“The flower of freedom blooms for the warrior.”
After the establishment of the “China Spring Democracy Movement” and the “China Democratic League,” they faced a serious and complex situation: many people and students studying abroad, for political reasons, applied for political asylum in their host countries while hoping the “China Democratic Federation” would lend a helping hand. Generally speaking, the China Democratic League does not encourage political asylum; they hope these overseas travelers and students can return to mainland China to bring back democratic and free ideas, thereby promoting changes in the mainland’s political system. However, mainland Chinese applicants seeking political asylum have deep political and social reasons. Under the CCP’s authoritarian regime, there are serious human rights violations and persecution of political dissidents. As Xue Wei (Wang Sishu), president of the China Mainland Political Asylum Association, an affiliated organization of the “China Democratic League,” said: “From my own experience, I deeply understand the difficulties faced by mainland Chinese scholars studying in the US. Most of their families and individuals have endured the disasters of our era. Some of them participated in the democracy movement in the mainland and remain connected to the movement even after coming overseas.” …… They need help; all suffering compatriots must unite; only by uniting can there be strength and to awaken global attention to human rights in mainland China.” (See Fu Yingjie, Issue 53 of China Spring, “The Flower of Freedom Blooms for the Warriors”).
During the early days of “China Spring,” due to its appeal, incidents such as Liu Xianbing’s defection to freedom, the forced deportation of Chen Zhenxiong and five San Francisco exchange students occurred, and Cui Chengyu’s suicide. Soon after, Yang Su, Deputy Consul General of the Chinese Consulate in Osaka, Japan, committed suicide in despair due to sympathy for the democratic movement and dissatisfaction with the CCP system. In April 1984, Zhang Zhenggao, deputy leader of a Chinese mainland inspection delegation, disgusted by the authoritarian system in mainland China, left the group seeking political asylum but was kidnapped, placed under house arrest, and detained by the Chinese Consulate in New York. During his escape, he broke his leg bones and was forcibly sent back by the CCP, with his fate unknown. In December 1984, Zhang Xin, a member of the Chinese textile delegation to Guyana and an electrical engineer from Jinan, Shandong, applied for political asylum during a layover, but was denied. With nowhere to return, he returned to the New York consulate. In the early hours of the 12th, Zhang Xin was found dead inside the consulate, and the Chinese Consulate in New York issued a statement calling it a suicide.
These cases have greatly shaken the “China Democratic League,” which believes that helping these isolated individuals who despise the CCP regime for political reasons is their unshirkable responsibility. On the day of Zhang Xinzhi’s death, the headquarters of the China Democratic Alliance immediately convened an emergency meeting, stating that there were many doubts about his death. Regardless of the cause of death, he was a victim of the authoritarian system trampling on human rights in mainland China and the double human rights standards of the United States. The “China Democratic League” decided to actively carry out activities to seek justice for Zhang Xin and advocate for the human rights of Chinese people. On December 13, 1984, Wang Min, vice chairman of the China Democratic League, held a press conference in New York, disclosed some internal documents seized by the federation, and expressed his views on the Zhang Xin case. Subsequently, Wang Min, representing the “China Democratic League,” participated in a temporary committee formed by the New York overseas Chinese community to uncover the truth behind the Zhang Xin case. On December 21, Chinese communities from all walks of life in New York held a memorial ceremony for Zhang Xin in front of the Chinese Consulate, where Lin Qiaoqing, a member of the Standing Committee of the China Democratic Federation, delivered a speech. On December 19, Wang Bingzhang, chairman of the China Democratic Federation, sent letters to all members of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. State Department, criticizing the U.S. government’s double standards policy on one hand, and on the other, solemnly pointing out the human rights violations by the Chinese Communist regime and the Chinese Consulate in New York. On December 20th, Wang Bingzhang, Huang Ben, and others went to the Capitol Hill to meet with Kelly Polonis, an official of the House Human Rights and International Organizations Subcommittee, and Richard Bush, an official of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s Asia-Pacific Subcommittee, and presented them with detailed materials and related letters regarding the Zhang Letter case in person. Kelly Polonis said he will work to advance the Central Continental Human Rights hearings in Congress. On December 19, Wang Bingzhang spoke by phone with Laua Dietrich, Assistant Secretary of State of the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, regarding the Zhang Xin case, hoping the U.S. government would improve the double standards for political asylum and gradually approve applications for asylum from mainland Chinese to the U.S., so that the backlog of cases should not increase. However, Lava Dietrich did not comment on the Zhang Xin case and denied that the U.S. has double standards for political asylum cases.
Among those applying for political asylum, Xue Wei, a member of the China Democratic Federation, was a brave figure. Xue Wei was a student in mainland China who was once arrested and imprisoned by the CCP on charges of “counter-revolutionary.” In 1980, he self-funded his studies abroad. During his studies, he worked part-time while actively engaging in overseas democratic movements. Given the publicity of his activities and the potential political persecution he might face upon returning to mainland China, he sought political asylum from the U.S. government. But based on his feelings, he believed that the U.S. government, in response to the overall strategy of uniting with mainland China to resist the Soviet Union, indeed applied double standards to political asylum seekers. His case was submitted to the immigration bureau for two years with no response, and it wasn’t until the end of 1983 that he was officially notified, and his application had been rejected by the State Council. But this did not discourage Xue Wei. He firmly believed in America’s democratic system, believed that America was a place where justice could be found, and believed in the rule of law in a democratic society. With the help of a lawyer, he filed a complaint in a district court against the U.S. State Department for violating the United Nations Refugee Law. In court, he presented the verdict on his “counter-revolutionary crimes” in his region on mainland China and evidence of his overseas involvement in democracy movements. After three rounds of verbal battles, the court ruled in favor of Xue Wei, and the U.S. State Department lost the case. The Xue Wei case set a precedent for mainland Chinese nationals in the U.S. to obtain human rights protection through legal channels. Xue Wei said, “I chose political asylum to tell the U.S. government and people that there is serious political persecution in mainland China, and to make them accept this fact.” After arriving in the U.S., I found that the American political and political circles knew very little about the situation in mainland China; they mistakenly thought the adorable faces of Chinese children were under the Communist regime. The U.S. granting me political asylum is tantamount to acknowledging the political persecution in mainland China. Additionally, I want to seek political asylum in the U.S. for those Chinese who will indeed face persecution after returning home, and to find a way forward. (See Fu Yingjie, Issue 27 of ‘China Spring’, ‘Freedom and Human Rights Win, Democracy and Rule of Law Celebrate Triumph.’)
