The events at Tiananmen were the first of their type shown in detail on Western television.[1] The Chinese government's response was denounced, particularly by Western governments and media.[2] Criticism came from both Western and Eastern Europe, North America, Australia and some east Asian and Latin American countries. Notably, many Asian countries remained silent throughout the protests; the government of India responded to the massacre by ordering the state television to pare down the coverage to the barest minimum, so as not to jeopardize a thawing in relations with China, and to offer political empathy for the events.[3] North Korea, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, among others, supported the Chinese government and denounced the protests.[2] Overseas Chinese students demonstrated in many cities in Europe, America, the Middle East and Asia.[4]
Contents |
UN: Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar was concerned at the incident, adding that the government should uphold the utmost restraint, but also noted that the UN Charter prohibits interference in member states' internal affairs (especially member states with a Security Council veto).[5]
From 7 August to 1 September 1989 the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (a part of the Commission on Human Rights) met in Geneva for its thirty-seventh meeting. This meeting was the first time since the killings in June “that a human rights meeting ha[d] begun discussing the subject."[6] At the meeting resolution 1989/5 was adopted by secret ballot on 31 August 1989. The resolution, also called “Situation in China” states the Committee was concerned about what had occurred in China and the implications the crackdown would have on the future of human rights.[7] The resolution has two points:
On 1 December 1989 the permanent representative of People’s Republic of China (PRC) to the United Nations Ambassador Li Luye replied to the Sub-Commission’s adoption of resolution 1989/5 by stating that it was “a brutal interference in China’s internal affairs."[8] Li also stated that the “Spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China issued a statement on 2 September 1989, solemnly declaring the firm objection of the Chinese Government to the resolution and deeming it to be illegal and null and void."[8]
At the forty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights in January 1990 Li distributed a letter as a document for the meeting. In the letter Li reaffirms the position of the Chinese Government toward the resolution and that “actions to put an end to the turmoil and quell the rebellion were justified and legitimate."[9] He also states that the punishment of “criminals” who have “violated the criminal law” is justified and that a small number of Western nations are using the United Nations to interfere internal affairs, which is a clear and complete violation of the UN Charter and international relations.[9]
The forty-sixth session found the Chinese claim of interference in internal affairs indefensible and that “massive violation” of human rights concerned of the international community.[8] It also stated that China had accepted voluntarily the obligations of upholding the human rights of its citizens.[8] When accepted into the United Nations in 1971, China was “bound by established human rights standards which are part of the customary law or which have been accepted by the international community."[8]
The European Economic Community condemned the government response and cancelled all high level contacts and loans. They planned a resolution at the UNHCR criticising China's human rights record.[10][11] The EU maintains an arms embargo against China to this day.
Australia: The Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, wept at a memorial service in the Great Hall in Parliament. The Australian government granted Chinese students a four year asylum to stay in Australia.[1]
Burma: The government supported the actions of the Chinese government, while opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi condemned them, saying: "We deplore it. It happened in Burma and we wanted the world to stand by Burma, so we stand by the Chinese students."[12]
Canada: The External Affairs Minister Joe Clark described the incident as "inexcusable" and issued a statement: "We can only express horror and outrage at the senseless violence and tragic loss of life resulting from the indiscriminate and brutal use of force against students and civilians of Peking."[13] In Vancouver, varying reactions to the military action led to friction in the city's Chinese community.
Czechoslovakia: The government of Czechoslovakia supported the Chinese government's response, expressing the idea that China would overcome its problems and further develop socialism. In response, the Chinese side "highly valued the understanding shown by the Czechoslovak Communist Party and people" for suppressing the "anti-socialist" riots in Beijing.[14]
France: The French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, said he was "dismayed by the bloody repression" of "an unarmed crowd of demonstrators."[15]
East Germany: The government of the German Democratic Republic approved of the military action. On 8 June the Volkskammer unanimously passed a resolution in support of the Chinese government's use of force. High-ranking politicians from the ruling SED party, including Hans Modrow, Günter Schabowski and Egon Krenz, were in China shortly afterward on a goodwill visit. In contrast, members of the general population, including ordinary SED party members, participated in protests against the actions of the Chinese government.[16]
West Germany: The West German Foreign Ministry urged China "to return to its universally welcomed policies of reform and openness."[15]
Holy See: The Holy See of Vatican City has no official diplomatic relations with China, but Pope John Paul II expressed hope that the events in China would bring change.[15]
Hong Kong: The military action severely affected perceptions of the mainland. 200,000 people protested against the Chinese government's response, with the latter considering the protests as "subversive". The people of Hong Kong hoped that the chaos on the mainland would destabilize the Beijing Government and thus avert its reunification with the rest of mainland China. The Sino-British Joint Declaration was also called into question.[17][18] Demonstrations continued for several days, and wreaths were placed outside the Xinhua News Agency office in the city.[4] This further fueled the mass migration wave of Hong Kong people out of Hong Kong.
