A serious setback—the joint conference of the Democratic Alliance and Civil Front
On January 29, 1993, the long-anticipated joint conference of the Democratic League and Civil Rights Front officially opened in Washington.
Prior to this, on the evening of January 28, the chairman of the China Democratic League, Yu Dahai, and the chairman of the Civil Rights Front, Wan Runnan, each presided over a meeting of representatives from the two organizations. The representatives unanimously passed a resolution on the positioning of China Spring magazine. The resolution stated that China Spring would continue to maintain its original editorial policy, uphold the positions of freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights, and contribute to the development of democratic movements in mainland China.
Yu Dahai, Chairman of the China Democratic League, also presented plaques and prizes to twelve “Loyal Warriors of the China Democratic Federation” at the meeting. These twelve members of the Democratic League are:
Yang Wei was arrested twice for participating in the pro-democracy movements in Shanghai in 1986 and 1989. His arrest led to the U.S. Congress passing the first bill related to the residency of mainland Chinese students. After arriving in the United States in August 1991, he resolutely joined the headquarters of the China Democratic League as an organizational officer;
Wu Fangcheng, founder of the Kentucky branch of the Democratic League, participated in founding the first mainland Chinese Students’ Association independent of the CCP government, and also served as deputy director of the Democratic Alliance’s Joint Committee. His articles on issues of international students living abroad caused a major stir;
Wang Xiaofeng previously served as the director of the Canadian branch of the China Democratic Alliance. He made important contributions to the successful convening of the Democratic Alliance’s Fifth Congress and the union of the Alliance and Civil Human Rights Front in Canada;
Liang Dasheng, Deputy Director of the German Branch of the China Civil Human Rights Front (CDL) Democratic Alliance. He made significant contributions to the establishment of the German branch of the China Civil Human Rights Front and has actively developed pro-democracy forces among Chinese people who have recently come to Eastern Europe.
Leung Wah, a Hong Konger, Director of the Hong Kong branch of the Democratic Alliance for Democracy and Democracy, and President of the Hong Kong branch of ‘China Spring’. He is an important executor of the NLD’s mainland work.
Hu Yao, Editor-in-Chief of the Australian edition of ‘China Spring’;
Yao Yueqian, one of the oldest members of the Democratic League, has been responsible for the distribution of “Chinese Spring” in Japan for many years
Wu Renhua actively participated in the 1989 pro-democracy movement. After going into exile overseas, he served as editor-in-chief of the Press Freedom Herald, working diligently and diligently, helping the newspaper overcome instability and significantly improve its quality;
Zhang Wei, one of the oldest members of the Democratic League, has done extensive concrete work preparing for the Washington Conference;
Ya Yi, PhD in Philosophy from Fudan University, Executive Editor of “China Spring”;
Qian Da, a Taiwanese, was upright and incorruptible, brave and bold. He once entered the mainland to rescue Yang Wei and enthusiastically helped several members of the Democratic League and other pro-democracy activists who had escaped from the mainland. Because he devoted too much energy to the democracy movement, he was dismissed several times by the company;
Qi Guang, founder of the Michigan branch of the Democratic League. Under his leadership, members of the Michigan chapter mingled with local international students, combining networking with spreading democratic ideas, forming the NLD’s “Michigan Experience.”
At the preparatory meeting that evening, participants from the Democratic League and Civil Front approved the rules of procedure for the general meeting, electing a presidium of eleven members including Yu Dahai, Zhu Jiaming, Yang Jianli, Wang Guangqiu, Wang Min, Yao Yongzhan, Wang Xiaofeng, Wu Chunmeng, Wang Luo, Yang Zhongmei, and Qi Mo. Yu Dahai, who received the most votes, and Zhu Jiaming, who received the most votes, served as conveners of the presidium.
On the first day of the meeting, all 240 attendees stood to observe a minute of silence for those who died persecuted by the CCP over the years, including those who sacrificed their lives for China’s democracy movement during the June 4th Incident. U.S. Senator Gordon extended congratulations to the conference. Renowned writers Liu Binyan and Zheng Yi, Geng Xiao, Chairman of the National American Self-Righteous Federation, Liu Qing, Executive Chair of Human Rights in China, Wu Chengmin, President of the Chinese Association in Washington, Yan Xiaomei, Chairperson of the Greater Washington Chinese Support Democracy Joint Committee, Chen Huiqing, Secretary-General of the Three Principles of the People Alliance in Washington, and Mai Li, former Chairman of the Chinese Association, were invited to speak at the conference.
In the afternoon and evening, participants carefully discussed and reviewed the political declaration of the congress, titled “The Situation and Tasks Facing China’s Democratic Movement.”
