The
4th Congress of the All-China Democratic Federation was held
From June 23 to 26, 1989, the China Democratic League held its fourth Congress in Los Angeles, USA.
This meeting was held under extremely severe political circumstances. Just twenty days earlier, on June 4, 1989, the CCP dictatorship had finally defied global condemnation and launched a world-shocking massacre in Beijing, plunging mainland China into a dark abyss. Additionally, the situation for the China Democratic League is also very serious. In January, the Democratic League experienced the recall incident, and internal divisions and disputes have yet to subside. Therefore, this congress not only concerned every member of the Democratic League but also attracted attention from supporters of the democracy movement and various parties.
Therewere eighty-five official delegates attending the meeting, along with twenty non-voting delegates and distinguished guests. The three-day meeting schedule was: the first day to discuss the situation and formulate policies and strategies; the second day to amend the charter and legislate the organizational structure; and the third day to elect the chairman, vice-chairpersons, joint committee, and supervisory committee members.
On June 23, under the chairmanship of Wang Min, a member of the conference secretariat, all delegates stood in silence to mourn the martyrs who died in the domestic democratic movement, and played a recording speech by student leader Chai Ling after the June 4th massacre. Next, Chairman Hu Ping delivered a report on the current situation and political strategies. Hu Ping analyzed the lessons learned from both the successes and failures of the “April 15th Five-Year Movement,” and proposed ten major tasks for the current democratic movement: First, spread facts and ideals; 2. Rescue mainland pro-democracy activists; 3. Continue to plan and organize various forms of nonviolent resistance movements; 4. Preservation, consolidation, reconstruction, and development of connections with mainland pro-democracy activists; 5. Strengthen contact with those within the Party, government, and military who have centrifugal tendencies; 6. Strengthen ties with various democratic forces internationally; 7. Strengthen theoretical research; 8. Expand recruiting members and improve organizational development; 9. Improve your own democratic literacy; 10. Facilitating a grand union of democratic forces.
Since the “June Fourth Massacre” had just ended and the CCP’s large-scale crackdown was still ongoing, some representatives expressed doubts about the effectiveness of peaceful, nonviolent democratic operations. After extensive discussion, the congress finally established the major policy of continuing to confront the CCP’s violence through peaceful and democratic means, and studied and summarized lessons learned.
On this day, two surprising and exciting episodes occurred at the conference. First, Shao Huaqiang, a member of the Democratic League, suddenly revealed his identity as a special commissioner of the CCP’s Ministry of State Security and announced his departure from the ministry. Shao Huaqiang was originally a student at Shanghai Normal University and a member of the Chinese Communist Party. When he applied to come to the United States, the CCP National Security Department recruited him as a staff member, instructing him to infiltrate the China Democratic League to gather intelligence on overseas pro-democracy movements. He said, “Since news of the democracy movement broke domestically, I have never slept peacefully or eaten properly.” I have decided to leave the Ministry of State Security. We want to see the end of the Chinese Communist fascist regime in our generation, and the future constitution must state: Communism is illegal. Another speaker was Sun Jidong, who previously worked at Kanghua Company. He praised the Democratic Alliance’s achievements in promoting democracy on the mainland and exposed the dark secrets of Kanghua Company’s “official fall” led by the Deng family members.
That evening, the representatives also heard the “Headquarters Work Report” by Ding Chuzuo, Secretary-General of the Third China Democratic League; the “Financial Report” by Lin Xinsheng, Manager of “China Spring”; and the “Supervisory Committee Work Report” by Xue Wei, Director of the Third Supervisory Committee.
The meeting on the 24th, chaired by Secretariat members Huang Ben and Qian Da, moved into the agenda for amending the charter and legislation.
After the “Three Congresses” of the China Democratic Federation, many representatives shared a common view: they believed that the federation’s charter had significant shortcomings, especially the excessive power of the chairman, while the supervisory committee held both voting and arbitration powers, making them difficult to distinguish. Therefore, discussions on amending the charter were especially passionate, with delegates speaking enthusiastically. As a result, since the general outline, every article that had time for discussion was amended.
Lin Xinsheng, manager of “China Spring,” proposed that the current charter of the Democratic Alliance is too complex and suggested adopting U.S. corporate law, forming a board of directors to hire administrative staff on a hiring basis, but the proposal was rejected by the representatives.
