Tiananmen Square: Chinese defence minister justifies 1989 massacre

Protests were ‘political turmoil’ and crackdown was ‘correct policy’, says Wei Fenghe

The Tiananmen square protest

China’s defence minister has defended 1989’s bloody crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square, which he said was justified in the name of stability.

Referring to the demonstrations as political “turbulence”, Wei Fenghe said it had been the “correct policy” for troops with assault rifles and tanks to fire at the unarmed, student-led protesters.

Estimates vary on how many people died on 4 June 1989, but it is thought between 1,500 and 4,000 demonstrators were killed and 10,000 wounded.

“Throughout the 30 years, China under the Communist Party has undergone many changes,” General Wei said in a hardline speech about trade and security at a regional forum in Singapore.

“Do you think the government was wrong with the handling of 4 June? There was a conclusion to that incident. The government was decisive in stopping the turbulence.”

He said the Tiananmen protests were “political turmoil that the central government needed to quell, which was the correct policy”, and claimed that China’s stability and development justified the actions.

It is rare for Chinese authorities to even acknowledge the demonstrations, which saw students and workers occupy Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in a massive pro-democracy protest.

The protest was joined by 1 million people at its peak, but on the night of 3 June 1989, tanks and troops moved into the square and opened fire on unarmed protesters in and around the central Beijing square.

Two days after the massacre a single protester, known as “Tank Man” or the “unknown protester”, stood in front of a convoy of tanks leaving Tiananmen Square.

As the lead tank manoeuvred to pass him, he repeatedly shifted his position in order to obstruct the tank’s attempted path around him.

Film of the incident was smuggled out of the country and broadcast all over the world.

Afterwards, the authorities blamed the protests on counter-revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the Communist Party and claimed no one had been shot dead in the square itself.

The country has never released an official death toll.

Reporting on the events of 4 June 1989 and mentioning them on social media are heavily censored in China.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

Every year, police detain dozens of activists, journalists and critics in the run-up to the anniversary.

Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), a US-based group supporting activism in China, said 13 activists had been detained or “forced into disappearance” ahead of the anniversary to “silence any expression or thwart any action” this year.

CHRD said Shen Linagqing, a dissident writer, was denied food, water and the use of a toilet for 24 hours.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in