Editor’s Note of ‘Beijing Spring’: The preface and chapters one and two of Chen Li and Lu Wei’s ‘A Brief History of the Chinese Democratic League’ were published in the February to May 1993 issues of ‘China Spring’. According to the author’s wishes, this issue will serialize all subsequent chapters starting from this issue.
The third Congress of the “China Democratic Federation” was held
Starting from the First National Congress, the China Democratic League has undergone another four years of development. This has been a difficult and winding path, growing amid the strong political pressure of the CCP and ongoing disputes caused by differing views within the organization regarding democratic ideals and the determination of policies, the sound legal system, and the gap between moral standards and political insight. Nevertheless, it continues to develop and grow. Four years ago, if it was just a seed full of vitality, now it is already a seedling breaking through the soil.
Over the past four years, especially after the democratic movement in mainland China in December 1986, a large number of overseas students and other overseas nationals joined the NLP. Among them, the key members who are active in public identities include: Hu Ping, Ding Chu, Yu Cong, Yu Dahai, Li Zhaoyang, Jiang Wen, Huang Liu, Wu Fangcheng, Xu Bangtai, Hu Yanmin, Wu Fan, Ni Yuxian, Wang Ce, Wu Mouren, Chen Jun, Yang Wei, Guo Cheng, Yang Manke, Qian Da, Zheng Weimin, Che Shaoli, Qi Guang, Lü Fan, Chen Lei, Yang Nong, Zhang Xia, Gao Gewen, Li Da, Mo Fengjie, Chen Shuchen, Li Taiyan, Zao Shang, Lai Shi, Zhang Zhuozhi, Lin Xinsheng, Ke Lisi, Xie Zhengyi, Yang Xianzhi, Dong Zhenhai, He Ming, Tang Jie, Zheng Wenjie, Zhu Chunfu, Wang Weizhen, Zhang Zhiming, Yu Zhi, Meng Qinghua, and others.
However, the shadow of internal strife continued within the organization. After Li Lin, Liang Heng, Huan Guocang, Martin, Zhang Wei, and Wang Min, there were also conflicts and entanglements among Ye Xiaojian, Wu Jianxiang, Liu Wanzhen, Shaojun, Lan Jian, Feng Bin, and Wang Bingzhang. In the end, these key leaders left in anger and complaints, gradually leaving the core of the Democratic League.
From December 31, 1987 to January 3, 1988, the “Three Congresses” of the China Democratic League were held in the San Francisco Bay Area, USA. A total of sixty-three representatives attended the meeting, coming from mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, North America, Latin America, Australia, and Europe. Among them, fifty-three were official delegates and ten were observers.
TheDemocratic League’s “Third Congress” was held under a special political context: on December 21, 1987, just ten days before the “Third Congress,” the CCP formally defined the “China Democratic League” as a “reactionary organization” “hostile to and undermining the Chinese socialist system and intending to overthrow the people’s government” through the trial of the Yang Wei case. Furthermore, according to Chapter 3, Article 14 of the Association’s charter stating that the chairperson position cannot be re-elected for more than two terms, a secret ballot was adopted to re-elect the chairman. Therefore, whether this meeting was successful and whether the transition between the old and new leadership teams went smoothly was of utmost importance to the survival and development of the “China Democratic Federation.”
At 9 a.m. on December 31, Ke Lisi, vice chairman of the second Democratic League, announced the official convening of the Federation’s “Three Congresses.” Wang Bingzhang, Chairman of the Second China Democratic League, delivered the opening speech. Wang Bingzhang said: Today, we gather here for a shared dream. One day, we too can freely think, speak, debate, and elect freely on our own land just as we do today. Based on his experience as chairman of the Democratic League, Wang Bingzhang put forward several personal views: First, understand and believe in democracy; 2. Practice democracy and experience democracy, learning how to manage public affairs through democratic and legal means; 3. Promote democracy through diverse means; in democratic movements, adopt the attitude of “tolerance is greatness,” and establish the concept of coexisting and competing with other political groups; 4. Do not aim to overthrow the Communist Party. The attitude toward the Communist Party was not to overthrow it, but to demand that all political groups in China coexist equally with the Party and have the right and opportunity to compete fairly; 5. Advocate the “first forgiveness,” ending the vicious cycle of “struggle—revenge—struggle,” and use the philosophy of tolerance to counter the Communist Party’s philosophy of struggle.
Subsequently, Guo Ping, representing the San Francisco branch of the Democratic League, delivered a welcome speech as the host. Next, the conference secretariat was elected, with Yao Yueqian as secretary-general and Sha Lin as deputy secretary-general, plus security, logistics, news, clerical work, and finance.