The delegates focused more on establishing an organizational structure with the “separation of powers.” On this day, Su Yang’s proposal for “separation of powers” was endorsed by Wu Fangcheng and others, and the discussion process began.
The so-called three powers refer to the League Committee (legislative body), the Supervisory Committee (the judiciary), the Chairman, and the Headquarters (executive body). The establishment of the “separation of powers” has undergone intense debate. Delegates came from around the world and came from diverse backgrounds, presenting various models such as those from Taiwan, Japan, and West Germany. Although the delegates admitted during the debate that they were not legal experts, they spoke eloquently and spoke openly, surprising the audience. After several rounds of debate, the proposal for the “separation of powers” was finally adopted. In the “separation of powers” structural model, the Union Committee is designated as a single legislative body and legal representative, balancing the executive powers of the chair and headquarters. A majority vote of the Joint Committee may overturn any decision made by the chairperson or executive body; The supervisory committee serves to interpret legal principles and adjudicate disputes.
Therewas also a major episode at the congress on the 24th: Zhang Zhuozhi, Yu Cong, and six others proposed a proposal to completely separate the China Democratic League from the newly established “China Democracy Party,” which had split due to the Wang dismissal incident, from organizational separation, allowing only one membership among the alliances and not both. Dual identities must choose their party membership within three months, either join the NLD, or join the “Democratic Party” and leave the NLD. This proposal received more than two-thirds of the votes in favor. After the motion was passed, the conference also invited attending delegate Wang Bingzhang to give a speech. Wang Bingzhang first expressed that, as the founder of the China Democratic League, he deeply regretted the split of the Democratic League, disagreed with the resolution to completely separate the Democratic Party, and stated that the “illegal issues” of the “Four Congresses” would be resolved through legal means.
Themeeting of the “Fourth Congress” on June 25 was chaired by Liu Xinhua, a member of the conference secretariat, with the agenda being the election of the president, vice-chairmen, alliance members, and supervisory committee members. The election of the president and vice-chairman is the main event. Former chairman Hu Ping and Huang Ben teamed up, while UC Berkeley’s Xu Bangtai and former Secretary-General Ding Chu teamed up. The two pairs were evenly matched and evenly matched, creating a fierce competition.
Xu Bangtai and Ding Chu were the first to take the stage to deliver a “policy speech,” issuing a work plan similar to a “large military region system,” delegating headquarters authority to each branch, allowing localities to develop their own members and raise funds to strengthen the ranks. Their plan was well received by local branches.
At first, the situation was very unfavorable for Hu Ping, because he had only hastily chosen Huang Ben as his vice chairman partner an hour before the election. However, Hu Ping and Huang Ben’s speeches and defenses were outstanding, and with Huang Ben’s strong support, they ultimately defeated their opponents and won the positions of chairman and vice chairman of the Four Major Conferences of the China Democratic League with a slim majority of 53 votes to 48.
The results of the Democratic League’s “Four Majors” elections are as follows:
Chairman of the Democratic League: Hu Ping. Vice Chairperson: Huang Ben.
Members of theDemocratic League Alliance Committee: Xu Bangtai, Wang Min, Wu Fangcheng, Yu Cong, Zong Jixiang, Li Guoyu, Yu Dahai, Gao Gewen, Lü Fan, Wu Fan, Jiang Wen, Yao Yueqian, Zhang Wei. Alternate members: Chen Shuchen, Feng Bin, Guo Ping, Lin Wei, Liangxin.
Members of the Democratic League Supervisory Committee: Xue Wei, Liu Xinhua, Mo Fengjie, Zhang Zhuozhi, Dong Zhenhai, Ren Songlin, Li Zhaoyang. Alternate members: Yang Xianzhi, Yu Yimin, Li Ran.
As the China Democratic Federation pointed out in its “Four Congress” announcements: “The Fourth Congress of the China Democratic Federation was convened ahead of schedule under special circumstances.” This conference was a success beyond expectations. It marks significant progress for the Minlian in its own maturity. The congress called on the entire league to strengthen unity and make theoretical and organizational preparations to welcome the next wave of mainland democracy movements. ”
The relationship between the Democratic Alliance and the Civil Human Rights Front
Although the June Fourth massacre suppressed the pro-democracy movement in mainland China, it continued to rise overseas. If before June Fourth, overseas pro-democracy groups were mainly limited to the China Democratic League (another group, the China Democratic Party, split from the China Democratic League and was only established very briefly), then by July and August of 1989, a diverse structure had formed. The most important were two other powerful pro-democracy groups—the “National Chinese Students and Scholars Autonomous Association” (abbreviated as “Academic Self-Governance”) and the “Democratic China Front” (abbreviated as CDF)—which were established one after another.
