User:Ohconfucius/sandbox

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Charred person seated on the ground with legs crossed and hands in his lap Charred person seated on the ground with legs crossed and hands in his lap
Location	Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China
Date	23 January 2001 14:30 (UTC+8)
Attack type	self-immolation
Deaths	2
Injured	3

Ohconfucius/sandbox
Simplified Chinese	天安门自焚事件
Traditional Chinese	天安門自焚事件
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Tiān'ānmén Zìfén Shìjiàn

The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing, on the eve of Chinese New Year on 23 January 2001. The incident is disputed: the official Chinese press agency, Xinhua News Agency, claimed that five members of Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement, set themselves on fire to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. The Falun Dafa Information Center claimed the incident was a hoax staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners; they further stated that Falun Gong teachings explicitly forbid killing and violence, including suicide.

According to Chinese state media, the five people were part of a group of seven who had travelled to the square together. One of them, Liu Chunling, died at Tiananmen under disputed circumstances and another, her 12-year-old daughter, Liu Siying, died in hospital several weeks later; three survived. A CNN crew present at the scene witnessed the five setting themselves ablaze and had just started filming when police intervened and detained the crew. The incident received international news coverage, and video footage was broadcast later in the People's Republic of China by China Central Television (CCTV). The coverage in the CCTV showed images of Liu Siying burning and interviews with the others in which they stated their belief that self-immolation would lead them to paradise, a belief that is not supported by Falun Gong’s teachings. Two weeks after the event, the Washington Post published an investigation into the identity of the two self-immolation victims who were killed, and found that “no one ever saw [them] practice Falun Gong.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW) believed the incident was among one of the most difficult stories for reporters in Beijing at the time to report on because of a lack of independent information available. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, the self-immolators "new or unschooled" practitioners, and other views. Journalist Danny Schechter notes that the Chinese government's claims about the incident remain unsubstantiated by outside parties, because no independent investigation has been allowed.

The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong, and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group. Posters, leaflets and videos were produced detailing the supposed detrimental effects of Falun Gong practice, and regular anti-Falun Gong classes were scheduled in schools to expose the "dangers" of the practice. According to Falun Gong websites, the number of Falun Gong adherents tortured to death rose from 245 in 2000 to 419 in 2001.

Background

See also: History of Falun Gong

Falun Gong, a new religious movement based on the meditative practice of qigong, a form of physical and mental training, was founded in the People's Republic of China by Li Hongzhi in 1992 and by the late-1990s had attracted tens of millions of followers. When its teachings, influenced by Taoism and Buddhism, were denounced as unscientific by skeptic figures such as He Zuoxiu, practitioners took to peacefully picketing editorial offices to challenge what they believed was unfair coverage. Following one such demonstration in Tianjin where a number of practitioners were arrested, more than ten thousand practitioners congregated outside Communist Party of China headquarters in Zhongnanhai on 25 April 1999. That evening, then-Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin issued a decision to eradicate Falun Gong. On 22 July 1999, the ban on Falun Gong was officially announced by the Public Security Bureau.

The suppression campaign that followed was characterized by a "massive propaganda campaign" intended to justify the suppression by portraying Falun Gong as superstitious, dangerous, and incompatible with the official ideology. Tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents were imprisoned, and by the end of 1999, reports began to emerge of torture in custody. According to Ian Johnson, authorities were given broad mandates to eliminate Falun Gong and pursue the coercive conversion of practitioners, but were not scrutinized for the methods they used. This resulted in the widespread use of torture, sometimes resulting in death.

Following the ban, Tiananmen Square, which has been the central point for several major historical protests, was one of the prime locations where Falun Gong practitioners protested the ban. The Falun Gong protests were characterized as peaceful "appeals," and typically involved raising banners in defense of the group, or staging meditation sit-ins. According to Time, a Falun Gong website editorial instructed followers to step up demonstrations, "especially in Tiananmen Square" By 25 April 2000, one year later, more than 30,000 practitioners had been arrested. Seven hundred Falun Gong followers were arrested during a demonstration in the Square on 1 January 2001.

The incident

On 23 January 2001, the eve of Chinese New Year, five people on Tiananmen Square poured gasoline over their clothes and set themselves on fire; another two people were prevented from igniting the gasoline.