From this perspective, the “China Democratic Federation” and the “China Mainland Association of Political Asylum Seekers” have helped many people who sought political asylum from their host governments, providing legal consultation, document translation, and testimony in court. Among these individuals, some were unwilling to disclose their identities for various reasons, but most not only did they reveal their identities but later became active participants in overseas democracy movements. In total, there have been over 300 cases of direct or indirect assistance from them.
During this period, two notable cases of political asylum
occurred:The first is the case of eleven young people from Fuzhou who had illegally entered the country and applied for political asylum from the U.S. government. These eleven young people from Fuzhou, unable to bear the human rights situation and persecution in mainland China, fled their homes and passed through Hong Kong and Macau, crossing the Pacific Ocean. On April 17, 1986, they were found by immigration authorities in Miami waters, USA, and subsequently detained in Miami jail. Among these eleven individuals, eleven have bitter and bloody histories: some suffered persecution because their fathers had once served as Kuomintang officials, some were arrested and paraded through the streets for “land distribution and independent farming,” some were forced to have sterilization after having an extra child, and some lost their right to work because of “rural household registration…… They then applied for political asylum from the U.S. government. The news of the arrest of eleven young people from Fuzhou was first learned by Ms. Liu Yan, a Chinese translator hired by the immigration bureau from the Miami overseas Chinese community. Out of sympathy for the Chinese people, Liu Yan was determined to help them. She saw news in a Chinese newspaper about the founding of the “China Mainland Political Asylum Association” and immediately contacted its president, Xue Wei (Wang Sishu). On September 15, 1986, Xue Wei flew to Miami, where he met these eleven young men in prison, learned about the case, and accepted their jointly signed “Appeal to Free World Figures.” In late September and early October, their “appeals” were successively published in Chinese newspapers such as Sing Tao Daily, International Daily, World Journal, and News Entertainment Weekly, immediately sparking a strong reaction in the Chinese community. Many overseas Chinese organizations and groups, such as the “Chinese Association,” “Free Fuzhou Association,” “New York Anti-Slavery State Organization,” and “China Human Rights Association,” some called the parliament, others published large advertisements supporting the just actions of eleven Fuzhou youths. The Miami Immigration Bureau court held its first trial on October 28. As a witness, Xue Wei made every effort in court, repeatedly stating to the judge the brutality of the mainland Chinese regime. He pointed out that once detained, they would face the tragic fate of persecution by the Chinese Communist regime, and he demanded that U.S. authorities grant them political asylum from a humanitarian standpoint. Nevertheless, the Miami immigration court still found insufficient evidence for the eleven Fuzhou youths applying for political asylum and decided to notify the Chinese embassy to deport them. After the verdict was handed down, eleven young people from Fuzhou felt uncertain about their futures. Xue Wei encouraged them to persevere and appeal again: “As long as you bravely expose the CCP’s persecution of you in a U.S. court, and let the U.S. know the true situation of human rights in mainland China, you will ultimately win.” At the same time, the “China Mainland Political Asylum Association” sent a letter to the U.S. Congress, calling on U.S. authorities to pay attention to human rights in mainland China and to pay attention to the political asylum application case of these eleven Fuzhou youths. Shortly after the letter was sent, the “China Mainland Political Asylum Association” received a reply from House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Soradz, who expressed serious concern for the fate of eleven refugees and requested detailed information from the committee. In March 1987, eleven young people were detained at the Houston Immigration Bureau’s departure center. At this time, the Chinese Embassy responded: if the eleven youths agreed, they could obtain passports through the Chinese Consulate in Houston and send them back to China. Faced with such a perilous situation, four people were completely desperate and contacted the Chinese Consulate in Houston. The other seven firmly refused to meet with the consulate staff, which also prevented them from achieving their intended deportation. They were determined to die: if the U.S. government insisted on repatriation, they would send them back to the sea—better to be swallowed by the waves than to return to mainland China. At this time, the overseas Chinese community in Houston also expressed their support. These organizations included: the Texas Vietnamese, Cotton, Lao Chinese Friendship Associations, the Texas Three Principles of the People Alliance, the Texas Chinese Association, and the Chaozhou and Fujian Associations. They were also interviewed by Houston TV and followed up with reports by reporters from the World Journal, International Daily, Southern American News, Chinese Express, and Oriental News. The Washington-Chinese American Association also hired a renowned Texas lawyer, Mr. Guan Zhenpeng, and through Guan, appealed again to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services court. “The flower of freedom blooms for the warriors.” The day after those four youths were deported back to mainland China, the immigration bureau approved the bail release of the other seven youths. On September 1, 1987, they bid farewell to one year and five months of imprisonment, were released from prison, and gained their freedom.
