《经济学人》：23年后的天安门 不公平和不公正的事

1989年6月4日，当中国人民解放军涌入城市、结束学生领导的游行示威时，我正在北京。解放军使用坦克和自动武器杀害了许多人。从此以后这件事便留 存在我心里。像许多外国记者一样，在以后的日子里，我将每年的6月4日作为一个纪念日，纪念人们如何铭记那终结了几周的骚乱、大规模抗议和高层政治闹剧的 流血落幕，如何以微妙的方式寻求公开地纪念那些事件，以及政府如何直接地阻止纪念。

　　在1996年，我开始发现六四事件的纪念不再是强制的。我在北京大学采访了一个同学，她曾是1989抗议活动的核心人物，和她的交谈改变了我的想法。"我们有其他的事情操心，我需要集中注意力学习，还要考虑七年后我会在哪里，而不是七年前发生的事情。"她说。

　　从那时起，纪念的方式和途径普遍地少了些担忧与紧张。1999年和2009年十周年的纪念日吸引了更多的注意力，在香港总会以守夜的方式纪念。当然， 大陆活动分子组成的一个不间断的核心小组为了纪念、责任与赔偿，也坚持在压迫下进行运动。其中最重要的是"天安门母亲"，她们是由1989年镇压中受伤或 者被杀学生的亲属组成的。

　　但是令人惊讶的是，抹煞1989年的官方纪念活动已经成功。通过他们对媒体和教育资源几乎垄断的控制，以及他们对那些挑战关于历史事件官方版本的人的恐吓与打压，政府已经让故事褪去，比时间前进的速度更快。根据我目前的判断，强行遗忘将是痛苦的。

　　然而今年的纪念日表明，宣传部长没有成功使六四事件完全消失。尽管今年不是引人注目的十周年，23周年纪念日却在六四的相关新闻和纪念上有所上升。香港守夜吸引了数千人，在大陆的一些城市，试图纪念逝者的小型纪念活动也在增加（被迅速解散）。

　　鉴于前几天的周年纪念，网速由于过滤和监控的加强而变慢。不仅天安门广场，很多更远的地方都部署有大量警察。在我周日开车从天津回北京的途中，经过了两个警察检查站。我也在周一看到警察紧张地在围观街头艺人的人群周围看守——离天安门15公里远。

　　奇怪的是，官方于昨日（指6月4日）屏蔽了对于“上海综合指数”这一术语的搜索。此事发生时，中国的主要股票交易指数当日下跌了64.89点。这一数 字的于1989年6月4号（即"6/4/89"）的怪异联系如果不是一个极其聪明的隐秘的纪念活动，则无疑是一个偶然的巧合。那些认为这是一个恶作剧的人 指出，当天开盘指数是2346.98，一个几乎不可能的所有当天最敏感数字的结合。

　　沉重的是，"天安门母亲"于五月下旬宣告，组织中一位73岁的名叫亚伟林（音）的男性，在地下车库上吊自杀了。他在绝望中死去，他22岁大的儿子亚爱 国（音）在1989年被杀害，但一直没有得到死亡赔偿。据该组织消息，亚伟林是一名在健康时便退休的公务员，他"用如此决绝的方式结束生命，来抗议政府的 暴行"。

　　6月1日，一位曾在1989年"学潮"中掌权的重要官员，公布了他对于这一事件的重新定性。陈希同当时是北京市市长，和其他人一样，他成为官方争论的代言人：抗议是被少数国外支持的"黑手"操纵的反革命阴谋；政府的反应是正确和必须的。

　　陈希同在1995年在一件巨大的腐败丑闻中失去权力，与1989年天安门事件无关。他在香港出版的新书中说到，六四事件是一个可以也应该避免的悲剧。 然而他承认，事情处理不当，在决策过程中他无能无力。暴力过后不到一个月，他成为大声宣读政府报告的人。在新出版的采访中他坚持说，声明中的每一个字—— 事实上每一个标点符号——都是别人写的，他没有选择，只能宣读。

　　对于今年有些过于敏感六四纪念仪式的解释，很可能与精英阶层的政治分歧有关。从陈希同对外展示的采访中可以看出，他现在出现，是为了证实当时发生的很 明显 的事情：北京街头的暴行和权力斗争有关。六四运动，陈希同说，"它来源于顶层内部权力的争夺，并且导致了任何人都不想看到的悲剧。"

　　至于今天，陈希同指出，最高领导人对1989年历史的决定仍在继续。他对过程的陈述高度利己，而且 无法证实。即使如此，此类的暗示对于他现在的同事来说极其不受欢迎。今年年底，中国正在准备十年一次的领导人交接，这只船已经因为薄熙来(专题)的名誉扫地而摇 摆。薄熙来(专题)曾是成为新一届领导人一员的有力竞争者，但是现在他却处于政治和法律的边缘地带，他的妻子因为谋杀而被起诉，他的前任副手在绝望中冲进美国领事 馆而涉嫌叛国。

　　关于天安门历史事件的进一步的内部斗争，将可能会成为领导层想要克服的最后一个问题。但是如果陈希同的话是真的，他们迟早如此。陈预测，在政府撤销关 于1989年信息的密级前，这仅仅是时间问题，撤销密级也对不同领导人扮演的角色提供了一个更清晰的描述。用他的话说，"不公平和不公正的事情总有一天会 被平反。"


　　I WAS in Beijing on June 4th 1989, when the People’s Liberation Army stormed into the city to end student-led demonstrations. They used tanks and automatic weapons and left many dead. And I have lived here ever since. Like most foreign reporters, in the years that followed I marked each June 4th anniversary with a story about how people remembered the bloody denouement that ended those weeks of tumult, mass protest and high political drama; about how, in subtle ways, they sought to commemorate those events publicly; and about how, in not-so-subtle ways, the government sought to stop them.

　　In 1996, I started thinking that observance of the June 4th anniversary story was no longer obligatory. It was a remark made by a student I interviewed at Beijing University, one of the key incubators of the 1989 protest movement, that changed my mind. “We have other things to worry about. I need to concentrate on my studies and think about where I will be seven years from now, not about what happened seven years ago,” she said.

　　Since that time, the approach and passage of the anniversary has generally been less fraught and less tense. Round-number anniversaries in 1999 and 2009 attracted more attention, and the event has always been commemorated with vigils in Hong Kong. And of course a relentless core group of mainland activists has persisted in their underdog’s campaign for remembrance, accountability and redress. Foremost among these are the Tiananmen Mothers, a group of relatives of those who were injured or killed in the 1989 crackdown.

　　But to a surprising degree, the official campaign to shove 1989 down the memory hole has succeeded. Through their near-monopoly control of the media and educational materials, and their intimidation and suppression of those who would challenge the official version of events, authorities have made the story fade, faster than its advancing years would seem to allow. So far as I have gauged it, I’ve found the forced forgetfulness to be distressing.

　　With this year’s anniversary however comes evidence that the ministers of propaganda have not succeeded in making “6-4” disappear entirely. Though it has not been one of those attention-getting round-numbered ones, the 23rd anniversary has seen an uptick in June 4th-related news and remembrance. The Hong Kong vigil attracted scores of thousands, and smaller-scale attempts to commemorate the killings were mounted (and quickly broken up) in cities on the mainland.

　　For days leading up to the anniversary, internet-speeds slowed as filtering and monitoring were stepped up. The police presence was heavy not only in Tiananmen square itself, but also farther afield. I passed through two police checkpoints on Sunday, while driving back to Beijing from neighbouring Tianjin. I also saw police nervously standing guard by a crowd that had gathered around some street musicians on Monday—some 15km away from Tiananmen.

　　In one especially bizarre episode, yesterday officials blocked internet searches on the term “Shanghai Composite Index”. As it happened, China’s leading stock exchange had reported a drop of 64.89 points for the day. The odd correlation of those digits, to June 4th, 1989 (ie “6/4/89”) surely marks a wild coincidence, if not an instance of extremely clever caper. Those who think it was mischief point out that the index was reported to have opened for the day at 2346.98, an improbable-seeming combination of all the day’s most sensitive digits.

　　In a more solemn development, in late May the Tiananmen Mothers announced that one of its members, a 73-year-old man named Ya Weilin, had hanged himself in an underground car park. He died in despair over the lack of redress for death of his 22-year-old son, Ya Aiguo, who was shot in 1989. According to the group, the elder Mr Ya was a retired government employee in good health who “ended his life in such a resolute way to protest the government’s brutality.”

　　And on June 1st one of the key officials who had been in power during the events of 1989 went public with a drastic rewrite of the story. Chen Xitong was mayor of Beijing at the time and, as much as anyone, became the public face of the official argument: that the protests were the result of a counter-revolutionary conspiracy orchestrated by a few foreign-backed “black hands”; and the government’s response was correct and unavoidable.

　　Mr Chen was removed from power in 1995 in a spectacular corruption scandal, having nothing to do with Tiananmen in 1989. In a new book published in Hong Kong he says that June 4th was a tragedy that could have and should have been avoided. While he acknowledges that it was handled improperly, he says that he had little to do with the decision-making. Less than one month after the violence, he had been the one to read aloud the government’s report. In these newly published interviews he insists that every word of that statement—indeed every mark of punctuation—was written by others, and that he had no choice but to read it.

　　The explanation for this year’s somewhat tetchier-than-usual observance of the June 4th anniversary may well be connected to the sort of elite-level political discord that is on display in Mr Chen’s interviews. He now appears to confirm what had seemed obvious at the time: that the turbulence on the streets of Beijing was tied to turbulence in the corridors of power. Events, Mr Chen said, “stemmed from the internal struggle at the top level and led to a tragedy nobody wanted to see.”

　　As for today, Mr Chen points to continued divisions within the highest leadership over the history of 1989. His account is of course highly self-serving and impossible to verify. Even so, intimations of this sort must be especially unwelcome to his colleagues now. China is poised for its once-a-decade leadership transition later this year, and the boat has already been rocked by the spectacular fall from grace of Bo Xilai. Mr Bo had been a top contender for a spot in the new leadership but now finds himself in political and legal limbo, with a wife accused of murder and a senior deputy suspected of having made a desperate, treasonous dash to an American consulate.

　　Further infighting over the history of Tiananmen would seem to be the last thing party leaders want to grapple with. But if Mr Chen is to be believed, they shall have to sooner or later. It “is only a matter of time” before the government declassifies information about 1989, and provides a clearer account of the roles played by different leaders, he predicts. “Unfair and unjust things will be readdressed one day,” in his words.