Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Is "The Great Rollback of China"
coming soon?

Informed speculation about this year's Congress of Chinese dissidents,
an interview with Xu Wenli of the China Democracy Party

An historic Congress is to occur in Providence, Rhode Island on June 4 & 5, 2007

By John P. Kusumi

Casual observers might think of Chinese dissidents as merely glorified protestors, and cynics might suggest that their role requires only two job skills: The ability to say "Hooray freedom," and to say "Hooray democracy." They would be wrong; it is far more complicated than that.

When we think of Chinese dissidents, they fall naturally into two groups: the younger "Tiananmen dissidents" who ran the 1989 pro-democracy uprising as college students; and the older "senior dissidents," like Wei Jingsheng, Harry Wu, Xu Wenli, and Wang Bingzhang. They may be thought to have seniority because their activities began earlier, such as the beginning of the Cultural Revolution (1966), or the Democracy Wall period (1978), and they were already prisoners before the students' uprising happened in 1989. (Note to clarify: In 1989 Wang Bingzhang was in exile, not in prison. That role is reversed in 2007 when he is in prison, not exile.)

The China Support Network once published a list of 33 people who were identified as "Tiananmen Square student leaders." 4 are in China, 29 are in exile. It seems obvious that the 29 exiles could get together and represent "The June 4 Uprising Leaders." It is simply an obvious thought, but it's been tried before -- and the group found itself to be falling apart due to internecine squabbles. If it were my work to do, I would add about six more people due to their close association with the June 4 events. Then from the 35 top exiles associated with June 4, there would be attrition. Some have quit the movement to go into business. Famously, that is Chai Ling and Li Lu, but there are others (e.g., Shen Tong, Xin Ku, and "Majer" Zhou Yongjun) who might prefer to tend their own businesses rather than get drawn in to a reunion of Tiananmen Square leaders.

It's not easy to assemble, but I think it would be valuable to have a functioning Tiananmen Generation Association (TGA), even if its membership were only near two dozen. This year's June 4 (2007) provides an example or an object lesson. With no functioning TGA, one of the senior dissidents -- Xu Wenli -- is about to become the loudest voice in the pro-democracy movement. He is assembling a special Party Congress, a conference of Chinese dissidents, for the China Democracy Party (CDP) where he is one of its founding fathers. The Congress will issue a Declaration of China's Third Republic.

In and of itself, the activity is well and good. --But, we can see that it would be valuable to have the Tiananmen Generation Association. If it were up-and-running, would it be supportive, in favor of this declaration? Or, would it take an opposing stance, against it? (A rumor is suggesting that Wang Youcai is against the conference. The two most famous names attached to the CDP are Xu Wenli and Wang Youcai. Wang was a student leader during June 4; hence, he is in the Tiananmen age range.) Usually, when the dissidents need or intend to make a display of unity, what happens instead is a display of disunity.

So, how will China attain democracy? Casual American observers might think that to have a democracy is easy. All you need is a Constitution, and a flag, and that's all. The discussion might end there for casual American observers, but for Chinese dissidents, there is more to it than that. Chinese culture needs to change to permit the rule of law and to respect any national Constitution as a rule based system. The Chinese practice under the "Party Culture" of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is to have flagrant disregard for the Constitution. It is also true that Chinese dissidents, with their history of internecine disputes, might despair of ever arriving at agreement on a flag and a Constitution.

However, Chinese dissidents seem to have a plan, and with this article I am dubbing it "The Great Rollback of China." While Chinese dissidents cannot agree on very much in 2007, there is wide agreement and respect for the political state of China in 1947. The idea is to make 1947 a "rollback point," to undo all of the political changes as have occurred under the CCP, which took power in 1949. When all newer efforts fail, the dissidents would agree that they like the rollback point and would work in keeping with a restored Constitution, and restored flag, of the Republic of China (ROC) of 1947.

Of course, this is a severe slap in the face to the CCP. If China moved to the rollback point, it would be like "organ rejection" -- all of the legacy of the CCP would be repudiated. For dissidents, the beauty of the plan is that no negotiation is necessary. China already had a post-war conference in 1946, where all political parties participated and hammered out the ROC Constitution. Even the Communist Party was at the table, so the ROC Constitution was something that all parties could agree to.

The Party Congress that Xu Wenli will host, on June 4 and 5 in Providence, Rhode Island, will issue the declaration of dissidents' intent to raise "the Third Republic of China," which is not something entirely new, but rather is presented as a restoration and carrying forward of work by the original founders of the ROC. The Congress' goal is not a government in exile; the Declaration is the main item of business that speaks to China's future. The Congress will also work on a Party Constitution for the CDP, and on electing leadership for the CDP. Hence, those are party building activities. The Congress has also invited a speech from the China Support Network -- a speaking engagement for this author.

