中文在前，英文在后 Chinese first, English second
“天安门大屠杀”还是“北京六四大屠杀”？
——关于1989年北京军事镇压历史命名的讨论
“The Tiananmen Massacre” or “The Beijing June Fourth Massacre”?
—A Discussion on the Historical Naming of the 1989 Military Crackdown in Beijing
费良勇
已经无可争辩的基本事实是：1989年6月3日晚至4日，中国政府调动中国人民解放军戒严部队，以坦克、装甲车和携带自动武器的武装部队强行进入北京城区，并向包括大量手无寸铁的学生、市民和其他平民在内的人群使用实弹，造成大批人员死亡和受伤。许多严重伤亡发生在戒严部队向北京中心城区推进的道路沿线以及天安门广场周边，因此不能把整个北京六四大屠杀简单等同于“在天安门广场内屠杀学生”。
国际特赦组织1989年的调查指出，6月3日晚至4日，军队从北京西部向市中心推进过程中使用实弹，北京平民伤亡的大多数看来发生在东西向通往天安门广场的长安街沿线。其调查还记录了木樨地等地的杀戮。该调查明确记录了部队向人群开火、装甲车辆造成死亡等情况；并明确将事件称为“对手无寸铁平民的杀戮”。
关于死亡人数
北京六四大屠杀的确切死亡人数至今没有得到独立调查确认。中国政府长期限制有关六四的调查、讨论和纪念，也没有公布一份经过独立核查的完整死难者名单。
国际特赦组织现在的表述是数百人、可能数千人死亡；中国政府1989年6月底公布的说法则是200多名平民死亡，其中36名大学生，但国际特赦组织认为官方数字很可能严重低报。
值得注意的是，国际特赦组织在1989年8月的初步调查中曾估计，6月3日至9日期间，北京至少有1000名平民被杀，数千人受伤，同时明确表示，由于镇压以后形成的恐怖气氛和持续迫害，无法确定真实死亡人数。
自由亚洲电台（Radio Free Asia，简称 RFA）在2015年6月3日的报道说，“天安门母亲”2009年公布的地图列出了250多个名字，资料来自得到确认的目击者证言和医院记录。 RFA 2025年的报道也说，“天安门母亲”2009年公布过详细的遇难地点地图，并再次强调中国政府从未公布实际死亡和受伤人数。
我在自由亚洲电台(RFA)博客上查阅到一份根据“天安门母亲”公开资料整理的《六四死难者名单》，共列举202位死难者。这份名单保存了死难者的姓名、身份和死亡经过，在官方长期限制独立调查和公开讨论的情况下，具有重要的民间史料价值。
该名单上，绝大多数死难者有名有姓，但有14位死难者无名无姓，9位死难者有姓无名。这本身就说明，即使在已经被民间调查记录下来的死难者中，仍然存在至今无法确认完整身份的人。绝大多数死难者死于枪击，但0019、0020和0054号死难者被坦克碾死。由于官方至今没有允许独立全面调查，这些名单显然不能被理解为完整的死亡名单。
无论北京六四大屠杀最终确认的死亡人数是多少，有一个基本历史事实不应因为死亡总数尚未查清而受到影响：中国政府调动中国人民解放军戒严部队，以坦克、装甲车和自动武器武力镇压北京的学生、市民和其他平民，造成大批人员死亡和受伤。现存死难者资料中，不仅大量记录了枪击死亡，而且至少在上述这份202人名单中，有三人的死因被明确记载为遭坦克碾压。
关于天安门大屠杀
1989年6月4日发生北京大屠杀以后，在国际媒体和人权话语中，“Tiananmen Massacre”（天安门大屠杀）逐渐成为这一镇压事件最广为人知的英文名称之一。
出现这个称谓有多重原因：一、“天安门”是1989年北京和中国民主运动的中心和象征；二、天安门广场是民主运动的核心政治空间，也是戒严部队最终实施清场和控制的核心地点；三、由于中共当局严格封锁信息，尤其是对天安门广场最后清场过程以及北京各地伤亡情况缺乏公开、独立的调查，国际社会在事件发生初期难以准确掌握不同地点的具体死亡情况；四、虽然最后清场前大批学生从广场撤离了，但国际特赦组织的详细调查记录显示，撤离广场的学生队伍到达六部口时，装甲车冲向人群，造成11人死亡；五、天安门广场内部究竟发生多少杀戮，早期目击证词存在差异。
中国官方在事后曾反复否认天安门广场清场过程中发生死亡。但根据天安门母亲《六四镇压受害者状况民间报告》，确认至少有3位学生在天安门广场中弹身亡，分别是中国人民大学双学士程仁兴、北京农业大学硕士研究生戴金平和天津师范大学本科生李浩成。
