a substantive dialogue where the government and students were considered equals. They wanted to have an open discussion of issues with the government and come up with resolutions. The course of the dialogue made it clear, however, that Li Peng's main objective was convincing the students to end the hunger strike. The meeting ended as students saw that they held a subordinate position. It was evident to them that the government would not compromise or meet any of their demands. Results None of the student-government dialogues held produced any significant results for the student movement. The April 29 dialogue produced negative reactions from students who were unsatisfied with the chosen representatives, considered too junior. Additionally, student representatives were chosen by the government and considered unrepresentative of the wider student movement. On an international scale, more positive feedback was provided regarding this dialogue. Sheryl WuDunn of The New York Times wrote "what was remarkable was not just that the meeting took place but that the Government televised nearly all of it, apparently as a concession to a student's demand". From an outside perspective, progress occurred in the student movement as the government compromised to the students' demands by holding a broadcast dialogue. The May 14 and 18 dialogues were also seen as unproductive by students as Li Peng addressed the students in the movement as "children". Student-government dialogues were not a two-way street as students were allowed to express their opinions but the government was not inclined to answer their questions. In the end, an equal standing dialogue was unachievable for the students. References 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre