« Stephen Harper disses Bono | Main | The expensive Beijing apartment hunt »

Tiananmen fallout

This is a letter that was published in Wednesday's edition of the National Post.  It is a follow-up of a column that was published on Monday to coincide with the June 4th anniversary.  I think the letter writer raises some good points.

Tiananmen no concern of a 'capitalistic' China
National Post
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Page: A15
Section: Letters
Byline: Petros Dratsidis
Source: National Post

Re: Chinese amnesia, Cam MacMurchy, June 4.

With all due respect to Cam MacMurchy, the so-called Tiananmen Square Massacre is not a major anniversary in Chinese history. We are talking about a nation with a 5,000-year history, a nation whose population is one-fifth of humanity, an emerging and ambitious superpower. What happened in early June, 1989, in Beijing is merely an episode in history caused by misguided and impressionable students, an episode equivalent to the 1968 riots in Paris or the student unrest in North American universities between 1968 and 1972, but far smaller in scale.

Talk about amnesias: Should the French commemorate the anarchy on their streets some 40 years ago? Should the U.S. president lay a wreath every May 4 to commemorate the killing of the four students at Kent State University in 1970?

I have just returned from China, and I can assure you that the epithet "communist" does not fit China today. There are no pictures of Mao glancing admonishingly from billboards -- except the one overlooking Tiananmen Square, where his mausoleum is. The police on the streets are almost invisible, and owning private property is encouraged, as is opening a private business. Western music is everywhere, Shanghai's stock market is booming and China is full of "capitalistic" energy, in fact, too much of it.

If we must give a name to the Chinese system of government, then a correct name would be centralized democracy. Foreign investment agrees with this assessment, and is pouring into China at rates never seen before in history.

David Brady, deputy director of the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, recently said: "The normal pattern is for at least two parties to alternate in power … but I wouldn't say that has to be China's way. I am not smart enough to tell what China should do."

The same should apply to Mr. MacMurchy. Is he, a freelance journalist, knowledgeable enough to tell the Chinese people how to conduct their affairs?

Petros Dratsidis, Toronto.

Petros makes some good points about other movements that have been crushed by the government or law enforcement officials, especially the one at Kent State in the United States (although that was 4 people to an estimated 3,000 in Beijing).

Governments, including the Chinese one, should never feel obligated to remember those who died challenging their authority. However individuals -- the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins of the victims -- should be able to remember what happened, publicly, if they so choose. 

People in Paris can read about the riots of 1968, and lay a wreath if they like.  People in America can read about what happened at Kent State or watch a documentary on the subject.

Unfortunately, when it comes to June 4, 1989, people in China aren't so lucky. 

Comments (3)

Trevor Metz:

I think what the writer fails to address is the right to mourn. I don't think the indiscriminate killing of thousands of people is a small part of China's history. I think anytime a government fires blindly into a crowd of people asking for the rights and freedoms that many in the west enjoy it's a significant moment in history. Also I think the author is wrong to mistake business for democracy. Just because trade is booming and China is moving towards a market economy slowly, its hardly reason to call Chinese society a democracy. If I'm not mistaken a key characteristic of a democracy is to be able to vote for the person or party you feel would look out for the nations interests the best. This is hardly the case. The best evidence of a lack of democracy in China lies in the judicial system. There really is only one true law and that is the will of the communist party.

I don't think Mr. MacMurchy was trying to tell the Chinese how they should run their lives but making a point about the lack freedoms that many in the west take for granted. And to highlight a tragic and dark moment in China's long history. If the Canadian government turned its guns on APEC protesters would it be more tragic because our history is not as long as China's? Why does the age of the nation diminish the deaths of people looking to non-violently attain freedoms and democracy? I don't think it does.

cc:

China is not a democracy, so what? So foreigners gain the rights to tell the Chinese how to run their country?

Nobody is saying China must be a democracy. In fact, I have posted previously on the fact China may be better off without. I do, however, believe that those who lost children on June 4 should be allowed to peacefully remember their loved ones without fear of the police.

Post a comment

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 8, 2007 12:06 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Stephen Harper disses Bono.

The next post in this blog is The expensive Beijing apartment hunt.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.