«Le massacre de Tiananmen, un mythe»
C'est l'un des titres accrocheurs du China Daily. Même en 2011, il est rarissime qu'un média officiel chinois évoque les événements de juin 1989. Sauf quand il s'agit de les nier. Voici l'article (en anglais):
"Tiananmen massacre a myth
Gregory Clark, a former Australian diplomat who specializesin Chinese affairs, wrote an article in Japan Times recently, saying theWestern media forged the so-called Tiananmen myth. Excerpts: The recentWikiLeaks release of cables has helped finally kill the myth of an allegedmassacre in Beijing's Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3-4, 1989. But howdid that myth come to exist in the first place?
Several impartial Western observers in the square at thetime, including a Reuters correspondent and a Spanish TV crew, have longinsisted, and written, that they saw no sign of any massacre.
So whence the story of a Tiananmen Square massacre? A luridBBC report at the time was one important source. Other reporters may then havefelt compelled to chime in even though none of them, including the BBC, hadactually been in the square.
The best expose of what happened can be found in a detailed1998 report from the Columbia University School of Journalism titled "TheMyth of Tiananmen and the Price of a Passive Press". Prepared by JayMathews, a former Washington Post Beijing bureau chief, it notes how theWestern media's pack instinct created the false massacre story.
Mathews traces much of the problem to a Hong Kong newspaperthat immediately, after the 1989 disturbance, ran a long story under the nameof an alleged student protester. He claimed to have been present at the squarewhen "troops arrived with machine guns to mow down students in thehundreds".
Distributed around the globe, the article was seen as finalproof that the original BBC and other massacre reports were accurate. But thealleged author of that report was never located, and for good reason: Thearticle was almost certainly planted - one of the many black informationoperations.
Black propaganda was, according to an Australian researcherinto the topic, Adam Henry, "the strategic placement of lies and falserumors", while gray propaganda was "the production of slanted, butnot fictitious, non-attributable information".
According to Henry, it played a key role in helping justifyor downplay one truly dreadful postwar massacre in Asia, namely the slaughterof up to a half a million leftwing Indonesians in 1965.
The fact is that for seven weeks the Beijing government had tolerated a student protest occupation of its iconic central square despite the disruption. Some then leaders even tried to negotiate compromises, which someo f the student leaders later regretted having rejected.
When eventually troops were sent in to clear the square, the demonstrations were already ending. But by this time the Western media were there in force, keen to grab any story they could.
Ironically, the Western media, which barely noticed the massacres in certain countries, still go out of their way to paint a falsepicture of "a brutal Chinese government willing to march in and massacre its protesting students in the hundreds, if not thousands".
An April 17 review in this newspaper of Philip Cunningham'sbook, Tiananmen Moon: Inside the Chinese Student Uprising , - whoseblurb on Amazon still manages to talk about a Tiananmen Square massacre -provides a clue.
It quotes one of the student leaders, Chai Ling, as having said that creating a "sea of blood" might be the only way to shakethe government. If frustrated students leaving the square carried out those petrol bomb attacks on troops, then the anger of the government becomes a lot more understandable. But I doubt whether any of those responsible for theoriginal phony story will get round to details like that.
Tiananmen remains the classic example of the shallowness and bias in most Western media reporting, and of governmental black informationoperations seeking to control those media. China is too important to be avictim of this nonsense"
Ce texte s'appuie sur un article japonais qui lui même s'appuie sur une dépêche wikileaks rapportant les propos d'un diplomate australien. Pour résumer, en dépit du titre, il ne nie pas la répression sanglante mais dit qu'elle s'est déroulée principalement dans les rues de Pékin et non sur la place. Ce qui ne change pas grand chose, si l'on sort du symbole. Sauf à recueillir les témoignages des familles des victimes, à entendre les murmures d'officiels à la retraite de l'APL parlant de regrets, il est impossible de connaître l'ampleur du massacre; le gouvernement se refusant à le rendre public. Mais le nier, c'est refuser l'Histoire qui rencontre des échos vingt ans plus tard. Car désormais la Chine dépense plus pour garantir sa stabilité intérieure (police, police armée du peuple, swat, chengguan, baoan et autres) que pour protéger ses frontières. (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national-news/2011/03/06/293553/Chinas-internal.htm)
Le Club est l'espace de libre expression des abonnés de Mediapart. Ses contenus n'engagent pas la rédaction.