Challengers—the gates of the nation that cannot be opened
On one hand, the CCP used terrifying and oppressive methods of “extermination,” forcing large numbers of political dissidents into exile overseas; on the other hand, the CCP tightly closed its borders, strictly forbidding political exiles who “maintained a reactionary stance” from returning home. In the words of pro-democracy activists drifting abroad, this situation is “gaining the sky but losing the earth.” “According to disclosures, on October 18, 1993, the State Council of the Chinese mainland government approved amendments to the Entry-Exit Regulations and the Public Security Law and the National Security Law by the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of State Security. In fact, before these regulations were “approved,” they had already been implemented at various customs offices. The regulations stipulate eight categories of people who are either prohibited from entering or temporarily prohibited from entering. Ultimately, these “eight categories” are those who disagree with the CCP politically and persistently fight overseas for their political ideals. The CCP’s main goal in doing this is to eliminate or weaken the influence and appeal of prominent pro-democracy activists over the mainland, thereby easing or easing the enormous political pressure it faces.
To expose this despicable conspiracy by the CCP, many members of the China Democratic League or pro-democracy activists closely connected to the alliance have successively adopted a breakthrough form. Through this operation, they sought to reclaim the deprived rights of citizenship and the rights of other basic individuals from the CCP, thereby exposing the CCP’s ugly face of human suppression in broad daylight.
DuringYu Dahai’s tenure as chairman, the following breakthrough incidents occurred one after another:
In July 1991, Huang Ben, the recently retired former vice chairman of the China Democratic League, applied in Hong Kong to enter mainland China but was rejected. CCP staff claim they have the right to refuse visas, but have not explained the reasons for refusal.
In August 1991, four female members of the Liberal Democratic Party—Yang Zheng, Ning Qin, Xu Ruxue, and Liu Qiyang—who were also members of the China Democratic League—entered mainland China on tourist visas. After arriving in Beijing, they immediately formed a consolation delegation, preparing to visit the families of arrested pro-democracy activists such as Wang Juntao, Chen Ziming, Xu Wenli, Wei Jingsheng, and Ren Wanting. Some of these families were found, while others had not, but due to their public activities, they were quickly discovered and arrested by the CCP public security authorities. The next day, the four were deported.
In May 1992, Gong Xiaoxia, a member of the China Democratic League and a PhD student at Harvard University in the United States, and Dai Qing, a well-known dissident, were denied entry by CCP customs authorities in Hong Kong on the 28th and 30th, respectively. Both Gong Xiaoxia and Dai Qing hold valid People’s Republic of China passports for private travel, and neither holds residency or refugee status in other countries. After many twists and turns, Dai Qing was finally allowed to enter the mainland on June 7, while Gong Xiaoxia was forced to return to the United States from Hong Kong on June 10. In an article titled “The Cotton Wall of Mainland China” published in issue 111 of “China Spring,” Gong Xiaoxia pointed out that the CCP did not allow her to enter the country, violating her right to return home. “My obstruction to return to China is not an isolated event; it reflects the Chinese government’s repeatedly announced policy of free movement for international students and the resistance faced at certain levels domestically. Even more seriously, my return to Guangzhou was blocked and Dai Qing’s refusal to return to Beijing proved the long-rumored Chinese government’s blacklist of overseas students. As law-abiding citizens, Dai Qing and I were blacklisted only because of our thoughts and speech. If the Chinese government does not explain and reflect on this practice of blacklisting based on thought and speech and depriving those on the list of their most basic civil rights, the vast majority of international students will not be able to eliminate their fear of political persecution, nor will trust in open-door policies be formed, and their determination to return to serve will not be firm. ”
On April 15, 1992, Ni Yuxian, the protagonist of Liu Binyan’s “Second Type of Loyalty” and a member of the Democratic Alliance and vice chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party, forcibly broke through on a “China Civil Aviation” flight and arrived in Shanghai around 5 p.m. that day. When Ni Yuxian passed through the quarantine gate and entered the second gate to hand over his passport, four armed police officers and an plainclothes officer quickly surrounded him. An officer said, “You must be Ni Yuxian, right? Please come with me.” They took him into a small room, and an hour later, several plainclothes officers came in. Ni was taken hostage by four armed police and escorted into a red car, leaving the airport and arriving at a building called “Hongqiao Hotel.” From 6 p.m. on the 15th to midnight, the Ministry of State Security personnel changed four groups and engaged in a six-hour “dialogue” with him. The topics ranged from evaluations of Deng Xiaoping’s speech to views on the June 4th incident, from the future of reform in mainland China to the value of the democracy movement organization. The debate was extremely intense between both sides.