The “1989 Democracy Movement” and the “June Fourth Massacre” shocked mainland Chinese students and scholars studying in the US. In this grand and thrilling democratic movement in mainland China, they further saw the true nature of the CCP and made resolute choices. On July 28, 1989, mainland Chinese students and scholars studying in the U.S. broke through the obstruction of the CCP’s official “Friendship Association” and held the first congress, electing Liu Yongchuan from Stanford University and Han Lianchao from Yale University as chairperson and vice chairman. In his campaign defense, Liu Yongchuan clearly stated: “After June Fourth, China’s democratization will enter a low phase, but the social crisis in China remains unresolved, so the peak of democracy will inevitably come.” “When talking about the relationship with the China Democratic Federation, he said: “Our organization should be independent from the China Democratic Federation, but because of the June Fourth massacre, all the forces around the world from the left, center, and right have come together and acted in unison. I believe that in many future matters, if the China Democratic Federation itself has no conflicts and they abide by the rules of cooperation, we might work together.” ”
Another pro-democracy organization is the Civil Human Rights Front. Due to the CCP government’s suppression, arrests, and pursuits, some mainland Chinese pro-democracy activists were forced into exile overseas, including prominent figures from the ’89 Democracy Movement, such as Wu’er Kaixi, Yan Jiaqi, Wan Runnan, Li Lu, and Chen Yizi. Shortly after the founding conference of the All-American Self-Defense Federation, Wu’erkaixi, Yan Jiaqi, and others announced a specific plan to establish the “Democratic China Front.” On September 24, 1989, the “Democratic China Front” held its first representative conference in Paris. Through elections, Yan Jiaqi was appointed chairman of the council, Wu’erkaixi was vice chairman, Qian Da (also a member of the China Democratic Federation) was chairman of the supervisory board, and Wan Runnan was appointed secretary-general. In its founding declaration, the Front for Democracy stated: “The program of the China Front for Democracy is to safeguard basic human rights, uphold social justice, develop the private economy, and end one-party rule.” ”
How to handle the relationship between the Democratic League, the Democratic Front and the “Xuezi Lian” is a new issue for all parties involved. In theory, they should be allies, as they generally share the same overall political demands, programs, and goals, and both have suffered strong political pressure and persecution from the Chinese Communist Party. However, in reality, their relationship is divided, especially with the Civil Rights Front. There are roughly two reasons for this: first, ideologically, the Democratic League is publicly labeled a “counter-revolutionary organization” by the CCP, and some who still hope to leave a backup plan to reform within the system are unwilling to get too closely connected with the Democratic League; second, out of consideration for the “faction,” they are cautious of the other side. For example, at the Paris meeting where the Civil Rights Front was being considered, Hu Ping was once invited, but when he arrived, someone actually suggested he not be allowed to attend. In the end, a vote was passed, and although most agreed to the meeting, a precondition was set: Hu Ping could only attend as an individual and could not represent the organization. This reflects a mentality: some members of the Democratic Front clearly intend to distance themselves from the Democratic League. Within the Democratic Alliance, some held the same mindset. For example, when the Democratic Front held its first congress, Democratic League Chairman Hu Ping and Alliance Committee Director Xu Bangtai attended as official representatives. Their actions were criticized by many within the Democratic League, who saw Hu and Xu’s actions as a “small amnesty.” (The grand amnesty was naturally about surrendering to the Communist Party.) At that time, those who were members of the Democratic Front included Yu Cong, Wang Luo, Qian Da, Yu Xingmin, and others. They held a meeting to discuss the relationship between the Democratic League and the Democratic Front. Some advocated that Hu Ping and Xu Bangtai could join the Civil Rights Front while maintaining the independence of the Democratic Alliance. Others strongly opposed it. Finally, Hu Ping and Xu Bangtai stated that they would immediately convene a joint committee meeting upon returning to determine how to position the relationship between the Democratic League and the Democratic Front before making a decision.
