Present-day China is also based on the repression of Tiananmen

The thirty-year anniversary of the events of Tienanmen fits into a time of particular difficulty for China, due to the issue of American duties. The analysis of those facts, after three decades, was done in different forms, but, publicly only abroad; for the Chinese media, remembering the student revolt is still taboo. This is a subject that is not dealt with because there is the obvious fear of a return of that feeling at a time when the problems of civil rights are not highlighted but actually exist. Only in the matter of work, strikes are more and more frequent due to the conditions under which workers are treated and for too often no payment of wages. Corruption is a genuine weak point of the country, which creates the malfunctioning of public affairs and generates a great deal of mistrust towards the central powers, which do not provide the perception of adequately fighting the phenomenon. The government's financial policy, which continues to invest abroad to reaffirm its world leadership, is also viewed with opposition because it does not correspond to an equal amount of investment destined for the most underdeveloped countryside and territories of the country. There are, therefore, obvious reasons for unemployment, such as not to linger in the memory of those facts. From the repression of thirty years ago the Chinese strategy to sacrifice individual freedoms in favor of economic development started: Tienanmen was the practical base from which China today started. Apparently the Chinese traded economic welfare for civil rights, but this was not a choice, it was an imposition to employ the workforce without control constraints, if not those that are part of the party's financial calculations. Chinese communism has completely deviated from the doctrines of Marx, creating profound inequality, so much so that its methods towards workers are envied by Western capitalists and industrialists, who must deal with unions and parties. If silence is maintained on Tienanmen at home, the idea of ​​Chinese politicians is clear: repression has been functional to maintaining internal balances, above all functional to the interests of party bureaucrats. But if in China the absence of official statements is the rule, exponents of the Beijing government, such as the defense minister in Singapore, declared that the repression served to bring the country to its current state of development. These convictions reveal, if any were needed, how Chinese policy makers take into account the arguments of civil rights and civil liberties; the fact that they consider repression a positive aspect, because it is functional in allowing the country to have become the second world economic power, must impose on Western countries serious reflections on the use of Chinese capital within its own borders. The current Chinese expansionism has revealed not really positive aspects already in Africa on which Europe must ask itself very clear questions. On the other hand, a country that fails to reflect on such a serious fact has very clear problems and an attitude that should be irreconcilable with Western democracies. The issue of rights should be a topic of evaluation of international relations between different countries, unfortunately now we prefer financial liquidity believing that our achievements on these issues are inviolable. The precautions of dealing with the Chinese regime, with which, however, it is impossible not to treat, is attenuated by possible economic opportunities, but this only adds to the pitfall of Beijing, which seems to want to treat states as it treats its citizens, that is giving them the illusion of a greater well-being paid, however, at a very high price.