The other was the incident where Sun Feng rode his bike onto the “Road to Freedom.” Sun Feng was originally an adult education teacher at the Shenzhen Municipal Education Bureau in Guangdong Province. From a young age, he had a dream—to become a global traveler. During the Cultural Revolution, he repeatedly requested cycling trips around the world to relevant central departments, but was not approved. In 1986, the CCP promulgated the “Law on Exit and Entry of Chinese Citizens.” Based on these provisions, he once again applied to the government for self-funded cycling trips around the world. After much effort, his wish was finally realized. He became the first Chinese traveler since 1949 to travel around the world by bicycle. On September 25, 1986, Sun Feng began his journey, from Shenzhen to Hong Kong and Thailand, followed by Malaysia, Singapore, South Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Greece, Italy, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, West Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, and the United States. The original plan was over 50,000 kilometers, but I actually covered more than 20,000 kilometers. Sun Feng had already heard of “Spring in China” while in mainland China. When he arrived in Hong Kong, he read the first copy of “Spring in China,” and thereafter, wherever he went, he would do everything possible to purchase “Spring in China.” When he rode his bike to Amman, the capital of Jordan, he heard on the radio about the suppression of the student movement in mainland China. Soon after, the Chinese Embassy in Jordan notified him to listen to a “Central Document.” It turned out that mainland China had launched another campaign to “oppose bourgeois liberalization,” and General Secretary Hu Yaobang had been dismissed, which shocked him greatly. Subsequent cycling trips brought disturbing news: Wang Ruowang, Fang Lizhi, and Liu Binyan were expelled from the Party; Hu Qiaomu and Deng Liqun were “anti-capitalist” The rhetoric was rampant, and the “Shenzhen Youth Daily” and “Shenzhen Workers’ Daily” were ordered to cease publication. Carrying a sense of concern for his motherland, he arrived in Rome, Italy. At that time, the Chinese government had just sent an education delegation to “explain” recent events on the mainland to the students studying abroad. Sun Feng attended the meeting, and unable to contain his anger, he said only one sentence: “Treating unarmed students like this—doesn’t that count as suppression!” Can China continue to stir things up like this? Unexpectedly, this one sentence caused a huge disaster. When he arrived in Paris by bike, the Chinese Embassy in France suddenly notified him, saying, “We received an urgent call from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on May 8, asking you to stop your trip and return to China immediately.” “Knowing things were going badly, Sun Feng rode his bike out of France overnight and stayed in a small Dutch city. The Chinese Embassy in the Netherlands received the news and sent two more people to drive to the town, notifying him that he had once again received an urgent telegram from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ordering him to return home immediately or face the consequences. Sun Feng rode his bike to Amsterdam again, and as soon as he settled in, he received a call from the Chinese embassy. After arriving in The Hague, Sun Feng attended a Chinese school anniversary ceremony. There, he encountered people from the Chinese Embassy in the Netherlands, who tried every possible way to lure him to the embassy. Sun Feng became highly cautious and avoided the embassy staff. After that, Sun Feng was practically playing hide-and-seek with Chinese embassies in various countries. Whether in Spain, the UK, or Canada, Chinese embassies always “visited” him. On September 18th, a day of pouring rain, he rode his bicycle to New York. From September 24 to 25, he called several officials at the Chinese Consulate in New York, again hoping the embassy could help clarify the real reason for his return. He also said that if it was because he said something bad, please be tolerant and let him finish his journey before returning home. But the reply he received was: “We will no longer interfere with your affairs. If you do not follow the organization’s decisions, you will bear all consequences yourself.” With nowhere else to turn, Sun Feng found the ‘China Democratic League’ and said, “Step by step, I was forced to join Liangshan, and I also came to realize how mainland China needs democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.” On September 30th, accompanied by Xue Wei from the “China Mainland Political Asylum Association,” Sun Feng held a press conference and announced that he would apply for political asylum from the U.S. government. Soon, New York newspapers reported Sun Feng’s defection to freedom, making him a news figure. With the assistance of the “China Mainland Political Asylum Association,” Sun Feng’s application was smoothly approved by the U.S. government.
Thesecond Congress of the China Democratic League was held
From December
27 to 30, 1985, the “China Democratic League” held its second representative conference in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. Thirty-eight delegates attended the meeting, mainly from around the world, mainly mainland Chinese students, as well as students from Hong Kong and Taiwan, professors, and overseas Chinese.
The meeting was opened by Wang Bingzhang, chairman of the first “China Democratic Federation.” His speech was unlike any traditional speech; he did not make formal talks or discuss the “historical significance” of this congress. He said that everyone was promoting the democracy movement. Now, assuming I am an observer, I would like to pose some challenging questions. If the congress can provide satisfactory answers and convince me, the observer, then our congress will succeed. Next, Wang Bingzhang posed twelve questions to the representatives, asking them to answer, which was quite insightful for them to further understand the situation and appreciate the content of democratic operations.
Next, distinguished guests invited by the conference, former Vice Chair of the U.S. Presidential Export Committee and member of the U.S. Presidential Scholars Committee, along with Benton, a representative of the U.S. Democratic Policy Committee, delivered speeches and delivered congratulatory remarks at the meeting. In her speech, Ms. Chen Xiangmei raised a thought-provoking question, saying: “Today, you are gathering in Washington, the capital of the United States to discuss issues of rule of law, freedom, human rights, and democracy in China. It can be said that you are fortunate, but also your misfortune.” If our own country has already realized these ideals, would we still go to their capital to discuss these issues? “Your organization held its first conference two years ago and the second this year. It’s not easy. An organization can’t do without manpower and financial support. Today, everyone gathers together to discuss issues, which is something to celebrate and praise.” In his speech, Mr. Benton gave high praise to the China Democratic Federation, saying: “The work you are engaged in today will have a tremendous impact on China’s future and the world’s future.” He also suggested that delegates “read the historical documents that founded the United States and the materials preserved by the federal government, so as to understand the struggles the founding fathers undertook to achieve democracy in American history.” ”
At this time, the famous Chinese pro-democracy activist Ms. Lin Xiling They also went to Washington, where during discussions about whether Ms. Lin Xiling could attend and speak, a side story arose. Most delegates emphasized that Lin Xiling was not a member of the League and was not qualified to participate in all agendas, with Liu Zisang, the Paris branch representative, opposing the most. He said, “Our Paris branch knows Lin Xiling best (Lin lives in France). She is not an axe—an axe can destroy or build.” She is a bomb—only destruction. Finally, all representatives voted by a show of hands, passing the following proposal by overwhelming majority: Ms. Lin Xiling will give a one-hour speech. Anyone willing to speak further may visit her hotel after the meeting, and the entire evening of the 28th will be given to her, allowing her to discuss freely with the delegates. On the morning of the 28th, Lin Xiling attended the event and delivered a speech. She affirmed the achievements of the “China Democratic League” over two years but also sharply criticized some issues, with an attitude bordering on reproach. That evening, some representatives held a discussion with Lin Xiling.
