Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Premier Zhao Ziyang (6 page)

I further proposed calling a meeting of the NPC Standing Committee to conduct public hearings on the auditing of several major corporations that were commonly believed to be plagued by corruption. All the arrangements and further investigations should be managed by the NPC, because in the minds of many people, the NPC was more transparent than the Party or the government.

My general approach was thus to carry out reform in the areas of concern to the people, so that we could reduce the level of dissatisfaction among the people and the students, so as to reduce and end the student demonstrations, and at the same time we could seize the opportunity to boost political reform. Tackling these specific issues would enable the NPC to play its rightful role as the highest authority in the nation while directing the students’ attention toward furthering political reform.

On May 13, when Yang Shangkun and I went to Deng Xiaoping’s residence to discuss issues pertaining to Gorbachev’s forthcoming visit, I also talked to him about the recent situation with the student demonstrations. I expressed my views about open dialogue, tackling corruption, and transparency. In principle he agreed, and said that there was “a need to take the opportunity to tackle corruption, to make a concerted effort.” He also mentioned that there was a need for increased transparency.

There had been many rumors circulating about the sons and daughters of senior leaders doing business by taking advantage of official government resources. Many of these rumors accused my own sons and daughters. Because of this, on the afternoon of May 1, I proposed at a Politburo Standing Committee meeting that the Politburo order the Central Discipline Correction Commission and the Ministry of Supervision to open an investigation of my family members. Later I sent a formal letter to the Politburo to request that it support my proposal.

Another issue that the students cared about was press freedom. On May 6, in a discussion about reforming press policy with comrades [PSC member] Hu Qili and [Central Committee Secretariat member] Rui Xingwen, I proposed that attention be paid when drafting new press laws to relaxing the restrictions on news reporting, editorials, and commentary.

On May 3, I went to [NPC Standing Committee chairman] Wan Li’s home and talked with him about the student demonstrations. I commented that some of the leadership had overreacted to the student demonstrations, a result mainly of an outdated mentality formed by the prolonged focus on class struggle. Times had changed, and we needed to change this mentality to coincide with the trend of democracy and rule of law. He completely agreed with me, and said that many leaders from Tianjin and Beijing had complained to him that the Central Committee had been too soft on the student demonstrations, another example of this kind of old mentality at work. He also suggested that these problems needed to be resolved.

Either during the Politburo Standing Committee meeting of May 8 or the Politburo meeting of May 10 (I don’t remember which), he [Wan Li] made some very good suggestions about following the worldwide trend toward democracy and properly addressing the issues that the students had taken up in their demonstrations. He expressed his full support of my Politburo proposal when he held the NPC Standing Committee meeting. He also set a date for another meeting of the NPC Standing Committee, to be held soon, and listed these issues on the meeting’s agenda.

On May 9, Wan Li came to my house to tell me he was about to leave for an official visit to Canada and the United States. He had thought about speaking to Deng Xiaoping about the issue before leaving, but had not found the time to do so. On several occasions while in Canada and the United States, he called the student movement both patriotic and democratic, praising it highly.

The attitude that Wan Li adopted toward the student demonstrations was no accident. He had always believed in opening up to democracy and had always supported political reform. He had been opposed to the Anti-Liberalization Campaign of 1987 and had given speeches specifically about the democratization of decision making. Among senior leaders of the Central Committee, he was the one who most ardently supported reform.

Li Peng, Yao Yilin, and Beijing Municipality [Party Secretary] Li Ximing made fierce attempts to block, resist, and delay the carrying out of my proposals. They did not openly express opposition to my May Fourth speech in the few days following, and even voiced a few words of praise. But in fact they were working furiously to distort it.

They claimed that my speech was actually in line with their April 26 editorial but had just taken a slightly different angle. They then asked [State Education Commission Vice Minister] He Dongchang to spread a notion at a meeting held by the State Council with several university Party chiefs that Zhao’s speech represented only his personal opinion and did not represent the Central Committee’s. This message was quickly spread among the students.

