chinese politics today.
// posted by sakit @ 11:34 PM 