On the 30th, the main topic of the assembly was the discussion and approval of the new organization’s constitution. Due to the many debates, the discussion was not concluded by the early hours of the next day, so the rest of the agenda had to be postponed. It was on this day that some participants raised questions about the legitimacy of the representatives’ qualifications. Zhou Xiaomeng and Jiao Bogu, representatives of the Japan branch of the China Democratic League, pointed out that many of the “replacements” who entered were illegal, and to ensure the legitimacy of the conference, these “substitute representatives” should immediately leave the venue. However, after a vote, the presidium of the conference was authorized to handle the matter with full authority. This opinion has not received sufficient vigilance and attention.
Renowned political dissident and astrophysicist Professor Fang Lizhi and his wife, Professor Li Shuxian, also arrived at the venue that day. At lunch, Fang Lizhi, Liu Binyan, and Wang Ruowang sat together. All three were expelled from the CCP during the 1987 anti-bourgeois liberalization movement.
On the 31st—the last day of the conference—the conference schedule was especially tight. Just for the name of the new organization, the representatives put forward several proposals. After lengthy discussions and debates, the new organization was named the “China Democratic United Front,” abbreviated as the “Democratic United Front.”
Regarding the election method for the new leadership body, participants adopted a separate election for the president and vice-chairperson. There have also been many changes in candidate qualifications and the deadline for registering and running for election. The original deadline for election registration set by the Joint Working Committee was rejected, and the preparatory meeting’s decision not to run for chairperson or vice-chairperson positions was changed. Any member, as long as there are twenty people signing the petition, can immediately apply to run for the chairman’s position. This series of actions to “change” the original proposal initially left many participants puzzled, not knowing why they were being done. For example, the original deadline for election registration is very standard. Early registration for candidates helps grassroots organizations deliberate and evaluate at every level. Another example: the preparatory meeting originally decided that members of the presidium would not run for chairperson or vice-chairperson because any presidium member has more opportunities to preside over meetings, and if they ran, it would be highly unfair to candidates not on the presidium. This “change” sowed the seeds of later chaos.
According to the presidium announcement, five candidates for chairman were: Wang Ruowang, Hu Ping, Yue Wu, Xu Bangtai, and Huaxiazi. Among those applying for vice chairman were Wan Runnan, Wang Min, Zhang Boli, Ma Dawei, Yang Jianli, and Qian Da. Before registering, Wang Min and Yang Jianli announced their withdrawal from the presidium.
The campaign begins. Huaxiazi was the first to speak. Xu Bangtai continued his speech. After explaining his work in mainland China and his plans for publicity, diplomacy, organization, and human rights, he also explained his ideological process for participating in the campaign. Xu Bangtai had expressed support for Wang Ruowang in the presidential bid on multiple occasions; in the initial candidacy, he registered as vice chairman. But at that time, he seemed to have anticipated the changes in the election method today, and wrote a “proviso” stating that after the election method changed, he would also change his registration. However, almost no one knew about this “proviso” before the conference was held. Before this, he had always appeared as a supporter and lobbyist for John Ruowang, but now he had registered to run for president in a “surprise” manner, surprising and surprising many. Xu Bangtai explained this by saying: his initial communication with Wang Ruowang was only “negotiation,” not a “contract.” He said that a few months ago, when he registered for vice president, he had stated that if the election method changed, he would promptly update his application. In the past, when he and Wang Ruowang “negotiated,” they ran as “partners,” but now the chairperson and vice chairman are running separately, so his registration is not inconsistent. “Between humility and responsibility, I chose the latter.”
Wang Ruowang had a different view: he was not fighting for the chairmanship, but for the integrity of the pro-democracy movement. First, he believed Xu Bangtai’s candidacy was a serious moral issue, a conspiracy and a tactic. Second, they believe that Xu Bangtai, in order to become chairman, disregarded normal democratic procedures and became a weapon in internal strife. Because during his preliminary campaign for chairmanship, Wang Ruowang consistently adhered to the principle of unity and solidarity among various factions within the movement. He always insisted that Xu Bangtai be the representative of the Democratic League, and Wan Runnan as the representative of the Civil Rights Front, both serving as his deputies. However, his ideas were opposed by the anti-Wan Runnan faction. These people became staunch supporters of Xu Bangtai’s presidential election and illegally manipulated the venue and the “replacement” of delegates. Wang Ruowang believed that if this “evil spirit” ran unchecked, it would not only cause serious moral pollution to the pro-democracy movement but also intensify the struggle between dissenting sides. Because of this, when the city gate caught fire, the fish in the moat were harmed, and Wang Ruowang became a victim of Xu Bangtai’s actions. To this end, Wang Ruowang gave a speech, stating that the reason he supported the pro-democracy movement in his later years was due to the poor reputation of the movement, and he was determined to improve their image both morally and financially. But overseas, some people tried to dampen the cold water, with one side openly and one behind the scenes, scheming and trickery. Faced with such extreme bullying, he had no choice but to make a helpless decision to announce his withdrawal from the race.
After introducing himself, Yue Wu announced his governing platform.