As soon as the first Congress of the Civil Human Rights Front concluded, to thank the Front for treating the Democratic League well, the Democratic League’s Supervisory Committee immediately issued a document to the entire league, calling on all members to support the Civil Rights Front in all aspects, and even to help those who had just fled from the mainland and were not yet established in daily life. This move not only received enthusiastic responses from the Democratic League itself, but also won cheers from the Democratic Front.
But the shadow between the two sides has yet to be lifted. Perhaps due to factionalism, both sides have their own concerns. Some more enterprising members within the Democratic League have proposed the strategy of “infiltrating and controlling the Democratic Front and control the Democratic Front Front.” Although this has not been endorsed by the Democratic Alliance, they have already taken an aggressive stance, which naturally caused some within the Democratic Front to worry, fearing that the alliance might eventually take over the Front for Democracy. Another concern comes from the opposite direction. The New York East Times once wrote an article declaring: as a large number of DAR members join the Civil Human Rights Front, the DAR will be wiped out. Of course, aside from factional interests, there is another potential danger between the two organizations: compared to the Democratic League, the Civil Alliance exposes even more internal factional conflicts. Once the Democratic League becomes embroiled in internal conflicts within the Civil Front and at the same time causes conflicts between the two organizations due to its involvement, if not handled well, it will intensify friction and infighting, leading to the very situation the Communist Party most wants to see.
To address these issues, the Democratic League decided to convene the third joint committee meeting of the fourth term, focusing on the series of topics related to the Democratic League and the Civil Rights Front, and inviting the main leaders of the Front to attend the meeting. The main purpose of this is to express the Democratic Alliance’s openness and gain the other party’s trust, while also positively adjusting the relationship between the two sides and enhancing the possibility of cooperation.
On October 28, 1989, the Joint Committee of the Democratic Federation held a meeting at the editorial department of “China Spring,” attended by members of the Supervisory Committee and key cadres of the headquarters. In the morning, participants discussed the issue of Democratic League members joining the Civil Rights Front. Most believed that personal wishes should be respected, and the organization would not impose any restrictions or incentives, including those for Hu Ping and Xu Bangtai. In other words, members can cross nationalities. However, participants also expressed their wishes for Hu and Xu, not wanting them to join the Democratic Front, mainly to maintain the Alliance’s image and independence.
This decision by the Joint Committee created a contradiction: the Democratic League’s “Four Congresses” once stipulated that members of the Democratic League and the “Democratic Party” could not cross nationalities, and now they allow members to cross nationalities. Is this a double standard? This sparked further debate, and in the end, most participants agreed that an organization has the right to set its own double standards. It has proven that mutual infiltration between the “Democratic Party” and the NLD has weakened democratic forces, while mutual infiltration with the Democratic Front is not guaranteed, so there is no reason to restrict the latter.
At noon, invited members of the Civil Rights Front arrived at the venue. Hu Ping, Xu Bangtai, Ding Chu, Xue Wei, and others came out to greet him, expressing their welcome. Guests included Civil Human Rights Front Vice Chairman Wu Erkaixi, Secretary-General Wan Runnan, Director Liao Dawen, North America Regional Head Jin Yanshi, New York Office Head Xu Xiaofeng, and exiled student Liu Yan. Wan Runnan’s first words upon entering were: “We are here to fetch the scriptures.” ”
Xu Bangtai, director of the Democratic Alliance Joint Committee, first introduced the topics and results discussed to the guests. Afterwards, Wan Runnan spoke, believing that the Democratic League and the Civil Rights Front will eventually unite, but should not rush. Both sides must undergo a period of joint action; sharing different dreams is better than having different dreams under the same bed. Wu’erkaixi’s statement was even more candid and sincere; he first declared that neither side intended to harm anyone, so there was no need to be on guard. At that moment, Liu Yan suddenly announced she wanted to join the Democratic League, drawing enthusiastic applause from the entire audience. Qian Da said, “I was borrowed from the Civil Alliance to the Civil Rights Front. Liu Yan married from the Civil Rights League to the Democratic Front Alliance. Now it’s a marriage alliance between the Democratic League and the Civil Front for marriage.” ”
After the “marriage alliance,” the atmosphere at the venue became even more like that of a family. Both sides completely let down their guard, built confidence, and began to discuss the specific forms of cooperation between the two organizations from a positive perspective. In the end, they reached three agreements: First, both sides should cooperate in theoretical research and external public relations; 2. Facilitating the convening of joint meetings as a permanent body to coordinate between the two organizations and even among other overseas organizations; 3. The Democratic League and the Civil Front have established a system of mutual advisors.
