The Democratic Alliance supports Guo Luoji’s human rights struggle
On April 21, 1992, the China Democratic Federation, the Democratic China Front, and the All-American Self-Publishing Union jointly issued an appeal supporting the famous mainland Chinese scholar Guo Luoji’s lawsuit against the State Education Commission to defend his own rights. This appeal, drafted by DAR Chairman Yu Dahai, states:
“We believe that the CCP authorities have indeed violated Guo Luoji’s fundamental human rights and indeed violated the current laws of mainland China. In fact, the actions of the CCP authorities continue the CCP’s decades-long practice of punishing crimes through speech. We hope the Jiangsu High People’s Court will uphold justice and carefully consider Guo Luoji’s appeal. …… The CCP’s actions violate the Constitution, and of course, they must be held accountable as defendants. We hope the Jiangsu High People’s Court will act with judicial independence and not concern itself with the special status of the Chinese Communist Party. As Guo Luoji pointed out in his appeal: ‘If there hasn’t been before, then start now.’ Why can’t the Communist Party file a complaint for breaking the law? …… The Communist Party has the privilege of not being supervised by law, which is the root cause of the inadequate rule of law in the People’s Republic of China and the reason for the Party’s uncontrollable corruption. ’…… We believe that Guo Luoji’s actions to file lawsuits and appeals have strongly promoted social progress in mainland China. We also know that in mainland China today, Guo Luoji is taking a big risk to express these views. Currently, thousands of dissidents in mainland China, including Wei Jingsheng, Wang Xizhe, Wang Juntao, Chen Ziming, and Wang Dan, are detained by the CCP for making statements. Therefore, we solemnly remind the Chinese authorities that Guo Luoji is only filing complaints based on current laws. If the CCP continues to persecute Guo Luoji because of this, people will surely lose confidence in the CCP’s recent stance toward reform and opening up. We also call on people around the world who pursue democracy and freedom to care about Guo Luoji’s fate, in order to promote improvements in human rights in mainland China. ”
Guo Luoji, born in 1933, is from Wuxi, Jiangsu. Like many passionate youths of his era, Guo Luoji also longed for the revolution of the Communist Party. In 1955, he was admitted to the History Department of Peking University. Due to his excellent grades, he graduated early and stayed on to teach in the Department of Philosophy. After the fall of the “Gang of Four,” Guo Luoji wrote an open letter to the Beijing Municipal Committee, using Peking University as an example, directly targeting the “Two Whatevers” policy of the Beijing Municipal Committee, which angered the top CCP leadership. At the time, the CCP’s top leader, Hua Guofeng, issued an order: “Guo Luoji must be suppressed.” In November 1979, he published “Political Issues Can Be Discussed” in the People’s Daily, in which he argued that strictly drawing the line between political and academic issues is unnecessary, and in fact, impossible. Political issues are also open to discussion. He said: “Democracy should allow discussion; Not allowing discussion is authoritarian politics. After the article was published, Peng Zhen, the head of the CCP’s political and legal system, was extremely dissatisfied, accusing Guo of being “unconstitutional.” He personally organized people to write critical articles while also subjecting him to political persecution, attempting to transfer him out of Beijing. In August 1981, Guo Luoji published an article in the People’s Daily under the pen name “Ma Wen” opposing personality cults, which ultimately angered the emperor and was expelled from Beijing by the Ministry of Education citing “work needs.” However, Guo Luoji insisted on not leaving, delaying until August 1982, when he finally joined his new workplace—the Department of Philosophy at Nanjing University. But before Guo Luoji arrived in Nanjing, the Party Secretary of Nanjing University announced at a faculty and staff meeting: “Guo Luoji is coming; everyone must stay alert.” “Prevention work has been deployed down to the grassroots level, and even neighbors have tasks to supervise him. Even more infuriating, after Guo Luoji was transferred to Nanjing University, the Ministry of Education stipulated that he “could only be a teacher, not a cadre,” with corresponding rules forbidding him from publishing articles, publishing works, or participating in academic activities. He even inexplicably lost his voting rights. On September 28, 1986, at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Deng Xiaoping mentioned Guo Luoji alongside Wei Jingsheng and Wang Bingzhang, calling him “a representative figure of bourgeois liberalization.” Under such immense political pressure, Guo Luoji could only publish articles under a pen name, sometimes even borrowing the “mailing address” and “real name” at the end of the manuscript from friends. After the “June Fourth,” Nanjing University, following the “spirit of the authorities,” refused Guo Luoji’s Party membership registration, stripped him of his teaching rights, and withheld his salary.
