黄华
2025年6月4日于伦敦
各位朋友，大家好。
今天我们在这里，纪念1989年6月4日——三十六年前，那场震惊世界的悲剧。三十六年前的今天，年轻的学生、市民在北京的街头高呼“反腐败、要民主”，他们是和平的，是理性的，是非暴力的。他们的理想是建设一个更加公正、自由的中国。
然而，国家机器却用坦克和子弹回应了这些和平的诉求。这不仅是对人的生命的践踏，更是对国家良知的深重伤害。它让一代人的梦想被血洗，也让整个民族陷入漫长的沉默。
三十六年过去了，记忆依然不能被抹去。正是因为这一历史悲剧，我们更加坚信：只有坚持和平、理性、非暴力的原则，只有坚持用道义与真理唤醒社会，用对话和行动推动变革，中国才可能真正成为一个尊重民主、自由、法治与人权的强大繁荣国家。
很多人质疑：既然当年的学生坚持和平、绝食、对话，最后仍然被坦克碾压，那我们为什么还要坚持和平、理性、非暴力的原则？
这个质疑，是很多经历六四、或者了解六四历史的人都曾有过的。面对暴力和压制，和平是否只是软弱的象征？道义是否真的有用？下面我想从几个角度谈谈我的看法：
一、坚持和平、理性、非暴力，不是因为它能立刻奏效，而是因为它是最具正当性、最能争取广泛共识、最可持续的路径
在1989年，学生和市民所坚持的，是道义上的制高点。正因为他们是和平的、非暴力的，才让世界看到了暴政的冷酷无情。这种正当性，是历史最终会认可的力量。暴力可以暂时镇压抗议，但无法消灭一个民族对正义的记忆和追求。
相反，如果抗争也使用暴力，就会失去道义基础，社会更容易陷入混乱甚至内战，改革也更可能被毁于血腥和对立。这不仅是六四的教训，也是全球许多国家转型经验的共识。
二、六四失败的部分原因，是当时缺乏制度化渠道与公民社会基础，而不是和平方式本身的失败
六四之所以最终走向镇压，并非仅仅因为学生选择了和平，而是因为：
- 政权结构极度封闭，权力高度集中；
- 媒体和言论不自由，导致政府对社会的不信任；
- 缺乏独立的中间力量（比如有影响力的公民组织、媒体、宗教界）能够调解、施压；
- 社会尚未有足够的民主意识和制度准备。
所以，今天我们纪念六四，不是为了重演一次情绪化的抗议，而是要推动真正持久的建设：培育公民意识，建设独立社会力量，争取制度改革，而不是仅靠一次次广场上的对抗。
三、历史证明：真正成功的民主转型，几乎都来自长期、和平、渐进的努力，而不是暴力革命
请看韩国、台湾、波兰、捷克、南非，这些国家和地区走向民主法治的过程，虽然也曾有高压和牺牲，但最终靠的是社会各阶层的联动、非暴力运动的坚持、内部改革力量的觉醒。
相反，靠武力推翻政权的变革，往往带来的是另一轮专制、混乱甚至长期战乱。
四、坚持和平并不意味着软弱，而是意味着战略智慧
非暴力不是妥协，而是一种道义与策略并重的智慧。它需要组织能力、长期耐心、信息传播、文化建设，以及对民心的深耕。我们不是寄望一场浪漫的“革命”，而是推动一代又一代人的觉醒与参与，把权力关进制度的笼子里。
所以，总结来说：
六四的血，是对极权的控诉，也是对和平抗争必要性的证明。正因为那场镇压的残酷，我们才更加知道不能再重复同样的模式——不能靠情绪化的冲撞去换来自由，而要靠深思熟虑的和平变革。
中国要走向民主、自由、法治、人权的国家，不可能靠一场突如其来的斗争，而需要我们持续不断地用和平、理性、非暴力的方式——一点点撬动体制，一步步拓展空间，最终推动整个社会向前走。
谢谢大家！
Upholding the Principles of Peace, Rationality, and Nonviolence to Build a Strong, Free, Democratic, and Law-Based China
By Huang Hua
June 4, 2025, London
Dear friends, greetings to all.