They attempted even more furiously to resist and to delay any dialogue with the students. Originally the idea of the dialogue was to meet directly with the student demonstrators, but they not only denied the participation of any student organizations that had emerged during the demonstrations, they also prohibited the students from selecting their own representatives. They insisted on letting only students from official student organizations participate, which could not in any way have been representative of the student demonstrators. Wasn’t conducting dialogue in this manner the same as completely rejecting dialogue altogether? Also, when they did hold dialogues, they did not discuss things openly or seek diverse opinions with an attitude of sincerity. Instead they were merely paying lip service, in the same way that they had always handled foreign reporters at press conferences, presenting an image that would benefit themselves politically. This left the students with the impression that the government’s offer to hold dialogues with them was totally insincere.

I repeatedly criticized this behavior, but was ignored. On efforts to fight corruption and increase transparency, they were even more remiss. Li Peng even opposed listing these issues on the agenda of the NPC Standing Committee meeting. He called me specifically to object to putting these items on the agenda.

Because of that, after students had returned to their classes and several days had passed, they could not see how the government was taking any real actions. The dialogues that took place seemed aimed only at brushing them off, and of course no concrete steps were taken on reform; so in fact, doubts grew about my May Fourth speech. A more intense confrontation was therefore made inevitable.

Now we must answer the question “Why did the student movement continue for such a long time?”

They claim that my May Fourth speech had revealed a rift within the Central Committee, into the so-called “two voices.” That is not true! The real reason was that the guidelines laid out after my return from North Korea—namely to defuse tensions, to open dialogue, to resolve the issue through democracy and law, and to start tackling hot issues by proceeding with political reform—had been blocked, resisted, and sabotaged by Li Peng and his associates.

Just before Gorbachev’s arrival, Li Peng said to me, “You’re not going to continue to use soft measures to deal with the student demonstrations, are you? After so much time has elapsed, haven’t they already been proven useless?”

This comment fully revealed his hidden ill intentions. He used resistance and sabotage to ensure that efforts to resolve the student demonstrations on the basis of democracy and law would fail, with the intention of looking for an excuse to crush the student demonstrations using violent means.

An incident at the
World Economic Herald
in Shanghai also happened during my visit to North Korea. It started when the newspaper printed a report on the activities commemorating Hu Yaobang. The Shanghai Party Committee found the content inappropriate and ordered the paper to cut the report, but it refused to do so. The Shanghai Party Committee therefore decided to close down the paper for reorganization and suspended the chief editor, Qin Benli.

According to what I heard, [Shanghai Party chief] Jiang Zemin had phoned the office of Deng Xiaoping for a directive on handling this. The students and the masses were in a highly charged emotional state then. By doing what it did, it [the Shanghai Party Committee] not only angered the
Herald
’s staff, but also provoked general opposition from the staff at other news agencies in Beijing, Shanghai, and other places around the country. Many [members of these staffs] took to the streets to voice their support of the
Herald
and demanded that the Shanghai Party Committee reverse its decision against the
Herald
. Their actions coincided with the student demonstrations and the two groups mutually reinforced one another.

When I’d returned to the country, I felt the Shanghai Party Committee had been too rigid and simplistic in dealing with the issue and had also chosen a bad time to do it. But since the matter had already passed, I didn’t comment on it; it seemed inappropriate for me to admonish the Shanghai Party Committee and side with the staff of the news organization. The Central Committee therefore took the position of not intervening, allowing the Shanghai Party Committee to resolve the issue itself.

On May 2, when I was holding a talk with members of other political parties, Yan Mingfu reported that someone representing the local Shanghai United Front Work Department had told him that the Shanghai Party Committee wanted to back down from its previous position. They hoped the Central United Front Work Department would assist them. I replied, “Since the Shanghai Party Committee has made such a request, you should help them find a solution.”

On May 10, Jiang Zemin came to Beijing and talked to me about plans to reduce tensions. I told him the matter should be resolved in Shanghai without the interference of the Central Committee, thereby avoiding creating suspicion that the Shanghai government was merely bowing to pressure from the Central Committee. Jiang Zemin was unhappy about this, and after June Fourth, listed this incident as one of the accusations against me.

H
aving grown entirely disillusioned with the government dialogues, the students decided to use the occasion of Gorbachev’s visit to stage large-scale street demonstrations and a hunger strike. They believed it was the best opportunity to exert pressure on the government, which would be compelled to show tolerance during the state visit. But the students were mistaken, for the more they pushed ahead, the more pretext Li Peng and his associates had to crack down on them using violent means.

