Thursday, June 1, 2009
Sri Lanka and Tiananmen: Time to accept the truth
It used to be said the first casualty of war is the truth. But today
we do not even need wars to see truth destroyed. Even domestic
conflicts in distant countries can do the job, with a flood of black
information and news distortions produced, some causing enormous harm. The distorted interpretation of Sri Lanka's war against Tamil
insurgents is one example. Another has been the way Beijing continues
to be pilloried for a mythical student massacre during the June 3/4,
1989, Tiananmen incident.
Let's begin with Sri Lanka. Western governments now have the bad habit
of using indiscriminately the word "terrorist" to denounce groups they
do not like but which use force to promote causes. At last count the
British had listed more than 50 such groupings around the globe as
terrorist organizations, the United States more than 40, and the
Australians more than 30.
The United Nations might still be struggling to give us a definition
of "terrorist." And if using force to promote a cause is terrorism
then what was the American revolution against the British, or the
French resistance against Nazi occupation? But for our Western
governments these are not problems. Those fighting on our side are the
good guys. Those opposed are "terrorists.'
Afghan Islamists are heroes if they are fighting Soviet occupation but
terrorists if they are fighting Western occupation. Kurdish militants
are terrorists if they fight Turkey but deserve support if they fight
Iran. The Chechnya separatists who fought so bravely against Russian
troops are terrorists simply because they are Islamists whose victory
might encourage other Islamists. The Russian troops who tried to
defend South Ossetian separatists from a savage Georgian attack are
invaders simply because they are Russians. And so on.
As in Chechnya, so in Sri Lanka. Elements in the Sri Lanka regime —
not necessarily the government itself — have long had a reputation for
extreme measures against dissidents. The 1983 of suppression of Tamil
dissidents objecting to racial discrimination led to the growth of an
antigovernment guerrilla movement there, supported by many in an
educated and politically conscious diaspora, and able to survive with
extreme skill and bravery in very difficult conditions against the
overwhelming might of government forces. But since the insurgents were
labeled as "terrorists," the government was able to claim global
approval for what some reports claim was an excessive use of force to
defeat the insurgents, causing immense civilian casualties.
Which brings me to Tiananmen. The true record of events there has long
been clear. In 1989 the Chinese regime was still only gradually
emerging from long-lasting incompetence, Cultural Revolution traumas and petty despotism. Student activists, supported by long-suffering Beijing citizens, protested by occupying the iconic Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. Even the regime to some extent realized why the students were demonstrating, which is why they were allowed to remain in the Square for so long.
But clearly the regime could not allow the students to remain there
forever, particularly after they had rejected concessions offered by
Communist Party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. The first move was to
send in unarmed troops to clear the square. That was quickly stopped
by angry citizens.
When armed troops arrived, the citizens, helped by students, set up
blockades and fire-bombed the trucks, incinerating many inside.
Inevitably the troops panicked and began shooting wildly in return. In
short, on the night of June 3/4, in the streets of Beijing leading to
Tiananmen, there was something close to civil war, with dozens, maybe
hundreds, of citizens and students shot and killed and quite a few
soldiers beaten or burned to death. But by the time the troops finally
reached the square, U.S. Embassy and other reports confirm that the
fighting had largely ended and most of the students had left.
The popular version of events is quite different, however. It says the
troops simply marched directly into a square crowded with students and
began to mow them down with machine guns. This, despite the fact that several observers, including a Reuters correspondent and a Spanish TVE television crew, who were in the center of the square the entire night of June 4 not only deny the massacre story; both also confirm how the remaining students negotiated peacefully with the troops and left quietly.
There may have been killings on the periphery of the square. A U.S.
Embassy report speaks of students killing a soldier at the square
entrance and photos suggest a vicious tank response. But the
machine-gun massacre story is fabricated.
So how did we get the fabricated story? Researchers have tracked it
down to an anonymous front-page Hong Kong newspaper report by someone claiming to be a student who had fled the Square. No one has been able to find the author ever since. But that did not stop the report from traveling the globe, and continuing to be regurgitated ever since despite published denials by some of those researchers, including the then Spanish ambassador in Beijing (I have a copy of a book he wrote indignantly denying the massacre story).