Due to the CCP’s brutal violation of laws and human rights, Guo Luoji, unable to tolerate it any longer, filed a lawsuit with the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court on January 25, 1992, submitting the “Indictment Against Li Tieying, Director of the State Education Commission, Qu Qinyue, President of Nanjing University, and Lin Dehong, Head of the Department of Philosophy at Nanjing University” and the “Indictment Against the CPC Nanjing University Committee,” using CCP-established laws as a weapon, proactively accusing CCP departments of violations. Guo Luoji was the first in the history of the founding of the Communist Party to expose the crimes of “one-party dictatorship” through judicial means.
In two indictments, Guo Luoji pointed out: “In short, my three views are: the so-called ‘opposition to bourgeois liberalization’ is anti-Marxist; the ‘June Fourth’ bloodshed is anti-people; ‘Party member re-registration’ is anti-Party constitution.” …… I was expelled from the Party for expressing the ‘Three Views,’ but no one pointed out what I did wrong. The only explanation is that it is ‘inconsistent with the Party Central Committee.’ It was originally inconsistent, indeed inconsistent, and because of the inconsistency, I decided to reserve it. …… If I can be proven wrong, I am ready to bow to the truth at any time; If I can’t prove I’m wrong, I’m determined to fight against the errors everywhere. Regarding Nanjing University’s deprivation of his teaching rights, Guo Luoji wrote: “I am not allowed to teach without any legitimate teaching reason; it is pure political persecution.” So ‘waiting for hiring’ is also a lie, meaning you never get hired even after the semester ends. …… The defendants abused their power and repeated the illegal acts of ‘sidelining during the Cultural Revolution,’ causing a person with a job to lose their job and a person with labor capacity to be unable to work. Political parties are made up of a portion of citizens, and regardless of whether this group claims to be ‘elite’ or ‘vanguard fighters,’ they should not steal state power. What reason does a party composed of a small group of citizens stand above all citizens? Through legal procedures, political parties can seize power, but they themselves are not government institutions. If a political party is allowed to claim state power as its own, that country is certainly not a democracy. …… the general outline of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: ‘All powers of the People’s Republic of China belong to the people.’ In other words, the power of the People’s Republic of China does not belong to any party or individual. Political parties usurping the country and personal autocracy should be prohibited and constitute unconstitutional activities. ”
It is easy to imagine that the judicial department controlled by the CCP would not accept this case. On February 29, 1992, the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court issued an “administrative ruling,” ruling that “Guo Luoji’s lawsuit will not be accepted by this court.” ”
On March 10, 1992, Guo Luoji submitted another appeal to the Jiangsu Provincial High People’s Court. In addition to suing the State Education Commission, Nanjing University, the Department of Philosophy at Nanjing University, and the CPC Nanjing University Party Committee, he also rebutted the ruling of the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, pointing out: “First, the ruling does not comply with legal procedures; Second, there was an error in the application of law in the ruling; Third, the investigation conducted in the ruling was one-sided. “And” required the Jiangsu Provincial High People’s Court to remand the ruling of the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court back to the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court for trial. ”
Because Guo Luoji accused the CCP of illegal acts, the CCP intensified its control and persecution of him, tracking and surveillance one after another, forcing Guo Luoji to issue calls overseas to protect his personal safety.