The congress listened to work reports from the Japan, Europe, and Hong Kong branches, discussed the situation in mainland China, formulated strategies for the democracy movement, adopted new charters, and elected new coordination and supervisory bodies. At this meeting, important documents included: “Announcement of the Secretariat of the Second Congress of the China Democratic Alliance (No. 1, No. 2),” “Document No. 2 from the Headquarters of the China Democratic Federation,” “The Second World Congress of the China Democratic League’s Views on the Situation in Mainland China,” “The Second Congress of the China Democratic League’s Views on the Current Situation in Taiwan,” “The Open Letter to the Beijing Government on the Release of Wei Jingsheng and Other Imprisoned Pro-Democracy Activists from the Second Congress of the China Democratic League,” The China Democratic Federation’s two major global open letters to the Beijing government demanding the publication of China Spring magazine domestically, the “General Charter of the China Democratic Unity League,” the “Supplementary Regulations to the Organizational Law of the Constitution of the China Democratic League,” the “Supplementary Regulations to the Constitution of the China Democratic Federation on the Definition of Authority and Responsibilities of Responsible Institutions, Persons in Charge, and Members,” and the “Proposal Law for the Abolition, Amendment, and Supplementation of the Constitution of the China Democratic League,” were all published in the 33rd issue of “China Spring.”
Thetwo major congresses of the China Democratic Federation, compared to the first, have taken a significant step forward. First, it institutionalized the organization of the federation, and it adopted new constitutions and the responsible bodies established under them, preliminarily establishing a decentralized and balanced organizational structure.
In terms of charter and organizational structure, the “China Democratic Federation” implemented the following decentralization:
Supervisory and judicial bodies: the Supervisory Committee. The Supervisory Committee has the right to interpret the alliance’s constitution and to decide whether any member violates the charter, and has the power to suspend any member’s affiliation except for the headquarters standing committee and supervisory committee members. Additionally, the Supervisory Commission exercises partial recall powers over headquarters standing committee members.
Permanent legal bodies: the headquarters committee and the standing committee. It approved various rules and regulations of headquarters, approved personnel appointments and removals by the chairman of the Democratic League over headquarters’ operating institutions, approved certain important plans of headquarters, and checked the work of the supervisory committee.
Administrative Department: The headquarters. The chairman of the Democratic League appoints the officers to form a cabinet and establish the headquarters office meeting, abbreviated as the headquarters.
The Democratic League’s charter stipulates that supervisory commissioners and headquarters members cannot concurrently hold office, so the supervisory commission’s powers and responsibilities are completely independent—this is a single power. The decision-making power of the headquarters’ administrative body is independent of the supervisory commission; this is a single authority. The composition of personnel at headquarters, rules and regulations, and certain decisions must be approved by the standing committee, so establishing a permanent legal body also becomes a power. Since the alliance’s president and vice-chairmen concurrently serve as the standing committee chairmen and vice chairmen, and the chairperson can appoint standing committee members to also serve as headquarters officers when forming a cabinet, the authority to establish a permanent legal body is not entirely independent. The entire organizational structure of the Democratic Alliance is a “two-and-half-branch” structure.
Additionally, the “China Democratic Federation” congress also identified and reaffirmed five other important democratic principles. 1. The position of chairman of the Democratic League may not be re-elected for more than two consecutive terms; 2. Clear definitions of responsibilities in human rights; 3. There is freedom of speech within the organization. The internal publication “League Member Newsletter” sponsored by the Control Committee expresses various differing opinions within the league and is not controlled by headquarters; 4. Branches and branches may resist resolutions that do not fit local circumstances after approval by more than two-thirds of local members; 5. The opposition exists legally within the league.
Li Zhaoyang, editor and reporter of China Spring magazine, detailed the election situation in his article “How Deputies Learn to Operate Democracy—Two Major Facts of the China Democratic League”: “(December 29) at 10:10 a.m., the conference entered the election phase. Before the election, someone temporarily motioned to elect an election panel. The host called on everyone to volunteer, so Li Ran, Li Zhaoyang, Li Ming, and Xuecheng stood up to express their willingness to serve. The four comrades first divided the tasks: Li Ming issued the invoices, Xuecheng Ming submitted the tickets, and Li Ran and Li Zhaoyang supervised the tickets. …… First, Comrade Wang Bingzhang took the podium, expressing his willingness to run for the second chairman of the Democratic Alliance and nominating Comrade Ke Lisi as his vice chairman partner. Ke Lisi stood up and expressed his willingness to run as a partner with Wang Bingzhang. The nominated candidates included Yao Yueqian, Lin Qiaoqing, Zhang Xia, Sha Lin, Nanming, and Li Zhaoyang. Except for Comrade Sharin, who expressed willingness to accept nominations to create a democratic atmosphere and would partner with Comrade Nanming to run, the rest expressed disapproval of nominations. Next, Wang Bingzhang, Ke Lisi, Sha Lin, and Nan Ming each presented their political views and accepted questions from the representatives. …… The conference began secret ballot. The election was announced, and Wang Bingzhang was elected chairman of the second China Democratic League with a majority of