Hu Ping’s final speech. He stated that although Wang Ruowang’s withdrawal brought him considerable opportunities, he deeply sympathized with the reasons for his withdrawal, so he also announced his withdrawal. Hu Ping said that his reason for joining the democracy movement, besides his ideals of democracy and freedom, is also his hope that tomorrow’s politics will be clearer, more rational, and fairer. Hu Ping criticized the practice of “playing petty tricks” in overseas democratic politics, and pointed out: “Democracy can ensure that a few people are not corrupt, but it cannot guarantee that the majority will not become corrupt.” ”
The withdrawals of Wang Ruowang and Hu Ping were repeatedly interrupted by applause, and many people stood up to applaud.
Afterwards, Wang Ruowang and Hu Ping withdrew. Yue Wu then announced his withdrawal. Among the candidates for vice chairman, Wan Runnan, Ma Dawei, and Qian Da also announced their withdrawal. From then on, only Huaxiazi and Xu Bangtai remained as candidates for chairman, while the candidates for vice chairman were Wang Min, Zhang Boli, and Yang Jianli.
Within the presidium, Yao Yongzhan, Yang Zhongmei, and Qi Mo also announced their withdrawal.
Meanwhile, a considerable number of attendees announced their withdrawal, and some representatives of their respective divisions also announced their withdrawal.
Suddenly, the venue erupted into chaos: some protested, some cried, some beat their chests and stamped their feet, and some ran and shouted. In his speech, Qian Da angrily declared: “In our democratic operations, the most terrifying thing is not childishness, but the most terrifying thing is that it is filled with evil energy.” “We are the devil’s babies, give us a bit of clean democracy.”
If the Presidium had taken timely communication to save the situation, things might have been much better, but they still decided to proceed quickly. With forty official delegates unable to attend (total of 150), thirty-four attendees refusing to vote, and six candidates for chairman and vice president (eleven in total) withdrawing from the race, the presidium announced that Xu Bangtai was elected chairman with 77 votes, Yang Jianli with 73 votes, and Zhang Boli with 56 votes.
After the meeting, many problems were discovered, such as Qian Da seizing two fake “representatives” without CDR or CDF affiliations on the spot. After clarifying their identities, these two voluntarily left the venue. Their “representative” status was sometimes recommended by Xu Bangtai and recognized by individual members of the presidium. Qin Jin, an Australian participant, raised the issue of the legitimacy of Australia’s representative qualification. He said that within Australian pro-democracy activists, there have long been rumors that this trip to the US for a meeting is not about who the representative is, but whether he can get a visa. Whoever makes it to the U.S. wins. Australia is a region with strong pro-democracy activism in mainland China, but in this visa process, many representatives were unable to go to the U.S. as they wished, leaving many vacancies. Under the influence of some people, other pro-democracy activists from other countries were appointed as “substitute representatives.” Qin Jin questioned: Why is it that someone not from Australia holds the qualification to represent Australia, and that people from Australia who come to this branch cannot represent this branch! He believes that the fairness of this delegation truly represents the views of global organizations is highly questionable. In fact, the issue of “alternate” delegates at this congress did indeed contradict the decision of the Joint Working Committee of the Democratic League and the Democratic Front at the time. At that time, the number of representatives attending the meeting was 75 each from the Democratic League and the Democratic Front, totaling 150 people. If, due to visa or other reasons, official representatives could not attend, substitutes elected by grassroots representatives could fill the spot. If the alternate representatives are still not enough to fill the gap, then the meeting should be held based on actual representatives; it is not necessary to make 150 people. This is the main problem with the conference. To gather 150 delegates, the congress crammed many non-grassroots elected representatives under the name of “alternates.” This creates an opportunity for fraud. Yao Yongzhan pointed out: The Democratic Front has very serious problems with the replacement of representatives. He gave an example: the US branch of the Civil Human Rights Front filled nine Australian quotas. Where did these nine spots come from? It was decided by the American branch council itself. Is it legal for the Civil Human Rights Front’s U.S. branch council to fill nine quotas abroad? What’s even stranger is that although it was said to be a decision by the CDF’s branch council, there was no written basis for the resolution. The American Council of the Civil Human Rights Front has nine board members; reportedly, eight agreed and one opposed, but the current written statement shows that only two had signed. …… There are many similar questions.
On February 19 and 20, 1993, at the initiative of Hu and others, a “debate” was held to mend the rift between the two sides. The meeting lasted two days, during which both sides laid out their issues, but each side spoke their own way without finding common ground for concession or communication.
Some people believe this joint conference was a failed event, while others see it as a successful event.
