6 月 3 日夜，我正同家人在院子裏乘凉，聽到街上有密集的槍聲。一場舉世震驚的悲劇終于未能避免地發生了。
“六四”悲劇三年後，我記下了這些材料，這場悲劇已經過去好多年了。這場風波的積極分子，除少數人逃出國外，大部分人被抓、被判、被反覆審問。情况現在應當是非常清楚了，應該說以下三個問題可以回答了：
第一，當時說學潮是一場有領導、有計劃、有預謀的“反黨反社會主義”的政治鬥爭。現在可以問一下，究竟是什麽人在領導？如何計劃，如何預謀的？有哪些材料能够說明這一點？還說黨內有黑手，黑手是誰呀？
第二，說這場動亂的目的是要顛覆共和國，推翻共産黨，這方面又有什麽材料？我當時就說過，多數人是要我們改正錯誤，而不是要根本上推翻我們的制度。這麽多年過去了，審訊中得到什麽材料？究竟是我說得對還是他們說得對？許多外出的民運分子都說，他們在“六四”前，還是希望黨往好處改變。“六四”以後，黨使他們完全絕望，使他們和黨處在對立的方面。在學潮期間，學生提出過很多口號、要求，但就是沒有提物價問題，而當時物價問題是社會上很大的熱點，是很容易引起共鳴的。學生們要和共産黨作對，這麽敏感的問題他們爲什麽不利用呢？提這樣的問題不是更能動員群衆嗎？學生不提物價問題，可見學生們知道物價問題涉及改革，如果直接提出物價問題動員群衆，實際上要反對、否定改革。可見不是這種情况。
第三，將“六四”定性爲反革命暴亂，能不能站得住脚？學生一直是守秩序的，不少材料說明，在解放軍遭到圍攻時，許多地方反而是學生來保護解放軍。大量市民阻攔解放軍進城，究竟是爲了什麽？是要推翻共和國嗎？當然，那麽多人的行動，總有極少數人混在人群裏面攻打解放軍，但那是一種混亂情况。北京市不少流氓、流竄犯乘機鬧事，那是完全可能的。難道能把這些行爲說成是廣大市民、學生的行爲嗎？這個問題到現在應當很清楚了。 |
On the night of June 3rd, while sitting in the courtyard with my family, I heard intense gunfire. A tragedy to shock the world had not been averted, and was happening after all.
I prepared the above written material three years after the June Fourth tragedy. Many years have now passed since this tragedy. Of the activists involved in this incident, except for the few who escaped abroad, most were arrested, sentenced, and repeatedly interrogated. The truth must have been determined by now. Certainly the following three questions should have been answered by now.
First, it was determined then that the student movement was “a planned conspiracy” of anti-Party, anti-socialist elements with leadership. So now we must ask, who were these leaders? What was the plan? What was the conspiracy? What evidence exists to support this? It was also said that there were “black hands” within the Party. Then who were they?
Second, it was said that this event was aimed at overthrowing the People’s Republic and the Communist Party. Where is the evidence? I had said at the time that most people were only asking us to correct our flaws, not attempting to overthrow our political system. After so many years, what evidence has been obtained through the interrogations? Have I been proven right, or have they? Many of the democracy activists in exile say that before June Fourth, they had still believed that the Party could improve itself. After June Fourth, however, they saw the Party as hopeless and only then did they take a stand to oppose the Party. During the demonstrations, students raised many slogans and demands, but the problem of inflation was conspicuously missing, though inflation was a hot topic that could easily have resonated with and ignited all of society. If the students had intended on opposing the Communist Party back then, why hadn’t they utilized this sensitive topic? If intent on mobilizing the masses, wouldn’t it have been easier to raise questions like this one? In hindsight, it’s obvious that the reason the students did not raise the issue of inflation was that they knew that this issue was related to the reform program, and if pointedly raised to mobilize the masses, it could have turned out to obstruct the reform process.
Third, can it be proven that the June Fourth movement was “counterrevolutionary turmoil,” as it was designated? The students were orderly. Many reports indicate that on the occasions when the People’s Liberation Army came under attack, in many incidents it was the students who had come to its defense. Large numbers of city residents blocked the PLA from entering the city. Why? Were they intent on overthrowing the republic?
Of course, whenever there are large numbers of people involved, there will always be some tiny minority within the crowd who might want to attack the PLA. It was a chaotic situation. It is perfectly possible that some hooligans took advantage of the situation to make trouble, but how can these actions be attributed to the majority of the citizens and students? By now, the answer to this question should be clear. |
