赵紫阳录音回忆片段

[For more excerpts of Zhao Ziyang's secret memoir, please visit Washington Post website.]

[此影片内容是中共已故总书记赵紫阳在六四之后遭软禁期间的谈话录音片段，资料来自美国华盛顿邮报]

6月3日夜，我正同家人在院子里乘凉，听到街上有密集的枪声。一场举世震惊的悲剧终于 未能避免地发生了。

六四悲剧三年后，我记下了这些材料，这场悲剧已经过去好多年了。这场风波的积极分子， 除少数人逃出国外，大部分人被抓、被判、被反覆审问。情况现在应当是非常清楚了，应该 说以下三个问题可以回答了：

第一，当时说学潮是一场有领导、有计划、有预谋的反党反社会主义的政治斗争。现在可以 问一下，究竟是什麽人在领导？如何计划，如何预谋的？有哪些材料能够说明这一点？还说 党内有黑手，黑手是谁呀？

第二，说这场动乱的目的是要颠覆共和国，推翻共産党，这方面又有什麽材料？我当时就说过，多数人是要我们改正错误，而不是要根本上推翻我们的制度。这麽多年过去了，审讯中得到什麽材料？究竟是我说得对还是他们说得对？许多外出的民运分子都说，他们在六四前，还是希望党往好处改变。六四以后，党使他们完全绝望，使他们和党处在对立的方面。在学潮期间，学生提出过很多口号、要求，但就是没有提物价问题，而当时物价问题是社会上很大的热点，是很容易引起共鸣的。学生们要和共産党作对，这麽敏感的问题他们爲什麽不利用呢？提这样的问题不是更能动员群衆吗？学生不提物价问题，可见学生们知道物价问题涉及改革，如果直接提出物价问题动员群衆，实际上要反对、否定改革。可见不是这种情况 。

第三，将六四定性爲反革命暴乱，能不能站得住脚？学生一直是守秩序的，不少材料说明， 在解放军遭到围攻时候，许多地方反而是学生出来保护解放军。大量市民阻拦解放军进城，究竟是爲了什麽？是要推翻共和国吗？当然，那麽多人的行动，总有极少数人混在人群里面攻打解放军，但那是一种混乱情况。北京市不少流氓、流窜犯、盲流分子乘机闹事，那是完全可能的。难道能把这些行爲说成是广大市民、学生的行爲吗？这个问题到现在应当很清楚了。

[English Excerpt from Washington Post]

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.