The meeting shifted to summarizing the experience of the China Democratic Federation’s work since the Second National Congress. First, Wang Bingzhang spoke about the achievements, lessons, and main difficulties faced in the pro-democracy movement over the past two years. He said that the key events in mainland China’s recent movements are: First, famous intellectuals such as Fang Lizhi, Wang Ruowang, and Liu Binyan openly spread democratic ideas and were expelled from the CCP. 2. During the student movement at the end of 1986, the younger generation openly put forward slogans for freedom, democracy, and human rights. Yang Wei and some members of the Democratic League on the mainland did some publicity work during this movement. 3. Professor Fang Lizhi’s wife, Li Shuxian, was elected as a people’s representative through free elections. This event carries profound implications: as long as we skillfully use citizens’ rights, we can achieve certain results. 4. Hu Ping’s ‘On Freedom of Speech’ was republished, a classic work of China’s democracy movement. 5. In early 1987, a human rights uprising broke out in Tibet. 6. The Yang Wei Incident Through the United Democratic League’s efforts and lobbying, the United States was prompted to intervene in China’s human rights issues, and the U.S. Congress even passed a bill to protect international students. 7. Mainland Chinese students strongly reacted to Hu Yaobang’s resignation, launching a signature campaign involving nearly two thousand people. 8. International student Guo Cheng’s long-distance running showcased a new image of Chinese students pursuing democracy, and received support and support from the China Democratic League. 9. ‘China Spring’ sued the People’s Daily, delivering a powerful blow to the conservative faction of the Chinese Communist Party. 10. The release of the English version of “China Spring” has had a profound impact on the international dissemination of China’s democracy movement. 11. The “China Democratic League” has been internationally recognized as China’s opposition organization. Recently, the Democratic Alliance has been publicly and formally labeled a “reactionary organization” by the CCP, marking its role as an independent political force.
Afterwards, representatives from the Japan branch Yao Yueqian, Hong Kong branch representative Ke Lisi, San Francisco branch representative Qian Da, West Germany branch representative Li Taiyan, Europe branch representative Liu Xin, Seattle branch representative Wei Xixi, Australia branch representative Chen Shuchen, Washington branch representative Zong Jixiang, New Jersey liaison station representative Zheng Wenjie, Los Angeles branch representative Zhu Chunfu, Nebraska branch representative Yang Nong, and Chicago branch representative Yi Wen successively reported on their respective work situations. Xue Wei, Director of the Democratic League’s Supervisory Committee, also summarized the experience of the Supervisory Committee’s work over the past two years. Hu Yanmin, a student who had just come to the U.S. from mainland China, introduced the Shanghai student movement, and Hu Ping, who was pursuing his doctorate at Harvard University, gave a special report on the significance of the December 1986 student movement.
On January 1, 1988, the conference was chaired by Secretary-General Yao Yueqian and first discussed the issue of forming a party. The representatives basically reached a consensus that establishing an opposition party and forming a third political force in China is an inevitable trend in historical development and a sacred mission entrusted to us by the people. But given the current situation in mainland China, the timing for forming a party is not yet ripe. For Party formation, the policy of “fast preparation, delayed Party building, high theoretical level, low attitude” should be adopted.
The meeting further discussed issues related to China’s democracy movement. Hu Ping said that the current image of the China Democratic League is worth serious study. Good? Not good? Or is there something that needs to be reversed or improved? He brought issues of morality, image, credibility, and enhancing “transparency” to the congress. Hu Ping’s speech was the first of its kind, sparking great interest among attendees and leading to disagreements and debates. At 2 p.m., the meeting shifted to Che Shaoli’s report on Yang Wei’s arrest and how Qian Da and Liu Zisang, representing the China Democratic Federation, bravely ventured into the mainland to rescue Yang Wei. 3. Representatives consult and draft various proposals. At four times, the conference secretariat collects twenty-one proposals and submits them to a vote according to their categories. The main proposals passed include: adding a clause to the general charter of the Democratic League: Any proposal or proposal, if deemed by any representative to have significant impact, may be requested to vote on its importance. Once passed by more than half of the representatives, the proposal becomes a major proposal. All major proposals and proposals must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the delegates to take effect.
Theagenda for January 2 was to elect the chairman, vice chairmen, standing committee members, headquarters members, and the director and supervisory committee members of the China Democratic League.
In addition to the two groups of candidates who actively participated—Li Guoyu (candidate for chairman) and Zong Jixiang (candidate for vice-chairman), Hu Ping (candidate for chairman), and Ke Lisi (candidate for vice chairman)—representatives also recommended Yao Yueqian (candidate for chairman) and Lin Qiaoqing (candidate for vice chairman) to run. After consideration, Yao and Lin agreed to run. Three groups of candidates arrived at the podium to deliver campaign speeches and receive questions from representatives.
As a result of the election, Hu Ping and Ke Lisi were elected as chairman and vice chairman of the Democratic League by majority votes. Subsequently, members of the Standing Committee, Supervisory Committee Directors, and Supervisory Committee members were elected. The list was as follows: Standing Committee members Hu Ping, Ke Lisi, Hu Yanmin, Yu Cong, Lin Qiaoqing, Wang Bingzhang, Yao Yueqian, Sha Lin, Zhang Xia; members Yao Yueqian, Gao Jinhang, Zhao Sang, Wang Weizhen, Chen Shuchen, Zao Shang, Li Taiyan, Liu Zisang, Li Guoyu, Yu Zhi, Ding Chu, Zong Jixiang, Yang Nong, Lai Shi, Zhang Zhuozhi, Wang Bingzhang, Lin Qiaoqing, Sha Lin, Zhang Xia, Hu Yanmin, Zhang Zhiming, Gao Gewen, Wang Ce, Guo Cheng, Yu Cong, Lin Wei, Che Shaoli, Nan Ming, Lin Xinsheng Mo Fengjie, Hu Ping, Ke Lisi, Xie Zhengyi; Chairman of the Control Yuan Xue Wei; members Meng Zhenhua, Huang Ben, Qian Da, Yang Xianzhi, Tong Jing, He Ming.
