Was the June 4th Tiananmen Movement "Counter-Revolutionary?"

Was the June 4th Tiananmen Movement "Counter-Revolutionary?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 3, 2009

Twenty years ago, on April 17, 1989, the first wave of students gathered in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, to honor the memory of Hu Yaobang. This sparked a conflagration that once ablaze, could no longer be contained. On April 26, the People's Daily published an editorial entitled, "The government must take a clear stand against the turmoil." It characterized the pro-democracy movement as "a counter-revolution launched by a tiny minority of the people."

The April 26 editorial added fuel to the fire. The Tiananmen movement spread to all parts of the country, eventually resulting in "Liu Si," the June 4th Tiananmen Incident. Now fast forward 20 years. The meaning of June 4th remains unresolved.

The April 26 People's Daily editorial does not stand up to scrutiny. It claimed that "a tiny minority of people launched a counter-revolutionary movement leading to turmoil." But the hundreds of millions of people across the nation who participated in the movement were hardly a "tiny minority." Besides, the concept of democratic liberation was orginally part of the Chinese Communist Party's call for "people's revolution." It was hardly "counter-revolutionary." To characterize the turmoil as counter-revolution was arbitrary and unwarranted.

Over the past two decades, the Beijing authorities have attempted to revise this characterization. One seldom sees the incident referred to as "counter-revolutionary turmoil." Such neutral terms as the "Beijing Incident" and "that incident in 1989" have gradually appeared. The new generation of Chinese Communist leaders know perfectly well why the June 4th Incident happened. The government's performance at the time fell considerably short of public expectations. Twenty years later, the authorities have even less reason to denigrate the students' ideas and expectations. They must admit that the students were merely pointing out the defects and shortcomings in the government's "revolution." The students cannot be characterized as a "counter-revolutionary." One might even say that reform and liberalization was the students' heartfelt desire. They merely had higher expectations. Therefore, even according to the letter and spirit of Chinese Communist Party orthodoxy, June 4th was "revolutionary" rather than "counter-revolutionary."

June 4th and May 4th are historically connected. The year June 4th occurred was the 70th anniversary of the May 4th movement. June 4th can be considered an extension of May 4th. It represented thinking about China's democracy reaching down to the grass-roots level. For example, scholars remembered for their participation in the May 4th movement include Hu Shih and Chen Du-hsiu. But those remembered for their participation in the June 4th movement are the real leaders of the student movement. During the May 4th movement, even big name scholars rushed about like headless chickens. It was not difficult for the average student during the June 4th movement, given 70 years of historical trials and tribulations, to surpass the stereotypes of the May 4th movement. If the May 4th movement is considered sacred in the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party's democratic movement, then June 4th ought to be as well. The Beijing authorities have no need to characterize the June 4th movement as "counter-revolutionary." Shouldn't they respond to the expectations the Chinese people have about May 4th and June 4th? Shouldn't they attempt to fulfill those expectations?

The public on the Mainland has two views about June 4th. One. The aftermath of June 4th brought two decades of economic development, and enabled the rise of a great nation. Two. The June 4th movement lives. The lessons of June 4th inspired the Chinese Communists to rule wisely and benefit the public. These two views affirm the meaning of June 4th. For Mainland China, June 4th demanded democracy, freedom and liberation. The ruling and opposition parties may differ on the degree and extent to which these proposals have been realized. But they cannot deny its revolutionary nature. They certainly cannot dismiss it as "counter-revolutionary." As future generations see May 4th, so they will see June 4th.

Let's examine the impact of June 4th on cross-Strait relations. The KMT/CCP civil war also occurred during a time of turmoil. It was a desperate effort to "pull chesnuts from the fire," hardly conducive to clarifying one's view of the world. Authoritarian rule by the Nationalist government eventually moved towards democracy. The Communist regime, after a number of catastrophic blunders, finally underwent reform and liberalization. That may not have been true yesterday, but it is today. It is now the generation of Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao. Cross-Strait relations still contains many gaps. But the two sides fully understand what is right but temporarily unachievable, and what is wrong and must never be done.

June 4th did not have a deep impact on cross-Strait relations. But the June 4th vision of democracy is the same on both sides of the Strait. Internally and externally, the Beijing authorities may not be able to meet the standards of democracy, but neither can they repudiate them. This is what we mean by "what is right but temporarily unachievable." As far as "what is wrong and must never be done," this means that the two sides can now look back at May 4th and conduct a major debate on the future of the nation, and must never again allow a civil war.