That anonymous report has had its effect, however. It is now journalistic license to write about the "blood-stained Tiananmen Square," "thousands of students mown down by machine guns" (commentator David Brooks in The New York Times) and so on. Along with Tibet, where reports are also distorted, it has entered the pantheon of Beijing evils that critics who ignore far worse outrages against student demonstrators in other countries love to use to denounce China.
Ironically those critics miss the true ugliness of events that night,
namely the violence of the proletarian citizen revolt against a
government that based its legitimacy on claiming the full support of
those proletarian citizens.
No wonder Beijing has been angry ever since against the students who
triggered that revolt. But that anger in turn is then turned around to
perpetuate the claim that Beijing remains quite unrepentant for the
mythical machine-gun massacre.
Indeed the EU governments still use the massacre myth to deny arms
exports to China, including the riot police equipment that, if
available at the time, could have prevented the riots and killings.
The casualties from truth denial are many and varied.
Discuss this article
Sri Lanka and Tiananmen: Time to accept the truth
It used to be said the first casualty of war is the truth. But today
we do not even need wars to see truth destroyed. Even domestic
conflicts in distant countries can do the job, with a flood of black
information and news distortions produced, some causing enormous harm. The distorted interpretation of Sri Lanka's war against Tamil
insurgents is one example. Another has been the way Beijing continues
to be pilloried for a mythical student massacre during the June 3/4,
1989, Tiananmen incident.
Let's begin with Sri Lanka. Western governments now have the bad habit
of using indiscriminately the word "terrorist" to denounce groups they
do not like but which use force to promote causes. At last count the
British had listed more than 50 such groupings around the globe as
terrorist organizations, the United States more than 40, and the
Australians more than 30.
The United Nations might still be struggling to give us a definition
of "terrorist." And if using force to promote a cause is terrorism
then what was the American revolution against the British, or the
French resistance against Nazi occupation? But for our Western
governments these are not problems. Those fighting on our side are the
good guys. Those opposed are "terrorists.'
Afghan Islamists are heroes if they are fighting Soviet occupation but
terrorists if they are fighting Western occupation. Kurdish militants
are terrorists if they fight Turkey but deserve support if they fight
Iran. The Chechnya separatists who fought so bravely against Russian
troops are terrorists simply because they are Islamists whose victory
might encourage other Islamists. The Russian troops who tried to
defend South Ossetian separatists from a savage Georgian attack are
invaders simply because they are Russians. And so on.
As in Chechnya, so in Sri Lanka. Elements in the Sri Lanka regime —
not necessarily the government itself — have long had a reputation for
extreme measures against dissidents. The 1983 of suppression of Tamil
dissidents objecting to racial discrimination led to the growth of an
antigovernment guerrilla movement there, supported by many in an
educated and politically conscious diaspora, and able to survive with
extreme skill and bravery in very difficult conditions against the
overwhelming might of government forces. But since the insurgents were
labeled as "terrorists," the government was able to claim global
approval for what some reports claim was an excessive use of force to
defeat the insurgents, causing immense civilian casualties.
Which brings me to Tiananmen. The true record of events there has long
been clear. In 1989 the Chinese regime was still only gradually
emerging from long-lasting incompetence, Cultural Revolution traumas and petty despotism. Student activists, supported by long-suffering Beijing citizens, protested by occupying the iconic Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. Even the regime to some extent realized why the students were demonstrating, which is why they were allowed to remain in the Square for so long.
But clearly the regime could not allow the students to remain there
forever, particularly after they had rejected concessions offered by
Communist Party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. The first move was to
send in unarmed troops to clear the square. That was quickly stopped
by angry citizens.
When armed troops arrived, the citizens, helped by students, set up
blockades and fire-bombed the trucks, incinerating many inside.
Inevitably the troops panicked and began shooting wildly in return. In
short, on the night of June 3/4, in the streets of Beijing leading to
Tiananmen, there was something close to civil war, with dozens, maybe
hundreds, of citizens and students shot and killed and quite a few
soldiers beaten or burned to death. But by the time the troops finally
reached the square, U.S. Embassy and other reports confirm that the
fighting had largely ended and most of the students had left.
The popular version of events is quite different, however. It says the
troops simply marched directly into a square crowded with students and
began to mow them down with machine guns. This, despite the fact that several observers, including a Reuters correspondent and a Spanish TVE television crew, who were in the center of the square the entire night of June 4 not only deny the massacre story; both also confirm how the remaining students negotiated peacefully with the troops and left quietly.
