The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre were the first of their type shown in detail on Western television.Strahan, A. Australia's China: Changing Perceptions from the 1930s to the 1990s. Cambridge University Press, 1996. p.302. . The Chinese government's response was denounced, particularly by Western governments and media."China: Aftermath of the Crisis" State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (27 July 1989) Criticism came from both Western and Eastern Europe, North America, Australia and some east Asian and Latin American countries. Notably, many Asian countries remained silent throughout the protests; the government of India responded to the massacre by ordering the state television to pare down the coverage to the barest minimum, so as not to jeopardize a thawing in relations with China, and to offer political empathy for the events.Places 20 years apart – column by C. Raja Mohan , The Indian Express, 4 June 2009 North Korea, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, as well as many countries in Africa and Asia, supported the Chinese government and denounced the protests. Overseas Chinese students demonstrated in many cities in Europe, America, the Middle East, and Asia against the Chinese government.Troubles in China provoke protests , Spokane Chronicle, 7 June 1989, page A8

National reaction Some Chinese citizens deplored the massacre of peaceful protesters and believed that it had been done with such brutal force to prevent any further protests by citizens. In the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square protests, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintained its original condemnation of the student demonstrations (see April 26 Editorial) and characterized the crackdown as necessary to maintain stability. Government sources downplayed the violence against demonstrators on 3 and 4 June, and portrayed the public as supportive of the crackdown. In the days after the protest, the CCP attempted to control access to information on the massacre, confiscating film from foreign journalists. Domestic journalists who had been sympathetic to the student movement were removed from their positions, and several foreign journalists were expelled from China. On June 6, State Council spokesman Yuan Mu held a press conference where he claimed that there had been 300 fatalities during the massacre, with no killings having occurred in Tiananmen Square itself. Yuan Mu portrayed the crackdown as a response to "a counterrevolutionary rebellion in the early hours of the morning of June 3." In August 1989, the Chinese government released its complete, official account of the Tiananmen protests, The Truth About the Beijing Turmoil. The narrative presented in The Truth About the Beijing Turmoil differs significantly from the accounts of student leaders and foreign journalists, many of which are banned in China. On the origins of the protest the book states:

"This turmoil was not a chance occurrence. It was a political turmoil incited by a very small number of political careerists after a few years of plotting and scheming. It was aimed at subverting the socialist People's Republic."

This contradicts the statements of student leaders, who emphasized the spontaneous nature of their decisions to join the protest and their desire to work within the political system. On the 4 June crackdown and its aftermath The Truth About the Beijing Turmoil recounts:

"The measures adopted by the Chinese government to stop the turmoil and put down the rebellion have not only won the acclaim and support of the Chinese people, but they have also won the understanding and support of the governments and peoples of many other countries. The Chinese government has announced that it will unswervingly carry on the policy of reform and opening to the outside world…"

Due to the ongoing censorship in China, it is difficult to verify the claim that the government crackdown had popular support. In the book The People's Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited, Chen Guang, a soldier who participated in the 4 June crackdown, describes the attitudes of citizens following the protests, "The residents suddenly changed to become really nice to the soldiers. I thought about this a lot at the time. It really confused me. Why was it like that? On June 4th, all the residents supported the students. So overnight how did they come to support the soldiers?"

In the weeks after the crackdown, Chinese state news focused largely on the aggression of protesters and their killing of PLA soldiers. Footage of Liu Guogeng, who was beaten to death by protesters before being immolated, and his grieving family was shown repeatedly in government television broadcasts during June 1989. State media showed mourners laying wreaths and flowers at the site where Liu was killed. The families of demonstrators and bystanders who were killed during the protest have in some cases been forbidden from engaging in public mourning.

In a private conversation with East German Politburo member Günter Schabowski shortly after the massacre, Jiang Zemin denied the massacre, but admitted that the square was cleared militarily and that in the ensuing clashes, around 400 people died. According to Schabowski, Zemin did not denigrate the students, avoiding terms like "counter-revolution" or "foreign interference", and seemed uncomfortable with the topic, which he interpreted as stemming from feelings of guilt.

In the decades since the Tiananmen Square protests the CCP has attempted to prevent any remembrance of the protest movement and the subsequent crackdown. While the government initially tried to justify its suppression of the protest, releasing official statements and creating museum exhibits on the events of 3–5 June, it now denies that such suppression ever occurred. In 2011, an opinion piece, "Tiananmen Square a Myth", was published in China Daily, the CCP's English-language newspaper. The article claims that, "When eventually troops were sent in to clear the [Tiananmen] square, the demonstrations were already ending. But by this time the Western media were there in force, keen to grab any story they could." There is no mention of a counterrevolutionary rebellion, as earlier government accounts refer to. As Louisa Lim notes in her book, The People's Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited, many young Chinese know almost nothing of the Tiananmen Square protests. In an informal survey, Lim showed the iconic photo of Tank Man to 100 Chinese university students; only 15 correctly identified it as being an image of Tiananmen Square. Perry Link, a Chinese language and literature scholar, writes, "The story of the massacre is banned from textbooks, the media, and all other public contexts." In 2014, Gu Yimin, a Chinese activist, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for attempting to hold a march on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. After filing a request to hold the march in 2013, he was charged with "inciting subversion of state power." Activist groups such as the Tiananmen Mothers have faced intense government surveillance for their attempts to hold the CCP accountable for the losses of their family members.

Currently, the Chinese government blocks all website based searches in China with any regard to the massacre at Tiananmen Square.Straub, G. (2001). Rhythm of Compassion. Tuttle Publishing. p. 111. . Due to the extensive censorship around the events, most young people in China are unaware of the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. According to academic Margaret Roberts, inadvertent disclosures of the Tiananmen Square massacre often happen in China "when political information and entertainment are paired," which are harder to censor.

Deng Xiaoping In 1992, during Deng Xiaoping's southern tour, Deng credited the reform and opening up with preventing destabilization of the regime following the Tiananmen Square massacre. Deng stated:

Organizations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar was concerned at the massacre, adding that the government should uphold the utmost restraint, but also noted that the UN Charter prohibits interference in member states' internal affairs (especially member states with a Security Council veto)."Bush halts arms sales to China." Chicago Tribune, 6 June 1989.

From August 7 to September 1, 1989, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (a part of the Commission on Human Rights) met in Geneva for its thirty-seventh meeting. This meeting was the first time since the killings in June "that a human rights meeting ha[d] begun discussing the subject.""U.N. Panel Is Asked to Condemn China", The New York Times, 17 August 1989. (accessed 26 November 2010). At the meeting resolution 1989/5 was adopted by secret ballot on 31 August 1989. The resolution, also called "Situation in China" states the committee was concerned about what had occurred in China and the implications the crackdown would have on the future of human rights.Commission on Human Rights, "Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on its Forty-First Session" , E/CN.4/1990/2, page 34, resolution 1989/5. The resolution has two points:

Requests the Secretary-General to transmit to the Commission on Human Rights information provided by the Government of China and by other reliable sources; Makes an appeal for clemency, in particular in favour of persons deprived of their liberty as a result of the above-mentioned events.

On 1 December 1989 the permanent representative of People's Republic of China (PRC) to the United Nations Ambassador Li Luye replied to the Sub-Commission's adoption of resolution 1989/5 by stating that it was "a brutal interference in China's internal affairs."Commission on Human Rights, "Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in any part of the World, with particular reference to Colonial and other Dependent Countries and Territories" , E/CN.4/1990/52, page 2, paragraph 3; page 32–33, paragraph 65; page 33, paragraph 66. Li also stated that the "Spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China issued a statement on 2 September 1989, solemnly declaring the firm objection of the Chinese Government to the resolution and deeming it to be illegal and null and void."

At the forty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights in January 1990 Li distributed a letter as a document for the meeting. In the letter Li reaffirms the position of the Chinese Government toward the resolution and that "actions to put an end to the turmoil and quell the rebellion were justified and legitimate."Commission on Human Rights, Letter from Ambassador Li Luye, E/CN.4/1990/55, page 3–4. He also states that the punishment of "criminals" who have "violated the criminal law" is justified and that a small number of Western nations are using the United Nations to interfere internal affairs, which is a clear and complete violation of the UN Charter and international relations.

The forty-sixth session found the Chinese claim of interference in internal affairs indefensible and that "massive violation" of human rights concerned of the international community. It also stated that China had accepted voluntarily the obligations of upholding the human rights of its citizens. When accepted into the United Nations in 1971, China was "bound by established human rights standards which are part of the customary law or which have been accepted by the international community."

The European Economic Community condemned the government response and cancelled all high level contacts and loans. They planned a resolution at the UNHCR criticising China's human rights record.Youngs, R. The European Union and the Promotion of Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2002. .Los Angeles Times, 19 June 1989. The EU maintains an arms embargo against China to this day.

Countries

Africa