On January 3rd, the congress passed four resolutions: First, “Create opportunities for communication and dialogue, fight for the right to participate in reform—our views on the reform situation in mainland China and our suggestions for the pro-democracy movement line”; 2. “Comprehensively renew the parliament, curb bipolar development, politically impact the mainland—our call to Taiwan’s ruling and opposition parties”; 3. “Actively participate in politics, build a democratic Hong Kong—our call to the people of Hong Kong”; 4. “Actively create conditions and prepare to build a democratic political party.”
At 11:30 a.m., Hu Ping, the newly appointed chairman of the Democratic League, delivered the closing speech. Subsequently, Secretary-General Yao Yueqian announced the conclusion of the “Three Congresses” of the China Democratic Federation.
Here is a brief introduction to Hu Ping. As depicted in the second issue of Hong Kong’s ‘1970s’ magazine in 1981: “…… (Hu Ping) The delicate facial structure and glasses give an initial and enduring characteristic. Once he stands before you, he becomes a typical Chinese scholar. His well-defined facial features rarely show intense expressions. In any conversation, whether systematically discussing his political views or responding to rebuttals, he always displays a calm, carefree, and refined demeanor, and uses a tone that seems to be casual and indiscriminate. …… If you have read his political essays or heard his conversations, many must admit that this seemingly frail Sichuan scholar harbors a strong and resilient spirit deep within…… He keenly uses rigorous logical thinking to explore social and political issues deeply and thoroughly. Everyone admired his quick response during the defense, his skill at capturing the questioner’s central point, and even his ability to clarify the ambiguities in the question first. ”。 He was born in Beijing in 1947 and moved to Sichuan with his mother at the age of seven. His biological father was a Kuomintang uprising officer who was suppressed during the suppression of the uprising. In 1977, when the national college entrance examination was reinstated, Hu Ping was not allowed to register. In 1978 and 1978, he was approved to apply for graduate studies and was admitted to the graduate program of the Department of Philosophy at Peking University with the highest total score nationwide in this major. Between 1978 and 1980, Hu Ping actively participated in the Democracy Wall movement and published a lengthy article titled “On Freedom of Speech” in the civil magazine “Fertile Land.” Afterwards, he participated in the Peking University free election campaign and was elected as a district people’s representative. This has greatly angered the Chinese authorities. After graduating in 1981, I was not assigned a job for two years. In August 1983, he was assigned to Beijing Publishing House as an editor, and in July 1985, he transferred to the Institute of Philosophy, Beijing Academy of Social Sciences. During this period, he participated in the compilation of various semi-folk book series and was invited to give lectures in more than twenty cities including Beijing, Wuhan, and Chongqing. In January 1987, he went to the United States to study, pursuing a doctoral degree at Harvard, where he was elected by mainland Chinese students as president of the Mainland Chinese Students Association for Political Science and International Relations, and joined the China Democratic League there. He made significant contributions to the theory of the democracy movement and authored a prolific body of work. His major representative works include: “A Philosophical Exploration of China’s Economic Reform,” “Philosophical Notes,” “Give Me a Fulcrum,” “Between Ideals and Reality,” and “Reflections on the Chinese Democracy Movement.”