“China Spring” obtained Guo Luoji’s indictment and other documents through reliable and secret channels. The documents have been passed through many places, and many of the handwriting are now hard to read. When Yu Dahai, chairman of the Democratic League and president of ‘China Spring,’ received these documents, he deeply felt their weight. He knew that Mr. Guo Luoji took such a great risk to submit these manuscripts to “China Spring,” which on one hand expressed his trust in “China Spring,” and on the other hand, showed that overseas democracy movements had become an indispensable link between mainland China’s democracy movement and the international world. When Guo Luoji’s first batch of documents arrived at the editorial office, the deadline was already up. Yu Dahai hurriedly arranged for the printing factory to suspend operations, and wrote and scheduled his lawsuit overnight, ensuring it was published as soon as possible.
Guo Luoji has a deep connection with Hu Ping, former chairman of the China Democratic Federation. Hu Ping recalled in an article titled “Listening to Thunder in Silence”: “Mr. Guo Luoji is one of the elders I respect most.” I honor Mr. Guo as a senior, not only because he is slightly older than me, but also because he has been an outstanding pioneer in promoting intellectual freedom and political democracy in mainland China over the past decade. “Hu Ping said that as early as 1978, when he entered Peking University, he met Guo Luoji.” Like many others fortunate enough to have direct contact with Mr. Guo, I not only gained a wealth of knowledge from him but also absorbed powerful moral and spiritual strength from him. “Five years away from the country, I often miss Mr. Guo…… When I read Mr. Guo’s two indictments, I felt I could no longer remain silent. Each of us knows the enormous risk he took by doing this—two indictments, sharp and rigorous, flawless. Only those of great wisdom and courage can accomplish this. A great character is like a flint—the stronger the blow, the brighter the light it unleashes. A true warrior may not always be the one who charges farthest when things are going well, but he is always someone who stands firm when a storm hits. ”
To support Guo Luoji’s appeal, the headquarters of the China Democratic Alliance not only published a follow-up on Guo Luoji’s situation in “China Spring,” but also proactively operated to contact pro-democracy groups worldwide, jointly issue statements, and exert all efforts to exert broad international pressure on the CCP. Voice of America, The New York Times, and many Chinese-language media outlets reported on Guo Luoji’s lawsuit based on information provided by the China Democratic League.
Theheadquarters of the China Democratic League even sent a special person to Nanjing to visit Mr. Guo Luoji, offering him assistance with daily life.
In October 1992, under international pressure, the CCP had no choice but to make concessions and issued Guo Luoji a passport. On November 27, Guo Luoji flew to New York and was welcomed by members of the Democratic League, including Yu Dahai and Wu Fangcheng. The League’s public relations officer, Lü Jinghua, presented Guo Luoji with flowers. After going abroad, in addition to conducting research at Columbia University, Guo Luoji also participated in many meetings organized by the China Democratic League and related to the pro-democracy movement, contributing to “China Spring,” becoming one of its core authors. After the later “joint turmoil” involving the Democratic League and the Democratic Front, he served as an editorial consultant for the magazine “Beijing Spring,” contributing greatly to the pro-democracy movement.
Collect lists of June 4th victims and arrests
How
many people did the CCP kill during the June Fourth and later crackdowns on the ’89 pro-democracy movement’? How many people were captured? How many wrongful convictions have they caused? How much suffering has it caused to the people? Behind the heavy iron curtain of authoritarian regimes, a mystery remains to this day.
But history is fair; one day, it will expose these inhumane crimes committed by the CCP to the broad day.