Based on this, the Democratic Alliance Joint Committee immediately proposed appointing Yan Jiaqi, Wu’erkaixi, Wan Runnan, and Chen Yizi as advisors to the Democratic League.
This meeting positioned the relationship between the Democratic League and the Civil Rights Front, deepened mutual understanding, and opened the starting point for sincere cooperation between the two organizations.
From January29 to 30, 1990, the “Joint Meeting of Overseas Democracy Movement Organizations” was held in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. Attending the meeting included the following overseas pro-democracy organizations: “Democratic China Front,” “China Democratic Solidarity Alliance,” “National Chinese Students and Scholars Autonomous Association,” “China Democratic Communications Commission” (formerly the Resignation Committee), “All Canada Chinese Students and Scholars Autonomous Association,” “Voice of June 4 Radio,” “Press Freedom Herald,” More than a dozen organizations, including the International Solidarity Committee, “Democratic China (Canada),” “June 4th Foundation,” “PLA Democratic Justice Association,” “Liberal Democratic Party Preparatory Liaison Group,” “China Democratic Party,” and the “US-China Talent Exchange Foundation.” At the meeting, they reached the following resolutions: First, each group will form delegations to visit Eastern Europe at an appropriate time this year, learning from the experience and lessons of ending one-party rule and building a democratic society; 2. All organizations will jointly prepare this year’s June 4th commemorative activities and promote the international community to designate June 4th as the “World Day for Democracy”; 3. All groups will collaborate on planned theoretical research, including the long-term outline for democratic nation-building, urgent measures to respond to changes, and strategic strategies for the democratic movement; 4. All democratic organizations shall jointly form the unified China Human Rights Democracy Foundation to collectively raise and distribute various donations from the democracy movement; 5. The meeting decided to establish a permanent coordination group to be responsible for liaison and coordination of various pro-democracy groups.
At the meeting, the Democratic Front and Democratic Front were signed by Xu Bangtai and Yan Jiaqi, respectively, issuing joint statements. The two organizations initially reached the following agreements: 1. As the two main forces in China’s overseas democratic movement, the Civil Rights Front and Democratic League should quickly move toward unity on the basis of active cooperation, striving for our common goal—ending the Communist Party’s one-party dictatorship in mainland China; 2. The Civil Human Rights Front and the Democratic League should strive for organizational mergers when conditions are ripe, and simultaneously promote the merger of other pro-democracy groups with common will. This intention shall be implemented immediately upon approval by the highest authorities of both parties; 3. Each side will appoint one representative (Jin Yanshi from the Civil Human Rights Front, Wang Min from the Democratic Alliance) to be responsible for liaison and coordination. In late April this year, during the Eastern European Situation Seminar in Europe, a joint meeting of the Civil Human Rights Front Council and the Joint Committee of the Democratic League will be held to specifically discuss the issue of organizational merger between the two sides; 4. The Democratic League and the Civil Human Rights Front will directly cooperate on a series of work projects such as the “June 4th” anniversary commemorative meeting, forming the 1990 “June 4th” working group, and widely unite other pro-democracy groups to participate, creating conditions for organizational merger and broader union between the two sides.
From April 21 to 23 of the same year, a seminar titled “Towards Democracy in Eastern Europe and China—Past, Present, and Future” was jointly initiated by the “Democratic China Front,” East Germany’s “New Forum,” “Democracy Today,” and the Association for the Promotion of Peace and Human Rights was held in East Berlin. The declaration to establish “Forum International” was announced at the conference. This was a rare event, attended by more than 150 delegates from around the world. Important political figures included East Germany’s “New Forum” member Flemürt, Czech Helsinki Committee member Syloceva, Sinologist Martin from “Pistol Review,” Polish Solidarity MP Chelinski, Soviet magazine “Reform” Fadeev, Romanian “Social Dialogue” representative Oberlescu, Lithuanian MP Lema, and many key leaders from the Civil Liberation Front and the Democratic League. The main topic of this conference was: under the impact of Su Dongbo’s democratic wave, democratic parties and political entities from various countries came together to exchange democratic experiences. They pay special attention to the democratic movement in mainland China. This seminar created an opportunity for a major union between the Chinese and Eastern European pro-democracy movements.