The CCP announced the dismissal of Hu Ping from public office and the revocation of his passport
After Hu Ping became chairman of the China Democratic League, the CCP was extremely enraged. On March 10, 1988, following a message from Yu Dahai, who was studying at Princeton University, Hu Ping was invited by the Chinese Consulate General in New York to meet there. Hu Ping was accompanied by Ding Chu, Lin Qiaoqing, and Guo Cheng, but upon entering the consulate, the staff quickly separated Hu Ping from the other three and led him alone into a meeting room on the right side. In the reception room, Hu Ping was speaking with Yuan Yiguo, the first secretary in charge of education at the consulate, and Consul Zhao Kebin. Yuan Yiguo turned on the tape recorder and delivered a message to Hu Ping from his former employer, the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences. The letter required Hu Ping to publicly announce in the newspaper within a week that he would resign from the “China Democratic League” and resign as chairman, or else the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences would expel him and report the situation to the relevant authorities, revoking Hu Ping’s passport. Before making this public statement, Hu Ping was not allowed to return to China. Hu Ping naturally rejected the CCP’s unreasonable demands face to face. On the afternoon of March 17, the “China Democratic League” held a press conference in New York’s Chinatown, where Hu Ping announced the situation of the talks at the consulate general and criticized the Chinese authorities’ mistaken practices. Hu Ping believed: First, the CCP authorities’ approach was completely wrong, clearly an abuse of power, and a direct violation of citizens’ rights; 2. This approach is part of the ongoing austerity policy for international students and is part of the anti-liberalization movement since last year; 3. The CCP often says that international students should not talk about democracy abroad but should return to discuss democracy. But this time, Hu Ping’s handling clearly shows that it is not that students are unwilling to return to China, but that the authorities do not allow us to return; it is not that students want to stay abroad, but that the authorities force us into exile overseas; 4. The Beijing Academy of Social Sciences has never contacted the “China Democratic Federation.” Its decision was entirely based on pressure from relevant CCP leaders, and the entire decision was based on genuine “commander mentality”; 5. Hu Ping’s basic political positions have long been consistent. What we currently demand is only the implementation of the lowest level of democracy in mainland China, namely freedom of speech, publication, and press freedom. Rejecting these basic democratic demands is unreasonable, and suppressing them is completely wrong; 6. The “China Democratic League” did not simply oppose the Four Upholds, but proposed abolishing the provisions of the Four Upholds from the Constitution, mainly arguing that the Constitution is not the Party Constitution and should not be used to forcibly demand on all citizens based on what is required of Communist Party members. This proposal fully aligns with the spirit of constitutionalism. Even if the content of this proposal is wrong, since citizens have the right to propose constitutional amendments, this claim will never be considered “reactionary”; 7. The Shanghai Public Security Bureau’s verdict that the “China Democratic League” is a “reactionary organization” is completely unlawful, because this judgment was made without any legal process—no party has ever filed charges against the “China Democratic League” as a reactionary organization, no summons for the defendant, the “China Democratic League” side appeared, no defense lawyer, and no special trial was held on this matter. Therefore, even under current mainland law, this judgment is invalid.
On March 18, the New York publication of the World Journal gave a detailed report on the incident. On March 22, Zhongbao and Huaqiao Daily published a telegram from China News Service in Beijing dated March 19, stating that the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences had officially announced Hu Ping’s dismissal from public office and his qualification as a government-funded overseas student. This news was officially published the next day in the overseas edition of People’s Daily. On March 24, The New York Times published a prominent article by journalist Bao Defu, analyzing Hu Ping’s expulsion from his original employer and revoking his passport, discussing changes in the CCP’s policy for international students. On the same day, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post also reported the news under the headline “China Takes Action Against Dissident Students.” A reporter from The Boston Globe interviewed Hu Ping by phone and published the interview. During this period, many news outlets in the US, TIME, United Times International, Voice of America radio, and many news outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan also published reports and commentary on the incident.
On March 26, Overseas Chinese Daily and China News published a consulate spokesperson He Long answering reporters’ questions. He Long said that since Hu Ping had been dismissed from public office, his government-sponsored passport was invalidated, but Hu Ping remained a citizen of the People’s Republic of China.
This raises a question: since Hu Ping is still considered a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and wants to invalidate his government-sponsored passport, what documents will be used to prove his citizenship? In response, Hu Ping and some reporters inquired with the Consulate General. Consulate staff replied that Hu Ping’s government-sponsored passport had been revoked, but Hu Ping could apply to switch to another passport. Hu Ping asked again: What regulations are based on changing to another passport? What kind of process did they go through? If the Chinese consulate changes his government-sponsored passport to another passport, then can others with similar situations like Hu Ping also change their passports? In response to these questions, consulate staff said Hu Ping was an exception and others could not comply. Under persistent pressure from Hu Ping and reporters, they said they did not respond due to lack of understanding of the policy.
In fact, the incident of Hu Ping revoking his passport fully exposed the CCP’s “rule by man” characteristics: wanton infringement of citizens’ rights, incomplete laws, non-compliance with existing laws, or laws tailored to individual needs.
Around the time Hu Ping’s passport was revoked, there was also the incident of Chen Lei leaving the Chinese Communist Party. Chen Lei was a physics student at Texas A&M University in the United States. From 1987 to 1982, he studied at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, and after graduation, he entered the graduate program at Fudan University in Shanghai and came to the United States in 1984. After publicly announcing his resignation from the Party, he joined the China Democratic Federation.
In his “Open Letter on Resigning from the Party” (see Issue 60 of “China Spring”), Chen Lei clearly stated: “Several events gradually changed my view of the Party and my beliefs as a Communist Party member,” including: First, eleven things he found hard to understand about the suppression of the 1987 student movement; 2. Regarding Yang Wei, he raised ten questions; 3. On issues such as student policies, personal privacy rights, and religious beliefs, he put forward views different from those of the Communist Party.