In Beijing, there was an outstanding woman named Ding Zilin, a professor at Renmin University of China. During the June Fourth Incident in 1989, her seventeen-year-old son Jiang Jielian fell under gunfire during the massacre. After that, not only did the CCP show no remorse, it adopted a high-pressure policy, forbidding public discussion and attempting to make the people forget “June 4th.” Unable to endure any longer, Ding Zilin finally broke his silence on the eve of the second anniversary of June Fourth, accepting an interview with ABC and exposing the CCP’s massacres during the June Fourth period with ironclad facts. As a result, she was targeted by the CCP’s purges and persecution. On the eve of the third anniversary of June 4th, she was expelled from the Party and had her graduate advisor qualifications revoked. Under immense political pressure, Ding Zilin did not yield; she quietly worked on collecting and organizing lists of June 4th victims and arrestees. She said, “The task of collecting and publishing the list of victims was supposed to be handled by the Chinese government, and several government leaders had made promises to relevant people visiting China about this matter, and overseas media had reported on it multiple times.” However, the promise has yet to be fulfilled. In light of this, as a member of the victim community and a mother who lost her son, I have decided to do my part to collect and organize the list of June 4th victims and disabled victims. I also hope more people will engage in this work. ”
Thereare plenty of people like Ding Zilin. After June Fourth, the editorial department of “China Spring” frequently received and received letters and visitors exposing the truth about June Fourth. Dripping water forms a sea. The editorial team of “China Spring” believes that as long as they keep working hard and persevering, one day they will uncover the entire “mystery” of the CCP’s bloody crimes of massacring the people.
Asearly as three days after the June 4th massacre, China Spring received the first list of thirteen dead from the mainland, which was promptly published in issue 74 of China Spring.
In October 1991, China Spring published another list of 903 arrested pro-democracy activists in its 101st issue.
Yu Dahai, Chairman of the China Democratic Federation, wrote the “Editor’s Note” for the publication of this list. He said:
“With a solemn heart, we present to readers of ‘China Spring’ a list of 903 mainland pro-democracy activists arrested. This most detailed list to date was compiled by the China Human Rights Democracy Foundation with strong support from all aspects.
“More than two years have passed, yet thousands of participants in the ‘1989 Democracy Movement” are still locked in iron prisons by the CCP. Their ‘crime’ is simply expressing their views on the current situation in a peaceful manner and articulating their political ideals. According to internationally recognized human rights standards, the real guilt is not these activists, but the CCP’s authoritarian regime that persecutes and imprisons them.
“Fear that the public expresses political views is a sign of a regime’s lack of public opinion base. The CCP regime continuously persecutes pro-democracy activists under the pretext of maintaining social stability. In fact, true social stability must be based on freedom of speech and assembly, and broad political participation of the public. The CCP’s ‘stability’ literally refers to the continuation of its one-party dictatorship. This ‘stability’ comes at the cost of stifling economic development and cultural prosperity. For more than forty years, apart from the generally stable one-party rule, mainland China has had little stability under CCP rule. Within the CCP, life-or-death power struggles are constantly erupting, and ordinary people have suffered from political movements, with living standards falling far behind regions like Taiwan and Hong Kong. The CCP maintains its rule through harsh measures and persecution of political dissidents. The stagnant false stability under one-party dictatorship is the interests of the CCP ruling faction, but it is also an obstacle that must be removed for the prosperity and rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Therefore, we sincerely admire domestic pro-democracy activists who dare to question and challenge the CCP’s one-party dictatorship. They were not only warriors of the democracy movement, but also heroes of the nation.
“Autocratic rulers fear sunlight and truth. To carry out deceptive propaganda, they not only monopolized the expression of political ideas but also monopolized the dissemination of information. To this day, the CCP refuses to publish the list of June 4th victims, and other information it has released is not permitted to be independently verified by outsiders. Therefore, the not-so-complete list in everyone’s hands is especially valuable. It was only created after the hard work of many people.