如今看来，将“天安门大屠杀”作为整个八九民运镇压事件的象征性名称，还是有一定道理的。这并不必然意味着所有或大部分死者都死在广场内部。国际特赦组织现在也使用 1989 Tiananmen Crackdown，并表述军队向“天安门广场及其周边”的学生、工人和其他人开火。
但另一方面，如果根据字面意义，“天安门大屠杀”被严格理解为“发生在天安门广场内部的大屠杀”，容易产生历史地理上的误导。
采用“北京六四大屠杀“这个历史命名更准确
现有证据表明，大量乃至多数平民伤亡发生在军队向北京中心城区推进的道路沿线，尤其是长
安街及木樨地等地区，而不能把整个北京六四大屠杀理解为主要发生在天安门广场内部。在天安门清场前，学生们进行了撤离。因此，要准确定义这场大屠杀，应该是“北京六四大屠杀”。我认为这是中文最准确的历史事件命名。它明确限定了北京、六四、大规模杀戮三个要素，同时可以避免“大屠杀主要发生在天安门广场内部”的地理误解。
历史事件的命名应当尽可能区分“象征中心”与“主要杀戮地点”。天安门广场无疑是八九民主运动最重要的象征中心，也是戒严部队最终控制的核心政治空间；但是，运动的象征中心并不等于大规模杀戮的主要发生地点。正因为如此，“天安门大屠杀”具有历史传播形成的象征意义，而“北京六四大屠杀”则具有更准确的时间和空间指向。
“北京六四大屠杀”的英文翻译为“ The Beijing June Fourth Massacre”。在英文中第一次出现可以写：“The Beijing June Fourth Massacre of 1989 (commonly known internationally as the Tiananmen Massacre)”。中文意为“1989年北京六四屠杀（国际上通常称为天安门屠杀）”。这样外国读者马上知道是哪个历史事件，同时也理解新的命名。
“北京六四大屠杀”的德文翻译为“Das Massaker vom 4. Juni in Peking”。但为了让德国读者更容易理解，翻译为“Das Massaker vom 4. Juni 1989 in Peking” 更好，因为时间和地点都非常明确。
此外，“六四大屠杀”这个命名最简洁，中文语境中也很清楚，特指1989年6月4日发生的大屠杀，特别适合标题、口号和纪念活动。缺点是屠杀地点没有明确指出，中文语境中人们可能容易联想出是北京，但在外文语境中可能较难理解。
“北京大屠杀”这个概念也可以使用，但脱离上下文时辨识度稍差，因为没有日期。
正式文章中第一次出现时，最好使用“北京六四大屠杀“这个完整命名，可以在括号中说明简称，例如“以下简称北京大屠杀“，或者“以下简称六四大屠杀”。这样历史含义更清楚。
历史命名不是简单的文字游戏。名称决定人们如何记忆历史，也可能影响后人如何理解历史。“天安门大屠杀”已经成为国际社会认识六四镇压的重要象征性名称，应当尊重其历史形成的传播意义；但在更加准确地描述1989年6月3日至4日北京发生的大规模杀戮时，我主张采用“北京六四大屠杀”。这个名称既保留“六四”这一已经进入中国历史记忆的时间符号，又明确指出大屠杀发生在北京，而不把杀戮地点缩小到天安门广场内部。准确命名死难者遭遇的历史，也是保存历史真相的一部分。
2026年8月18日 写于纽伦堡
主要史料与参考资料
史实说明：本文主张使用“北京六四大屠杀”，并不是主张大屠杀只发生在6月4日当天。“六四”在中文历史记忆中已经成为1989年6月3日晚至4日及其后镇压行动的历史符号。现有资料能够确认，大量平民死伤发生在戒严部队进入北京中心城区的道路沿线和天安门广场周边；天安门广场本身是整个民主运动最重要的象征中心和军事清场核心地点。因此，“北京六四大屠杀”是对整个北京军事镇压及大规模杀戮的历史概括，而不是对单一地点、单一时刻的描述。
- Amnesty International, People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Findings on Killings of Unarmed Civilians, Arbitrary Arrests and Summary Executions since 3 June 1989, 30 August 1989.