From their following “dialogue,” it is clear how rude, unreasonable, and reckless the CCP’s attempt to suppress pro-democracy organizations and forcibly deprive citizens of their most basic rights is.
Ni Yuxian: First, I need to know why you arrested me. Every Chinese citizen has the right to return to their own country. What right do you have to deprive me of the right to return to my country?
Ministry of State Security official: You know the reason you know why you won’t let you in. You are not just an ordinary student returning to China; you are the leader of an overseas reactionary organization, and you have engaged in a large amount of serious anti-government activities abroad. We know exactly what you have done.
Ni Yuxian: …… Most pro-democracy organizations are open, unlike your Communist Party, which always secretly plots ……
Ministry of State Security official: Enough small talk, you answer first. What are you trying to do when you come back this time?
Ni Yuxian: Recently, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Li Peng have all publicly stated that they welcome foreign students and intellectuals with different political views to return to China. We believe this is a gesture worthy of recognition. So, I want to personally experience the sincerity of the Communist Party. But I didn’t expect it to be so hard to resist. As soon as I got off the plane, they grabbed me.
Ministry of State Security official: For ordinary international students, we certainly welcome them back. Even if some people abroad were influenced by misguided propaganda and made mistakes for a moment, such as participating in protests, we will not hold them accountable. As long as they know each other, we will not pursue the matter. You are different from ordinary international students who have done wrong; you run around abroad, organizing reactionary organizations and shouting to overthrow the Communist Party and the People’s Republic of China. …… You are guilty.
Ni Yuxian: Since I boarded ‘China Civil Aviation’ and returned, I was prepared to face your treatment. If you believe my actions abroad violate your laws, you can certainly try me according to judicial procedures. But you are detaining Chinese citizens holding legal passports at customs without going through judicial procedures, depriving me of my right to return to China. This is illegal. I want to protest your illegal actions!
……
Ministry of State Security official: If you insist on your stubborn position, we have no room for negotiation. By order of our superiors, we notify you that, due to your activities abroad and anti-government activities, you are declared persona non grata and will be required to leave the country within a specified period.
Ni Yuxian: Declaring that I’m unwelcome is truly out of place. According to international law, only foreigners engaged in illegal activities can be declared persona non grata. I am a Chinese citizen myself, and returning home is my natural right. I am not asking you to welcome me; this is my own country. Even if the Communist Party does not welcome me, I have the right to return home.
Ministry of State Security official: We are simply declaring you persona non grata. You should note that we do not use the word “deportation” like foreigners do. One day, when you announce your withdrawal from the reactionary organization, we’ll drive to the airport to pick you up. We keep our word.
