Wuer Kaixi was among the most outspoken of the student leaders during the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests, famously reproaching then-premier Li Peng (李鵬) at a meeting broadcast on national television.
Three decades on, he is more circumspect, but remains just as harsh a critic of the communist regime and just as committed to bringing democracy to China.
While many former leaders and participants in the protests have moved on, embracing lives and careers that have little direct relation to the movement, others remain wedded to the cause, either by vocation, through survivors’ guilt or because their actions permanently put them on the wrong side of the authorities. They remain determined to keep the memories alive even as China’s rulers seek to sandblast the protests and the military’s bloody crackdown from history.
“Sometimes remembrance is one of the most humble forms of resistance,” Wuer Kaixi said in an interview in Taiwan, where he now lives with his wife and children.
While Wuer Kaixi, 51, escaped abroad after the June 4, 1989, crackdown after finding himself at No. 2 on the Chinese government’s most-wanted list, then-graduate student Pu Zhiqiang (浦志強) remained in China despite his role in the protests as a high-profile advocate of speech and press freedoms.
Looking at old photographs of his younger self, Pu reflects on the motivations of the protesters that were mostly pure, if somewhat naive.
“We hoped that China could change for the better,” said Pu, 54. “As a 24-year-old presented with this chance to serve society, had I not played a role at all, not made my voice heard, I would not have been able to forgive myself.”
While many who took part wonder what could have been done differently to avoid the bloodshed, Feng Congde (封從德), a graduate student that year at the elite Peking University, is convinced the students did not push hard enough.
The experience of 1989 was “both positive and negative, but we have to learn the lesson, that even though we had these large numbers of people on the street, we didn’t know what we should do,” Feng said. “We should have asked the military to overthrow the regime.”
Feng maintains that now, as back then, the regime remains resistant to reforming itself in the way that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) evolved from an authoritarian police state into part of a multiparty democracy, eventually handing over power to the opposition through elections. Like many in the democratic movement, Feng idolizes former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), a son and successor of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who began the process of Taiwan’s democratization in the 1980s.
“I’m quite optimistic about the democratic future of China, but I have very little hope that [Chinese President and leader of the Chinese Communist Party, CCP] Xi Jinping (習近平) can learn from Chiang Ching-kuo. I think the totalitarian [CCP] regime is totally different from an authoritarian regime like the [former KMT government],” Feng said.
While few echo Feng’s ruing of the lost chance of a military coup, hostility toward the regime and frustration with perceived foreign gullibility are near constants among members of the movement who remain active, especially those based outside China. Their impressions appear permanently colored by the shock, horror and disbelief they felt when the People’s Liberation Army opened fire on the people they had been charged with protecting and who had grown to trust and revere them.
Wang Dan (王丹), 50, who was imprisoned after being named No. 1 on the most-wanted list, is among those who does not mince words.
“It is time for us now, for the whole democratic countries now, to re-recognize the true face of the [CCP] and try to learn some lessons from the Tiananmen Massacre,” Wang said. “This is a very important challenge for the whole world, because now China is a rising power, and seems like a threat for the democracy and freedom of the whole world.”
Wuer Kaixi is similarly scathing, deriding the regime’s claims to patriotic zeal as a cover for their desire to maintain their wealth and privileges at any cost.
“Let’s look at what the Chinese regime is clearly. It’s a group of people who stole the position of ruling China, one of the largest counties in the world and they’re taking advantage of that position to do one thing: loot,” he said.
Pu, a lawyer who was disbarred for his political activism, bemoans 1989 and the years since as a lost opportunity to develop a new, possibly alternative, political class.
Tiananmen “was an excellent training opportunity for taking part in society, taking part in politics for young people of my generation, but the distinctive characteristic of Chinese politics — this long-term totalitarianism — is that it cannot permit a political force or political party to take organized action,” Pu said.
Things have grown only more difficult amid tightening social controls, making it much harder to rally forces in society to do things “either good or bad,” Pu said.
Yet Wuer Kaixi, now the honorary chairman of Reporters Without Borders at its East Asia office in Taipei, says those actions — the increasing repression borne out in policies such as the internment of 1 million or more Chinese Muslims in re-education camps — provide a constant reminder of the unchanged nature of the regime.
“The reason people still remember [1989], other than the mere importance of it, is also because the Communist Party is still conducting all of these brutal acts and atrocities within China against Uighur people, against Tibetans, Hong Kong, Macau and even conducting threats against neighboring countries like Taiwan,” he said.
“That will remind people that this regime, today’s acts of this regime, is the same regime that massacred peaceful demonstrators 30 years ago,” he said.
Feng, who is studying acupuncture and administers prodemocracy Web sites, and Wuer Kaixi say that their continued zeal for the cause is bolstered by a sense of obligation to those who fell in 1989, to see their names rehabilitated and their goal of a democratic China achieve fruition.
“So I have to live with this survivor’s guilt ... but I will try to make the dream of those who fell 30 years ago come true sooner,” Wuer Kaixi said.
Pu, who continues to work as a legal adviser, said he sees his generation as a link to the past. Veterans, those around 50, are now the “backbone of society” who are obligated to pass on their experiences and ideals to a younger generation.
Apart from the leaders, who to varying degrees have had some say in how they have lived their lives since, Tiananmen left many scarred for life or saddled with criminal records that have severely restricted their choices.
Since serving a 17-year sentence for attacking martial law troops — a charge he denies — Dong Shengkun (董盛坤) has been unable to find a steady job and is forced to live with his elderly mother while receiving the government’s minimum living allowance of 1,000 yuan (US$145) per month. Although he wishes to marry his girlfriend, the government would take away even that meager stipend were he to do so due to her somewhat better financial circumstances.
Still, Dong, who picks up odd jobs for extra income, has no regrets for having joined in the protests out of a sense of outrage and desire for change.
The 1989 movement “was about justice,” Dong said.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS