NYT Archive 1989: Fang Lizhi's Status

As the Chinese and American governments continued to haggle on Fang Lizhi, New York Times on June 13, 1989, reported how Fang Lizhi got into the American embassy:

Western diplomats said the controversy over the couple began on June 4, hours after the military crackdown in Beijing. A friend of the couple telephoned the embassy, saying that Mr. Fang and Miss Li felt that their lives were in danger and that the couple wanted to take refuge in the American diplomatic compound.

Initially, an American diplomat told the couple to go to a Beijing hotel while the embassy contacted the State Department for instructions. The embassy hesitated because it is against standing rules for an American embassy to grant refuge to a foreign national on the national's own territory.

On June 5, the matter was brought to Secretary Baker at the regular morning staff meeting, during which the major topic at hand was the violence in Beijing. The diplomats said Secretary Baker's position was that the United States should ''not deny refuge or sanctuary'' if the couple was ''in personal danger.''

Since the embassy had concluded that the couple were indeed in such danger, they were granted sanctuary within the American compound, the diplomats said. The couple had no trouble entering the embassy, and no Chinese authorities were in ''hot pursuit'' when they arrived, the diplomats said.

At no time did the couple ask for political asylum, in the sense of seeking to flee to the United States and acquire American citizenship, Administration officials said. Rather, Mr. Fang asked for physical protection, and it was on that basis that he was allowed into the embassy under the diplomatic principle of ''temporary refuge.''

Administration officials said Mr. Fang was very sensitive about the question of asylum and has reiterated to his embassy hosts that he considers himself a Chinese patriot who wants, if at all possible, to remain in his country.

Meanwhile, several Zhao Ziyang's allies made public appearances, saving their jobs:

The television showed a series of senior officials making public appearances to praise the crackdown and visit wounded soldiers. Among those shown was Qiao Shi, a member of the standing committee of the Politburo who is mentioned as candidate to be the next party leader.

The most surprising appearance was by Tian Jiyun, a Politburo member who is closely associated with the Communist Party General Secretary, Zhao Ziyang. Mr. Zhao has been stripped of his powers, and perhaps of his formal position, and at least one associate on the Politburo, Hu Qili, has also disappeared and has presumably been purged. A picture of Mr. Tian had previously been published in a newspaper, indicating that his career might be saved, but his television appearance was the clearest sign so far that members of Mr. Zhao's faction will not automatically lose their posts.

In his televised remarks, Mr. Tian did not mention the ''counterrevolutionary rebellion,'' but simply visited wounded soldiers and thanked them for doing their duty while carrying out martial law.

Two other senior Communist Party officials who have been associated with the moderate point of view also made brief appearances on television. They were Yan Mingfu, an official in the party headquarters who argued for conciliation with the students, and Wen Jiabao, director of the General Office of the Central Committee. Both were shown visiting wounded soldiers, and neither said anything in front of the cameras.

Yan Mingfu, who had played a pivotal role in trying to have a real dialogue with student leaders, did not actually save his job. He held a couple of unremarkable posts and generally faded out of national politics.

Wen Jiabao, however, fared much better. He is currently the Premier of the country.

Meanwhile, NYT realized that the eyewitness account it had published a day earlier was not entirely factual.

NYT Archive 1989: Students' Ultimatum For Dialog

The day before the anniversary of the May Fourth movement, on May 3, 1989, New York Times reported that 6,000 students marched in Shanghai, the biggest demonstration outside of the capital so far. Near the end of that report, however, was an update of what was happening in Beijing:

In Beijing today, student leaders gave a 24-hour ultimatum to the Government to approve their conditions for talks, and warned of demonstrations on Thursday if the Government did not agree. About 70 student leaders rode their bicycles together to several Government and party offices to deliver letters outlining their demands.

The letter was a response to the Government's announcement last week that it would enter into a ''dialogue'' with the students. Since then, Government officials have held three of these dialogues with students, and some delicate issues have come up.

But most students appear dissatisfied. They complain that the students whom the Government chose to take part are mostly friendly to the Communist Party, and that the Government edited the videotape of the first dialogue before showing it on national television.

Of the 12 student conditions for talks, the three most crucial were that the students themselves choose their representatives, that the talks be broadcast uncensored on national television and that the Government be represented by officials at the level of Deputy Prime Minister or Politburo member.

The "ultimatum" was the handiwork of the Beijing Students Autonomous Federation (BSAF). Emboldened by the tremendous success of the April 27 demonstration, this young organization made its first big misstep: delivering a demand for dialog that was loaded with pre-conditions. The demand was backed by the threat of another demonstration on May 4, should their conditions were not met. It did indeed sound like an ultimatum.

But BSAF also made another move at the same time. In order to prepare for the anticipated dialog, it decided to organize a separate entity, the Dialog Delegation, dedicated to the handling of the dialogs. Xiang Xiaoji (from the University of Political Sciences and Law) and Shen Tong (from Beida) were chosen to be the co-leaders of the Delegation.

Xiang Xiaoji and Shen Tong recognized from the very beginning that the confrontational stance of BSAF would lead to problems. Therefore they decided to separate the Delegation entirely from BSAF activities and adopt a more moderate stance of their own. This critical decision would unfold quite dramatically later on, in the hopeful rise and tragic fall of an dialog with an open-minded officier Yan Mingfu (阎明复). But we would be get way ahead of ourselves here.

Meanwhile, in a separate news on the same date, NYT reported on a small symposium held in California on the 70-th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement. The symposium was planed way ahead of time and only happened to coincide with the ongoing student movement at the time. Many prominent intellectuals attended the symposium, including Ruan Ming (阮铭), Ge Yang (戈阳), Liu Binyan (刘宾雁).

As the situation in Beijing worsened in the coming weeks, these conferees stayed in the United States and became part of the exile community. Liu Binyan had since passed away.

According to NYT, Fang Lizhi was also invited to the symposium but was unable to make the trip because the government refused to grant permission. A video interview of Fang Lizhi was shown at the meeting, in which Fang Lizhi advocated "a new brand of patriotism":

They applauded as Mr. Fang explained his view of patriotism, saying that calls for democratic freedoms represented a higher form of love of country than did calls for party obedience.