Chen Lei wrote specifically about the CCP’s response to the “China Spring” (China Democratic League): “I don’t know why the government is so sensitive about this. Those people simply want to be an opposition party to China; many of their ideas are continuations of Beijing’s Xidan Wall, at least those who care about China, and not a violent organization. Why can’t the government accept it? Imagine if there were opposition parties in China, mistakes like the Anti-Rightist Campaign and the Cultural Revolution would never have happened. The existence of opposition parties and opposition groups has been confirmed in many countries to stabilize rather than destruct a country. ”
Regarding the “China Democratic League” being labeled a “reactionary organization” by the CCP without trial, and the civil rights of all “China Democratic League” members were stripped of their civil rights (including himself), Hu Ping proposed the conclusion that “power must first be punished.” In an article titled “Rights Before Wrongs” (published in China Spring, Issue 59), he said: “One of the most fundamental principles of democratic politics is that rights precede wrongs.” The saying ‘rights come before wrong’ means that every citizen has the right to express and promote their political views through peaceful means such as speech, publication, assembly, and association, regardless of whether these views are correct or not. You can disagree with others’ views, you can express your views and disagree with others in the same way, but no one—including the ruling party or government—has no right to suppress others. Not only can you not suppress others, but when you see others, especially those in power, trying to use force to suppress others, every citizen must stand up and defend others’ freedom and rights. Only when every citizen’s right is effectively guaranteed can mutual criticism and discussion proceed normally. Political advocacy is one thing; the sanctity of freedom and rights is another. We must first consider the protection of rights, and only then consider the right or wrong of opinions. This is called ‘right comes before wrong.’ He also said: “When the principle opposite is ‘right and wrong precedes rights,’ if your proposal aligns with my wishes, I allow you to speak and act; if your proposals do not, I forbid you from speaking and acting.” If we act according to this principle, we will have no citizens but only obedient people; no independent thinking and only timidity; no supervision of supreme power but only lawlessness of those in power; the people’s government will no longer be the people’s servants but become the people’s reigning emperor. The author further points out that infringing on one person’s rights is a threat to the rights of all people. Therefore, those in power must learn to protect the freedoms and rights of “heretics,” and a so-called “citizen” is someone with a firm sense of rights.
Hu Ping’s profound and insightful thinking is a sharp dagger stabbing against the CCP’s autocratic system.
TheFinancial Crisis of the Democratic Alliance and ‘China Spring’
When Hu Ping first took office as chairman, he faced a headache: the ‘China Democratic League’ and ‘China Spring’ were facing a severe financial crisis.
On March 17, 1988, Hu Ping, chairman of the Democratic League, financial officer Ding Chu, former chairman Wang Bingzhang, and former financial officer Lin Qiaoqing held a press conference in New York, where they gave a detailed explanation of the Democratic League’s financial crisis and answered various questions raised by reporters.
Wang Bingzhang said that since the founding of China Spring magazine and the establishment of the China Democratic League four years ago, we have done a great deal of work to promote democratization in mainland China and strive to improve human rights in mainland China. The CCP deeply despised the “China Democratic League” and “China Spring,” wishing it could kill them to the brink. At the end of last year and the beginning of this year, the CCP authorities used television, radio, and newspapers nationwide to smear Zhongchun and the Democratic League. The CCP authorities also issued documents to be communicated to various units nationwide. The document declared that “China Spring” was a reactionary publication, the China Democratic League was a reactionary organization, and ordered that the common people must not contact or read “China Spring,” and that all printed materials received from the China Democratic League must be handed over. At the same time, the CCP established a special agency to investigate Democratic League members in the country. The CCP authorities’ crackdown on the Democratic Alliance shows that its movement has had a considerable impact on mainland China, but it has not hindered the mainland’s people and students’ pursuit of democracy and freedom. Recently, more and more people have joined the Democratic League.
However, just as the Democratic League and the mainland democracy movement were gradually growing, the Democratic League and Zhongchun faced funding difficulties. If not addressed promptly, it would jeopardize the publication of China Spring and the organization’s operations.
Wang Bingzhang pointed out that in the past, the Democratic League’s funding sources included: (1) membership fees; (2) Sales fees for Zhongchun magazine; (3) Contributions from members of the China Democratic League in enterprises; (4) Donations from all sectors. However, after October 1987, the Democratic Alliance received significant donations. We speculate that the reason may be that, in the ever-changing international political environment, some donors are unwilling to continue contributing for their own interests. Donations are voluntary, and we thank all sectors for their past contributions and support for “China Spring” and the “China Democratic League.”
Wang Bingzhang also discussed the emergency measures taken by the headquarters to resolve the financial issues of the Democratic Alliance, namely: (1) Urgently cutting expenses, including staff cuts and recruiting volunteers; (2) Establish the China Spring Foundation for public offerings, planning to divide the budget of China Spring into 600 shares, each at $30 per month, calling on readers to subscribe to and subscribe to shares of the China Spring Foundation to support the mainland’s democracy movement. The China Spring Foundation is a non-profit organization approved by the U.S. government to receive tax reductions, and stock subscription can reduce taxes.
Hu Ping’s speech mentioned that for several months, we have been in a state of financial strain. Although “China Spring” repeatedly publicly called for economic difficulties, the difficulties have never been alleviated. To ensure the continued publication of the Chinese edition of China Spring, headquarters decided on March 4 to lay off a large number of staff and temporarily suspend the English edition. Before sufficient funds were raised, the daily administrative work of headquarters and China Spring was mainly maintained by volunteers. To plan for the long term and resolve our funding issues, with the approval of the Standing Committee of the Democratic League, the Economic Development Committee and the Fundraising Committee were established, and Zong Jixiang was appointed as the director of the Economic Development Committee, and Lin Qiaoqing as the director of the Fundraising Committee.
