Opinion - When even remembering is a crime: China's Tiananmen Square massacre, 36 years on
The hand — a painting, not literal rotting flesh — is the artwork of the Gao Brothers titled, 'Memory 1989' or 'Pierced Memory,' a memorial honoring the victims of the Tiananmen Square Massacre that took place 36 years ago today.
Like that piece of art, Gao Zhen, one half of the artist duo, sits locked away in a prison cell in Beijing, awaiting sentencing on charges of 'slandering China's heroes and martyrs.' All for drawing attention through art to what Beijing has been trying to erase from history for nearly four decades — the moment when those who fought for freedom were shot down by state bullets.
On June 4, 1989, the Chinese Communist Party answered a generation's call for reform, first with silence, then steel, crushing not just bodies but the very idea of political possibility. What began as a tribute to reformist leader Hu Yaobang's death blossomed into a peaceful student-led movement calling for dialogue: press freedom, transparency, anti-corruption measures, and modest democratic reforms.
It became one of the largest acts of civil resistance in modern Chinese history, reverberating across 400 cities. At the heart of it all, more than a million people filled Tiananmen Square, their hunger strikes, banners, and speeches illuminating a fragile hope that the system might bend.
Instead, the system broke them. Martial law was declared at midnight.
In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, some Chinese leaders feared Tiananmen would leave an indelible blemish on the country's history, a lasting memory of the free world that would exclude China from the global order. The fear of isolation never really materialized. At the time, many Western policymakers believed that market reforms would eventually usher in political liberalization.
In the years since, the Chinese Communist Party has been debunking the assumption that capitalism necessarily breeds democracy. It has carved out a space on the global stage to accommodate its 'China model' and infiltrate democratic institutions. Far from being a red line others dare to cross, Tiananmen revealed just how much the world was willing to overlook in exchange for market access and profit. Authoritarian regimes have learned they don't need to come out with tanks and guns blazing to debilitate national movements of resistance.
The Chinese Communists do it more 'discreetly' now. Like taking quiet but great measures to suppress creative dissent, a form of speech that is filled with illusion and thus difficult to censor, and powerfully evocative, and thus difficult to sanitize.
Sanmu Chan, a performance artist and friend of Gao who has continuously posted on Facebook each day since his friend was detained, has faced massive censorship in Hong Kong. In 2024, he was detained for writing '8964' in the air and miming the act of pouring wine onto the ground to symbolize mourning for those massacred during the Tiananmen Square protests.
In Hong Kong, Beijing has deployed legal instruments in place of tanks, replacing open violence with legal warfare. What was once a sanctuary for memory is now a place of fear and enforced silence. The annual June 4 vigil at Victoria Park, once the world's largest public remembrance of Tiananmen, has been outlawed and its organizers imprisoned.
From Tehran to Moscow, authoritarian leaders across the globe have increasingly employed vaguely worded laws to erase inconvenient history. In Russia, 'memory laws' ban criticism of the Soviet past. In Bangladesh, the rebranded Digital Security Act continues to jail critics for 'hurting national sentiment.' And in Iran, mourning itself became rebellion: on the anniversary of Mahsa Jina Amini's death, her father was detained to prevent a graveside vigil; families of other slain protesters were arrested under vague charges of 'propaganda against the state.'
On the other hand, authoritarian states are keen to dictate what should be remembered. Indonesia's government introduced a proposal to name the country's former dictator, Suharto, a national hero despite his record of anti-communist purges that left more than 500,000 dead.
The lesson from Tiananmen hasn't been caution, it's coordination. Mass repression, they've realized, need not isolate a regime; it can consolidate alliances.
They saw China suffer no lasting consequences for slaughtering its people and how quickly the world resumed business. Now, they are doubling down: partnering not only in repression, but in its global legitimation, so that the next Tiananmen elicits not outrage but a shrug. From voting down a United Nations debate on the Uyghur genocide to shielding Iran from accountability over its crackdown on women protesters from marshalling authoritarian allies to pass Human Rights Council resolutions that shift focus away from civil liberties to advancing the 'non-interference' doctrine, the world's dictatorial regimes are coordinating to resist democratic norms and deflect any scrutiny of their abuses.
With Beijing's shift from authoritarian apprentice to global enabler, autocrats are now proactively offering to enforce one another's repressive techniques.
However, behind the projection of strength lies a quieter truth: authoritarians govern with deep paranoia. Authoritarianism lacks the feedback loops that allow it to democratically correct itself in open societies. Without the ability to trust its citizens or to distinguish loyalty with silence, it relies on excessive surveillance to preempt any challenges to its rule, and even then, it's failing. The sudden eruption of the White Paper protests during mainland China's zero-COVID era and the unexpected unfurling of pro-democracy banners in Chengdu show that dissent is still possible, even under extreme restrictions. This overreliance on mass surveillance will blind the Chinese Communist Party to genuine social undercurrents that will disrupt its legitimacy as a ruling party.