Today we gather here to commemorate June 4, 1989—the tragic event that shocked the world thirty-six years ago. On this day thirty-six years ago, young students and citizens marched peacefully through the streets of Beijing, calling for an end to corruption and the pursuit of democracy. They were peaceful, rational, and nonviolent. Their vision was to build a more just and free China.
Yet, in response to these peaceful demands, the state deployed tanks and bullets. This was not only an assault on human life, but also a grave wound inflicted on the moral conscience of the nation. An entire generation’s dreams were crushed in blood, and the entire nation was plunged into prolonged silence.
Thirty-six years have passed, but this memory cannot be erased. Precisely because of this tragic history, we are even more convinced that only by upholding the principles of peace, rationality, and nonviolence, by awakening society with morality and truth, and by promoting change through dialogue and action, can China truly become a strong and prosperous nation that respects democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and human rights.
Many people ask: Since the students of 1989 pursued peace, hunger strikes, and dialogue, and were ultimately crushed by tanks, why should we continue to adhere to these principles of peace, rationality, and nonviolence?
This is a question that has been asked by many who experienced or studied the events of June 4th. When faced with violence and repression, does peace simply mean weakness? Does morality really matter?
Here, I would like to offer my thoughts from several perspectives:
I. We adhere to peace, rationality, and nonviolence not because it guarantees immediate success, but because it is the most legitimate, sustainable path that can build the broadest consensus.
In 1989, the students and citizens occupied the moral high ground. Precisely because they were peaceful and nonviolent, the world was able to clearly see the cruelty of the regime. This legitimacy is a force that history will ultimately recognize. Violence may suppress protests temporarily, but it cannot erase a people’s pursuit of justice.
On the contrary, if resistance resorts to violence, it loses moral legitimacy, and society becomes prone to chaos or even civil war. Reforms would then be derailed by bloodshed and polarization. This is not only the lesson of June 4th but also the consensus of many countries that have undergone democratic transitions.
II. The failure of June 4th was not because of the peaceful approach itself, but because there were no institutional channels or foundations for civil society at the time.
The crackdown on June 4th was not simply because students chose peace. Rather, it was because:
- The regime was extremely closed and highly centralized;
- Freedom of the press and speech was absent, leading to deep distrust between the government and society;
- There were no independent mediating forces (such as strong civil organizations, media, or religious communities) to negotiate or exert pressure;
- Society lacked sufficient democratic awareness and institutional preparation.
Therefore, today when we commemorate June 4th, we are not seeking another wave of emotional protest. Rather, we aim to foster lasting change: cultivating civic awareness, building independent social forces, and striving for institutional reform—not relying solely on repeated confrontations in public squares.
III. History shows that successful democratic transitions almost always arise from long-term, peaceful, gradual efforts—not violent revolution.
Look at South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, the Czech Republic, South Africa—their paths to democracy and the rule of law involved repression and sacrifice, but ultimately relied on the mobilization of all sectors of society, the persistence of nonviolent movements, and the awakening of internal reform forces.
By contrast, revolutions achieved through violence often result in another cycle of authoritarianism, chaos, or long-term conflict.
IV. Adhering to peace does not mean weakness—it means strategic wisdom.
Nonviolence is not compromise; it is wisdom that combines morality and strategy. It requires organization, long-term patience, information dissemination, cultural development, and the nurturing of public consciousness. We do not hope for a romantic “revolution.” Instead, we seek to awaken generation after generation, so that power can be ultimately bound by institutions.
In conclusion:
The bloodshed of June 4th is a condemnation of authoritarianism, but also a powerful reminder of the necessity of peaceful resistance. Precisely because of the brutality of that crackdown, we know that we must not repeat the same path—we cannot pursue freedom through emotional outbursts, but through carefully considered, peaceful transformation.
China’s path to becoming a nation of democracy, freedom, rule of law, and human rights will not be forged by a sudden uprising. It will require us to persist in using peaceful, rational, and nonviolent methods—gradually prying open the system, step by step expanding the space for change, and ultimately moving society forward.
Thank you all!