Those who consider it a failed conference mainly focus on the following issues:
(1) If you open the 117th and 118th issues of “China Spring,” you will see two different lists of representatives from this congress: the first is the official list of delegates elected through grassroots elections, and the second is the list of delegates who actually attended. There is a striking difference between the two lists. Among the 150 representatives elected at the grassroots level, 75 each from the Democratic Alliance and the Civil Human Rights Front were elected, but surprisingly, 40 representatives were (? ) was unable to attend, including nineteen representatives from the Democratic League and twenty-one from the Civil Rights Front. The second list of delegates attending the meeting differed from the actual situation: there were seventy-five representatives from the Democratic League, while the Democratic Front actually had seventy-three representatives. Including two fake delegates who were not on the list but received representative cards and participated in some congress votes, the total number was seventy-five, totaling one hundred and fifty. Among the delegates not originally listed but added at the meeting, the Alliance for Democracy and the Civil Human Rights Front each had exactly twenty members, while twenty-four representatives from the United States and Canada were added, accounting for sixty percent of the total replacements. Among these substitutes, although a small portion were alternate representatives in grassroots elections, most were filled through fraud by certain individuals.
(2) Some fraud and irregular behaviors occurred during the meeting, such as: two members of the presidium openly violated their own democratic regulations, contradicted their own words, and temporarily participated in the vice chairman election, with one of them being elected vice chairman; The “Democratic United Front” established after the meeting still had a “separation of powers” structure, with the chairperson and vice-chairperson having only one power representing the executive branch. However, due to internal divisions within the pro-democracy movement organization, the “Democratic United Front” faced resistance from many indigenous league and CDF branch organizations in Europe, Australia, the Americas, Japan, and other countries. Neither the legislative (council) nor the enforcement (supervisory board) powers were established. Under these circumstances, only the “one power” (executive), and the “one power” elected through fraud, issued orders to grassroots organizations alone. In response, This has drawn much resentment from grassroots organizations.
(3) Regarding Xu Bangtai’s unexpected bid for chairmanship, although Xu Bangtai made his own statements, opponents considered it a sign of ‘extremely low political morality,’ premeditated and deliberately scheming, disregarding the overall situation.
Many pro-democracy activists believe that lessons should be learned from the failure of this conference.
Qian Da said: “If we truly want to save China today, we must first save ourselves. If we are a complete darkness, how can we lead China toward the light?” ”
Liu Binyan said, “We cannot be without conscience and sincerity; we cannot do anything more wicked and unjust!” ”
Xiang Xiaoji said, “A person cannot stand without trust.” Integrity, keeping one’s word, and being kind to others are the most basic moral standards. ”
Wang Ruowang called out: “Beware of the little Mao Zedong in your heart!” ”
Qi Mo said: “Among the pro-democracy movement ranks, there are idealists, conscientious, and justice-upheld people who cannot stand some people playing with ‘thick black’ tactics.” ”
Of course, some people have their own opinions regarding these accusations. They believe that Xu Bangtai’s candidacy is morally justified, that there was nothing shady at the meeting, and that there was no “iron vote” or fraud. However, they have consistently avoided discussing the issue of illegal replacement representation.
Due to their respective differing views, splits became inevitable. Successively, the Alliance for Democracy Kentucky, New York, Australia, Japan, Michigan, and Southern California branches announced they would continue activities under the Alliance branch name and refused to participate in the “Alliance for Democracy Alliance Front.” Many branches of the Civil Human Rights Front also declared that they do not recognize the legitimacy of the “Civil Human Rights Front Front.” After the meeting, most legitimate representatives from the Asia-Pacific and European regions decided to suspend the election of the “Democratic United Front’s directors and supervisors,” resulting in the Front failing to legally form its board of directors and supervisors, thereby raising further doubts about the legitimacy of the “Democratic United Front.”
Thesplit of the pro-democracy movement organization also caused turmoil in the editorial office of China Spring.
Theleaders of “China Spring” were President Yu Dahai, Chief Writer Hu Ping, and Manager Xue Wei. They also held the view of failure at this joint conference, but for the sake of the bigger picture, they believed that some efforts should be made to reconcile and coordinate within their capacity. Therefore, Hu Ping took the initiative to initiate the debate, aiming to reach consensus and find a compromise between both sides. In managing the publication, they believed it was unacceptable to be disrupted by splits between the two sides, but rather to firmly grasp the overall direction of the democracy movement. Until disputes are resolved and legal principles are clarified, operations should be maintained as before the conference. But things did not go as he wished. After the conference, the newly elected “Chairman” Xu Bangtai and Zhu Jiaming, who was later “elected” as “Chairman,” nominated Yu Dahai to remain as president of “China Spring,” stating that the original team would “remain unchanged for two years,” but the magazine had to be marked as “hosted by the China Democratic United Front,” which Yu Dahai refused. Because the editorial team knew that even if the elections at the conference were legal, the “Democratic United Front” only held executive power. Such appointments are invalid under conditions where neither the board of directors nor the supervisory board are legally established. Moreover, once it is marked as “hosted by the China Democratic United Front,” it drags the publication into internal disputes, seriously affecting work facing the mainland.
