Chinese government hatfucker defends Tiananmen

[Darth Wong]

From the Globe and Mail:

Chinese leader says Tiananmen threatened nation

Associated Press

Beijing - China's Premier said Sunday that the survival of the country and the Communist Party "hung in the balance" during the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square democracy protesters. However, he wouldn't say whether the government would ever admit it made a mistake.

Wen Jiabao did not respond directly to a question about a petition by a respected military surgeon who called on the government to declare the student-led demonstrations a "patriotic movement."

"What hung in the balance was the future of our party and our country. The party central committee closely rallied the party and all of the Chinese people together," Mr. Wen said at a news conference. "We successfully stabilized the situation of reform and opening up and the path of building socialism with Chinese characteristics."

He added: "These achievements are self-evident for all."

The vagueness of Mr. Wen's answers reflected a long-standing reluctance by the Chinese government to elaborate publicly on the events of May and June 1989, which ended with a military crackdown in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed.

"At the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, China faced a very serious political disturbance," Mr. Wen said.

The sensitivity of the subject " aired live on the government broadcaster's flagship TV station after the close of the National People's Congress " was underscored by the translation into Chinese.

Mr. Wen's interpreter, translating the question, never mentioned "Tiananmen" or "June 4," the shorthand for the crackdown. Instead, she referred to "that 1989 affair."

The Premier put the demonstrations and military response in the context of the age, saying that the impending fall of communism " and the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 " created turmoil for China that threatened senior leader Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms.

"We have always upheld unity of the party and safeguarded social and political stability in this country," Mr. Wen said. "The next 20 years will be another important strategic opportunity for China's development. We must concentrate on this and never lose any opportunities."

The military surgeon, Dr. Jiang Yanyong, called on the government at the beginning of the legislature to admit it made mistakes during the 1989 crackdown. In a letter dated Feb. 24, Dr. Jiang said that ordinary Chinese will be "increasingly disappointed and angry" if the Communist Party does not revise its judgment on the incident, which says the protests were a counterrevolutionary riot. He called on officials to "reappraise" the demonstrations as a "patriotic movement."

Dr. Jiang, 72, is credited with breaking official secrecy to reveal the true scale of Beijing's severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. That was followed by embarrassing official admissions and the firing of a Cabinet minister.

And people ask me why I've never visited China.

[fgalkin]

What? You expected an apology? Of course they're going to defend it. It's good to know they don't deny it, Baghdad Bob style "There was no Tiananmen Sqaure incident. It is all evil bourgeois propaganda! Long live Chairman Mao!"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

You're suprised by this?

[Darth Wong]

You're suprised by this?

I expected them to simply deny that it ever happened. To acknowledge that it happened and then claim that it was effectively national self-defense is a level of hubris that even I did not expect. Never mind the part about how "these achievements are self-evident for all".

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

There was too much media coverage for them to outright deny it. The "symbolic" image of the man standing alone in front of the tank makes it even more difficult in that it "sunk" the incident into everyone's memories. Given these facts it is no suprise that these statements were made, they did the same thing every politician does when they're backed into a corner by uncomfortable facts; they attempt to spin them.

[Darth Wong]

There was too much media coverage for them to outright deny it. The "symbolic" image of the man standing alone in front of the tank makes it even more difficult in that it "sunk" the incident into everyone's memories. Given these facts it is no suprise that these statements were made, they did the same thing every politician does when they're backed into a corner by uncomfortable facts; they attempt to spin them.

Sure, but you'd think they'd say that the events were distorted, the picture was taken out of context, the soldiers were just defending themselves, a few "mistakes" were made by individual soldiers, etc. (you know, like Israel does ).

Instead, they're basically admitting that the crackdown was done for political purposes, and then saying that it was a good thing anyway.

[fgalkin]

Another reminder why I fucking hate Communism.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Glocksman]

To sum it up Gene Roddenberry style, 'The needs of the party outweigh the rights of a minority, or of an individual' .

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Well lets look at what the consequences of choosing to defend it vs saying it was an accident are.

By choosing to defend it the government of China:

1. Appears to be in complete control of a competent military. If they say "mistakes were made" without the authorization of the party this is not the case.

2. The Chineese government can say that they're taking action for the good of their society. While almost everyone outside the country will smirk at this comment a good many inside China itself will probably believe it. If they claimed it was just a mere accident then it makes the government appear blundering, disorganized, and confused.

3. By stating that the crackdown was done consciously they're effectivly sending a message to any Chineese with anti-Communist/Democractic ideas. In effect they're stating we've done it before and we'll do it again. Get out of line and you WILL be shot.

Is it any wonder why the choice was made to defend it?

[Darth Wong]

You're right; it makes sense from a tyrant's perspective. Doesn't mean I can't still be infuriated by this recent affirmation of their assholitude, though.

[Illuminatus Primus]

To sum it up Gene Roddenberry style, 'The needs of the party outweigh the rights of a minority, or of an individual' .

Forgive me for looking like a cock if I'm being dumb, but did he actually say that, or are you just mocking TNG?

[Gandalf]

To sum it up Gene Roddenberry style, 'The needs of the party outweigh the rights of a minority, or of an individual' .

Forgive me for looking like a cock if I'm being dumb, but did he actually say that, or are you just mocking TNG?

Replace "party" with "many." Also it's from ST:II.

[Rakuseki]

At least the Chinese are being somewhat truthful.

[HemlockGrey]

During the Superbowl an ad was shown involving a clip of, among other things, the tank rolling down toward the lone protestor. The Chinese government cut the feed and was not pleased afterwards, as it was the first time that clip had been broadcast into China.

China's totalitarian in every sense of the word. When I was visiting the apartment I was staying in was bugged, for Christ's sake.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

And there are still a shitload of people thinking it's a good idea to be unified by China here in Taiwan.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That government will spin anything it seems, I truly have to wonder what the people who have to put up with it think from day-to-day.

[sketerpot]

"We have always upheld unity of the party and safeguarded social and political stability in this country," Mr. Wen said. "The next 20 years will be another important strategic opportunity for China's development. We must concentrate on this and never lose any opportunities."

The sheer audacity of this is just hilarious. It's amazing how they can come up with these great euphemisms for "ruthlessly stifling dissent". "We didn't start randomly shooting at them, we preserved political stability!"

The only argument I've heard that supports China's actions was that the protests were violent, but that does not justify a massacre. At most, it would justify armed guards and evacuations of neutral people.

[Thinkmarble]

So much forcommunism.