When I got wind of this, I took the opportunity to deliver a speech on May 13 at a gathering of workers. Roughly, what I told them was that it would be unreasonable for the students to disturb international state talks and do damage to the Sino-Soviet Summit because their demands had not been satisfied. Moreover, it would not gain the support of most people. I hoped they would take the big picture into consideration, and not injure our friends while delighting our enemies.

My plea was printed in all the major papers. However, the students did not respond to it at all; they proceeded regardless. On the afternoon of May 13, more than two hundred students from more than twenty universities, with more than a thousand others to act as guards, entered Tiananmen Square to stage a sit-in and a hunger strike. From this day on, the students occupied the square, up until the bloody incident of June Fourth.

The student hunger strike received widespread sympathy and support. Tens of thousands of people from various government departments and other organizations as well as ordinary urban residents staged demonstrations in support. The numbers grew from day to day. The number of hunger strike participants also increased, reaching between two and three thousand people at its peak. Students had become enthralled by the situation, making it even harder to persuade them to leave.

At the time, the students’ actions were still mostly spontaneous. Even though they had formed a command center, not one leader among them could make a coolheaded decision. Even when a decision was made, it was not authoritative in any way. Leaders were changed frequently at the command center, and things proceeded according to the ideas of whoever’s voice was loudest and most rousing. We tried to persuade the student leaders by mobilizing university leaders and professors to talk to them, but these efforts fell on deaf ears. Because of Li Peng and his associates, the principal guidelines of reducing tension, opening dialogue, and persuasion had not been implemented.

On the fourth day of the hunger strike, some of the students began fainting. I was extremely worried that if this continued, some students might die. We would have a hard time answering to our people.

On the night of May 16, after meeting with Gorbachev, I called a Politburo Standing Committee meeting to discuss issuing a public statement in the name of its five members to urge the students to stop their hunger strike. The draft contained the sentence “The passionate patriotism of the students is admirable, and the Central Committee and the State Council approve of their deeds.”

Li Peng opposed it, saying, “Mentioning ‘admirable’ is quite enough. Do we have to also add that we ‘approve’?”

Yang Shangkun replied, “The students propose action against corruption. We can say we approve of this.”

I was quite repelled by Li Peng’s attitude, and said, “If we don’t mention ‘approval,’ it’s as if we’d said nothing at all. Then what’s the purpose of issuing a statement? Our current task is to issue a statement that will calm the students’ emotions. We must not now quibble over the wording.”

A majority of the Standing Committee members agreed to include this line, so it was narrowly passed.

However, by this time I believed that the situation had progressed to a stage where even this statement would not end the hunger strike, since the strongest demand was a reversal of the April 26 editorial’s characterization of the demonstrations. I felt that this was a problem that we could no longer bypass. If this key issue was not resolved, there would be no way to end the hunger strike and proceed with dialogue. If the hunger strike continued, then unpredictable but extremely grave consequences would follow.

So for the first time, I formally proposed revising the judgment of the April 26 editorial in a Politburo Standing Committee meeting. Li Peng immediately opposed this.

He said the designation contained in the April 26 editorial was drafted strictly according to Deng Xiaoping’s own words and therefore could not be changed. My rebuttal was that the editorial had been drafted according to the minutes of the April 24 Politburo Standing Committee meeting and that Deng had merely voiced support of the discussion that came out of that meeting.

Yang Shangkun warned that revising the April 26 editorial would damage Deng Xiaoping’s image. I replied that we could arrange matters in such a way as to avoid causing any damage to Deng’s reputation by having the Politburo Standing Committee take collective responsibility. I also said that since I had sent the telegram from North Korea agreeing with Deng’s decision, I should take responsibility for the April 26 editorial. If necessary, it could be added that I had approved it.

Li Peng said abruptly, “This is not the proper attitude of a politician!” The result was that a revision of the April 26 editorial was unable to proceed.

I had no other choice but to express my views to Deng personally, in a face-to-face meeting. On the 17th, I phoned to request to see Deng. Later, a member of Deng’s staff asked me to go to Deng Xiaoping’s home in the afternoon for a meeting.

All the members of the Politburo Standing Committee plus [Yang] Shangkun were already there. At the time, Wan Li, who would have attended, was still abroad. Since I had asked for a personal meeting with Deng, only to have Deng call for a full Standing Committee meeting at his home, I realized that things had already taken a bad turn.