Not long after, Xu Bangtai and others, behind the back of the person in charge of “Chinese Spring,” carved a new steel seal and took all the funding for “Chinese Spring.” After discovering this, the person in charge of “China Spring” immediately reported the truth to the bank, which recognized their mistake and recovered the full amount. Seeing this path blocked, Xu Bangtai declared himself president under the name of the “Democratic United Front,” leading a group to forcibly take over “Chinese Spring,” but was resisted by the original “China Spring” team.
On April 27, 1993, the “Democratic United Front” took even more aggressive action, appealing to a U.S. court and suing “China Spring” president Yu Dahai, manager Xue Wei, and chief writer Hu Ping. The leadership team of “China Spring” decided that if they continued to get entangled with the “Democratic United Front” in litigation, it would not only waste hard-earned pro-democracy resources but also cause a prolonged and more serious standoff, damaging the image of the democratic movement in mainland China. So, in a proactive compromise, they reached an out-of-court settlement with the “China Democratic United Front” and stopped participating in work related to the magazine “China Spring.” In June 1993, Yu Dahai, Hu Ping, and Xue Wei, in order to continue promoting the democracy movement both on the mainland and overseas, resumed publishing ‘Beijing Spring’ from the pre-democracy wall period in the United States. In his first issue, ‘The Spirit of the Beijing Spring’ endures,’ Yu Dahai wrote with deep sorrow: ‘Over the years, the pro-democracy movement, especially overseas ones, has faced many setbacks, and we need to deeply reflect on this.’ …… Currently, the pro-democracy movement is prevalent in the movement to form cliques and worship ‘practical interests’ and ‘strength,’ with a strong fighting spirit for internal struggle. As a result, the moral appeal of the democracy movement has dropped to an unprecedented level. Another crisis of the democracy movement is the disconnect between theory and practice. Many people talk about democracy all day, but fail to analyze the profound changes in mainland society from the perspective of the democracy movement, nor do they know how to respect others’ rights in their actions. If this continues, the ‘democratic movement’ will gradually transform from a lofty, loud slogan into an offensive hollow term. He also said: “Today, we are republishing ‘Beijing Spring’ overseas to provide a forum to seek a path forward for the democracy movement together with everyone, and to carry forward the fundamental spirit of the ‘Beijing Spring’ movement: ‘promoting democratic politics and valuing idealism.’” ”
Amid the turmoil caused by the split within the pro-democracy movement, many suspicious “mysterious” events have emerged. One was shortly after the congress convened, when many pro-democracy activists received anonymous faxes from their homes. The fax claimed to be “someone who knew Xue Wei’s background,” exposed Xue Wei’s so-called “background,” and launched purely fabricated and malicious personal attacks. Some of the contents of this fax were written by a person under the alias “Wang He” as tensions escalated between the editorial department of “China Spring” and the “Democratic United Front,” published in an overseas journal. Coincidentally, a Chinese-language community newspaper in New York, whose editor is a member of the Democratic Alliance for Democracy, immediately reprinted the article in the form of a “Democratic Alliance Special Issue.” They clearly did this to see Xue Wei as a hardliner refusing to hand over “China Spring.” Although the newspaper later publicly apologized to Xue Wei and admitted that the article was “completely unfounded,” it had already caused great damage to Xue Wei’s personal reputation and had a serious impact on the overseas pro-democracy movement. To this day, neither the fax distributor nor this “Wang He” have dared to step forward and take responsibility for their actions, and people still do not know who they really are. To clear his name and seek justice, Xue Wei sued the community newspaper and the “Democratic United Front” for defamation. Additionally, for a period of time, faxes suddenly appeared in New York communities under the names of two members of the “East Coast Taiwan Association,” demanding that sponsors cut off donations to overseas pro-democracy movements. When asked about this, the president of the Taiwan Association personally confirmed that there were no such two members, and the association had not made a similar decision. He also believed, “Only you or the CCP would do such things.”
The overseas pro-democracy movement has fallen into a deep crisis, with many activists loudly calling on upright individuals in overseas movements to never shirk their responsibilities. In these difficult times, loyal members of the Democratic Alliance and the Front of the Democratic Front overseas, the largest overseas pro-democracy organizations, should continue to hold high the banner of democracy.
Deep reflection—the establishment of the Coordination Council and the Six Congresses of the China Democratic League
The failure of the Democratic League and the Civil Human Rights Front joint conference dealt an unprecedented and severe blow to the overseas pro-democracy movement.
To minimize the unnecessary consumption caused by internal strife and quickly reverse the direction of overseas pro-democracy movements, on February 20, 1993, three prominent mainland Chinese dissidents—Wang Ruowang, Liu Binyan, and Fang Lizhi—jointly issued a proposal to convene the “Joint Conference on Human Rights and Democracy Movements,” which received many responses from pro-democracy activists and organizations. From May 7 to 9, 1993, the conference was held in Los Angeles, USA.