Hungary: The Hungarian government, which was undergoing political reform, reacted strongly to the incident. The Foreign Minister described the events as a "horrible tragedy", and the government expressed "shock", adding that "fundamental human rights could not be exclusively confined to the internal affairs of any country." Demonstrations were held outside the Chinese embassy. Hungary was the only country in Europe to have substantially reduced relations with China in the aftermath of the events.[19]
India: The government of India responded by ordering the state television to pare down the coverage to the barest minimum. The government’s monopoly over television two decades ago helped Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi signal to Beijing that India would not revel in China’s domestic troubles and offer some political empathy instead.[20]
Italy: The Italian Communist Party leader Achille Occhetto condemned the "unspeakable slaughter in progress in China".[21]
Japan: The Japanese government called the response "intolerable" and froze loans to China. Japan was also the first member of the G7 to restore high level relations with China in the following months.[22][23]
Kuwait: Kuwait voiced understanding of the measures taken by the Chinese authorities to protect social stability.[24]
Macau: 150,000 protested in Macau.[25][26]
Mongolia: Many reformists had been aware of the international reaction to the military action, and chose to follow the democratic changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.[27][28]
Netherlands: The Dutch government froze diplomatic relations with China, and summoned the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires Li Qin Ping expressing shock at the "violent and brutal actions of the People's Liberation Army."[4]
Philippines: President Corazon Aquino expressed sadness at the incident, urging the Chinese government to "urgently and immediately take steps to stop the aggressive and senseless killing by its armed forces".[13] Socialist labor organization Kilusang Mayo Uno at first initially supported the action taken by Chinese authorities, though later issued a "rectified position" which blamed "insufficient information and improper decision making process".[29]
Poland: The Polish government criticised the response of the Chinese government but not the government itself. A government spokesman called the incident "tragic", with "sincere sympathy for the families of those killed and injured." Daily protests and hunger strikes took place outside the Chinese embassy in Warsaw. The government also expressed hope that it did not affect Sino-Polish relations.[19]
After Solidarity assumed the political leadership of Poland, the new government issued new stamps to commemorate the student protests in Tiananmen Square in China in the Spring of 1989.[30]
Romania: Nicolae Ceauşescu praised the military action, and in a reciprocal move, China sent Qiao Shi to the Romanian Communist Party Congress in August 1989, at which Ceauşescu was re-elected.[31] Ceauşescu would later be overthrown and executed by the people of his country in December of that same year.
Republic of China (Taiwan): President Lee Teng-hui issued a statement on 4 June strongly condemning the mainland Chinese response: "Early this morning, Chinese communist troops finally used military force to attack the students and others demonstrating peacefully for democracy and freedom in Tiananmen Square in Peking, resulting in heavy casualties and loss of life. Although we anticipated this mad action of the Chinese communists beforehand, it still has moved us to incomparable grief, indignation and shock."[32] The authorities also lifted a ban on telephone communications to encourage private contacts and counter the news blackout on the mainland.[4]
Singapore: Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, speaking on behalf of the Cabinet, said they were shocked and saddened by the response of the Chinese government, adding that "we had expected the Chinese government to apply the doctrine of minimum force when an army is used to quell civil disorder."[13]
Soviet Union: General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev did not explicitly condemn the actions, but called for reform. There was an interest on building relations on a recent summit in Beijing, but the events fueled discussion on human rights and Soviet foreign policy. There was some private criticism of the Chinese response.[2] Newly formed opposition groups condemned the military action. Ten days after the incident the government expressed regret, calling for political dialogue. Public demonstrations occurred at the Chinese embassy in Moscow. A spokesman on 10 June said the Kremlin was "extremely dismayed" at the incident.[33][34]
South Korea: The Foreign Ministry expressed "grave concern" and hoped for no further deterioration of the situation. The statement also encouraged dialogue to resolve the issue peacefully.[35]
Sweden: The Swedish government froze diplomatic relations with China.[36]
Thailand: The Thai government had the warmest relations with Beijing out of all ASEAN members, and expressed confidence that the "fluid situation" in China had passed its "critical point", though it was concerned that it could delay a settlement in the Cambodian–Vietnamese War.[12]