There may have been killings on the periphery of the square. A U.S.
Embassy report speaks of students killing a soldier at the square
entrance and photos suggest a vicious tank response. But the
machine-gun massacre story is fabricated.
So how did we get the fabricated story? Researchers have tracked it
down to an anonymous front-page Hong Kong newspaper report by someone claiming to be a student who had fled the Square. No one has been able to find the author ever since. But that did not stop the report from traveling the globe, and continuing to be regurgitated ever since despite published denials by some of those researchers, including the then Spanish ambassador in Beijing (I have a copy of a book he wrote indignantly denying the massacre story).
That anonymous report has had its effect, however. It is now journalistic license to write about the "blood-stained Tiananmen Square," "thousands of students mown down by machine guns" (commentator David Brooks in The New York Times) and so on. Along with Tibet, where reports are also distorted, it has entered the pantheon of Beijing evils that critics who ignore far worse outrages against student demonstrators in other countries love to use to denounce China.
Ironically those critics miss the true ugliness of events that night,
namely the violence of the proletarian citizen revolt against a
government that based its legitimacy on claiming the full support of
those proletarian citizens.
No wonder Beijing has been angry ever since against the students who
triggered that revolt. But that anger in turn is then turned around to
perpetuate the claim that Beijing remains quite unrepentant for the
mythical machine-gun massacre.
Indeed the EU governments still use the massacre myth to deny arms
exports to China, including the riot police equipment that, if
available at the time, could have prevented the riots and killings.
The casualties from truth denial are many and varied.
Discuss this article
スリランカと天安門：真実を受け入れるべき時
戦争のとき最初の犠牲者は真実、とはよくいわれたことだ。だが今日では、真実が殺されるのに戦争さえ必要ない。今では遠い国の国内紛争について、闇情報やニュース歪曲がとてつもない害を流しつつ十分にその役を果たしている。タミール人蜂起に対するスリランカ戦争の歪められた解釈はその一例。また一つは、1989年6月3～4日の天安門事件における学生虐殺神話に関し、北京がいまなおさらし台にさらされていることだ。
スリランカから見ていこう。西側政府はいまでは悪い癖で、自分たちが好まない、大義の達成のために武力を用いるグループを非難するのに、“テロリスト”という用語を無差別に使っている。最近の数字では、英国はこうしたグルーピングで世界中で50以上、アメリカは40以上、オーストラリアは30以上のグループをテロリストあるいはテロリスト集団と規定している。
国連はいまだに“テロリスト”の定義を提示するのに苦戦しているというのに。そしてもし大義を促進するために武力を使うことがテロリズムだというのなら、英国に対するアメリカの革命、ナチス占領に対するフランスのレジスタンスは何だったのかということになるというのに。だが、われらが西側政府にはこれらは問題でない。われわれの側で戦ったのはよい奴。反対側の奴は“テロリスト”だ。