votes, while Ke Lisi automatically became vice chairman of the second term. Regarding the election for Supervisory Committee Chairman, self-nominated candidates included Li Ran and Xue Wei, while nominees included Xu Xuan, Li Zhaoyang, and Li Guoyu. Except for Comrade Li Zhaoyang, who declared he would withdraw from the Supervisory Committee Chairmanship, the others accepted the nomination. Then, all candidates for the Supervisory Committee Director each presented their proposals, proposing how to do a good job in the Supervisory Committee’s work. …… The election was announced, and Xue Wei was elected as the director of the second China Democratic Federation’s Supervisory Committee by a majority vote. Then, the conference selected six supervisory committee members: Guo Ping, Li Ran, Zong Jixiang, Zhang Zhiming, Xu Xuan, and Li Zhaoyang through a combination of self-nomination, nomination, and secret ballot. …… At 6:30 p.m., the delegates elected members of the ‘China Democratic Federation’ Headquarters Committee by a show of hands. Then, all attending committee members elected five standing committee members—Lin Qiaoqing, Yao Yueqian, Sha Lin, Zhang Xia, and Li Guang—by secret method. ”
During the “Second Congress” meeting, all delegates also went to the Chinese Embassy in the U.S. to hold a petition event. Li Zhaoyang recorded in the same article: “The delegates braved the severe cold, holding banners high, standing in front of the embassy for over an hour. Many petitioners wearing masks attracted the attention of nearby residents and passersby, and many Chinese and foreign journalists came to take photos and conduct interviews.” During the petition, the delegates entrusted Wang Bingzhang, Ke Lisi, and Nan Ming to contact embassy officials inside the embassy and submitted two open letters to the Chinese government. After the three representatives—Wang, Ke, and Nan—entered, Qin Shuren, the embassy’s third-class secretary, came to greet them. They requested to meet with the ambassador or other officials from Qin, who said that the person in charge was not present today. But the representatives had already noticed that Qin was busy contacting his superior by phone in the reception room, and heard him reply to his superior’s instructions over the phone: ‘Yes, yes, I will use courtesy before force.’ The three representatives wanted to go upstairs to find the embassy official, but someone was already blocking them at the stairwell. The delegates presented the open letter to Qin, but Qin refused to accept it. Wang Bingzhang and other representatives told Qin Shuren and the embassy staff who were watching from the sidelines: ‘We support China’s economic reforms, but economic reform without political reform will never be enough.’ Only by implementing democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law in China can there be hope for reform. Deng Xiaoping ordered the detention of pro-democracy activists such as Wei Jingsheng, who demanded political reform, which greatly damaged our country’s image. Therefore, we sincerely urge the Chinese government to release all imprisoned pro-democracy activists as soon as possible. We speak for the Chinese who have no rights, including embassy staff present. Why are the treatment of Chinese embassy staff so low? You dare not speak, so we stand up to speak for you. We hope the Chinese government will improve your benefits. We are all international students from our homeland, so why can’t our government accommodate us? If the government can’t even accept sincere students like us, how can we talk about sincerity in united front work towards the Kuomintang in Taiwan? In the end, the delegates placed two open letters on the reception room and on the desks in the ambassador’s reception hall, and on bookshelves containing various domestic magazines and newspapers. ”
Thevoting results of the Second World Congress of the China Democratic League:
Chairman: Wang Bingzhang. Vice Chairperson: Ke Lisi. Standing Committee Members: Yao Yueqian, Lin Qiaoqing, Zhang Xia, Sha Lin, Li Guang, Wang Bingzhang, Ke Lisi. Members: Liu Sangzi, Geng Chen, Ke Lisi, Ming Ge, Lin Yanjun, Ma Ting, Li Guoyu, Gao Jinhang, Yao Yueqian, Huang Liu, Lei Yu, Zhang Hanliang, Wu Wei, Tan Chun, Huang Fan, Zhu Linqi, Nan Ming, Wang Ce, Gao Chunni, Yang Nong, Zhang Sen, Guo Xiaozuo, Xue Cheng, Yiwen, Wei Xixi, Huang Ben, Wang Bingzhang, Li Guang, Sha Lin, Zhang Xia, Lin Qiaoqing.
Director of the Supervisory Committee: Xue Wei. Members: Guo Ping, Zhang Zhiming, Li Ran, Li Zhaoyang, Zong Jixiang, Hong Rushuan.
China Spring sued the People’s Daily
The
rapid overseas development of the “China Democratic Federation” and its propaganism and infiltration into mainland China have had a profound impact, causing both panic and anger for the CCP. At first, they could still feign a cautious demeanor, only making small moves like “internal communication” within limited scopes, using lies or fake materials to deceive those who do not know the truth domestically, aiming to “disinfect” the CCP. They always thought that a few international students couldn’t stir up trouble and would just disappear after a few days. However, the development of events did not go as they had anticipated. Overseas, whether among international students or Chinese communities, the CCP’s influence under the impact of the “China Democratic League” gradually shrank, and diplomatic activities were constrained everywhere. Within mainland China, more and more people became aware of the “China Democratic League” activities, and their response, support, or sympathy for the “China Democratic League” grew deeper and wider. As a result, the CCP began to feel it was difficult to “remain firmly seated,” so on December 13, 1984, The CCP used its party newspaper, People’s Daily, for the first time to specifically attack and criticize China Spring.
If People’s Daily holds a wise and rational attitude, China Spring certainly welcomes it. The CCP claims to hold “truth,” and truth only becomes clearer through equal discussion. The “China Democratic League” is ready to engage with the CCP at any time, with the intention of correcting mistakes before the truth. Unfortunately, the CCP lacks the demeanor of a grand party, and People’s Daily uses extremely low-level means of insult and defamation.