Ding Chu, the financial officer of the Democratic League, also spoke about the headquarters’ decision, saying that from now on, the Federation’s fundraising policy should be open. Whether it’s money from the Kuomintang or the Communist Party, we will accept it as long as there are no additional conditions. The relationship between the Democratic League and the Kuomintang should be normalized in the future, without deliberately avoiding taboos. Even the Communist Party is united with the Kuomintang, willing to interact and negotiate with the Kuomintang. Why can’t the Democratic League do so?
After news of the financial crisis at the Democratic League spread, members were very anxious. Many branches and groups held emergency meetings, and many members did their utmost to send donations to headquarters. For example, Vancouver overseas Chinese Tan Chun sent $2,000 alone, while Guo Cheng personally contracted sixty shares of Zhongchun, promoting Zhongchun everywhere. But even small donations cannot fundamentally resolve the crisis.
During this period, the headquarters also tried new methods to solve financial problems, such as running their own businesses and developing products, but all efforts were ineffective.
Due to funding issues, the Democratic Alliance’s operations were nearly paralyzed. Thanks to everyone’s joint efforts, “Chinese Spring” barely managed to maintain its release without interruption.
To improve transparency and credibility, Hu Ping implemented various reforms in financial work as soon as he took office. His approach was to make bank account numbers public, no longer confidential, allowing anyone who donated money to voluntarily deposit funds into their accounts. This approach eliminates the previous “black-box operations” in accounting operations, ensuring both confidentiality for donors and transparent accounting. At the same time, he also drafted a method to regularly report the expenditure situation to the league.
Looking back on these difficult days, Ding Chu was deeply moved. In an article, he recalled: “The economic crisis occurred in the spring of 1988, when the third headquarters had just begun. At the time, I was the headquarters officer and manager of ‘China Spring.’ As soon as I took office, I took on an empty wallet and a huge pile of bills. I remember the first office meeting I chaired was to announce the financial crisis. Unable to pay our salaries, all the editorial staff were forced to dismiss, leaving only Xue Wei and I who had volunteered for three months. To ensure the magazine kept running, we reduced the number of pages from 96 to 80, replaced the color cover with a monochrome one, mobilized all members of headquarters, and searched everywhere for money. The cover of ‘China Spring’ was filled with bright red urgent appeals: SOS. What moved me most was receiving a large number of small checks every day, mostly from members and international students. Almost every letter read: “China Spring must not fall.” (See ‘China Spring’, Issue 116).
This situation continued until May, when donations gradually returned to normal, and the “China Democratic Federation” and “China Spring” finally revived.
TheUniversity of Kentucky incident and the Kentucky chapter of the Democratic League
On October 1, 1988, something surprising happened at the University of Kentucky in the US-China region. The “Chinese Students and Scholars Association,” originally controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, was split into two organizations. Their Chinese names are the same, but their English names are different. One is the “ASSOCIATION OF CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS” (ACSS), and the other is the “CHINESE STUDENT AND SCHOLAR ASSOCIATION” (CSSA). On this day, they held “National Day and Mid-Autumn Festival Galas,” one at 5 p.m. and the other at 10 a.m. On the surface, the content seems similar, both held to celebrate National Day and the traditional Mid-Autumn Festival in mainland China, but upon closer inspection, the essence and atmosphere of the two organizations are completely different.
The“Gala” held at 10 a.m. was hosted by CSSA and held in an auditorium of the College of Agriculture. The gala also served as the founding meeting of CSSA, making it both grand and grand, with abundant food and a movie called “Red Sorghum” for everyone to watch. Most notably, Xia Yingqi, the second secretary of the Chinese Embassy, attended the conference with his wife, and all expenses were covered by the Chinese Embassy. But strangely, the party was filled with tension. Many students clearly attended due to various pressures or not entirely voluntarily, so the meeting was often neglected and laughter was rarely heard. Another “Gala” hosted by ACCS at 5 p.m. was held in two small classrooms. It wasn’t as extravagant as CSSA, but the students brought their own specialty dishes and made mooncakes themselves. Many American friends were invited, creating a very harmonious atmosphere where everyone gathered to celebrate Chinese holidays together.
Why did this situation arise?