アフガニスタンのイスラム主義者は、ソ連の占領に対して戦っていればヒーローだ、西側の占領に対して戦っていればテロリストだ。クルド人戦士は、トルコと戦っているときはテロリスト、だがイランと戦っているときは支援に値する。ロシア軍に対してかくも勇敢に戦ったチェチェン分離独立派はテロリストだ。それは単に彼等がイスラム主義者であり、彼等が勝利すると他のイスラム主義者を鼓舞することになるから、という理由による。グルジア人による野蛮な攻撃から、分離を求める南オセチア人を保護しようとするロシア軍隊は、単に彼らがロシア人であるというだけで侵略者と呼ばれる。等々と続く。
チェチェンと同様なのが、スリランカである。スリランカ政権内の一部― 必ずしも政府自体と限らないが― は長い間反体制派に対する過激な取締りでよく知られている。人種差別に反対するタミール人反体制派に対する1983年の弾圧はその地に反政府ゲリラ運動を拡げる原因となった。その運動は、海外在住の教育ある政治意識の高い層の支持を受け、並外れたスキルと勇敢さを発揮して、力でははるかにしのぐ政府軍との非常に困難な闘いの中で生き伸びた。ところが、反体制派が“テロリスト”とレッテルを貼られたために、一説には膨大な数の市民の死傷者を出したといわれる行過ぎた反体制派撲滅の行為に対し、スリランカ政府は国際的支持を取り付けることができた。
これが私に天安門を想起させる。あの日あの場所における出来事の真実の記録はすでにずっと前から明らかになっている。1989年、中国の政権はあの時期ようやく少しずつ、長く続いた無能力、文化大革命のトラウマ、そこかしこの独裁的傾向から脱却しつつあるところだった。学生運動家たちは、長い間苦しんだ北京市民の支持を受けて、北京中央の伝統ある天安門広場を占拠して抗議の意思表示をしていた。学生たちが広場にそんなに長く居続けることができたのは、政府内にもなぜ学生がデモをやるのかある程度理解があったからだ。
しかし政府としては学生たちをいつまでもそこに居座らせるわけにはいかない。とくに、共産党総書記趙紫陽の妥協案が拒否されてからはそうだった。最初の動きは明らかに、非武装の兵士を入れて広場をきれいにしようということだった。これは怒った市民たちにすぐさま止められてしまった。
武装した兵士が到着したときは、市民らは学生の応援を得て、バリケードをつくり、トラックに放火爆破し内部にいた多数を焼き殺した。当然ながら兵士たちはパニック状態になり、激しい銃撃で反撃した。つまり、6月3日から4日の夜にかけて、天安門へ続く北京の路上では、内戦に近い状態が発生し、数十もしかして数百の市民学生が銃撃され死亡し、かなりの数の兵士が撲殺、焼死に至った。しかしながら、兵士たちが最終的に天安門広場に到着したときには、アメリカ大使館その他のレポートが確認しているように、戦闘はおおむね収まっており、学生の大半は立ち去っていた。
ところがこの出来事の通俗版が云うことは、これと大きくちがっている。それによると兵士たちは直接に、学生で混み合う天安門広場へ進行し、機関銃で彼らをなぎ倒しはじめたという。これは、6月4日一晩中広場の中央に陣取っていたロイター通信特派員やスペインのテレビ局TVAのクルーを含む観察者が、虐殺ストーリーを否定しているにもかかわらず、またそれだけでなく、両観察者とも残っていた学生は兵士と平和的に話し合い静かにその場を立ち去ったことを確認しているにもかかわらずである。
広場の周辺では殺戮があったかもしれない。あるアメリカ大使館レポートは、広場入り口で学生たちが一兵士を殺害していたことを報告し、写真はタンクからのもう反撃があったことを示唆している。けれども、機関銃による大量殺戮は作られたものである。
そこでこの作り話がどこから入ってきたか、ということになる。研究者たちが突きつめた結果、広場から逃げてきた学生と称する何者かによる香港新聞の第一面の匿名報道に行き着いた。それ以後もこの報道の筆者は誰か、誰も発見できていない。にもかかわらずこの報道が一人歩き地球を一周し、以後繰り返し言及されている。当時の北京駐在スペイン大使をはじめ数人の研究者がこれを否定する出版物を出しているにもかかわらずである。（私は大使が虐殺ストーリーを怒りを込めて否定している本のコピーを持っている）
ところが、この匿名の報道は効力を発揮。いまでは“血塗られた天安門広場”“機関銃になぎ倒された数千の学生”（ニューヨークタイムズ紙コメンテーター、デビッド・ブルックス）等々と書くことはジャーナリスチックなライセンスになっている。同様に歪められて報道されたチベットと一緒で、この報道は北京の邪悪の殿堂入りを果たしたし、批評家たちはこれよりはるかにひどい他国の学生デモに対する暴虐は無視し、中国を糾弾する際に好んでこれを使っている。
皮肉なことに、これら批評家はその夜のほんとうの醜さ、つまり、これらプロレタリア市民の全面的支持を受けていると主張している政府に対するプロレタリア市民の反乱の暴力の醜さ、を見落としている。
それ以来、その反乱の引き金となった学生たちに対し、北京が怒りを抱くのは不思議ではない。だがその怒りが次には向き直って、北京は機関銃虐殺神話を少しも反省していないという主張を永久化するのに一役買う。
実際、EU各国政府は、中国に対する、騒乱対策装備を含めた武器輸出を拒否するのに、この虐殺神話を利用している。それらの装備はもし当時北京に備えがあれば騒乱や殺戮を防止できたはずのものである。真実の否定による死傷者の数は、多く、また多岐に渡っている。
（筆者は元中国担当のオーストラリア外交官、特派員、研究者）