这是本文采用的最重要的早期人权调查之一。国际特赦组织根据目击材料、医院等信息调查北京镇压，认为6月3日至9日期间至少1000名平民被杀、数千人受伤，同时强调由于镇压后的恐怖环境，无法确定真实死亡人数。
- Amnesty International, 关于1989年北京镇压的后续调查报告，1990年。
这份更详细的报告特别重要，因为其中记录了撤离天安门广场的学生队伍经过六部口时遭装甲车辆冲撞，造成11人死亡的事件。它直接支持本文关于“学生已经撤离广场，但随后仍遭军事暴力”的论述。
- Amnesty International, “The 1989 Tiananmen Crackdown.”
国际特赦组织目前的专题资料。它概括认为1989年6月4日军队在北京天安门广场及周边向要求政治改革的学生、工人和其他民众开火，造成数百人、甚至可能数千人死亡；同时引用中国官方“200多人死亡、36名大学生死亡”的数字，并认为官方数字可能严重低报。
- Amnesty International, “China: ‘Heartless’ ban on Tiananmen Mothers visiting cemetery signals escalating repression,” 3 June 2026.
这是目前很新的国际特赦组织资料，仍明确表述1989年6月4日中国军队向天安门广场及其周边的学生和工人开枪，造成数百、甚至可能数千人死亡。
- 天安门母亲：《六四镇压受害者状况民间报告》。
这是天安门广场内死亡最重要的民间一手调查来源。报告明确记录程仁兴在天安门广场国旗旗杆附近腹部中弹、戴金平在毛泽东纪念堂附近被戒严部队枪杀等案例。
- 天安门母亲网站：六四死难者、难属及寻访资料。
天安门母亲几十年来持续调查死难者姓名、身份、死亡地点和家庭资料。其有关程仁兴、戴金平、李浩成等人的寻访资料，说明天安门广场内部并非“绝对无人死亡”。
- Radio Free Asia, “Thousands Converge on Central Beijing Ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary,” 4 June 2015.
自由亚洲电台（RFA）报道指出，“天安门母亲”2009年的死亡地点图列出了250多个名字，材料来自已经确认的目击证言及医院记录；地图还显示木樨地附近至少有37人死亡。
- Radio Free Asia，有关“天安门母亲”和六四历史记忆的2025年报道。
该报道说明，中国政府至今没有公布完整死亡人数和死难者名单，死难者家属持续要求真相、问责和赔偿。
- 六四记忆·人权博物馆（June 4th Memory and Human Rights Museum）人物资料库。
该数据库系统整理了六四死难者、受难者、抗争者和相关人员资料。
- Human Rights Watch, “China: No Justice 33 Years after Tiananmen Massacre,” 2 June 2022.
人权观察直接使用“Tiananmen Massacre（天安门大屠杀）”这一名称，并要求中国政府承认1989年的大规模杀戮并承担责任。
- Human Rights in China，“拒绝遗忘”六四纪念项目。
该项目系统保存六四死难者和难属资料，并支持“天安门母亲”关于真相、问责和赔偿的诉求。
“The Tiananmen Massacre” or “The Beijing June Fourth Massacre”?
—A Discussion on the Historical Naming of the 1989 Military Crackdown in Beijing
Fei Liangyong
One basic fact is beyond dispute: on the night of June 3 and into June 4, 1989, the Chinese government deployed martial-law troops of the People’s Liberation Army, using tanks, armored vehicles, and troops armed with automatic weapons to force their way into urban Beijing. They used live ammunition against crowds that included large numbers of unarmed students, Beijing residents, and other civilians, causing large numbers of deaths and injuries. Many of the most serious casualties occurred along the routes taken by martial-law troops as they advanced toward central Beijing and in the areas surrounding Tiananmen Square. The Beijing June Fourth Massacre therefore cannot simply be equated with “the massacre of students inside Tiananmen Square.”