The article is titled “Impressions of Mr. Jiangnan.” The author, Cui Chen, in recollection of the famous writer Mr. Jiangnan, wrote through his own words:
“Jiangnan…… Regarding the ‘Chinese Spring’ initiated by Wang Bingzhang and others, he once wrote mocking articles saying that no fruits of Chinese democracy could bear on American soil, pointing out that accepting Taiwan subsidies to promote so-called ‘democratic movements’ was a great satire of China’s modernization. He frankly described them as hypocrites who abandoned their mainland wives and daughters to seek new love, charlatans who used patriotism as a pretext to extort overseas Chinese for personal gain, and a group of political prostitutes obsessed with fame and fortune and engaged in political opportunism. ”
Here several questions arise: First, although Mr. Jiangnan has passed away, a thorough search of his works has not found that he wrote the above text. On the contrary, Mr. Jiangnan was also a supporter of “Chinese Spring.” In March 1984, Wang Min, the vice chairman elected at the second congress of the China Democratic Federation, visited Mr. Jiangnan in San Francisco. He recalled: “Regarding the magazine ‘China Spring,’ Jiangnan gave me many valuable and positive suggestions. He knew it was very difficult to run a monthly magazine for Chinese people in the United States, and almost no one had ever succeeded.” He suggested making the layout more lively and suited to the characteristics of overseas Chinese, by inviting the layout and opening up advertising boards to increase influence and revenue. He offered to give us the advertisement for ‘Chiang Ching-kuo’s Biography,’ and I agreed” (see Issue 24 of ‘China Spring’). Mr. Jiang Nan’s widow, Ms. Cui Rongzhi, wrote clearly in a letter to the “China Folk Federation” on December 22, 1985: “Cui Chen contains many inaccuracies in his article ‘Impressions of Jiangnan,’ and even the mockery of ‘China’s Spring’ is even fabricated.” I remember a friend from China Spring came to Jinshan to meet Jiang Nan, and the interview was published in a magazine. Jiang Nan was someone who never hid his own views. “2. Since it is ‘fabricated from nothing,’ what is the intention behind the People’s Daily publishing this passage under the pretense of Jiangnan?” As is well known, the articles published in People’s Daily are carefully designed, selected, and strictly reviewed. Using their words to insult China Spring is undoubtedly a deliberate attack by the CCP to vent its hostility toward it. If the CCP can: (1) cannot provide evidence for Mr. Jiangnan’s writing; (2) If there is no factual basis for accepting subsidies from the Kuomintang during the China Spring, extorting overseas Chinese, or recognizing the China Spring democratic movement as political prostitutes, hypocrites, and charlatans, then the People’s Daily is guilty of defamation.
On November 25, 1985, Wang Bingzhang, Huang Ben, Zong Jixiang, and Wang Lun from the “China Democracy League” formally submitted a complaint to the Civil Division of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, accusing the CCP propaganda minister Deng Liqun, the head and author of People’s Daily Cui Chen, and the People’s Daily’s U.S. agency “China Book and Periodicals Press.”
Inan American court, suing a Chinese Communist Party newspaper is the first time in American legal history, and this is also the first time a Party newspaper, as the defendant, has been involved in a lawsuit in the United States. Therefore, the way the lawsuit is handled is highly noteworthy.
Newsof the People’s Daily being sued in a U.S. court, through ‘internal reference,’ reached the top levels of the Chinese Communist Party, reportedly causing quite a stir. When Deng Xiaoping learned of this, he repeatedly condemned the People’s Daily, calling it ‘foolish!’ Foolish! At the same time, the CCP’s Ministry of State Security could not provide any evidence that “China Spring” accepted Kuomintang subsidies. After consulting with international law experts, the CCP leadership decided it was impossible to take “China Spring” to court, so they decided to use the government’s name to threaten deterioration in diplomatic relations and pressure the United States to grant People’s Daily sovereign immunity. On May 6, 1986, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China issued Diplomatic Note No. 173 (86) to the U.S. government regarding Wang Bingzhang and others’ accusations against Deng Liqun and the People’s Daily. The note stated: “On December 14, 1985, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodged a complaint with the U.S. side regarding Wang Bingzhang and others accusing the People’s Daily and relevant department heads in a U.S. court of engaging in political activities opposing the Chinese government.” However, to this day, the activities of Wang Bingzhang and others have not been stopped, and the Chinese government expresses regret. The Chinese government reiterates that allowing Chinese citizens to openly engage in activities opposing the Chinese government on U.S. territory is a complete violation of the fundamental laws of international relations. …… According to recognized international law norms, People’s Daily should enjoy sovereign immunity in U.S. courts. The Chinese side believes that the U.S. court has no authority to accept the case. ”
Although China Spring sued Deng Liqun and People’s Daily, its position has always been to seek a reasonable out-of-court resolution, not necessarily to go to court. They believe this is a judicial case, not a news event, and they do not want it to be overly politicized or news-oriented. Their purpose in bringing them to law is only to seek justice and justice, and besides, ‘China Spring’ lacks the financial power to fight lawsuits. Therefore, nearly a year after the complaint was submitted to the U.S. court, China Spring did not proactively disclose it to the press; it was only later that English newspapers dug up the news and reported it externally, and China Spring published the case in December 1986. China Spring made its utmost efforts, and through various channels, proposed to the People’s Daily that the minimum condition for an out-of-court resolution was: Mr. Cui Chen, author of ‘Impressions of Mr. Jiangnan,’ write a letter explaining that ‘the article was not thoroughly investigated at the time of writing, resulting in oversight.’ “That is, Cui Chen took responsibility, and the matter was settled.” Anyone with a conscience can see that “Chinese Spring” is very tolerant and courteous, but even the defendant did not accept even the minimum conditions for settlement outside court.
On June 2, 1986, Mr. Robert Ackman, the lawyer for plaintiffs Wang Bingzhang and others, and lawyers from the company that prints and promotes People’s Daily in the United States—”China Book & Periodicals Press” (one of the defendants)—engaged in a heated debate for the first time in the District of Columbia Superior Court. “China Publishing & Periodicals Press” requested sovereign pardon, but Judge Salzman rejected the request, stating that “China Book & Periodicals Press” could not escape prosecution. In this case, “China Book and Publication Press” and its representative lawyers could only seek out-of-court settlements with the plaintiffs. After contact between both parties, the plaintiffs of China Spring considered that China Publishing House was not the main culprit in the defamation charge; the main offenders were Deng Liqun and People’s Daily. Therefore, they agreed to settle the matter out of court with China Book and Publication Society. As for the conditions for resolution, both parties have made promises and therefore will not disclose them.
However, China Spring did not withdraw its lawsuits against the main defendant Deng Liqun and People’s Daily. However, the case was submitted on November 25, 1985, and there has been no result to this day. The reason is that, despite the repeated efforts of the lawyers from China Spring, the defendant Deng Liqun and the People’s Daily have refused to accept court summonses. Without conclusive evidence proving the defendant has received the summons, the court cannot conduct a formal trial. Refusing to accept the U.S. court’s summons is clearly a strategy devised by the CCP’s top leadership to deal with this case.