After the meeting, from April 26 to 27, key leaders of the NLD and Civil Human Rights Front took the opportunity to hold another joint meeting in East Berlin. Participants in the meeting included: Hu Ping, Xu Bangtai, Yan Jiaqi, Wan Runnan, Wu Erkaixi, Chen Yizi, Xue Wei, Wang Guangqiu, Wu Fan, Jiang Wen, Li Shaomin, Li Guoyu, Ren Songlin, Lü Fan, Wang Min, Li Zhongxu, Wu Fangcheng, Jin Yanshi, Shao Zongyi, Zong Jixiang, Ma Dawei, Hao Yisheng, Xu Guomin, Gao Gewen, Mo Fengjie, Yu Dahai, Xu Sike, Yu Cong, Chen Jun, Huang Ben, Chen Shuchen, Zhang Wei, Yang Guang, Yan Huai, Kuang Mingyuan, Yang Manke, and Mo Liren.
Participantsonce again carefully studied the merger and alliance between the two major overseas pro-democracy groups, the Democratic League and the Democracy Front, compared the advantages of various existing alliance plans in detail, and discussed the conditions and timing for such a large-scale alliance. They believed that the Civil Rights Front and Democratic League should seize the opportunity to act, cooperate broadly, promote unity, advance mergers, advocate party formation, and use joint actions to put pressure on the CCP regime.
The merger of the Civil Rights Front and the Democratic League depended on the approval of the highest authorities on both sides and amendments to the articles of association, but participants did not reach a consensus on whether the merger proposal should be immediately prepared for the merger proposal to be passed by the representative assembly.
Based on repeated discussions and consultations, participants put forward seven proposals for a vote, three of which were approved: 1. Propose the establishment of an opposition party preparatory committee, decide to collect signatures from now until May 30, draft relevant documents such as the Party program and constitution, and publish the preparatory report on June 4; 2. The Civil Human Rights Front and the Democratic Alliance will operate together, increase cooperative projects, co-work in the US or Europe, and encourage members of both sides to choose each other’s memberships; 3. At an appropriate time, a joint representative assembly will be convened, and it has been decided to widely solicit opinions from this day, with both parties gradually advancing the merger according to their respective organizational procedures.
Of course, amid the applause for the merger between the Civil Human Rights Front and the Democratic Alliance, there were also voices of opposition within the Democratic Alliance. Some members have also expressed concerns about the merger. For example, Yao Yueqian from the Japan branch wrote in a letter to Xu Bangtai: “As for the relationship between the Democratic Alliance and the Civil Rights Front or other pro-democracy organizations, under the premise of shared goals, the important thing is first to recognize and cooperate with each other, focusing on ideological alignment and integration, rather than necessarily being busy with organizational ‘unification.’” The proliferation of hills is not a bad thing; rather, it reflects the flourishing of the democratic movement. Thousands of troops compete for supremacy in the Central Plains, more vibrant than all singing ‘Forced to Liangshan.’ “Gao Gewen from the Georgia branch of the United States, after soliciting opinions from some members of the alliance regarding the merger of the two organizations, said: “Regarding the relationship between the Democratic League and the Civil Rights Front, from the members I have interacted with, they generally tend not to rule out joining as individuals, but should not consider an organizational merger. The reasons are: First, different organizations fighting simultaneously for the cause of democracy on the mainland will not weaken their strength; on the contrary, it will better demonstrate the unified demands of all organizations and sectors.” 2. The Democratic League and Civil Front have shared some views but also have slight differences. If the merger is sought too early, differing opinions will be reflected within one organization, potentially strengthening factional existence. Moreover, the voices of dissent within the Civil Human Rights Front are even fiercer than those within the Democratic Alliance. If the two organizations merge, internal strife could arise. 3. Only by maintaining independence can the two organizations be competitive, stimulate each other, and contribute more to democratic movements. 4. When two organizations merge, a party should be formed; only then can there be strength. But forming a party now may not be the right time. Forming a party overseas and not running in China is not very meaningful. Combined with party operations, economic backing is needed, which is not yet a condition. In February 1990, the “Mengyuan Newsletter” published a letter of criticism from Wu Fangcheng, Dong Zhenhai, Tang Xianmin, Chen Xue, and two others to the leaders of the Democratic League. They questioned the “joint statement” signed by the Democratic League and the Democratic Front in January 1990, pointing out that the signatories of the “announcement” signed without a vote from the Joint Committee or the opinions of the majority of members, “this approach is inappropriate,” and reiterated: “The Democratic League and Civil Front organizations should now put more effort into joint actions, The willingness to merge organizations cannot be a prerequisite for joint action. “They require the signatories of the ‘Announcement’ to provide necessary clarifications within the League to recover from the negative impact and the potential losses it may cause to the organization.
However, these opposing voices did not attract the attention of the senior leaders of the Democratic League, and the idea of organizational mergers has always prevailed within the Alliance.
In short, the establishment of overseas pro-democracy organizations such as the Civil Rights Front and the “Self-Studying Alliance” changed the leadership position of the Democratic Alliance within overseas pro-democracy movements. Especially the Civil Front itself, because many “star-level” figures from the “1989 Democratic Movement” participated, they “stooped” to the spotlight for a period, which relatively reduced the Federation’s attention. In response to this situation, China Spring magazine wrote a special article titled “Success Doesn’t Have to Be Me, Success Is Within Me,” pointing out: “Perhaps organizations like the Democratic Alliance are naturally prepared for the low tides of the democracy movement.” Here, a group of such people gather: they are willing to do what others don’t. Only when they are a minority can their value be revealed. And once the climax arrives, most people swarm in, their presence becomes insignificant, they melt into the crowd, drowned out by numerous groups. Perhaps many in the Democratic League regret this, but even more are happy to find their place. Their belief is: success doesn’t have to be mine; success is within me. While others were criticizing the Civil Human Rights Front as taking a ‘celebrity route’ or ‘elite route,’ the Democratic Alliance emphasized that they were following a ‘civilian route.’ They made a rather interesting analogy, saying the Civil Rights Front resembles a “capitalist roader,” while the Democratic League is “land, wealthy, anti-government, bad, right-wing,” and its members mostly come from obscure Chinese backgrounds. Some commented on the differences between the Democratic League and the Civil Rights Front, saying: the Democratic Front holds the right timing, the Democratic League holds the geographical advantage. As for unity among the people, that is still uncertain; it depends on whether each side works diligently and earnestly. Because of this, the Democratic Alliance, with its unique characteristics, finally won unanimous praise abroad amid the booming overseas pro-democracy organizations.
In November 1989, the World Journal published three lengthy articles introducing the Civil Alliance, the Democratic League, and the “Self-Study Federation.” In Qiu Shaoqi’s article titled “The Democratic Alliance Progresses from Stripping Back to Steady Progress,” he pointed out: The Democratic Alliance “has a down-to-earth style and bullish market trends,” including the following passage:
“Of course, the Democratic League’s value skyrocketing within a few months isn’t entirely due to changes in the environment, nor is it just luck. After seven years of quiet effort, the Democratic League itself has accumulated considerable strength. These characteristics were previously overseas, but after the ‘Xuezilian’ and the Civil Front were established, people naturally began comparing these organizations. At this point, some of the Democratic League’s strengths immediately became apparent.
The praise drowned out the disparaging tone, and the Democratic League’s market value soared accordingly.
While criticizing the Democratic Front for holding a grand founding meeting without taking any concrete action, overseas students and the overseas Chinese community have noticed that the Democratic League has been working steadily and earnestly. The Democratic League’s official publication, ‘China Spring’ monthly, currently has 6,500 copies printed in the US; Hong Kong Printpoint published 5,000 copies, distributed to Japan, Australia, and other regions. “China’s Spring” is widely circulated among mainland Chinese students and overseas Chinese, and has an undeniable influence.
“Especially in some university towns and relatively remote cities, where Chinese-language newspapers and magazines are hard to buy, information channels are very limited. The magazine ‘China Spring’ is the only source of information for international students and overseas Chinese. In these places, the influence of “Chinese Spring” is even more profound. …… One international student said that the Democratic League’s highly transparent approach stands in stark contrast to the Democratic Front’s ‘unfathomable and profound’ approach to criticism. ”
In the editor’s note of the article, the World Journal pointed out:
“The ‘China Democratic Unity Alliance,’ abbreviated as the China Democratic Alliance, is the oldest group among overseas pro-democracy groups. Since its establishment seven years ago, it has established branches across the United States and around the world, making significant contributions to the democracy movement. However, like other political groups exiled abroad, the NLD has often suffered from internal strife in the past. After the June Fourth massacre, the Democratic League’s momentum made a breakthrough. ”
These comments are quite fair and realistic. □