On the morning of May 7th, more than fifty participants from around the world, as well as more than forty guests from various sectors from China and abroad, attended the opening ceremony of the conference. Los Angeles City Councilmember Hernandez, Congresswoman Silla’s assistant Lin Bitz, Amnesty International Human Rights Chair Avila, Director of the Asian Studies Department at the Clermont Institute, Mao Sidi, Chairman of the Los Angeles Chinese Association, and Yu Guozhu, convener of the Southern California Committee for Mainland Democracy, each delivered speeches congratulating the conference.
At the same time, Mao Sidi, a member of the preparatory committee for Radio Free Asia in the United States, said when discussing the current state of overseas democracy movements: “If the American people see ‘rebuilding America’ as a major task for Americans today, then overseas Chinese democracy movements should place ‘Reconstruction Workers’ in an important position.” ”
Liu Binyan, a renowned writer and one of the organizers of the conference, also considered the prospects of overseas democracy movements to be ominous and dangerous. He said, “The moral, educational, legal, and religious destruction caused by the disruption of mainland culture can also be seen in some overseas pro-democracy activists.” ”
JohnJohan, an active promoter of the joint conference, expressed gratitude for the support of the conference from all parties. He pointed out that because the Washington joint conference failed to achieve the goal of integrating unity and raising the moral standards of the democracy movement, he, Liu, and Fang proposed convening this joint meeting to address the crisis of division. Some say we are creating division and starting anew, and this meeting is precisely to save the division. However, it is indeed necessary to start anew. Since many do not recognize the legitimacy of the “Democratic United Front,” these participants must be given a second choice.
Another initiator of the joint conference, Fang Lizhi, was unable to attend for various reasons. At the meeting, his letters to Wang Ruowang and Liu Binyan were read, expressing his expectations for the meeting and wishing to “cherish time and opportunities.”
Anintroduction and analysis of the situation and current situation on the mainland was the theme of this meeting. Lin Changsheng, a researcher at the Clermont Institute, spoke about his recent two-month inspection in mainland China. Civil Human Rights Front chairman Wan Runnan meticulously analyzed the crisis beneath the surface of the mainland economy. Reflecting on the many issues surrounding overseas pro-democracy movements was the second theme of the joint meeting. In his speech, Qian Da revealed the negative elimination phenomenon of “bad money chasing out good” within the pro-democracy movement ranks. The reason is that the group insists on “obeying the majority” but forgets “respecting the minority.” However, both “obeying the majority” and “respecting the minority” are fundamental principles of democracy. Wu Fangcheng sharply criticized the moral issues of some members of the pro-democracy movement. Wang Ruowang also again criticized the Washington United Conference’s “black-box operations and fraudulent practices.” He said that the attitude toward the “Democratic United Front” is to follow its development, compete peacefully, cooperate on mainland work, and ignore internal strife.
The joint meeting has brought profound reflection and new thinking to overseas pro-democracy movements. Originally, before the Washington Joint Conference, everyone had a strong wish: through the merger of the two major pro-democracy organizations, resources and talent would be concentrated, which would reduce costs and form a unified situation. But its failure made people reconsider this way of thinking, feeling that achieving unification might not be a good solution. The various problems that arise within the pro-democracy movement organizations basically stem from two reasons: first, the influence of the Communist Party’s political culture; second, disregard for one’s own conditions, arbitrarily applying democratic approaches from Western countries’ political life—such as “separation of powers,” “partnership elections,” “term limits,” and so on—into the organization. In fact, while some basic concepts of a political organization and a country’s political life are similar, they ultimately belong to two different categories.
Perhaps it was onthis reflection that many participants and group representatives signed after the joint meeting to initiate the establishment of the “China Democratic Movement Organizations Coordination Conference.” After intense debate, the meeting adopted the “Charter of the China Democratic Movement Organizations Coordination Council,” which states that the “China Democracy Movement Coordination Council” is the liaison, coordination, and cooperation body for various pro-democracy groups and dissidents in mainland China. Its purpose is to promote democratization and improve human rights in mainland China, advocate a culture of integrity, fairness, integrity, and tolerance, and engage in diverse cooperation. The meeting elected a Coordination Committee, with Wang Ruowang as the chief convener and Xiang Xiaoji as secretary-general. The “Announcement of the China Democracy Movement Organizations Coordination Meeting” issued by convener Wang Ruowang stated that the Coordination Committee welcomes all mainland Chinese pro-democracy groups to participate in the “Coordination Meeting” with the goal of jointly advancing China’s democratization process, and to establish equal and diverse coordination and cooperation relationships among the organizations.