Charred remains of a person lying on the ground

Charred remains of Liu Chunling after the incident

A CNN film crew, who were there on a routine check for a possible Falun Gong protest, observed a man sitting down on the pavement north-east of the Monument to the People's Heroes at the centre of the square. He proceeded to pour gasoline over himself and set himself ablaze. Police officers on the square noticed what was happening, quickly approached the man and extinguished the flames. Shortly afterwards, another four people on the square set themselves alight. The CNN crew was filming these events when military police stepped in and detained the crew. The authorities then put out the flames consuming the other four people's clothing. A police van came to collect the badly burnt man, and two ambulances arrived almost 25 minutes later to collect the other four. The square was completely closed, and security was tight the next day, the most important of the traditional Chinese holidays; police monitored public access to the square for the New Year celebrations, had fire extinguishers ready, and prevented Falun Gong members from opening banners.

Of the five people who set themselves alight, one, Liu Chunling, died at the scene; another, her 12-year-old daughter, Liu Siying, died in Beijing hospital two months later, in March; the other three were left severely disfigured.

People involved

The official news agency, Xinhua, gave the participants' details as follows:

Romanised name	Chinese name	Image	Description	Outcome
Wang Jindong	王進東	Passport photo of a man	Male, former driver	Hospitalised
Liu Chunling	劉春玲	Passport photo of a woman	Female, mother of Siying	Died on scene (circumstances disputed)
Liu Siying	劉思影	portrait of child	12-year-old girl, daughter of Chunling	Died two months after the event
Chen Guo	陳果	portrait of girl	19-year-old female, college student, daughter of Hao Huijun	Treated at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital; severely disfigured
Hao Huijun	郝惠君	Passport photo of a woman	Female, mother of Chen Guo, music teacher	Hospitalised; severely disfigured
Liu Baorong	劉葆榮	close-up portrait of woman in dark tunic	Female, former textile factory worker	Did not set herself alight
Liu Yunfang	劉雲芳	man in dark sweater	57-year-old male, part-time paint shop worker	Did not set himself alight

Xinhua further alleged that Wang Jindong had practised Falun Gong since 1996, Hao Huijin since 1997, and Liu Baorong since 1994.

Chinese state media reports

Xinhua released brief details of the incident to foreign media hours after the self-immolation occurred. Xinhua then distributed a fuller press release seven days later on Tuesday, 30 January, in response to other media reports on the incident.

On 31 January, a 30-minute special edition of the current affairs programme Forum told the state's version of the events to the Chinese public. China Central Television aired footage, said to be taken by nearby surveillance cameras, of five people in flames.

Filming by the CNN crew on Tiananmen Square was stopped by the police almost immediately after it began. Articles in the Yangcheng Evening News and the Southern Daily reported that police had evidence that a few foreign reporters had advance knowledge of the incident, and suggested that such reporters could be charged with "instigating and abetting a suicide." State media claimed surveillance video showed six or seven reporters from CNN, the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse arriving just 10 minutes before the self-immolations took place; however, all three agencies denied advance knowledge of the incident—AP and AFP said they had no reporters in the square at the time, while CNN's chief news executive, Eason Jordan, said the CNN crew were there on a routine check for a possible Falun Gong protest.

The Chinese authorities stated that the seven people who had come to Tiananmen Square with the intention of committing suicide were all from the city of Kaifeng in Henan province. The state-run Xinhua News Agency asserted that the self-immolators were "avid practitioners" of Falun Gong who had taken up the practice between 1994 and 1997, and that they fantasised during the preceding week about "how wonderful it would be to enter heaven". Six of them reportedly took the train on 16 January, meeting Chen Guo, the daughter of one of them, upon their arrival in Beijing. The seven agreed to light themselves in different parts of the Square at 2:30 pm on the designated day with gasoline smuggled there in plastic soda bottles; each had been armed with two lighters in case one would fail. According to the China Association For Cultic Studies website, Wang Jindong stated afterwards that the group arrived in Tiananmen Square by two taxis, and were dropped off at the south of the Great Hall of the People, from where they walked to the spot where they would ignite themselves. Wang said he was approached by police as he was splitting open the soda bottles, and ignited himself hurriedly without assuming the lotus position. Liu Yunfang explained that the police were able to stop him burning himself because he had not attained the required spiritual level, a Chinese government press release said.