While the regime refines repression, people refine resistance. There is a limit to what software can suppress — and suppression breeds creativity. When authorities silenced slogans, protesters raised blank signs; when images of state violence were scrubbed from the Internet, diaspora artists, technologists, and archivists reassembled them through AI, immersive installations, and blockchain repositories.
While the streets of Hong Kong may now fall silent on June 4, Tiananmen's memory has not vanished — it has gone global. From candlelight vigils in Taipei and Vancouver to art installations in Berlin and blockchain memorials hosted on GitHub and IPFS, young members of the diaspora are transforming remembrance into resistance. Even under erasure, memory adapts, resisting disappearance not through defiance alone, but through reinvention. What drove the protesters of 1989 — the demand for dignity, truth, and political voice — now pulses through a generation born after the massacre but unwilling to let it be buried.
Attitudes are changing, and the youth are watching.
Elisha Maldonado is the director of communications at the Human Rights Foundation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How many more Gazan children need to die of hunger before the U.S. takes a stand?
Imagine an army captured the city of Philadelphia, fenced it in, closed its waterfront and opened just a few gates for supply trucks. Now imagine the army bombed Philadelphia's hospitals, razed land used to grow food, barred fishing and closed those gates to all but an intermittent trickle of aid. If you saw news footage of children dying of malnutrition and read U.N. warnings of mass starvation, would you doubt those reports? If the military blocking the food trucks was using U.S. public money to buy weapons, would you question the need to stop the flow of arms and demand that the military let aid in? Since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israeli civilians, which constituted crimes against humanity, Israeli authorities have used starvation as a weapon of war in varying degrees, intermittently blocking all aid to the Gaza Strip, which resembles Philadelphia in size and population. Since Israel ended the aid shutdown in May, the government has permitted supplies to enter the territory in quantities catastrophically insufficient for its approximately 2 million residents. The Israeli military also razed cropland, banned fishing, destroyed hospitals and water infrastructure and cut electricity, rendering people almost entirely dependent on the obstructed external supplies. An estimated thousands or tens of thousands of people have died from complications related to the supply blockage, including malnutrition, dehydration and disease. Aid agencies are begging to be allowed to deliver food sitting in nearby warehouses or waiting just outside Gaza. Israel has controlled the movement of goods into Gaza since 1967 and, in the 1990s, built fences and walls around it, making residents dependent on the Israeli military opening crossings, in order to eat. What we are seeing play out now in recent months is weaponization of this control, with increasingly deadly results. The Israeli government denies famine or aid obstruction and blames the United Nations and Hamas for any shortages. Israeli officials accuse aid agencies of 'distributing lies,' say restrictions are needed to prevent diversion by Hamas, and argue that because tons of U.N. aid is still on the Gaza side of crossings, waiting to be distributed, there's no need to allow more in. On Friday, Reuters revealed the existence of a U.S. Agency for International Development report finding no evidence of systematic Hamas diversion of U.S.-funded aid. Official Israeli misinformation is not particularly sophisticated, but it's repetitive, relentless and reliant on Western dehumanization of Palestinians to help render the information Palestinians convey — with words and with images and videos they share of their emaciated bodies — suspect. Only racism — the belief that some people's lives are worth less than others, and that some people's statements are inherently unreliable — can explain American susceptibility to Israel's denial of starvation in Gaza. If you block food to a besieged population, nearly half of whom are children, what do you think will happen? Thursday's statement by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff that, in the absence of a ceasefire deal, he'll explore alternative options to 'try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza' would be laughable given the billions of dollars of U.S. support for the army that's blocking the food — if it didn't involve 57 children documented by the Gaza Ministry of Health to have died of malnutrition in just over two months. There are two things the United States government should urgently do to end U.S. complicity in the mass starvation. First, the U.S. must tell the Israeli military to open all crossings into Gaza, end onerous bureaucratic restrictions and allow aid groups to flood the strip with food. On average since March 2, just 28 international aid trucks have entered Gaza daily, compared with 500 total trucks per day before the war. Limited additional quantities have entered via the U.S.- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), but reaching their distribution sites is dangerous or impossible for most people in Gaza. That severity of the food shortage makes safe and orderly delivery to civilians nearly impossible. Out of 1,090 truckloads of aid collected from the crossings last month by veteran international organizations, all but 43 were looted or 'self-distributed' by hungry crowds. According to the U.N., the Israeli military has failed to approve safe delivery routes, mechanisms and timing for truck delivery. This, combined with the desperation that starvation creates, is the main reason it's been so hard to distribute the little aid that has entered Gaza — that's why there is some aid in Gaza still waiting to be distributed. If Israeli authorities allow unrestricted aid into Gaza, subject only to physical inspection and credible U.N. assurances against diversion, and cooperate with the U.N. on delivery, supplies will reach the level at which safe, dignified distribution will become possible. Second, the U.S. must end support for dangerous, militarized distribution schemes like the GHF and instruct the Israeli military to resume cooperation with the United Nations and the other principled, impartial aid groups. Hundreds of people have been fatally shot by Israeli forces or crushed in a stampede after walking for miles to reach the four highly militarized GHF distribution points that have replaced the hundreds of community distribution sites aid groups ran until Israeli authorities banned them from bringing in food for household distribution. Workarounds to parachute small quantities of food into Gaza were ineffective in the past and would be even less effective now, given the scope of the need and the desperation. The Israeli government is responsible for starving Palestinians in Gaza, but U.S. backing makes it complicit, too. How many more children need to die of hunger before the U.S. government admits that without food, human beings will die — and that U.S. economic, military and diplomatic support should not be used as a tool in mass starvation? This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariffs will drive up U.S. prices even with Trump trade deals, experts say
The new normal for U.S. tariffs on foreign goods starts at 15%. Even as President Trump seeks to forge new terms of trade with Japan, the European Union and other global economic partners, he is raising the floor for tariffs to their highest level in decades. Speaking at an AI summit on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said "we'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15% and 50%," conditioning the lower rate on countries opening their economies to the U.S. The White House has said sharply higher tariffs could take effect on dozens of countries as soon as Aug. 1 unless they ink new trade deals. The Trump administration has a separate negotiating timeline with China, which faces an Aug. 12 deadline for an agreement. As these new rules of international commerce take shape, companies across a range of industries are emphasizing that higher tariffs translate into higher operational costs — and higher prices for consumers. For example, Nestlé on Thursday said it was considering hiking prices for candy bars and other products as tariffs threaten to eat into the food company's profit margins. The same day, Italian fashion brand Moncler said it has already hiked prices for its apparel to offset additional tariff-related costs. And General Electric said this week that proposed U.S. tariffs, should they take effect, would cost the company around $500 million in 2025, noting that it would move to offset those taxes through "cost controls and pricing actions." Orange juice importer Johanna Foods has gone a step further, this week filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its proposed 50% tariff on Brazil, which the New Jersey company said would seriously hurt its business and force it to hike product prices by up to 25%. The White House disputes that higher U.S. tariffs will drive up costs for businesses and consumers. "The administration has consistently maintained that the cost of tariffs will be borne by foreign exporters who rely on access to the American economy, the world's biggest and best consumer market," White House spokesman Kush Desai told CBS MoneyWatch in a statement. Desai also pointed to a recent analysis by the White House's Council of Economic Advisers that he said shows import prices falling this year. Price hikes not "instantaneous" Economists warn that consumers should brace for higher prices on a range of goods, from leather products and clothing to electronics and automobiles, later this year. "Up to now there has been only limited passthrough from tariffs into final consumer prices, but we still expect the impact to gradually mount in the second half of this year," Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist with Capital Economics, told investors in a research note. "Now that the Trump administration is concluding deals that would see the tariff rate facing most trading partners settling at between 15% and 20%, with even higher rates levied on Chinese imports, we suspect retailers will be forced to finally raise the prices paid by consumers." Inflation in the early part of 2025 remained fairly contained. That's because many companies and consumers accelerated their purchases of imported goods to avoid the risk of paying more if, or when, steep new tariffs take effect. Meanwhile, in the short-term, sharply higher prices are unlikely across the board, according to trade experts. "When you open up the hood of that, it's not going to be even across all categories of spending," Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale, told CBS MoneyWatch. "It's categories of spending where we import more that are going to be more sensitive to tariffs." But over the longer term, an increased baseline tariff, coupled wtih higher levies on individual countries, is projected to drive up U.S. prices by 2% over the next two years, according to an analysis from the Yale Budget Lab. "This isn't an instantaneous, 'We wake up the next morning and the world is different,'" Tedeschi added. But as the new U.S. tariff regime becomes embedded in global supply chains, some import-heavy product categories could see especially sharp price increases, he said. Specifically, foreign-made leather shoes and handbags, along with apparel, could see prices spike by at least 40%, while the cost of electronics could jump more than 20%, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Johnson says Jeffrey Epstein files controversy is not a hoax Idaho murders documents released after Bryan Kohberger is sentenced to life in prison The Sentencing of Bryan Kohberger | "48 Hours" Podcast