On the afternoon of the 9th, Hu Ping, chief writer of “China Spring,” reported at the “Coordination Meeting” that the magazine was forced into a lawsuit filed by the Democratic United Front and now threatened the normal operation and survival of the publication. Participants at the meeting, following the proposal of Wu Fangcheng and others, decided to join the lawsuit as a third party to save “China Spring.” Participants donated $3,560 on the spot to urgently support legal fees for court hearings by Yu Dahai, Xue Wei, and others. Subsequently, a “Legal Prosecution Panel Against the Alliance for Democracy” was established, led by David Ma, Wu Fangcheng, Mo Fengjie, and Xiang Xiaoji, who filed a lawsuit against the Front in a U.S. court against the Alliance for Democracy (NLRF) for illegality. Although the “China Spring” case was later settled out of court, the lawsuit against the “United for Democracy” against illegality was still under trial as of May 1994.
At the same time as the “Coordination Committee” was established, both the Democratic League and the Civil Human Rights Front issued statements announcing their continued existence and would hold the “Three Congresses” and the “Sixth Congress” of the Civil Human Rights Front at an appropriate time. Before the “Third Congress” of the Civil Rights Front and the “Sixth Congress” of the Democratic League, the headquarters of these two organizations continued to play a role in coordinating and guiding grassroots institutions.
After the joint meeting and the “Coordination Committee” were established, many insightful figures in the pro-democracy movement, such as Qian Da, Du Zhifu, and Zhang Wei, did a great deal of work to heal wounds and achieve integration. On November 21, 1993, during the visit of CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin to the United States and a high-level summit with President Clinton, a group of prominent pro-democracy activists from the US and Canada gathered in Seattle and issued the Seattle Declaration, signed by thirty-nine people. Among the signers were key figures from both sides who held differing views on the Washington Joint Conference. To bridge their differences, they once used a meeting in Seattle to reach an agreement prohibiting mutual attacks and seeking common ground while reserving differences. However, not long after, the leader of the “Democracy Alliance” unilaterally rejected the agreement after signing.
On November 26, 1993, the third Congress of the Democratic China Front grandly opened in Melbourne, Australia. The conference heard the work reports of the second headquarters, council, and supervisory board, carefully discussed and approved the “Amendment to the Constitution of the China Democratic Front,” and in principle adopted the “Joint Declaration” of the Democratic Front and the China Democratic Federation. The congress decided to shift the Civil Human Rights Front’s next focus from creating momentum abroad to gradually shifting to domestic layout, and striving for economic autonomy.
The meeting elected the leadership team of the Civil Rights Front, composed of the board of directors and the board of supervisors: Wan Runnan as chairman, Ma Dawei, Qi Mo, and Sun Jisheng as vice chairmen, and Du Zhifu as chairman of the supervisory board.
From November29 to December 1, 1993, the Sixth World Congress of the China Democratic Unity League was held in Sydney, Australia. More than sixty delegates and non-ferrary delegates from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia attended the conference. Before the meeting, Yu Dahai, chairman of the China Democratic League, learned about the preparations in Sydney. The committee convener, Yi Xiao Ji, paid a visit to Australian Foreign Minister Evans and briefed the Australian government on the “Six Congresses” of the China Democratic League.
On the evening of the 28th, the delegates attending the conference held a preparatory meeting. The meeting discussed the agenda and rules of the congress, reviewed the qualifications of delegates, and elected the presidium. The presidium of the conference consisted of seven members: Xiang Xiaoji, Qi Mo, Xue Wei, Xie Hong, Wu Fangcheng, Zhao Dongming, and Zhou Xiaomeng.
On the morning of the 29th, the conference officially opened. All delegates and guests first stood solemnly to pay their respects to the victims of June 4th. Afterwards, some guests delivered congratulatory speeches to the conference. Wan Runnan, chairman of the Civil Human Rights Front; Lin Changsheng, chairman of the All-American Self-Defense Federation; Jiang Yong, chairman of the All-Canada Student Union; Wu’er Kaixi, leader of the ’89 Democracy Movement’; and representatives from the overseas Chinese community delivered speeches. Wang Ruowang, chief convener of the ‘China Democracy Movement Coordination Conference,’ sent a congratulatory message.
On the first day of the conference, the delegates listened to Chairman Yu Dahai’s written report, carefully discussed the “Joint Declaration of the Democratic Alliance and Civil Front,” analyzed current global trends and China’s situation, and clarified the purposes, principles, and short-term goals of the China Democratic Alliance. Leaders from various divisions shared their work experiences over the past two years and the situation of grassroots organizations. During ample free speaking time, the delegates freely shared their various proposals and viewpoints.
On the second day of the conference, the delegates discussed amending the “Constitution of the China Democratic Federation,” reaffirming the basic political program of “freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights.” In light of past organizational shortcomings, they implemented a significant streamlining of the organization, abolishing the Joint Committee and Supervisory Committee, and establishing only the Headquarters Committee of the China Federation. The committee consisted of fifteen members: one chairman, three vice-chairmen, eight district members, and three directly elected members. As a result, most of the headquarters’ power was transferred to the grassroots, enhancing their sense of responsibility and initiative.