Falun Gong response

Composite image of a sequence of eight screen shots differentially highlighted to show the movement of a baton in relation to a person in military uniform

Stills sequence which alleges Liu Chunling was beaten to death by a man in military uniform. Frames 1–5 follow the course of an alleged baton (circled) first connecting with and then rebounding from her head; frames 6–8 focus on the soldier

Immediately following the self-immolation, the Falun Dafa Information Center denied that the self-immolators could have been Falun Gong practitioners, emphatically pointing out that Falun Gong’s teachings do not sanction any form of violence, and that suicide is considered a sin. Falun Gong sources overseas questioned the official Chinese government account of the event; in particular, focussing on an analysis of the footage of the event aired on CCTV. Perceived inconsistencies in the footage led to a hypothesis that the self-immolation was staged by the government to justify the persecution against Falun Gong, that the participants were paid actors, and that both the the police on Tiananmen Square and the state-run media had advanced knowledge of the event.

Danny Schechter drew attention to the fact that Xinhua had released a statement on the self-immolation to foreign media only hours after the event occurred. He noted that this was unusual because sensitive subjects in the Chinese press are almost never reported on a timely basis; the usual protocol is approval by several party officials before publication.

As possible evidence that the police on Tiananmen Square had advanced knowledge that the self-immolation would occur, Falun Gong-affiliated sources observed that officers arrived almost immediately on the scene equipped with numerous fire extinguishers. Fire extinguishers are not standard equipment for police on Tiananmen Square, the the nearest building that would house them was several minutes away from the scene. Falun Gong sources also noted that the self-immolators’ behaviour, the slogans they shouted, and their meditation postures were not consistent with the teachings or practices of Falun Gong.

The identities of some of the self-immolators, and their relationship to Falun Gong, was called into question by Washington Post reporter Philip Pan. Two weeks after the event took place, Pan travelled to Kaifeng, the hometown of the two participants who died in connection with the event. Having interviewed neighbors and those close to the participants, Pan wrote that no one had any knowledge that they practiced Falun Gong.

Several foreign observers have noted that foreign journalists were not allowed to interview the self-immolation victims recovering in hospitals. Even the victims’ relatives were not permitted to speak with them, according to David Ownby, though the survivors were interviews by the state-run press.

In one such interview, CCTV interviewed the 12-year-old Liu Siying. Government sources reported Liu Siying had undergone a tracheotomy shortly before the interview. Speaking through approved media outlets, she said that her own mother told her to set herself on fire to reach the "heavenly golden kingdom". Schechter noted that the CNN producer "standing just fifty feet away" did not see any children. He doubted that the child would have been able to speak to the Chinese media so soon after a tracheotomy, yet Liu Siying appeared to be speaking clearly and singing in the interview,

Falun Gong-affiliated New Tang Dynasty Television produced a programme called False Fire, claiming a number of additional inconsistencies in the accounts of the official Chinese media. Issues and discrepancies mentioned included why the participants' hair and the gasoline-filled bottles did not catch fire, whether Wang Jindong was sitting or standing when he shouted, and the medical treatment and ultimate death of the 12-year-old girl. In a frame-by-frame replay of parts of the state media footage, the film commentary argued that a man wearing military clothing struck Liu Chunling on the head with an object, thus causing her death.

The World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong stated that the Speech Processing Laboratory at National Taiwan University analysed the broadcasts on CCTV, and claimed that the first 'Wang Jindong' on CCTV was not the same person who appeared in subsequent interviews

Three pictures broadcast by state-media, presented by Falun Gong as evidence that Wang Jindong "was played by different people".

In response to questions raised over why the government seemed to have a camera crew in place to film the self-immolation, Chinese government media reported that the close-up shots in its video footage came from confiscated CNN tapes. CNN representatives argued that this was impossible, however, as their reporters were detained shortly after the event began. Philip Pan of the Washington Post was also suspicious of the positioning of the cameras, and the fact that the close-up shots shown on Chinese television were taken without police interference. In addition, overhead surveillance camera footage seemed to show a man filming the scene using a small hand-held camera, rather than a large camera of the type used for TV news reporting. The Age commented that the "ready availability of fire-extinguishers and official TV teams and the lack of verification about the victims" raised questions about whether the movement was involved. However, John Gittings of The Guardian noted it was common practice in many countries for police camera operators to be on hand when a public disturbance is anticipated; the police used small-scale fire-extinguishers of the type carried in public vehicles, many of which are routinely on the square.

