I believe there is an official CN government report on the 89 colour revolution, although I don't have the link now and western search engines are no good for finding it. The report is not called Tiananmen nor 64 for obvious reasons.
In 1990, the Foreign Languages Press in Beijing published an English translated account of the failed counter-revolution by journalist Che Muqi titled "Beijing Turmoil: More than Meets the Eye."
It took the position that many people nowadays advocate that China should have maintained. The mere existence of this book is interesting because it clarifies the chronology of the Chinese government's stance on the counter-revolution, which is that the first position was one of a defensive resolve. It's only years later than the position became the "silent treatment" that allowed the West to take the sole challenger of the narrative.
I think, one day, China will return to assert its own version of events along the same lines it once did which is "We did it and it was justified. They were counter-revolutionaries (a mere 1 million people claiming narcissistically to be the "democratic voice" of the nearly 1 billion Chinese people at that time) and we later saw what their ideological kin did to the USSR and Eastern Europe. We don't regret our necessary role in the defense of the People's Republic." To be more cynical, that type of assertion tactic is the same one that the West uses to justify their *actual* atrocities ("Yes we exterminated the Native Americans and stole their continent. We're conquerors and proud of it, what are you going to do about it?") and, to be frank, they've gotten away with that thus far, because, fundamentally, so long as both sides are assertive of their version of events, it just turns things into a "he said, she said" situation for many people.
Here's an excerpt from that book:
Suppression of the Counter-revolutionary Rebellion Was China’s Internal Affair
In order to safeguard social stability and state power, any country and government has the right to suppress by any means activity aimed at overthrowing the government. Many people of insight around the world agree to China’s policy of suppressing the counter-revolutionary rebellion. some of these expressed their understanding and sympathy. Others believed it was China’s internal affair and foreign countries therefore had no right to interfere. However, the United States and ‘some Western European countries wantonly interferred in China’s internal affairs. Their actions transgressed all common sense. I do not intend to comment on them here.
Some others, who have a feeling of friendship towards China, do not understand why China used troops to quell the incident. A friend said to me, “Couldn’t China have quelled the incident using peaceful means? Why couldn’t.the government have made some necessary concessions to the students’ demands so as to avoid intensifying the struggle?” I would like to say what I think. I was in Beijing from the very beginning of the incident. I observed the incident day and night, always concerned about the students, while at the same time, I understood the difficult predicament which the government was in. The government desired to mitigate this contradiction and solve the problem through peaceful means. But in the final event, it was forced to use troops.