In June 1993, another incident occurred, where Lü Jinghua, a member of the China Federation for Democracy and Democracy, former public relations officer at the Federation of Democratic Federations headquarters, and standing committee member of the Beijing Federation of Workers and Workers’ Federation, was blocked from passing the checkpoint. At that time, Lü Jinghua was attending an international conference in Hong Kong on human rights, union rights, and democracy. Missing her family in the mainland, she tried to return to the mainland. But unexpectedly, she successfully obtained the visa. This may have been an “accident” caused by the CCP’s negligence, or it could have been a deliberate “kill the chicken to warn the monkey” tactic. But regardless, having obtained the visa made Lü Jinghua overjoyed. On the morning of June 13th, she boarded a direct flight to Beijing. But when she got off the plane and arrived at the immigration gate at Beijing Airport, a police officer in a green uniform approached. He took her to a small room where five or six plainclothes officers were already seated, and then began interrogating her. One of them asked her, “Tell me, what exactly are you doing in Beijing this time?” “Lü Jinghua said, “Visiting relatives means visiting relatives.” Since I left, my father has been hospitalized for surgery for the third time. I’m scared ……” But before Lü Jinghua could finish speaking, several plainclothes police officers interrupted her and ordered her to go with them. Lü Jinghua asked, “Where are you taking me?” “Go back to where you came from.” The police said. Lü Jinghua knew she would face deportation, so she struggled desperately to turn back, hoping to find her family member from the crowded border to pick her up. At that moment, four female police officers ran over and started attacking together, forcefully pulling and pushing Lü Jinghua. The more they pushed and pulled her, the more Lü Jinghua longed to see her family. So, she clung tightly to a roadside advertising stand and confronted the police. Lü Jinghua could no longer care about what fate awaited her. She loudly insisted on seeing her family, saying that as long as she saw them once she left, she would leave. But the police insisted on not allowing it. At that moment, a group of foreign travelers walked past her, surprised to see the police and Lü Jinghua tangled up. Lü Jinghua shouted loudly in English, “This country doesn’t respect human rights!” All I could do was look at my relatives, but they wouldn’t allow it and even abused me. Hearing Lü Jinghua’s shout, several police officers came up, covered her mouth, twisted her arms, and kept pushing her, forcibly escorting her onto the plane back to Hong Kong. After all this turmoil, the plane was delayed by thirty minutes. In a later memoir, Lü Jinghua wrote: “On the plane, I gazed at the land gradually fading away, overwhelmed with mixed emotions. I was saddened that I could not see my loved ones, but at the same time, a serious sense of responsibility rose in my heart: for our people, for our motherland, and for that authoritarian regime that tramples on human rights, how much more do we have to do!” ”
The eagle emerges from its cage and soars freely
On August 5, 1992, Wang Ruowang, a key figure in China’s democracy movement who had been slandered by the CCP as the “founder of bourgeois liberalization,” along with his wife Feng Suying (Yangzi), was also forced into exile in the United States.
Wang Ruowang, originally named Wang Shouhua, was born in 1918 in Wujin County, Jiangsu Province. He joined the Communist Youth League in 1933 and the Chinese Communist Party in 1937, serving as Secretary of the CPC Baoji Central County Committee. In 1949, after the CCP seized power on the mainland, he served as secretary of the Party branch and propaganda minister of the Shanghai Federation of Trade Unions, director and deputy party secretary of the Shanghai Diesel Engine Factory, deputy director of the Literary and Art Department of the East China Bureau of the Communist Party of China, and deputy editor-in-chief of the Literary Monthly. In 1957, Wang Ruowang was labeled a rightist for advocating literary liberalization, writing articles such as “Step by Step Defense” and “Releasing the ‘Backward Elements’.” In 1968, he was imprisoned for four years for “viciously attacking Chairman Mao,” and after release, he was again treated as a “current counter-revolutionary” and subjected to labor reform. In 1979, the CCP sought to rehabilitate the ‘rightists,’ and Wang Ruowang was reinstated to the Party, appointed deputy editor-in-chief of Shanghai Literature, and was elected as a director by the China Writers Association. It was precisely because of Wang Ruowang’s “veteran experience” in the “revolution” that he was praised by CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang as a “veteran soldier of the Republic’s Guard.”