Amnesty International’s 1989 investigation reported that, on the night of June 3 and into June 4, troops used live ammunition as they advanced from western Beijing toward the city center. The majority of civilian casualties in Beijing appear to have occurred along Chang’an Avenue, the east–west thoroughfare leading toward Tiananmen Square. The investigation also documented killings at Muxidi and other locations. It explicitly recorded troops opening fire on crowds and deaths caused by armored vehicles, and described the events as the “killings of unarmed civilians.”
The Death Toll
The exact death toll of the Beijing June Fourth Massacre has never been established through an independent investigation. The Chinese government has long restricted investigation, discussion, and commemoration of June Fourth, and it has never published a complete list of the victims that has been independently verified.
Amnesty International currently states that hundreds, possibly thousands, were killed. The Chinese government, by contrast, announced in late June 1989 that more than 200 civilians had died, including 36 university students. Amnesty International considers the official death toll likely to be a gross underestimate.
It is worth noting that, in its preliminary investigation published in August 1989, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,000 civilians were killed and several thousand injured in Beijing between June 3 and June 9. At the same time, it explicitly stated that the climate of fear and continuing persecution following the crackdown made it impossible to determine the true number of deaths.
Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported on June 3, 2015, that a map published by the Tiananmen Mothers in 2009 listed more than 250 names, based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and hospital records. An RFA report in 2025 also noted that the Tiananmen Mothers had published a detailed map of locations where people were killed in 2009, and again emphasized that the Chinese government has never disclosed the actual numbers of people killed and injured.
On a Radio Free Asia (RFA) blog, I found a “List of June Fourth Victims” compiled from information made public by the Tiananmen Mothers. The list contains 202 victims. It preserves information about the victims’ names, identities, and circumstances of death and, in the context of the authorities’ longstanding restrictions on independent investigation and public discussion, constitutes an important body of unofficial historical documentation.
Most of the victims on this list are identified by their full names. However, 14 remain completely unidentified, while nine are identified only by surname, without a given name. This in itself demonstrates that even among the victims already documented through independent civilian efforts, there are still people whose full identities have never been established. The great majority of those on the list are recorded as having died from gunshot wounds, but victims Nos. 0019, 0020, and 0054 are recorded as having been crushed to death by tanks. Since the authorities have never permitted a comprehensive and independent investigation, such lists clearly cannot be regarded as complete lists of all those who died.
Whatever the final confirmed death toll of the Beijing June Fourth Massacre may ultimately prove to be, one fundamental historical fact is not altered by the fact that the total number of deaths remains unknown: the Chinese government deployed martial-law troops of the People’s Liberation Army and used tanks, armored vehicles, and automatic weapons to carry out a violent crackdown against students, Beijing residents, and other civilians, causing large numbers of deaths and injuries. Existing records of the victims document numerous deaths from gunfire; moreover, in the above-mentioned list of 202 victims alone, three individuals are explicitly recorded as having been crushed to death by tanks.
On the Tiananmen Massacre
Following the massacre in Beijing on June 4, 1989, “Tiananmen Massacre” gradually became one of the best-known English terms for the crackdown in international media and human rights discourse.
There are several reasons why this term came into use. First, “Tiananmen” was the center and symbol of the 1989 democracy movement in Beijing and throughout China. Second, Tiananmen Square was the movement’s central political space and the principal location that the martial-law troops ultimately sought to clear and bring under their control. Third, because the Chinese Communist Party authorities imposed a strict information blockade, and because there was no open and independent investigation into either the final clearing of Tiananmen Square or the casualties at different locations across Beijing, it was difficult for the international community in the immediate aftermath to establish precisely how many people had been killed at particular locations. Fourth, although large numbers of students withdrew from the Square before the final clearing operation, Amnesty International’s detailed investigation recorded that when a column of students who had left the Square reached Liubukou, armored vehicles drove into the crowd, killing 11 people. Fifth, early eyewitness accounts differed as to exactly how much killing took place inside Tiananmen Square itself.
After the event, Chinese authorities repeatedly denied that anyone had been killed during the clearing of Tiananmen Square. However, according to the Tiananmen Mothers’ Civilian Report on the Victims of the June Fourth Crackdown, at least three students were confirmed to have been shot and killed in Tiananmen Square: Cheng Renxing, who was pursuing two bachelor’s degrees at Renmin University of China; Dai Jinping, a master’s student at Beijing Agricultural University; and Li Haocheng, an undergraduate at Tianjin Normal University.
In retrospect, there is still good reason to use “the Tiananmen Massacre” as a symbolic name for the crackdown on the entire 1989 democracy movement. The term does not necessarily imply that all, or even most, of those killed died inside Tiananmen Square. Amnesty International now also uses the term 1989 Tiananmen Crackdown and states that troops opened fire on students, workers, and others “in and around Tiananmen Square.”
On the other hand, if “the Tiananmen Massacre” is interpreted literally and narrowly to mean “a massacre that took place inside Tiananmen Square,” the term can create a misleading impression about the geographical location of the killings.
“The Beijing June Fourth Massacre” Is a More Accurate Historical Term
Existing evidence indicates that a large number—and apparently the majority—of civilian casualties occurred along the routes taken by troops as they advanced toward central Beijing, particularly along Chang’an Avenue and in areas such as Muxidi. The Beijing June Fourth Massacre therefore should not be understood as a massacre that took place primarily inside Tiananmen Square. The students withdrew from the Square before the final clearing operation. Accordingly, a more accurate name for the massacre is the “Beijing June Fourth Massacre.” I believe this is the most accurate Chinese name for the historical event. It clearly identifies three essential elements—Beijing, June Fourth, and mass killing—while avoiding the geographical misconception that the massacre took place primarily inside Tiananmen Square.
The naming of historical events should, as far as possible, distinguish between the “symbolic center” of an event and the “principal sites of killing.” Tiananmen Square was unquestionably the most important symbolic center of the 1989 democracy movement and the central political space that the martial-law troops ultimately brought under their control. However, the symbolic center of a movement is not necessarily the principal location where large-scale killing occurred. For precisely this reason, “the Tiananmen Massacre” carries a symbolic meaning established through decades of historical usage, whereas “the Beijing June Fourth Massacre” provides a more precise indication of both the time and the geographical scope of the event.
The English translation of “北京六四大屠杀” is “The Beijing June Fourth Massacre.” When the term first appears in an English-language text, it may be written as: “The Beijing June Fourth Massacre of 1989 (commonly known internationally as the Tiananmen Massacre).” This immediately enables international readers to identify the historical event being discussed while also helping them understand the rationale for the proposed terminology.
The German translation of “北京六四大屠杀” is “Das Massaker vom 4. Juni in Peking.” However, for greater clarity to German readers, “Das Massaker vom 4. Juni 1989 in Peking” is preferable, since it clearly specifies both the date and the location.
In addition, “the June Fourth Massacre” is the most concise formulation. In a Chinese context, its meaning is clear: it refers specifically to the massacre associated with June 4, 1989, and is particularly suitable for titles, slogans, and commemorative events. Its disadvantage is that it does not explicitly identify the location of the massacre. Chinese readers may readily associate “June Fourth” with Beijing, whereas readers in other linguistic contexts may find the reference less immediately understandable.
The term “the Beijing Massacre” may also be used, but it is somewhat less readily identifiable when removed from its historical context because it does not specify a date.
In formal writing, the full term “the Beijing June Fourth Massacre” should preferably be used when the event is first mentioned, followed, if desired, by a parenthetical indication of the shortened form to be used thereafter, such as “hereinafter, the Beijing Massacre” or “hereinafter, the June Fourth Massacre.” This makes the historical meaning clearer.
Historical naming is not merely a matter of words. Names shape how people remember history and may also influence how future generations understand it. “The Tiananmen Massacre” has become an important symbolic term through which the international community understands the June Fourth crackdown, and the historical significance acquired by that term through widespread usage should be respected. However, when seeking to describe more precisely the large-scale killings that took place in Beijing on June 3–4, 1989, I advocate the use of “the Beijing June Fourth Massacre.” This name preserves “June Fourth,” a temporal symbol deeply embedded in Chinese historical memory, while explicitly identifying Beijing as the location of the massacre without geographically restricting the killings to Tiananmen Square itself. Accurately naming the history of what happened to the victims is itself part of preserving historical truth.