First, I expressed my views, roughly as follows:

While I was expressing my views, Deng appeared very impatient and displeased. As soon as I had finished speaking, Li Peng and Yao Yilin immediately stood up to criticize me.

They placed blame for the escalation of the demonstrations entirely on the May Fourth speech I presented to the Asian Development Bank. That was the first time I heard them voice criticisms of my ADB speech. Though they had opposed it in actuality, they had never said so openly before. The intensity of their accusations caught me completely by surprise. From the unrestrained way in which these two attacked me, I could see that they had already gained Deng Xiaoping’s tacit approval.

Hu Qili expressed his view that the editorial should be revised. Qiao Shi equivocated. [Yang] Shangkun opposed revising the editorial, thereby having a very bad impact on the situation. He said, “Liao Hansheng believes that martial law should be imposed. Perhaps we should consider imposing martial law…” Previously, Shangkun had always opposed martial law, but this time he quoted [veteran military leader] Liao Hansheng, when in fact he himself had changed his position.

In the end, Deng Xiaoping made the final decision. He said, “The development of the situation has only confirmed that the judgment of the April 26 editorial was correct. The reason that the student demonstrations have not subsided is something within the Party, and that is Zhao’s May Fourth speech at the ADB meeting. Since there is no way to back down now without the situation spiraling completely out of control, the decision is to move troops into Beijing to impose martial law.”

He also appointed Li Peng, Yang Shangkun, and Qiao Shi as a three-person team to implement the imposition of martial law.

When Deng was finished, I said that having a decision was always better than not having one, but I was extremely worried about the grave consequences this would have. As General Secretary, it would be difficult for me to manage and effectively carry out this decision. Deng said, “If this turns out to be a wrong decision, we will all be responsible.”

During this meeting, Li Peng also claimed that contents of Politburo Standing Committee meetings had been leaked to the public, and that there were some bad elements on the inside, [Political Secretary of the PSC] Bao Tong being one of them. I replied, “You must be responsible when making such claims! What evidence do you have?” He said, “I do have evidence that I will reveal to you later.”

I walked out as soon as the meeting adjourned. If Deng asked the others to remain or discussed other matters, I never knew.

At that moment, I was extremely upset. I told myself that no matter what, I refused to become the General Secretary who mobilized the military to crack down on students. Upon returning home, under heightened emotions, I called on Bao Tong to draft a letter of resignation for me to send to the Standing Committee.

At that evening’s meeting to brief the Standing Committee, I refused to accept the assignment to chair the meeting of cadres to announce martial law. I said, “It seems my mission in history has already ended.” Yang Shangkun replied to me, “This kind of issue cannot be raised now. No changes in leadership should be made.” He meant that my position as General Secretary should not be changed.

As soon as my letter of resignation reached the Service Bureau of the Central Committee General Office, Shangkun found out about it. He phoned me and repeatedly beseeched me to revoke my decision. Shangkun said, “If this information leaks out, then the situation will be even worse. We should not pour gasoline on a flame.”

I conceded his argument and on May 18 notified the General Office to halt the distribution of the letter. My secretary [Li Shuqiao] later retrieved it.

Here I would like to clarify something about this meeting called by Deng that resolved to impose martial law and crack down on the students. There has been public hearsay that the Politburo Standing Committee meeting resulted in a vote of three against two, but in fact there was no “three versus two” vote. There were only a few people in attendance. Among the members of the Standing Committee, it was two against two: Hu Qili and I were for revising the editorial, Yao Yilin and Li Peng were ardently opposed, and Qiao Shi remained neutral by not expressing any clear view.

There was no such thing as a “three versus two” vote. Of course, if the opinions of Deng and Yang, who were not members of the Standing Committee, were added, in the overall count of all the people who attended that meeting, they were certainly a majority. However, in fact, the Standing Committee held no formal vote.

During those few days, many prominent people and senior Party comrades phoned or wrote letters to me and to the Central Committee, appealing to us to treat the students properly, to acknowledge that the students’ actions had been patriotic, and to change the wrongful stance assumed toward the students. Among them were those whom Deng Xiaoping had always held in high regard, such as senior comrades like Li Yimang.

On May 18, I forwarded a selection of these letters to Deng and wrote to him to reiterate my position, hoping he would reconsider. Though I knew there was very little hope of this, I had to make one last attempt. The original text of my letter is as follows: