NBC分析：香港占中是否將成為另一個天安門？
撰文：吉姆·馬塞達（Jim Maceda）
1989年天安門事件的陰影似乎正逐漸籠罩在香港沸沸揚揚、訴求民主的“雨傘革命”。
香港特首斷然拒絕下台，警方則警告示威者若占領或封鎖更多政府機關將做出“果斷回應”，這不禁令人想起25年前北京殘暴鎮壓事件的前奏。那麼，這場在香港街頭颳起的民主風暴是否同樣會因中國軍隊和坦克的襲擊而止息，並演變成數百人橫死街頭的血腥慘劇？
這兩起學運之間有一些驚人的相似之處。
關於這兩場抗議行動發生得均不是時候。聰明、口齒伶俐且理想化的學生似乎不太可能從北京強大的國家主義領導者緊握的手中奪得半點民主讓步，無論是當年的鄧小平或今日的習近平。
兩起示威運動開始皆僅有數千人參與，但在政府的強硬回應下更多民眾憤而走向街頭，使抗議規模瞬間擴大。在1989年4月，激起示威者反抗意識的是一篇尖酸刻薄的“人民日報”頭版社論，其中強烈譴責該學運是反政府的“叛亂行為"。隔天，將近10萬多名學生走上天安門廣場。
在香港，這場自1997年由英國殖民地回歸中國以來規模最大的抗爭行動，使民眾義憤填膺並讓抗議人數激增的是防暴警察所使用的催淚瓦斯和胡椒噴霧。
北京和香港當局都選擇採用“等待消磨”戰術，希望學生最終會感到疲憊不堪而回家。
在天安門事件中這招幾乎快要奏效。抗議來到第三週，宏偉的廣場已佈滿餃子皮、寶特瓶和其他垃圾，公廁甚至滿溢而出。厭倦抗議口號和歌曲的學生們也成群離開了。
接著有位學生領袖發起絕食抗議，另一位決定用泡沫塑料和混凝紙漿建造一座33英尺高的“民主女神”雕像。第四週結束前，超過30萬名重新打起精神的抗議者再度將廣場擠得水洩不通。
 |
| 1989年5月30日北京天安門廣場上，一名學生正在自由女神像（Statue of Liberty）的複製品“民主女神”的脖子上塗上石膏。（A student plasters the neck of the "Goddess of Democracy," a replica of the Statue of Liberty, in Beijing's Tiananmen Square on May 30, 1989.） |
鄧小平宣布戒嚴，並派遣解放軍進入廣場將抗議人士強制驅離。
時間快轉25年後，另一篇嚴厲尖刻的社論出現於《人民日報》上。上週三，該報嚴詞批評佔中行動破壞了香港的穩定和繁榮，並表示這將會為當地民眾招來“災難性後果”。
儘管如此，我們仍有許多理由可以認為，1989年6月3、4日的噩夢將不會在香港重演。
1989年時，中共領導層分裂為兩派，一邊傾向於同情學生，另一邊則是害怕內戰的強硬派。此外，當時的示威者要求往往不明確，有時甚至是矛盾的。最後一點是，1989年的北京具力封鎖與外界聯繫的能力。
這與當今局勢大相逕庭。
香港示威者團結一致以兩個具體訴求為中心──北京任命的領導人梁振英下台，以及在無政府干預下自由選舉特首。
另一方面，北京政府以習近平為中心，他亦明白任何對香港示威者的武力鎮壓都將於全球實況轉播。是故香港與北京當局將被迫尋找妥協之道。
“除非情勢混亂，否則我們不會出動防暴警察”，路透社（Reuters）引述來自香港政府的匿名情報，“我們必須以和平方式處理，即使此行動將持續長達數週或數月。”
著有《富強之路：從慈禧開始的長征》一書的John Delury教授亦同意天安門慘劇不太可能於香港再次發生。
“我還沒有那麼悲觀認為這場抗爭將在大規模的國家武力下結束，”他說，“話雖如此，我也看不到妥協點，我無法想像[共產]黨會讓步。”
目前的情勢有如刀鋒邊緣，而接下來的發展可能取決於示威者與香港領導人的會晤。
1989年的5月下旬，天安門廣場上許多身心交瘁的學生拒絕相信他們的生命受到威脅，仍半開玩笑地說“民主女神”給了他們力量。那時，抗議將進入第七週，也是血腥鎮壓的數天前。
Analysis: Will Hong Kong Protests End Like Tiananmen Square Did?
BY JIM MACEDA
The 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is casting a shadow on pro-democracy "Umbrella Revolution" protests roiling Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s leader has defied calls to step down and police are warning of “a firm response” if the demonstrators occupy or block more government buildings, evoking memories of the lead-up to Beijing’s brutal crackdown 25 years ago. So is the turmoil unfolding in Hong Kong’s streets likely to end in a similar charge of Chinese troops and tanks, and the resulting bloodbath that left hundreds dead?
There are some striking similarities between the two movements.
For both protests, the timing was bad. Smart, articulate and idealistic students seem unlikely to wrench democratic concession from the hands of strong and nationalistic leaders in Beijing, be they Deng Xiaoping back then or Xi Jinping today.
Both demonstrations began modestly with a few thousand participants, but erupted in angry reaction to the government’s hard-line response. In April 1989, it was a caustic, front-page editorial in the “People’s Daily” that chastised the movement as an anti-government “revolt” that antagonized the protesters. The next day about a 100,000 more students marched to Tiananmen Square.
In Hong Kong, tear gas and pepper spray fired by riot police on the biggest protests since the former British colony was handed back to China in 1997 outraged many and swelled the protesters’ numbers.
In both Beijing and Hong Kong, authorities opted for a "wait them out" strategy, expecting that students would tire and eventually go home.
In Tiananmen, that almost worked. By the third week, the massive square had filled up with dumpling wrappers, water bottles and other garbage. Public toilets were overflowing. Students, bored with their protest chants and songs, were leaving in throngs.
Then one student leader launched a hunger strike. Another decided to build a 33-foot-high "Goddess of Democracy" statue out of foam and papier-mache. By the end of week four, more than 300,000 re-energized protesters packed the square.
Deng declared martial law and was about to secure the square with the People’s Liberation Army.
Fast-forward 25 years and another scathing editorial appears in the People’s Daily. On Wednesday, the newspaper blamed Hong Kong protests for damaging the city’s stability and prosperity, saying they would have “disastrous consequences” on the local people.
Still, there are many reasons to think that Hong Kongers can avoid the nightmare of June 3 and 4, 1989.
In 1989, the communist leadership was split between those who sympathized with the students and hardliners who feared civil war. In addition, the protesters’ demands were often unclear and sometimes contradictory. Finally, Beijing in 1989 had the ability to pull the plug on communications with the outside world.
It’s very different today.
Hong Kong protesters are united around two specific demands — the resignation of their Beijing-appointed leader, Leung Chun-ying, and the ability to choose that leader without government intervention.
Meanwhile in Beijing, the government is united around Xi, who knows that any crackdown on Hong Kong protesters will be seen by the world in real time. So the pressure is on officials in Hong Kong and Beijing to find a compromise.
“Unless there’s some chaotic situation, we won’t send in riot police,” an unidentified Hong Kong government source was quoted as saying by Reuters. “We have to deal with it peacefully, even if it lasts weeks or months."
John Delury, a professor and author of “Wealth & Power: China’s Long March to the Twenty-First Century," agrees that Tiananmen history is unlikely to repeat itself in Hong Kong.
“I am still not so pessimistic to think this will end in massive state force," he said. "But that said, I don’t see the compromise position, and I can’t envisage the [Communist] Party backing down."
The situation is on a knife’s edge and what happens next may depend on meetings between protesters and Hong Kong’s leader.