“The arrested pro-democracy activists are suffering for the entire nation. Those of us who enjoy freedom have a responsibility to do our best to rescue and help them. We hope that the publication of this list will help improve the situation of pro-democracy activists and promote China’s democratic cause. ”
After the 903 list was published, readers wrote enthusiastically. A reader named Ding Yingda wrote: “Thank you for publishing it, and thank you to everyone who collected and organized this list.” The blood of warriors is the seed of faith. The blood of a martyr will not be shed in vain, nor will the suffering of a warrior be in vain. Let us pray for them, hoping that the spring of democracy and freedom will soon arrive across the land of China. “Even more valuable is that some readers have written to correct or fill in the list, making it as accurate and rich as possible. As one reader wrote in a letter to the editorial department: “After reading the latest issue of ‘China Spring’ listing over 900 arrested pro-democracy activists from mainland China, I was pleasantly surprised to find several names I was familiar with—they had not yet been forgotten.” Many thanks to “China Spring” for the work. The only downside is that some information is not very accurate, and there may be errors in the information channels. As someone who knew the details at the time, I would like to add: Original: Li Hongbo: Arrested in Shanghai in June 1989, a student at Shanghai Broadcasting Institute. Correction: Li Hongbo: Arrested in Shanghai on August 13, 1989, graduate student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, class of 1986. A native of Yichang, Hubei. Original text: Li Dianyuan: Arrested in June 1989, student at Shanghai Broadcasting Institute. Correction: Li Dianyuan: Arrested in August 1989, graduate student at the School of Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, native of Hunan. Original text: He Dongdong: Arrested in June 1989, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Correction: He Dongdong: Arrested in August 1989, undergraduate student of the Class of 1985, School of Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, from Yiyang, Hunan. Vacancies: Peng Xiaozhen: Arrested in August 1989, graduate student in the Department of Ship Power Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. All four were released around the first anniversary of June Fourth. ……”
The publication of this list also sparked strong international reactions. On November 4, 1991, German Minister of Economic Affairs Moellermann visited China; he was the first German minister-level official to visit China after June 4th. The German student organization All-German Student Federation learned of this and submitted him a list of 903 people published in the 101st issue of “China Spring,” requesting that the Minister personally hand over this list to the Chinese government. A counselor from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, who accompanied the minister to China, told the Student Union that they would definitely follow the Union’s wishes. On the day Minister Moellermann arrived in Beijing, he held talks with Zhu Rongji, Vice Premier of the State Council of mainland China. On behalf of the German government, he requested an understanding of the current situation of these political prisoners. During talks with Premier Li Peng and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, Minister Moellermann submitted the list again, clearly stating to the Chinese government that the current human rights situation in mainland China has become the biggest obstacle to economic relations between Germany and China, and only by releasing all these political prisoners can Germany and China fully understand each other. Li Peng agreed on the spot, saying the Chinese government would carefully study the list and then send a response to the German government.
Minister Moellermann returned to Germany on November 7, and the first press conference that day was about the Federal Economy Minister of West Germany handing over the list of political prisoners to the Chinese government. For a time, all German radio stations reported on the incident, and the next day, almost every newspaper published the news, spreading throughout Germany. Deutsche Welle radio broadcast this news in Chinese to mainland China, making the All-German Student Union a hot news report.
On November 14, Li Peng indeed agreed, giving the German government a “response,” but the response was very hasty. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wu Jianmin declared at a press conference in Beijing that the list was not serious, nothing more. On November 15, Minister Moellermann sent another letter to Li Peng, requesting a formal response from the German government regarding the investigation results of this list of political prisoners.
In December 1991, a parliamentary human rights delegation led by Vice President Klein of the Federal German Parliament visited China to re-inquire about the list. A representative of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave a formal but very general response:
After investigating this list, it is found that among them:
303 people were unable to testify due to inaccurate names and lack of relevant information;
257 were released after trial;
Forty-nine people have not yet been tried;
242 were found guilty of criminal offenses;
Twenty-six were sent to labor re-education for breaking the law;
Thirteen are still under trial for violating Chinese criminal law;
Thirteen were secret agents of the Taiwan Kuomintang.
When Klein was asked further, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it could not provide a more detailed answer.