Written in Nuremberg on August 18, 2026
******************** **************************** ******************************
Key Historical Sources and References
Historical Note: This article’s advocacy of the term “the Beijing June Fourth Massacre” does not imply that the massacre occurred only on June 4. In Chinese historical memory, “June Fourth” has become a historical shorthand for the crackdown that began on the night of June 3 and continued into June 4, 1989, as well as the repressive actions that followed. Existing evidence confirms that large numbers of civilian deaths and injuries occurred along the routes taken by martial-law troops as they advanced into central Beijing and in the areas surrounding Tiananmen Square. Tiananmen Square itself was the most important symbolic center of the democracy movement and the central site of the military clearing operation. Therefore, “the Beijing June Fourth Massacre” is intended as a historical designation for the military crackdown and large-scale killings in Beijing as a whole, rather than as a description confined to a single location or a single moment in time.
- Amnesty International, People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Findings on Killings of Unarmed Civilians, Arbitrary Arrests and Summary Executions since 3 June 1989, 30 August 1989.
This is one of the most important early human rights investigations used in this article. Drawing on eyewitness accounts, hospital information, and other sources in its investigation of the crackdown in Beijing, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,000 civilians were killed and several thousand injured between June 3 and June 9. At the same time, it emphasized that the climate of fear following the crackdown made it impossible to determine the true death toll.
- Amnesty International, follow-up investigation into the 1989 Beijing crackdown, 1990.
This more detailed report is particularly important because it documents an incident at Liubukou in which a column of students who had withdrawn from Tiananmen Square was struck by armored vehicles, resulting in 11 deaths. It directly supports this article’s argument that students had already withdrawn from the Square but were subsequently subjected to further military violence.
- Amnesty International, “The 1989 Tiananmen Crackdown.”
This is Amnesty International’s current overview of the events. It states that on June 4, 1989, troops opened fire on students, workers, and others calling for political reform in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing, killing hundreds—and possibly thousands. It also cites the Chinese government’s official figures of more than 200 civilian deaths, including 36 university students, while noting that the official death toll is likely to be a gross underestimate.
- Amnesty International, “China: ‘Heartless’ ban on Tiananmen Mothers visiting cemetery signals escalating repression,” 3 June 2026.
This recent Amnesty International statement continues to describe how, on June 4, 1989, Chinese troops opened fire on students and workers in and around Tiananmen Square, killing hundreds and possibly thousands.
- Tiananmen Mothers, Civilian Report on the Victims of the June Fourth Crackdown.
This is one of the most important firsthand civilian investigations concerning deaths inside Tiananmen Square. The report records, among other cases, that Cheng Renxing was shot in the abdomen near the flagpole in Tiananmen Square and that Dai Jinping was shot and killed by martial-law troops near the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall.
- Tiananmen Mothers website: records on June Fourth victims, victims’ families, and investigative inquiries.
For decades, the Tiananmen Mothers have investigated and documented the names, identities, locations of death, and family circumstances of June Fourth victims. Their investigations into the deaths of Cheng Renxing, Dai Jinping, Li Haocheng, and others provide evidence against the categorical claim that “absolutely no one died” inside Tiananmen Square.
- Radio Free Asia, “Thousands Converge on Central Beijing Ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary,” 4 June 2015.
Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported that a 2009 map produced by the Tiananmen Mothers listed more than 250 names, based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and hospital records. The map also indicated that at least 37 people were killed in the vicinity of Muxidi.
- Radio Free Asia, 2025 reporting on the Tiananmen Mothers and the historical memory of June Fourth.
The report notes that the Chinese government has still not disclosed a complete death toll or a comprehensive list of those killed, while victims’ families continue to demand truth, accountability, and compensation.
- June 4th Memory and Human Rights Museum, biographical database.
The database systematically compiles information on people killed, injured, persecuted, or otherwise involved in the June Fourth events and related protests.
- Human Rights Watch, “China: No Justice 33 Years after Tiananmen Massacre,” 2 June 2022.
Human Rights Watch directly uses the term “Tiananmen Massacre” and calls on the Chinese government to acknowledge responsibility for the mass killings of 1989 and provide justice for the victims.
- Human Rights in China, “Unforgotten” June Fourth Memorial Project.
This project systematically preserves information about June Fourth victims and their families and supports the Tiananmen Mothers’ longstanding demands for truth, accountability, and compensation.