Although the lawsuit is still dragging on, it is clear that “China Spring” has already won morally. Deng Liqun and People’s Daily, unable to produce evidence and knowing they are in the wrong, had to invoke diplomatic sovereignty immunity to evade U.S. legal sanctions. In a sense, invoking sovereign immunity is equivalent to saying: “I have committed a crime, but I am a foreign government, please do not punish me.” ”
“China Spring” uses this case to teach the CCP a lesson, helping them establish a sense of rule of law and eliminate the bad habit of slander. —As the “mouthpiece of the Party,” People’s Daily has for decades been a source of confusion, reversal of right and wrong, rumors and defamation, and misfortune for the people. Under the one-party authoritarian system, it has never been punished by law. This time, it has hit a critical point, at least making the CCP realize that they can abuse their power and dominate mainland China, but applying such tactics abroad will result in international sanctions.
A massive signature campaign
From
December 1986 to January 1987, the political situation in mainland China underwent dramatic changes, starting with the surging student movement, followed by the CCP’s crackdown on students, the expulsion of prominent party democrats such as Wang Ruowang, Fang Lizhi, and Liu Binyan, and the forced resignation of CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang. Amid this series of political events, overseas Chinese students breathed and shared the fate of the democratic forces within mainland China, playing a special role. Meanwhile, in the overseas movement supporting mainland China’s democratic forces, the “China Democratic Federation” and “China Spring” magazine played important and indispensable roles.
After the mainland Chinese student democratic movement began in December 1986 in Hefei, Anhui, mainland Chinese students living in the United States took action. They paid close attention to the movement and wrote letters to their classmates in China to show their support. At that time, renowned mainland Chinese scholars Jin Guantao and Liu Qingfeng, who were studying at the University of Pennsylvania, publicly expressed sympathy and support for the domestic democracy movement in an interview with the American Chinese Daily. By the end of December 1986, various practical support activities by international students began to begin. Institutions such as the University of Louisville, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, San Diego, University of Texas at Austin, Princeton University, Columbia University, MIT, Harvard University, University of Kentucky, Iowa State University, University of Michigan, and University of Minnesota spontaneously launched big-character posters, small posters, open letters, flyers, networking meetings, and forums supporting the domestic democracy movement. Just as everyone was desperately seeking information about mainland China, Gong Sheng, Vice President of the University of Science and Technology of China, visited California. He brought news of Mr. Fang Lizhi’s suppression and also expressed the hopes of the domestic democracy movement for overseas students. The students were filled with anxiety and anger, and the atmosphere was lively. On December 31, 1986, seventy-two mainland Chinese students studying in Southern California wrote an open letter titled “Our Views on the Domestic College Student Demonstrations,” first sent to the People’s Daily. It was not published. It was then sent to ‘China Spring’ and immediately published in issue 45 of the magazine. This was the earliest signed letter initiated at the time. The political situation in mainland China is becoming increasingly severe. To support Fang Lizhi, Liu Binyan, Wang Ruowang, and the precarious Hu Yaobang, the signature movement continues to advance. For example, students like Baigang from Caltech and Chen Ping from the University of Texas at Austin have both played active roles in collecting signatures in the open letter. The final draft of the open letter, signed by Chen Ping, was published in the January 23 issue of the International Daily on January 14, 1987. The letter read: “In the past month, the development of domestic affairs in China has caused great anxiety among overseas compatriots and serious concern among foreign friends. We are deeply worried and cannot help but speak out loudly. …… We painfully added: What use is it afterwards to discuss the merits and faults of the repeated cycles of order and chaos? Why not seize this once-in-a-century historic opportunity today? We can’t repeat the 1957 incident! We can no longer replay 1966! The patriotic enthusiasm of mainland Chinese students greatly encouraged the “China Democratic Federation.” They believe that under the current circumstances, it is necessary to guide the overseas democracy movement further in a broader and deeper direction. On January 12, 1987, the “China Democratic Federation” issued a “statement on the current political crisis in mainland China,” stating: “In light of the large-scale counterattack by the conservatives, purging within the Party, and nationwide suppression, recreating the tragedies of ‘anti-rightist’ and ‘spiritual pollution’ and stifling the vitality of China’s reform, we call on the people: stop waiting, stop remaining silent, bravely stand up, defend the achievements of reform, and repel the resurgence of the conservatives…… We call on compatriots at home and abroad: organize and take action, and prepare for the final battle between democratic forces and conservative forces in the future! (See Issue 45 of ‘China Spring’) On January 14th, at the headquarters of ‘China Spring’, the ‘China Democratic League’ invited representatives of international students from the East Coast, West Coast, and North China to hold a rally. The students attending the meeting were Yu Dahai, Yang Xiaokai, Li Shaomin, Yu Cong (Feng Shengping), Ding Chu (Fang Zhiyuan), Cheng Tiejun, Li Sanyuan, and others. The meeting began on the morning of the 14th and continued until the early hours of the 15th. They decided to launch a large-scale joint petition campaign for students from mainland China across the United States. After repeated discussions and more than a dozen drafts, the content of the open letter was finally decided. Then the intense process of soliciting signatures began. Because Columbia University is located in New York, Chinese students there maintain direct contact with Chinese-language newspapers, so international students from all over gathered their signature lists at Columbia. Starting January 16th, Columbia classmates Wang Boming, Xie Wen, Shi Tianjian, and others had been on the phone day and night without stopping. They worked continuously for four days and nights to compile the list, verifying names with great seriousness. Those willing to disclose their names had to do so with their real names, while those who did not were left undisclosed. On January 17, while the signing campaign was underway, news of Hu Yaobang’s forced resignation officially broke, instantly causing an uproar and adding fuel to the fire. The open letter was revised again, and the number of signatories, especially those publicly signed, increased rapidly. On January 19, students from fifty-one universities across the United States participated in the signature campaign, collecting over a thousand signatures, with 482 willing to publicly share their names. On January 20, Chinese-language newspapers across the United States published the open letter and the list of signatories. The open letter stated: “We, overseas publicly funded and visiting students, are deeply concerned about recent changes in the domestic situation. We find it hard to understand why, after the student protests had already subsided, the central government would instead take a series of harsh measures, causing General Secretary Hu Yaobang to suddenly resign and severely punishing Fang Lizhi, Liu Binyan, and Wang Ruowang. This sudden change inevitably causes deep concern…… We believe that recent developments have run counter to the fundamental national policies since the Third Plenary Session and have seriously infringed on constitutionally guaranteed rights such as freedom of speech. If it continues, it will ruin China’s economic and political reforms. The rise and fall of a nation is the responsibility of every citizen. We strongly hope that the Party and government will persist in reform, oppose regression, uphold democracy and the rule of law, and oppose punishing crimes by words. Out of a sense of responsibility to the motherland, we believe it is necessary not to publicly express our sentiments to the central government and the State Council. ”