In response to the CCP’s persecution of political prisoners while trying to cover it up, Wu Xin wrote in ‘China Spring’: ‘The CCP’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ response to the list of arrested pro-democracy activists once again reveals the CCP’s contempt for the basic dignity and rights of the people.’ The pro-democracy activists on the arrest list all have names and resumes, but the CCP only provides a few statistics when responding. Perhaps the CCP did not check the whereabouts of each pro-democracy activist individually, so it could not produce a complete set of data on specific individuals and situations; the figures provided by the CCP were fabricated. More likely, the CCP has a complete set of materials but keeps them secret. But why should such information be kept confidential? Is it true that under CCP rule, every citizen is just a number, a symbol, and cannot have their own personality and character? Even if the CCP believes that pro-democracy activists should not sympathize, they still have family and children. Are their joys and sorrows, their sorrows and hardships, not worth paying attention to? …… Isn’t the CCP afraid of becoming synonymous with the extinction of conscience and stubbornness? ”
Following the list of 903 people, in June 1992, China Spring published “Information on Sixty-Three Arrested Pro-democracy Activists” in its 109th issue, with the list provided by “China Human Rights” based in New York. Xiao Qiang, Executive Director of “China Human Rights,” wrote the foreword, saying: “In 1991, ‘China Human Rights’ collected information on 63 individuals arrested or persecuted by the Chinese government for political reasons through independent channels.” The vast majority of these had never been reported before.
“This memorandum can be compared to the approximately 45,000-character ‘White Paper on the State Situation of Human Rights in China’ released by the State Council Information Office in November 1991.
“We know that these sixty-three names are less than one thousandth, or even one in ten thousand, of the total number of similar cases.” International human rights organizations such as ‘Asia Watch’ and ‘Amnesty International’ have collected thousands of records of human rights violations by the Chinese government over the years, but that is still just the tip of the iceberg.
“Obtaining detailed information and exposing the Chinese government’s individual human rights violations to the public is an ongoing work for ‘Chinese human rights.’ Here, we would like to thank everyone who helped obtain these materials, and we ask for more people to support us. ”
This list, along with those published later by China Spring, became important materials for governments worldwide to negotiate human rights issues with the CCP regime, just like the list of 903 people, and imposed immense political pressure on the CCP.
In January 1993, “China Spring” published Beiming’s “Shanxi: A Darker China” in its 116th issue, detailing the arrest and sentencing of pro-democracy activists in Shanxi Province. Her list includes: Shanxi writers Ke Yunlu, Bei Ming, Zheng Yi; university professors Ding Junze, Hu Jian, Wang Xinlong, Ge Hu, Yao Huxian; and journalist Yin Jin, among others. She pointed out: Shanxi, compared to Beijing, is an even darker kingdom. There, the severity of sentences for pro-democracy activists is rare nationwide, and the suffering of punishment is appalling. At the same time, “China Spring” also published the verdicts in the cases of Ge Hu, Wang Xinlong, and Yin Jin, as well as their appeals and family letters.
In June 1993, Yu Dahai, former president of China Spring, chief writer Hu Ping, and manager Xue Wei, to avoid internal disputes within the pro-democracy movement, launched a separate monthly magazine called “Beijing Spring.” In October 1993, the fifth issue of “Beijing Spring” continued to publish the list of thirty victims and disabled persons collected by Ding Zilin.
In addition to publishing the list, China Spring also published many appeals and verdicts from pro-democracy activists on the mainland, such as Xiao Xuehui, Mo Lihua, Wang Juntao, Chen Ziming, Li Guiren, Wu Xuecan, Bao Tong, Wang Dan, Liu Gang, and others.
These lists and individual cases of pro-democracy activists powerfully expose the CCP’s lies. It uses ironclad facts to prove the CCP’s crimes of human rights deprivation, persecution of political dissidents, indiscriminate killing of innocents, and disregard of human life, laying a solid foundation for gaining international sympathy, understanding, and support for China’s democracy movement. □