But Wang Ruowang and the CCP were essentially two separate cars. His documentary work, ‘The Hunger Trilogy,’ dares to break artistic boundaries, depicting the inhumane life in CCP prisons and is recognized as a pioneer of ‘black prison literature.’ This naturally raised the alert of the CCP’s propaganda department. In August 1983, Hu Qiaomu, the leading figure in charge of ideology in the CCP, once spoke with Wang Ruowang, accusing him: “Some people join the Party organizationally but not ideologically. You are that kind of person. A Communist Party member is still a Communist Party member if burned to ashes. If you haven’t been burned to ashes now, you are no longer a Communist Party member.” “A Hong Kong journalist once asked him, ‘You were originally a strong communist fighter, so how did you become a representative of bourgeois liberalization?’” Wang Ruowang replied, “When the Communist Party opposed the Kuomintang, it advocated democracy and freedom.” Once Mao Zedong seized power, he had to become a dictator, and the Communist Party was founded on the theory of class struggle. Lenin’s theoretical work “State and Revolution” emphasizes that the state is a machine of dictatorship, used to suppress reactionary classes, not to protect the people. This gave Mao Zedong reason to continuously suppress his so-called ‘bad people.’ Domestic persecution in China includes mental, material, and physical persecution, totaling 100 million people. During the anti-rightist campaign, there were seven hundred thousand; during the Cultural Revolution, it became one hundred million. Isn’t this the Communist Party’s mistakes increasing? Is it getting more and more hopeless? These actions by the Communist Party made Chinese intellectuals realize that there was no benefit to this Party at all, only suffering in the face of suffering. “I have long shown through my actions that I do not believe in communism; it is a kind of utopia detached from reality. My faith in freedom and democracy now is ten times stronger than my belief in communism when I was young! The reason I have been able to persistently oppose the authoritarian regime for decades is also related to my own difficult experiences. Under the CCP’s tyranny, I experienced three ‘twices’—the second time I was labeled, the second time I was imprisoned, and the second time I was expelled from the Party. From the bloody lessons, I saw the CCP’s inhumanity and violation of heavenly principles. My second imprisonment allowed me to interact with the people, especially those living beneath the eighteen levels of hell, strengthening my resolve to ‘speak up for the people’ and refusing to serve evil regimes. ”
In December 1986, during the “Opposition to Bourgeois Liberalization” movement, Wang Ruowang, along with Liu Binyan and Fang Lizhi, was publicly expelled from the Party by the CCP, and launched a “major criticism” of them in the media. The CCP did this in accordance with Deng Xiaoping’s orders. As early as the end of 1986, Deng Xiaoping had already said: “Wang Ruowang is very arrogant; I have long said I would expel him from the Party.” Their “charge” against Wang Ruowang was that he published two articles criticizing the CCP in The Mirror, and what angered Deng Xiaoping most was that Wang Ruowang, in an article criticizing the “third tier,” said: “The ‘third tier’ is the continuation of the family legacy passed from father to son and son to grandson”; He also accused Wang Ruowang of publishing essays in some newspapers and magazines such as “Once Set Loose and Chaos” and “My Views on Polarization” as “opposing the party’s leadership” and “promoting bourgeois liberalization.” In particular, the article “My Views on Polarization” published in Shenzhen Workers’ Daily was clearly a “discussion” with Deng Xiaoping and, of course, was a public challenge to Deng Xiaoping. This greatly angered Deng Xiaoping, and the newspaper was subsequently shut down.