Dispute

Following the incident, the details of why the individuals were involved has been and remains the subject of dispute between representatives of Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and other observers. A significant challenge to arriving at a definitive assessment of the event is that independent corroboration of the government’s claims has not been possible. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the lack of independent information and difficulties in ascertaining the extent of control of the information made the incident one of the most difficult stories for reporters in Beijing to report.

According to the Hong Kong NGO Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, all of the would-be self-immolators, except 12-year-old Liu Siying, had previously protested for Falun Gong in Tiananmen Square. The state-run Xinhua News Agency reported that Liu Chunling's adoptive mother spoke of her daughter's "obsession with Falun Gong", her "worshipping of Li Hongzhi", and how Liu would teach her daughter Falun Gong. Yet when interviewed by International Herald Tribune reporter Philip Pan, neighbors and those acquainted with Liu stated that she was not a native of Kaifeng, worked in a nightclub and took money to keep men company, and beat her mother and daughter. No one had ever seen her practise Falun Gong.

Time noted some of the confusion surrounding the conflicting views on the self-immolation; one Beijing Falun Gong practitioner interviewed appeared to accept that the self-immolators were practitioners engaged in protest, while Falun Gong organizations overseas denied any involvement. Francesco Sisci, Asia editor of La Stampa, supported the possibility that the self-immolators were Falun Gong practitioners, writing in the Asia Times that “no one believed that the government could have paid a mother to torch herself and her daughter, or that she was so loyal to the Communist Party that she pretended to be a Falungong member and kill herself and her only daughter, even if Falungong master Li Hongzhi forbade suicide ..." Time also speculated that the "lack of solidarity" in Falun Gong was contributing to the sense of desperation of Mainland Chinese practitioners who may feel out of touch with the exiled leadership. Guardian reporter John Gittings reported that some observers believed it was possible that the self-immolators acted in desperation and confusion. Reviewing the divergent narratives on the identity of the self-immolation victims, historian David Ownby concluded that “although the arguments of Falun Gong practitioners seem cogent, it is very difficult to arrive at a final judgment about the self-immolation. [...] there are desperate people in China (and elsewhere) who will do anything for money (which would go to their families in this case, one supposes, unless the authorities had promised to rescue them before the flames could do harm). Or the entire event could have been staged. But it seems just as possible that those who set themselves on fire might have been new or unschooled Falun Gong practitioners, had discovered and practiced Falun Gong on their own (and badly) in the post-suppression period, and, for whatever reason, decided to make the ultimate sacrifice.” Other human rights activists speculated that the five who set themselves on fire did so to protest the government's crackdown on Falun Gong. Pan’s investigation, and other inconsistencies highlighted by Falun Gong organizations, led some observers to entertain the possibility that the self-immolation was not as straight-forward as the Chinese official media accounts suggested. In the National Review, Ann Noonan of the Laogai Research Foundation suggested that it was "hardly a far-fetched hypothesis" that the government allowed or staged the incident to discredit Falun Gong, as the government vowed to crush the practice before the eightieth anniversary celebrations of the Communist Party in July. Barend ter Haar was open to the idea that the self-immolators were Falun Gong practitioners, but sought to account for the inconsistencies by suggesting that the government may have fabricated a video of their own when they realised the mediatic potential of the suicides.

Gittings posited that the scripture may have confused Falun Gong followers, particularly in Mainland China. Matthew Forney wrote in Time magazine that Li’s message had spread into China via the internet and informal networks of followers, and speculated that it may have galvanized more radical practitioners there. An article penned by a collection of Mainland Chinese Falun Gong practitioners and published on the main Chinese-language Falun Gong website Minghui.org noted that the scripture had caused confusion both among Falun Gong practitioners and “in society,” and that some people wondered whether Falun Gong would resort to violence to resist persecution. The authors wrote that this would not occur, as “violence and force of the human realm are precisely what is the weakest; true strength and might is the power of mercy and compassion.” Some observers have speculated that if the participants were Falun Gong practitioners, they may have resorted to self-immolation in response to the publication of a new scripture by Li Hongzhi released on 1 January 2001, “Beyond the Limits of Forbearance.” David Ownby wrote that he found the brief message to be "difficult to interpret": it somewhat resembled a "call to arms" against what Li described as "evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts," yet Ownby said no practitioners he talked to had seen the scripture as a "green light" for violent action. In an interview with the Washington Post, Ownby noted that Li does not endorse suicide in any of his recent statements, "But a practitioner at the end of his or her rope in China could certainly see [the statements] as an endorsement for martyrdom, and perhaps choose his or her own means to achieve that." ter Haar (2001) postulated that former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha".