The story actually started in May. Previously, like other universities in the U.S., the University OF Kentucky had only one “FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION OF CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS,” whose English name was “FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION OF CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS” (FACSS). However, most students were dissatisfied with the previous association’s leader because they often tattled on students, using them as tools OF the Chinese embassy to control students. On May 21, at the re-election meeting, Ren Songlin, an activist of the student democracy movement, and Wu Fangcheng, an open member of the China Democratic Federation, were elected by majority vote as president and vice president of the “Friendship Association.” The CCP embassy was shocked upon learning of this, declared it could not accept the election results, and sent two officials, Xia Yingqi and Yu Zhaoji, to visit Kenser University in person, attempting to suppress the election results. On June 1, they personally presided over and directed a re-election, selecting students approved by the CCP as president and vice president. Thus, a “fellowship” emerged as two institutions with different electoral sources. The University of Kentucky administration had originally recognized Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng, elected on May 21, as legitimate presidents and vice presidents, but later, under pressure from the Chinese Communist Party, announced it would not recognize either election. Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng consistently argued their case, and the American public opinion community also gave them strong support. The English “LEXINGTON HERALD LEADER,” the Chinese “World Journal,” “China Spring,” “Young China Morning Post,” “International Daily,” and Hong Kong’s “Zhengming” and “The 1990s” all published news and articles, arguing that the May 21 election was legitimate and expressing support for Chinese students’ anti-control and democratic struggle. To resolve the conflict, the school authorities requested that both presidents change their names and “register” separately. Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng said they did not want Chinese students to split because of this and requested a hearing to clarify right and wrong, ease tensions, and communicate. But how could the Chinese Embassy be willing to sit on the same bench as the “China Democratic League”? Their reasonable demands were firmly rejected by the CCP embassy and government-run associations. With the original “social gathering” now largely defunct, and with the start of the new semester at the end of August, many new students from the mainland arrived. The “Friendship Club” led by Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng actively helped new students arrange accommodation, transportation, and more, earning praise from most of the new students. In mid-September, with the Mid-Autumn Festival and National Day approaching, and to encourage Chinese students at Kenya University to gather to celebrate, Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng issued a notice under the original English name of the “Fellowship Association” (FACSS) to hold the “National Day and Mid-Autumn New Year’s Gala” at 5 p.m. on October 1st. Upon learning of this, the Chinese embassy immediately took action to “oppose” the situation, issuing a notice and announcing the establishment of another “social gathering” to counter and offset the “gathering” held by Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng at 5 p.m. For a moment, many freshmen were confused and filled with questions.
On the morning of October 1st, the CSSA hosted a gala and founding meeting. The president handed out an application form to each student and announced the leadership members of the association, requiring every mainland student to apply. Participants must be approved before they can enjoy the discount. The students had long known that Kenser had experienced an election turmoil, and today there was a new “social gathering,” with Xia Yingqi from the embassy personally overseeing it, which left them even more puzzled. At this point, Wu Fangfang from the chemistry department and several other students raised questions at the meeting, saying, since your “social gathering” requires everyone to attend, they would like to explain your background and funding sources. The CSSA president refused to answer these questions and unreasonably demanded Wu Fangfang leave, which immediately sparked outrage among many classmates, including violent acts such as physical assault. Embassy official Xia Yingqi also insulted the questioning student, noting down the student’s name, domestic employer, visa type, and passport number on the spot. This was clearly an attempt to politically persecute the questioning student, immediately sparking public outrage. The two sides were at odds, and the situation was almost out of control. Under the criticism of many students, the CSSA president had no choice but to flee. The students surrounded Xia Yingqi, accusing him more and more sharply. They asked, “Why does the CCP embassy use state funds to support a few people forming a Communist Party-style association to judge and control students?” Why should students accept a non-democratic gathering? Why do a few people have the right to approve whether students are members of the “Fellowship”? When asked, Xia Ying found his reasoning exhausted and at a loss for words, unable to respond.
Due to the CCP embassy and its official associations trampling on democracy, mainland Chinese students at Kensen University have increasingly turned to the ACSS Fellowship, which has a truly democratic foundation, with Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng as president and vice president.
Why did the Chinese Embassy intervene shirtless in the University of Kentucky “Friendship Association” election? Let us look at the record of Xia Yingqi’s conversation with students during his fourth visit to the University of Kentucky on February 13, 1989.
Student A: Why do you support an organization that is not elected by everyone and lacks representation?
Xia Yingqi: Then I have to give someone a …… Otherwise, who do you think I should give it to?
Student B: The people I’m choosing for everyone—Ren Songlin and Wu Fangcheng!
Xia Yingqi: (faces darken) If you have opinions, bring them up in ‘Spring in China’, but I won’t listen.
Student C: You don’t treat all classmates equally, supporting some people and undermining others. Since you’re here to seek opinions, let me give you some advice.
Xia Yingqi: I don’t accept it.
Student C: Fine, if you don’t accept it, then please bring it to your superior.
Xia Yingqi: I don’t bring it.
Student C: Why not bring it?
Xia Yingqi: Because you are part of ‘Chinese Spring.’
Student B: What happened to ‘Chinese Spring’ again? The Kuomintang has killed so many Communists in the past, yet you still go shake hands with them, talk about joy, and engage in united front work. “Zhongchun” didn’t kill a single Communist. They only want democracy, and you won’t tolerate it. Where is justice?! ……
It is clear that the Chinese Embassy’s blatant and frustrating activities at the University of Kentucky fundamentally stem from fear of the appeal of “China Spring” and the “China Democratic League” among mainland students, attempting to hinder the influence and development of “China Spring” and the “China Democratic League” among mainland students through crackdowns, intimidation, and suppression.