When publishing this “open letter,” there was also an incident: after the letter, there was another “Six-Point Statement,” two of which involved the “China Democratic League” and “China Spring.” The statement said: “The above signatories have absolutely no connection whatsoever with China Spring or any other political organizations.” “All signatories unanimously oppose the position and consistent approach of ‘China Spring.’” After seeing the “Six-Point Statement,” the “China Democratic Federation” leader was surprised and consulted the signatories. Many signatories and active advocates said that when they signed, they only saw the “open letter” and did not see the “Six-Point Statement.” None of them understand how the “Six-Point Statement” was issued. But one thing is certain: the “Six-Point Statement” has misappropriated the names of many signatories. In response, China Spring also issued a statement saying: “(1) China Spring agrees with and supports the content of this open letter and respects the efforts to promote its publication; (2) After investigation, “China Spring” firmly believes that the vast majority of signatories were unaware of the six-point statement attached to the letter; (3) As for the practice of individuals arbitrarily attaching these six statements after letters and making them public, ‘China Spring’ expresses understanding and tolerance. “China Spring” argues: If a few believe that striking at the China Spring will make their own situation safer and thus have a greater impact on promoting democracy in China—”The China Spring” is willing to endure such a blow. (See Issue 45 of ‘Spring in China’).
After the first round of signatures was published, international students across the United States learned of the matter and eagerly requested to continue signing. Under these circumstances, Yu Dahai from Princeton University, Bai Gang and Wang Youqi from Caltech, Ma Rong and Wang Qi from Brown University bravely stepped forward as public liaison contacts to collect the second batch of signatures. A total of 72 universities and 682 students signed this time, of which 219 names were publicly announced.
Chinese
students studying in the U.S. demanding democracy, reform, and opposing regression have shocked and frightened the CCP, and they know their actions go against public opinion. On January 11, 1987, the People’s Daily once again used its usual slander-mongering tactics by publishing a “letter from overseas students” to domestic students in the overseas section. The letter stated: “The top priority at present is to firmly unite with the Party and the government.” The names are eight international students. Interestingly, one of them was actually a member of the “China Democratic League.” He wrote for ‘Chinese Spring’: “On January 15th, I received a long-distance call from an old classmate from the West Coast of the United States. Without a word, he scolded me fiercely.” I smiled and asked him, ‘What’s wrong?’ How did I offend you? ‘He said, ‘Did you offend me?’ It’s a small matter. Offending a billion people…… His masterpiece was published in the People’s Daily, and now the name is truly resounding! I said, ‘Don’t joke around. When have I ever submitted an article to the People’s Daily?’ After he figured out what was going on, he hurried to flip through the People’s Daily, and sure enough, his name was boldly printed on the letter. It almost drove me crazy! …… I immediately called a few close classmates…… The result was that another student whose name was reported, like me, was completely unaware and so angry he cried. The names of the others were simply impossible to find locally; all the names were fake. This shows just how far the CCP has lost public support and violated public opinion! During the peak period of student signatures, the Education Committee under Li Peng’s leadership immediately ordered CCP overseas missions to stop spontaneous signature activities by overseas students. The Chinese Embassy in Washington and the Consulate General in New York both sent large numbers of personnel to visit various schools for inspections and investigate the leading students of the signature campaign. Not only are international students not afraid of them, but they actively and openly handle the ‘work’ of consular staff, helping them stand on their side. The open letter from thousands of overseas students to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council quickly reached mainland China, first greatly encouraging the public, especially young students, who spread the word: this time it’s good, the overseas community is finally moving. At the same time, it alarmed the upper levels of the Communist Party. In late January 1987, Zhao Ziyang presided over a national meeting on the work of provincial governors, where he expressed his views on signing the letter. He said: The domestic situation has already triggered a strong reaction from the outside world. Even the students we sent abroad are speaking out publicly. Therefore, we must be careful not to take opposition to bourgeois liberalization too excessively. Meanwhile, Li Peng, Vice Premier and Director of the State Education Commission, repeatedly ordered the education teams of Chinese embassies abroad to take urgent measures to prevent the situation from escalating. On May 27, 1987, He Dongchang, Deputy Director of the State Education Commission, led an education delegation to the United States to “persuade,” “guide,” and “reassure” the students. In Houston, they gave a “situation report” to the students, saying: The open letter from American students and visiting scholars to the central government was the result of young people’s lack of understanding and a whim. Since I wrote it, I decided not to pursue it further. Those who should go back should go back boldly and on time. Upon closer examination, his words carry several meanings: First, writing an open letter shows a lack of understanding of the situation, and thus is wrong. 2. As long as you recognize this mistake, the central government will not pursue it. 3. If you continue to insist on the open letter and do not align with the CCP, then the CCP has the right to “pursue” (persecute) the CCP.
The significance of the Thousand Signatures Movement is profound. For the first time, it demonstrated the strength of overseas democracy movements in both breadth and depth, reflected the widespread dislike of the CCP’s authoritarian system among international students and the cohesion and influence of the ‘China Democratic League’ among them, and also opened a new chapter in the interconnection, mutual response, and mutual advancement of democracy movements both overseas and within mainland China. □