an hour ago
Is Elon Musk to blame for Tesla's struggles? Experts weigh in
Tesla, the electric carmaker led by Elon Musk, suffered a sharp drop in profits over a recent three-month period as car sales slowed and tariffs hiked costs, the company said this week. Shareholders envisioned a different outcome when Tesla stock surged more than 50% in the aftermath of the November 2024 election of President Donald Trump, then a close ally of Musk. Since a recent peak in December, the majority of those gains have been erased. Musk, the company's chief executive and the world's richest person, draws attention due in part to his outspoken presence on social media and divisive stint in the White House. The recent struggles at Tesla have coincided with increased competition in the electric vehicle (EV) industry, posing a question for analysts: Is Musk partially to blame? Experts who spoke to ABC News acknowledged the surge of EV competition and credited Musk with pushing the company into potential growth areas like humanoid robots and self-driving taxis, the latter of which are being tested in Austin, Texas. The company's downturn in part reflects a transition from EVs to those new products, which have yet to generate meaningful revenue, they added. Still, the experts said, Musk bears some of the blame for the company's difficulty fending off other EV makers as well as a delayed rollout of alternate products. They also pointed to losses suffered as result of some of Trump's policies, which Musk struggled to mitigate while serving in the administration. "Musk is CEO -- the buck stops with him. As a CEO in a competitive environment, he's the one who has to have the vision and lead the troops," David Meier, a senior investment analyst at The Motley Fool, told ABC News. "But there's a lot going on in the world that impacts Tesla's business." Tesla did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment. Speaking on an earnings call on Wednesday, Musk said the company faces "a few rough quarters ahead." He added that, ultimately, humanoid robots and driverless taxis would make Tesla "the most valuable company in the world by far." The company's profits fell 16% over a three-month period ending in June that overlapped with the end of Musk's tenure in the White House and his ensuing public clash with Trump, an earnings release on Wednesday showed. Total revenue decreased by 12% from one year earlier, to $22.4 billion, while revenue derived from car sales dropped 16% over the second quarter of 2025 compared to a year ago, the earnings showed. In a statement, Tesla touted a "strong balance sheet," but acknowledged a "sustained uncertain macroeconomic environment resulting from shifting tariffs." The company also faces "unclear impacts from changes to fiscal policy and political sentiment," Tesla said. The company has faced heightened competition from domestic and foreign carmakers rolling out electric vehicles. Chinese EV-maker BYD outperformed Tesla in total car sales for the first time ever last year. BYD vehicles are essentially unavailable in the U.S. due to sky-high tariffs on Chinese EVs. "Part of it is outside of Tesla's control," Seth Goldstein, an analyst who studies the EV sector at research firm Morningstar, told ABC News. Goldstein cited an apparent dropoff in sales earlier this year among consumers awaiting a refresh of the company's popular Model Y. However, Goldstein added, the company has been slow to release an affordable EV model in response to a flurry of low-cost options among its rivals, which include China's BYD and traditional carmakers like Nissan and Hyundai. "Looking at Elon Musk, he's the leader of Tesla. It's fair to wonder if he was a little distracted with his political action in the first half of the year and that caused some production to slip, including production of an affordable model," Goldstein said. Musk's position at the White House, which ended in May, appeared to yield few benefits for Tesla. The company faces a pinch from several Trump policies, including the end of tax credits for EV buyers, the nixing of regulatory credits purchased from Tesla by other firms, as well as tariffs on cars and car parts. The CEO's political role also set off demonstrations at Tesla dealerships worldwide in protest of his effort to slash government spending as leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "It was a dark chapter and investors are glad to put it in the rear-view mirror," Dan Ives, a managing director of equity research at the investment firm Wedbush and a longtime Tesla bull, told ABC News. As car sales have slowed, Musk has touted a future autonomous car service, dubbed robotaxis, as a growth area for the business. Last month, Tesla launched a limited version of what it claimed is a self-driving taxi service in Austin, Texas. The rollout marked a milestone for the company's self-driving taxi aspirations, but limitations placed on the vehicles and a series of apparent miscues suggest the technology remains far from wide adoption, some analysts previously told ABC News. Musk has also touted humanoid robots as a future growth area for Tesla. While the product remains in an early phase, Musk expects the company to eventually produce more than a million robots each year, he said on this week's earnings call. Goldstein, of Morningstar, applauded Musk's effort to move Tesla away from the highly competitive auto market toward nascent tech sectors. "Musk's long-term goal is to transition from an automaker to an AI robotics company -- that's still on track and making progress," Goldstein said. "That's where it has greater opportunities to grow a competitive advantage." The ultimate outcome for Tesla's forthcoming products remains unclear but Musk has earned the benefit of the doubt, according to some analysts.