TheDemocratic League’s charter further stipulates in Article 1 of its general guidelines: the full name of this organization is the China Democratic Solidarity Alliance, abbreviated as “China Democratic League,” and it publishes the magazine “China Spring.”
On the 31st, in a serious, sincere, and harmonious atmosphere, all representatives elected the “Six Congress” leadership teams of the China Democratic Federation: Chairman Wu Fangcheng, Vice Chairmen Xiang Xiaoji, Xie Hong, and Zhou Xiaomeng. Yan Li, Yao Yongzhan, and Zhao Dongming were elected as directly elected members. The regional members were Libert (Hong Kong), Jiao Baigu (Japan), Sun Dasheng (Victoria, Australia), Zhuang Xiankang (New York, Australia), Mo Fengjie (Los Angeles), Shu Changqing (New York), Jia Wenwei (Kentucky), and Pan Yongzhong (Germany).
Wu Fangcheng, chairman of the Sixth Congress of the China Democratic League, is from Liaoning Province. He was born in 1944 in Santai, Sichuan, and moved to Beijing with his parents after the War of Resistance. In 1962, he entered the Department of Chemistry at Peking University, and in 1968 he was assigned to Inner Mongolia. In 1978, he was admitted to the first graduate program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, obtained a master’s degree in plant virus molecular biology in 1981, went to study in the United States the same year, earned his PhD in 1986, and was appointed as a researcher at the University of Kentucky in the United States. Since 1991, he has been engaged in the American fast-food chain business. He joined the China Democratic Federation in 1984 and successively served as chairman of the Kentucky branch, headquarters committee member, member of the alliance committee, and deputy director.
Thenewly elected chairman of the Democratic Alliance, Wu Fangcheng, vice-chairmen Xiang Xiaoji, Xie Hong, and Zhou Xiaomeng, along with the newly elected chairman and vice chairman of the Civil Human Rights Front, jointly signed the “Joint Declaration” on behalf of the Democratic League and the Civil Human Rights Front on the afternoon of December 1, 1993, on a yacht called “Miranda.” The declaration analyzed the external and internal conditions of China’s democracy movement, argued the roles and goals of the Democratic League and Democracy Front in Chinese politics, and listed the recent specific tasks of both organizations. The NLD and the Civil Human Rights Front positioned their relationship as “independent existence and close cooperation.” As a member of the “China Democratic Movement Organizations Coordination Council,” the Democratic Alliance and Civil Front will actively promote reconciliation and coordination among all pro-democracy groups, including those with significant disagreements such as the “Democratic Alliance Front,” pioneering a new situation of diverse coexistence and inclusive cooperation among pro-democracy organizations. The Democratic Alliance and the Civil Rights Front also decided that going forward, they will shift their focus to mainland China, promote the mainland’s shift toward democracy, and welcome the arrival of the “post-Deng Xiaoping” era with a fighting spirit.
However, shortly after the conclusion of the Civil Human Rights Front’s “Third Congress” and the Democratic League’s “Sixth Congress,” the Democratic United Front issued a stern statement, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Democratic League and the Democratic Front and reserving the right to pursue legal action. At the same time, the “Democratic United Front” board resolved that any member preparing for the “Six Congresses” and “Three Major Conferences” of the Democratic United Front would be considered to have voluntarily left the Front and would no longer have organizational relations with the Front itself.
After the “Sixth Congress,” the Democratic Alliance carried out a comprehensive organizational restructuring. Currently, across five continents—from the United States and Canada to Hong Kong, Japan, Southeast Asia, Australia, Western Europe, Russia, South America, and even mainland China—the Democratic Alliance has established its own grassroots organizations, with branches, branches, and liaison stations worldwide.
Adecade of ups and downs has passed, and as the first global Chinese pro-democracy movement organization overseas, the China Democratic Unity League has gone through a difficult journey. Setbacks once again provided valuable experience and lessons for the members of the China Democratic Federation, helping them become more mature. They recognize that overseas pro-democracy organizations, under the principles of “democracy, freedom, human rights, and rule of law,” have not only aimed to end the CCP’s one-party authoritarianism but also face the arduous task of “rebuilding the people” themselves. On this difficult and winding journey, they have fallen more than once, only to get back up again and again. “The road ahead is long and far-reaching; I will search high and low.” As long as there is a political prisoner, prisoner of conscience, or prisoner of thought still held in China’s prisons, and as long as the social systems of freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights have not yet been established in mainland China, the China Democratic League will continue to hold high the banner of ideals and justice, striving relentlessly. They believe that as long as they hold onto their unwavering belief in democracy and the tenacious spirit of seeking truth, they will surely shoulder the historic responsibility of transforming China, helping our suffering motherland to overcome the cold winter as soon as possible and move toward a vibrant, brilliant spring! (End) □