Tiananmen Papers - Controversy

Controversy

Authenticity and selection bias are two main sources of controversy about the book.

To determine whether the documents presented in the book are authentic is problematic, if not impossible. While a process of authentication would require a comparison of the documents used in The Tiananmen Papers with the original materials, few of these original documents are available. Sinologist Lowell Dittmer, for example, wrote that though “the question of authenticity is key, it is frustratingly difficult to resolve in this case.” One of the most ardent critics of the book, professor Alfred L. Chan from Huron University College, has taken this argument even further and claimed that not only is the book partially fictional, it is also “based on open and semi-open” material.

This argument not only discredits the reliability of the book but also puts into question the supposed secrecy of the documents presented in it. One of the editors of the book, Andrew Nathan, rejects these claims in a rejoinder and argues not only that the documents are authentic but also that most of the documents are not available anywhere else.

Because a true validation of The Tiananmen Papers will be possible only through a comparison with the original documents (something which cannot happen unless the compiler reveals his sources or when the Chinese government opens up its archives), the validity of the book remains in question to this day.

Although Nathan claims the documents are authentic, he acknowledges the potential issues selectivity brings. “The materials in The Tiananmen Papers,” he concedes, “have gone through a series of processes, each of which brought the final product further away from the raw material of what happened.” While the selection bias does not necessarily infringe on the assumed authenticity of the book, it is biased in favour of the political agenda of the compiler.

In a short review of the book, Fang Lizhi laments that it focuses more on the power struggle within the party rather than the student movement itself. The editors have not only acknowledged this agenda but also identified it as the compiler's wish to “spark a reevaluation of what transpired in 1989 and accelerate political liberalization in China.”