On October 13, 1988, Jamie Rooker, a reporter for the English-language Kentucky newspaper LEXINGTON HERALD LEADER, wrote an article calling the University of Kentucky’s “fellowship incident” a “calm rebellion,” explaining that “Chinese students are demanding more freedom.” His words hit the nail on the head. Shortly after the University of Kentucky “Fellowship” incident, Purdue University in Indiana also overcame heavy obstruction from the CCP embassy on September 19 and elected leaders with genuine public opinion. Although none of these leaders were open members of the “Zhongchun” (Chinese Youth League), their nature was similar to that of the University of Kentucky. First, it stemmed from students’ dissatisfaction with the government-run association—the association’s former president acted under the CCP embassy’s orders, monitored students’ actions, tattled on them, and suppressed their demands for democracy.
TheACSS “Fellowship” at the University of Kentucky is the first democratically significant student-run organization established by overseas mainland students, independent of CCP control. It signals an inevitable direction—an independent path marked by the will of the electors. Later, the surge of democratic waves led to the establishment of the “National Association of Chinese Students and Scholars Autonomous Association” (abbreviated as “Xuezilian”). The ACSS “Fellowship” at the University of Kentucky can be seen as a precursor and forerunner of the self-association of learning.
Related tothis are the activities of the University of Kentucky’s Democratic League branch. The Kentucky Democratic League branch has always been one of the best branches for carrying out the “China Democratic Federation” activities, and its development has provided valuable experience for organizational building.
The predecessor of the Kentucky Civil Liaison Branch was the Kentucky Civil Liaison Station, established in 1986. At first, there were only two people, but through their relentless efforts, they now have a sizable team. Its population has already exceeded ten percent of the total number of mainland Chinese students and scholars in the area.
Their experience is:
1. Openness is key to organizational development. Because the CCP authoritarian regime labeled the Democratic League as a “reactionary organization,” many mainland Chinese students and scholars aligned with the Democratic League but dared not approach it. This was the most important reason why the Democratic Alliance’s organizational development was difficult to open.
Wu Fangcheng, head of the Kentucky Democratic League branch, said when discussing this experience: “In the fall of 1986, the former chairman of the Democratic League gave a speech at school, and I decided to publicly step forward to chair the meeting. I first gave a brief self-introduction to the attendees, confidently explaining my identity and position as a member of the Democratic League. Contrary to my fears, after ‘stepping forward,’ not only did my original friends not decrease, but with the surge of democracy movements at home and abroad, many new comrades and friends came to my side. The number of friends I know has multiplied many times over in just a few months, and one after another, one after another, they joined the ‘China Alliance for Democracy.’” He believes: “Facts have proven that as long as we dare to openly stand up and clarify our banner, the Democratic League will not worry about gaining the support and endorsement of more and more people.” Of course, for an alliance member, whether to make it public or not depends first on their own willingness and objective conditions. But as an organization, especially a democratic one, whether it has sufficient transparency is of great importance. It affects whether it can gain more support from people and whether it can grow and thrive more quickly. Openness is key to developing organizations. It is easy to imagine that an organization that remains underground and never interacts with others cannot have much appeal or appeal. ”
2. Be friends with international students and scholars, and speak for yourself. Wu Fangcheng believes that to make people friends of the Democratic League and then join it, its members should first become friends to everyone and speak with their own character. The abstract China Democracy League does not exist; its image is concretely reflected in every member of the League, especially leaders at all levels.
He also pointed out that, on one hand, the work undertaken by the China Democratic Alliance is noble and widely recognized by the Chinese people, but on the other hand, we cannot ignore the image of the Democratic Federation, especially some of its leaders, is still not good enough. Their actions do not earn people’s respect, and the Democratic League seen in them lacks cohesion. Both positive and negative experiences tell us that a single noble mission is far from enough; it also needs many members with high moral standards and strong democratic qualities to strive for.
Themoral standards and democratic quality of pro-democracy organizations and activists can be said to have been first raised by Wu Fangcheng through the “Kentucky Branch Experience.” From the past and future development history of the “China Democratic Federation” and the situation of other pro-democracy organizations and activists, it is indeed an issue worthy of attention, deep reflection, and reflection. Later, Wu Fangcheng continued to elaborate on moral issues and wrote many articles, such as “The Moral Bottom Line of Overseas Democracy Movements,” which played a wake-up and enlightening role in building the ranks of pro-democracy organizations and improving the quality of activists.
3. Reaching Out Hands: Democracy Knows No Priority. Another important lesson from the Kentucky branch is that democracy knows no priority; the doors of the China Democratic League are open to any Chinese person who recognizes the Alliance Constitution. The “China Democratic Federation” is not an exclusive secret organization, nor is it a so-called “vanguard” of the Communist Party, but a mass democratic organization that unites all who identify with democratic principles and wish for China to ultimately achieve democracy under this banner. Therefore, it must sincerely welcome all who meet the above requirements to join. Within the democratic ranks, avoid seniority based on seniority, avoid celebrity patents, and avoid constantly criticizing others’ “personal motives.”
The headquarters of the Democratic League attaches great importance to the “Kentucky Branch Experience” and has held several meetings, inviting the Kentucky branch leader to introduce it, promote, carry forward, and enrich it, aiming to further strengthen and improve the internal organizational building of the Alliance and enhance the democratic quality and political literacy of its members. □