United Kingdom: The Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, expressed "utter revulsion and outrage", and was "appalled by the indiscriminate shooting of unarmed people." She promised to relax immigration laws for Hong Kong residents.[37]
United States: Officially the United States Congress and media responded indignantly to the unfolding situation. President George H. W. Bush suspended military sales and visits. Large scale protests took place around the country.[15] However, George Washington University revealed that, through high-level secret channels on 30 June 1989, the US government conveyed to the government of the People's Republic of China that the events around the Tiananmen Square protests were an "internal affair" which could be dealt with as the Chinese government wished.[38]
Vietnam: despite Vietnam and China's history of strained relations, the Vietnamese government quietly supported the Chinese government. Media reported on the protests but offered no commentary, and state radio added that the PLA could not have stopped the action after "hooligans and ruffians insulted or beat up soldiers" and destroyed military vehicles. The government expressed that it wanted better relations with China, but did not want to go to the "extremes of Eastern Europe or Tiananmen" – referring to its own stability.[39]
Yugoslavia: The national news agency Tanjug in the non-aligned country said the protest became a "symbol of destroyed illusions and also a symbol of sacrificed ideals which have been cut off by machine gun volleys and squashed under the caterpillars of heavy vehicles."[21]
The CCP, under the leadership of Premier Li Peng and party leader Jiang Zemin, sought to minimize the impact of the Tiananmen Square Massacre on China’s international image. They gave multiple “reassuring public speeches”[40] in an attempt to avoid the loss of Most Favoured Nation trade status with the United States as well as to alter the opinion of overseas Chinese.[40] Beijing offered inducements to the overseas Chinese intellectuals that lead the overseas pro-democratic movements, attempting to regain their loyalty.[40] Many overseas Chinese, however, view the June 4th Incident as yet another example of communist repression in a long string of similar incidents.[41]
Following the crackdown, rallies supporting Tiananmen Square protesters erupted throughout the world. In the days following the initial crackdown, 200,000 people in Hong Kong formed a massive rally, one of the largest in Hong Kong’s history, to mourn the dead and protest the Chinese government’s brutality.[42] This protest was also tinged with fear, however, as the spectre of reunification with China hung over their heads. Reunification, even under the "one country, two systems"[43] doctrine sent hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers scrambling for a chance to immigrate to another country.[43] In the end “thousands of people..., disillusioned and worried about their future, moved overseas”.[44]
But many Hong Kong denizens continued to protest the crackdown in the PRC, calling for unity with the Chinese people in fighting for democracy.[44]
While many in Taiwan also protested the CCP’s handling of the June 4th crackdown, going so far as to stage a "hands across the island"[45] demonstration, there seemed to be an ambivalence to the events in China. Chou Tien-Jui, publisher of a weekly news magazine called The Journalist commented that “people in Taiwan think that Tiananmen Square is very far away... They think that we have plenty of local issues to be concerned about.[45] Other than the Hands across the island demonstration, there seemed to only be a "muted and controlled local response to the upheaval in China."[46]
What demonstrations did happen seemed "more dutiful than enthusiastic".[46]
President Lee Teng-hui issued a statement on 4 June commenting that "although [the Taiwanese government] anticipated this mad action of the Chinese communists beforehand, it still has moved us to incomparable grief, indignation and shock".[47]
June 5, 1989 was marked by mass protests against the Beijing government by Chinese Canadians. The Chinese consulate in Toronto was picketed by 30,000 protesters of Chinese descent or their supporters.[48] Members of the protest called for an end to the bloodshed[42] as well as “death to Premier Li Peng”.[42] Five Hundred Chinese Canadians rallied in front of the Chinese consulate in Vancouver.[42] In Halifax, one hundred Chinese students protested the actions of the PLA and the resulting violence.[42] Chinese students at the University of Manitoba held their protests in the provincial legislature. Allan Chan, from the University of Calgary, commented that the government action was inevitable because “the students tried to push too hard... [and that] you can't change a whole society overnight”.[42] Yan Xiaoqiao, a PhD chemistry student enrolled in Simon Fraser University, said “today is one of the darkest days in Chinese history”.[42]
Many of the Chinese foreign exchange students studying in Canada opted to apply for permanent residency in the aftermath of June 4 rather than return to China.[49]
As veterans of the June 4th movement settled into lives in their adopted countries some, like Wang Dan chose to continue the fight against the CCP. He, along with 4 other protesters launched a lawsuit against Li Peng for his part in the military crackdown. Their goal was to “prove that he is accountable for the crime, and that this kind of crime, the human rights violation, is beyond China’s borders”.[50]