In 1989, the democratic movement in mainland China surged again. At this time, Wang Ruowang disregarded his own safety to actively participate in the democracy movement, leading street demonstrations. On April 25, he publicly submitted a memorial, writing an open letter titled “An Open Letter to Deng Xiaoping,” in which Wang Ruowang pointed out: “As a true Marxist, one should not regard the mass movement of young people fighting for democracy and freedom as a ferocious beast, but rather as a driving force driving history. And your (referring to Deng Xiaoping) conversations and decisions regarding the student movement at the end of 1986 violated this principle. …… If the general direction is wrong, the specific steps lead to a series of regressive actions. ”
Duringthe June Fourth Movement in Beijing, the CCP used harsh repression and massacres against the pro-democracy movement, and Wang Ruowang’s misfortune soon followed. In July 1989, to avoid the spotlight, he went to a rural area in Zhejiang for more than a month to “take refuge.” For a time, rumors spread in society that he was “missing.” In mid-September, he returned home to Shanghai. The next day, police officers came to his door to summon him, and by the third day, he was arrested. Wang Ruowang was detained in Shanghai Third Detention Center for one year and two months. Recalling this period behind bars, he said: “It was the luckiest time of my life. I was allowed to read some books and periodicals, and I read more than twenty copies of the Zizhi Tongjian…… At the same time, six or seven cigarettes were specially supplied each day, but no matches were given; temporary supplies were guarded. You can eat your fill, eat meat twice a week, and watch TV for half a day. The worst part was not being allowed to ‘let outsiders’ or walk around the cell. As a result, after being released from prison, he had two teeth pulled out. ”
More than a month after Wang Ruowang was imprisoned, on October 20, 1989, Shanghai’s Jiefang Daily and Wenhui Daily launched two articles criticizing him. At that time, people concerned about the democracy movement at home and abroad were anxious and uneasy, believing that Schall Wang should be sentenced to at least ten years. But what was quite “unexpected” was that one afternoon in early winter 1990, the Public Security Bureau unexpectedly agreed to the request of Wang Ruowang’s wife, Yangzi, allowing him to be released on bail pending trial, and only then did Wang Ruowang return home. In 1991, the Public Security Bureau still strictly controlled Wang Ruowang. Fearing he would associate with foreign journalists and pro-democracy activists, they even ordered his phone to be removed. Despite these difficult conditions, as a man over seventy years old, Wang Ruowang remained true to his original intention, maintained a vigorous fighting spirit, and, with the help of his wife Yangzi, skillfully displayed the art of struggle and published a private publication, which was discovered by the police for more than thirty hours of continuous interrogation.
In 1992, the CCP adopted a new strategy of “letting them go into exile” for pro-democracy activists without criminal records. After Dai Qing, Liu Qing, and Han Dongfang all left the country one after another, one day Wang Ruowang was notified to the Public Security Bureau, where the officers announced: “Your case has now been clarified. We have decided to revoke your ‘bail pending trial’, but do not forget that you are a citizen of the People’s Republic of China.” The next day, the Shanghai branch of the Writers Association, where Wang Ruowang belongs, announced: “According to the Public Security Bureau’s notice, from today onward, you may apply to go abroad.” ”
At last, Wang Ruowang was free, claiming to be “someone who came to seek freedom with scars all over his body.” This silver-haired elderly man was interviewed by reporters as soon as he landed in San Francisco. With sharp words, he addressed issues in mainland China with five points in one breath: “End one-party rule, continue reform and opening up, promote a market economy, implement press freedom, and redress the wrongful convictions of June 4th.” The American press gave high praise to his bold and resilient style of speaking out despite setbacks. A newspaper in San Francisco pointed out: “In recent years, pro-democracy activists from mainland China have expressed various criticisms and views on the CCP. Some even evasively defend the CCP with sentimental remarks, but Wang Ruowang spoke frankly and without hesitation, giving a refreshing impression.” ”
On August 9, the fourth day after John John arrived in San Francisco, he received the “Outstanding Democrat” award from the China Foundation for Democracy Education and announced his joining the China Democratic League. Then, without brushing off the dust of his travels and ignoring fatigue, he began a world tour aimed at “investigating overseas pro-democracy movements.” At the end of August, he and his wife Yangzi visited Vancouver and Edmonton, Canada. On September 7th, I arrived in New York. After the family was just set, on October 27th, we went to Montreal and Toronto in Canada. On November 10th, he traveled to Europe, visiting France, Germany, and the United Kingdom in succession. Later, it moved to Hong Kong and Australia. Wherever he went, Wang Ruowang was warmly received by local overseas pro-democracy activists, gave speeches at overseas Chinese communities or universities, and met with local national leaders. At the New York Labor Party Hall in Sydney, Australia, Wang Ruowang gave his first speech in Australia. The reporter reported on the grand event as follows: “The speech was originally scheduled to start at 2 p.m., but due to the large audience, it was postponed by half an hour. In fact, by around 2 p.m., the Labour Party auditorium was already packed, with seats around and even the corridors packed.” ”