The New York Times stated that conflicting claims were difficult to assess "[w]ith propaganda streaming in from seemingly opposite ends of the universe ... especially since the remaining Falun Gong practitioners have been driven underground." In Sisci’s view, Chinese officials made a mistake by arresting foreign journalists on Tiananmen —"independently filmed news footage of the proceedings could have been the best proof of Falungong madness. Instead, when the government reported the episode, it looked like propaganda."

Aftermath

The incident continues to serve as a significant reason for disputing the methods of Falun Gong in China. Posters, leaflets and videos were produced, detailing the supposed detrimental effects of Falun Gong practice. In China's schools, regular anti-Falun Gong classes were scheduled on the orders of the authorities; The media incited 8 million students to join the "Anti-Cult Action by the Youth Civilized Communities Across the Nation". Twelve million children submitted writings disapproving of the practice.

Within a month of the Tiananmen Square incident, authorities issued a glossy pamphlet entitled The whole story of the self-immolation incident created by Falun Gong addicts in Tiananmen Square, featuring colour photographs of charred bodies. The State Council's "Office for the Prevention and Handling of Evil Cults" declared after the event that it was now ready to form a united front with the global anti-cult struggle. The IHT reported that Chinese media were attacking Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi every day. Meetings took place in factories, offices, universities and schools to educate people about Falun Gong. The Government announced that religious leaders from across the country had delivered denunciations of Falun Gong. In Kaifeng, the post office issued an anti-Falun Gong postmark, and 10,000 people signed a petition denouncing the group.

Time reported that prior to the self-immolation incident, many Chinese had felt that Falun Gong posed no real threat, and that the state's crackdown had gone too far. After the event, however, China's media campaign against Falun Gong gained significant traction. The World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong reported that hostility toward Falun Gong from the general public escalated, the government had stepped up its campaign, and alleged that "hate crimes" targeting Falun Gong increased. One western diplomat commented that the public changed from sympathising with Falun Gong to siding with the Government, popular consensus seemingly shifted by human-interest stories and accounts of rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners. Østergaard believes that, in retrospect, the New Year scripture was most useful for the Party-state because they were able to link it to the self-immolations, which marked a turning point ending domestic support for the movement.

Chinese state media has published allegations of other supposed Falun Gong practitioners committing self-immolation, apparently inspired by the January 25 incident.

Trials

Five people involved in the incident were put on trial in mid-2001. The authorities named Liu Yunfang as the mastermind, and gave him a life sentence; Wang Jindong was given 15 years. Two others said to have been involved in organising the incident, a 49-year-old man named Xue Hongjun, and a 34-year-old Beijing woman named Liu Xiuqin who apparently provided the group with lodging and helped in the preparation of the incident, were sentenced to ten and seven years in prison respectively. Liu Baorong, who reportedly had suggested the group use Sprite bottles to transport the gasoline, escaped punishment, because her role in planning the event was said to have been minor and she had "acknowledged her crime". The Guardian reported that on the last day of the one-month trial, Xinhua had, by mid-morning, issued a full report of the verdicts; the People's Daily had produced its own editorial by the afternoon.

In a hacking incident, the False Fire video was successfully broadcast on Chinese television in 2002 in the city of Changchun, and interrupted the station's scheduled programming for 50 minutes. Liu Chengjun, a Falun Gong practitioner who hacked into the satellite feed, was arrested and sentenced to prison, where he died under disputed circumstances 21 months later.

The survivors' fate

burns victim in blue suit lying on a hospital bed

The skin-grafted Chen Guo, one year after the incident

In April 2002, one year after the incident, the Government acceded to requests for foreign press to interview the survivors in the presence of state officials. When asked why they set themselves on fire, Hao Huijun replied that she had realised the futility of writing letters and demonstrating by waving banners, "so finally, we decided ... to make a big event to show our will to the world. ... We wanted to show the government that Falun Gong was good." At the time of the interview, Chen Guo and her mother were still in the hospital, both having lost their hands, ears and noses. Chen had one eye covered by a flap of skin. Both her mother's eyes were covered with skin grafts. The fire had left Wang Jindong with scarred, leathery cheeks and blackened fingers. Wang said he felt "humiliated because of my stupidity and fanatical ideas." Liu Baorong, who did not set fire to herself, spent months in "reform through labour and reeducation."