June 4th disturbed order on the Chinese Mainland. One could call it "turmoil." But the spirit of June 4th was not "counter-revolutionary." Rather, it represented a naive faith in "revolution," and its passionate pursuit by the youth of the nation. Chinese Communist Party leaders may find it difficult to admit this out loud. But they know it in their hearts. China can go in only one direction. That direction was made clear during the May 4th and June 4th movements.

六四是不是「反革命」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.06.03 05:39 am

二十年前，一九八九年四月十七日，首波悼念胡耀邦的北京學生聚集天安門廣場，星火燎原，情勢一發不可遏止；四月二十六日，人民日報發表社論，題為〈必須旗幟鮮明地反對動亂〉，並將這場民主運動指為「少數人發動的反革命動亂」。

四二六社論的「定性」，火上加油；運動頓時從天安門漸漸蔓延擴展至全國各地，終於演成六四事件。如今匆匆二十年過去，六四事件的「定性」問題，仍未解決。

四二六社論的定性站不住腳。若謂是「少數人發動的反革命動亂」，但全國數億人次參與的運動並不是「少數人」，且民主解放的主張其實原是中共「人民革命」的號召而非「反革命」，動亂若係指叛變亦是莫須有的欲加之罪。

二十年來，北京當局似亦嘗試修正對六四的定性，「反革命動亂」的說法已經罕見，而漸漸出現「北京事件」、「八九那件事」之類中性詞彙。因為，中共新一代領導人心裡應當皆很明白，之所以造成六四事件，是因當時的黨政治理與民間的期待出現重大落差；時至二十年後的今日，主政者其實更沒有理由斥責學生當年所表達的理念與期待；而必須承認，學生們其實是指出了主政者在「革命」表現上的殘缺與落後，自不能將學生指為「反革命」。甚至可以這麼說，改革開放也是六四學生心之所嚮，只是他們的期待更高於此而已。因此，即使就中共在文字章典上的精神正統而言，六四也是「革命」的，而不是「反革命」！

六四已與五四的歷史脈絡聯結。六四發生當年，正是五四運動七十周年；而六四可謂是五四的晉階，亦是中國的民主思維更趨草根化的重大進程。例如，五四人物存留在記憶中的是胡適、陳獨秀等學者；但六四存留在記憶中的人物，卻是真正的學運領袖。何況，五四當年，即使大師級的學者，也仍如無頭蒼蠅一般地在九流十家中衝闖；但六四畢竟加上了七十年的歷史滄桑，一般學生的定見已不難超越五四當年的先驅。如果五四是中共眼中的神聖民主運動，六四當然也是。北京當局應思考的是，不必將六四打成「反革命」，而當自我檢討，是否回應並實踐了自五四至六四一脈相承的中國人民的期待？

中國大陸民間，對六四有兩種評價。一、六四收場，換來二十年的經濟發展、大國崛起；二、六四不死，中共在六四的教訓之後勵精圖治，回饋人民。這兩種看法皆證實了六四的重大意義。就中國而言，六四對民主自由的解放主張，也許在朝野間對程度及階段有不同的思慮，但終究不能否認其「革命性」，亦即不能指其為「反革命」。後人將永遠如此看待五四，也將永遠如此看待六四。

再以六四看兩岸關係。其實，國共內戰，也是發生在前述那個「沒頭蒼蠅的時代」，火中取栗，卻未必確有澄清天下的真知灼見；現在國民黨政府經威權統治終於走上民主，共產黨政權經幾次治理浩劫終於走上改革開放，即可證昨非而今是。如今到了馬英九、胡錦濤這一代，兩岸關係當然仍舊存有許多程度及階段的缺口，但雙方心中皆應十分明白，什麼是正確的而暫時做不到的，什麼又是錯的而千萬不能做的。

六四雖未深入兩岸關係，但六四的民主憧憬卻無兩岸的分際可言。準此以言，不論對內對外，北京當局眼前應只是尚做不到「民主」的標準，卻不能否定這個標準。此即所謂「是正確的而暫時做不到的」。至於什麼是錯的而千萬不能做的？這應是指，兩岸如今可謂是重新又回頭面對在五四尚未了結的治國方案大辯論，而絕不能再是一場軍事內戰。

六四曾經造成中國秩序動盪，就此或許也可說是一場「動亂」吧；但六四的精神卻不是「反革命」，反而是青年們對「革命」最天真與最熾烈的信仰與追求。中共領導人即使口裡不便如此說，但心裡要明白：中國的方向只有一個，從五四到六四皆是指往這個方向。