中共於兩年前簽下世界人權公約，保證尊重人權，而對於政治的異議份子，亦得加以保障，可是只在一紙所謂“違反國家法律與安全的法規”，這些人權公約就成了“廢料”，最近「六四天安門」密件的披露，就明白指出中共寡頭領導的決策過程，其間所缺乏的就是民意的檢視。
在民主國家，這種學生示威遊行，只會動用到警察，不會以軍隊、槍炮、坦克車來鎮壓，台灣現在民意大得不得了，立法院自比民意中心，權限無限，如果放諸大陸，台灣的立法院與台灣百姓還敢如此 “猖狂”？以下是國外報導之部份。
New Window on Tiananmen Square Crackdown
3 Decision Makers Li Peng, left, pushed to use force on students in June 1989. Deng Xiaoping, center, was persuaded. Zhao Ziyang's calls for restraint were ignored.
誰主張派兵鎮壓學生？
Throughout the day on May 17, 1989, with student-led protests occupying Beijing's Tiananmen Square and paralyzing much of the country, several of China's most powerful figures dropped by the home of the most powerful of them all, Deng Xiaoping, to discuss what to do.
鄧小平說：假如事件一直發展下來，我們就會被軟禁。
“If things continue like this, we could even end up under house arrest,”Deng warned his old comrades, according to a book of documents that its editors describe as classified Communist Party archives smuggled out of China. “After thinking long and hard about this, I've concluded that we should bring in the People's Liberation Army and declare martial law in Beijing.”
現在就依學生要求政治改革，還是開始鎮壓，兩方人馬起了爭執，終於少數不敵多數，鷹派抬頭，主要是大部份的領導害怕失控。
The documents, which number in the hundreds and have been deemed authentic by several experts, appear in“The Tiananmen Papers,”which will be published on Monday. [Excerpts, Page A6.] They depict how China's rulers decided to order a military crackdown that in June 1989 killed hundreds and put China's present leadership in place. They also suggest how deeply divided the top leaders were and how close the country came to embracing political change rather than crushing it.
Provided to American scholars by a shadowy Chinese figure who says he represents people in the Communist Party favoring more rapid change, the materials paint a vivid picture of the leadership during the Tiananmen crisis. While largely confirming impressions of how the crackdown came about, the documents detail internal arguments, the fears of the elderly leaders and the ways officials used those fears.
Inevitably, a central question is how certain one can be of the authenticity of the documents, which were provided as computer printouts. They include Politburo minutes, army and intelligence reports and memorandums of meetings that Deng held with his comrades.
Several times in recent decades, Chinese documents initially hailed as important were later discredited. For example, a supposed inside account of the 1971 fall of Mao's designated successor, Lin Biao, was published to great interest in 1983 but is now of dubious credibility.
But in interviews, the scholars who have pored over the Tiananmen documents and helped translate and edit them? and who have intensely questioned the Chinese man who handed them over? have expressed the firm conviction that the material is authentic. Even so, they said, they are less certain that it accurately captures the reality of the period.
“I believe that the documents are authentic,”said James R. Lilley, the American ambassador during the protests and one of few experts besides the volume's editors to have examined the materials. “But I don't rule out the possibility that people might have played with the language to score certain points. In addition, the documents themselves contain material that is not true. For example, the reports on the C.I.A. are exaggerated and inflammatory to appeal to the paranoia of the Chinese leadership.” The documents indicate that the officials who formally held the top posts? the members of the Politburo Standing Committee? were split two to two, with one abstention, over whether to use force to end the protests. Without a majority, the hard- liners lacked standing to call in the troops.
But, according to the documents, the deadlock was broken by Deng and his octogenarian comrades, who had retired from most of their official posts but still held ultimate power. In this sense, the papers suggest an important conclusion, surmised before but now emerging more forcefully: that had it not been for Deng and the other elders, the moderates might have prevailed in the power struggle, averting bloodshed and inaugurating a period of greater political openness and economic liberalization.
有人說這天安門密件是真的，亦有人說這是假的，可是不論如何，「天安門屠殺事件」則是千真萬確，以後台胞千萬不要在大陸搞示威遊行才好，否則“嘿！嘿！嘿！”為何天安門報導要在美國發表？在中國大陸發表死路一條，於香港發表，亦在“一國”之下，於台灣發表，奸細太多，於新加坡發表，恐不敢言，故先洋再中，於民主強國找立足之地，這個人真行！