On December 25, 1992, at the invitation of writer Bo Yang, the Center for Research on Mainland Chinese Issues, and the Association for Unity and Self-Improvement, Wang Ruowang visited Taiwan for a two-week visit. As soon as Wang Ruowang got off the plane, he told reporters at Taipei Airport that the main purpose of his trip was to observe the development of democratic politics in Taiwan. He wanted to see “what the Chinese people themselves practice in democratic politics really are.” During his time in Taiwan, he visited the China Mainland Disaster Relief Association, the Three Principles of the People United China Alliance, the Mainland Affairs Council, the Straits Exchange Foundation, the Government Information Office, National Chengchi University, United Daily News, and toured the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall, the National Palace Museum, and the History Museum. He also visited Taoyuan Farmhouse and Kaohsiung Petroleum and Steel in Hsinchu Science Park, and met with Master Hsing Yun. Wang Ruowang said: “Based on Taiwan’s experience, Taiwan reached a certain stage, during President Chiang Ching-kuo’s administration and now under President Lee Teng-hui’s leadership, gradually promoting political reforms.” Without political democratization, it will be difficult for the economy to take off again. Therefore, although the CCP is committed to economic reforms, without considering political democratization, the future is not optimistic. Wang Ruowang also urged CCP leaders to think carefully before going to “meet Marx,” and that implementing democratic reforms is truly a smart approach. On New Year’s Day 1993, Wang Ruowang visited the flag-raising ceremony in front of the Presidential Palace. A little after six, Premier Hao Baicun arrived at the scene. When he reached Wang Ruowang, Hao Baicun stopped and shook his hand. At 6:30, President Lee Teng-hui arrived at the scene and had an “unexpected” encounter with Wang Ruowang, with both sides having a cordial conversation. President Lee Teng-hui said: I hope mainland compatriots can also enjoy a life of freedom, democracy, and equality. Wang Ruowang believes that the meeting with the leaders of the Taiwan government shows their deep affection for the mainland people and their concern for the cause of democracy.
In October 1992, Wang Ruowang published an article titled “Three Minimum Programs of the Democracy Movement” in “China Spring,” a speech he made during his visit to eastern Canada. He said: “The three minimum programs I suggest for the democracy movement are: First, end one-party rule; 2. Open up press freedom; 3. Rehabilitation of June Fourth and release all political prisoners. When talking about overseas pro-democracy movements, Wang Ruowang said: “Intellectuals on the mainland care deeply about overseas pro-democracy movements. They learn about your important actions through overseas shortwaves, and your activities are more about spiritual encouragement and support for the domestic intellectual community.” What can comfort everyone is this: the hard work you put into overseas has not been in vain; it is effective. “But, also” should be admitted: friends from the mainland always have a little Mao Zedong haunting their souls deep down. I am a senior member of the Communist Party, and the ‘Little Mao Zedong’ in me must be even more stubborn. Therefore, we all face the task of exorcising possessions: constantly reminding ourselves, checking ourselves in every detail, and cultivating a democratic atmosphere permeated both physically and spiritually. This is a long-term task of self-cultivation. In this article, Wang Ruowang also proposed four codes of conduct for pro-democracy activists, which we would encourage together: First, respect others with a spirit of equality; 2. Do not engage in factionalism; 3. Eliminate clique-like habits; 4. Do not worry about gains or losses, serve the overall interests, and consider the bigger picture.
On November5, 1992, at a press conference in Toronto, Wang Ruowang stated that he would run for chairman at the Democratic Alliance for Democracy and Democracy Alliance merger conference held in Washington in late January 1993. He said: Whether he is elected chairman will be decided by the vote. If he is truly elected, he will leverage decades of experience dealing with the CCP, fight fire with fire, and strive for further victory in the democratic movement. He said that although he is now seventy-four, he feels that this is the happiest and most glorious era of his life. To have the freedom he has today means that the hardships he endured have been compensated. □