China Support Network interviews Xu Wenli, May 2007

The China Support Network asked a series of questions of Xu Wenli, a senior Chinese dissident who is convening a Party Congress for the China Democracy Party in Providence, Rhode Island to be held June 4 and 5, 2007. It is expected that the Congress will issue a Declaration of China's Third Republic. Via email and through an interpreter, we obtained these answers on May 9, 2007.

CSN: Is there a flag for this Third Republic?

Xu Wenli: The Third Republic is not about building a new entity, but about restoring the foundations of Asia’s First Republic as envisioned by its founders. It is important to be clear that this is not about building something entirely new, but about rebuilding and restoration, much as the current Russia restored the country and its emblems to what it was before. Hence, there is a very good possibility that we might use the flag of the First Republic.

CSN: Is there a Constitution for this Third Republic? Will the First Party Congress work on a national Constitution as well as a party Constitution?

Xu Wenli: As the Third Republic is a restoration of the former republics, it is highly likely that the Constitution of the Third Republic will be largely built upon the foundations of the 1946 Nanjing Constitution. I believe there are English versions of this 1946 Constitution available for your perusal.

As for the Party Constitution, we already have three drafts and we will be making some final revisions on them. Unfortunately, there are no English translations of the Constitution yet.

CSN: Before the end of the CCP, will the Third Republic become a government-in-exile? Is that part of the meaning of the declaration to be made on June 4, 2007?

Xu Wenli: Setting up a government-in-exile has never been a consideration for us. The title, “Building the Third Republic”, serves as mainly the guiding principle of the China Democracy Party First Party Congress and as a rallying call for all interested people.

CSN: Should we think of the Declaration signers as "the founding fathers of Chinese democracy?" How many signers are lined up now? Will the signing stop and be closed after a certain date?

Xu Wenli: Technically, there is no deadline for the signing. The declaration and the signatures will be printed on a banner which will be displayed on the day of the June 4th Party Congress. To date, we have 129 signers of the Declaration, who come from the North, South, East, West and central China, including Taiwan and Hong Kong. However, it must be clarified that these signers are NOT the "founding fathers of Chinese democracy" but merely supporters of this initiative to build China’s Republic.

CSN: In order to sign the Declaration, must a person go to the First Party Congress and sign it while present in person? Or can a person sign from a remote distance by email, fax, or telephone?

Xu Wenli: There will be an official signing ceremony of the Declaration during the June 4th Party Congress and it would be most ideal if supporters can come personally for the Congress. However, we also accept signatures via email, fax or telephone.

CSN: At the First Party Congress and/or related to the Declaration, will you issue demands of the Chinese government? What do you demand that they do, and when?

Xu Wenli: In May 2006, the China Democracy Party publicly released their “Proposed Direction and Timeline to the Chinese Government for the Implementation of Political Reform in the People’s Republic of China”. We will be reiterating the demands highlighted in this timeline proposal. [Note. That document has been placed in the CSN blog. It can be read as 'CDP Direction/Timeline for Chinese government' at http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/]

CSN: How do you expect the CCP to react to the events of the First Party Congress?

Xu Wenli: I would say that no other conference organized by overseas dissidents has received such attention and emphasis from the Chinese Communist Party. There will be two top PRC reporters to the United Nations and one other PRC reporter to Washington attending the June 4th Congress. Apart from attending the June 4th Congress, two top PRC reporters from Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Wenhui Ribao (Wen Hui Daily) have and will be interviewing Mr. Xu Wenli prior to the Congress.

CSN: Did you explain the action to Nancy Pelosi and the U.S. State Department? How did they react?

Xu Wenli: We met both parties in face-to-face meetings where we broached the topic of the upcoming June 4th Party Congress and gave detailed documents regarding it. Their response was overwhelmingly positive and both Nancy Pelosi and the US State Department will try to support us as much as they can.

CSN: How can the U.S. government improve its support of the China pro-democracy movement?

Xu Wenli: Most importantly, the US government should increase its attention and spotlight on China’s pro-democracy movement and offer at least a symbolic sign of support for the cause. In the last few years, the Bush administration has generally been lukewarm in its support of China’s democracy activism at best.

CSN: Will the new Third Republic of China have a military commission, with former military officers? If the army of China wants to surrender, do they know who, where, or what office to call?

Xu Wenli: Certainly, if the Third Republic of China successfully becomes a new country, there will be a military commission and this commission will include former military officers. However, as we are currently nowhere near becoming a country with full-fledged national apparatus, there is no such “office” for the army of China to surrender at and we also do not foresee such a possibility happening anywhere in the near future.

Published May 29, 2007 by the China Support Network (CSN). Begun as the American response group in 1989, CSN represents Americans who are "on the side" of the students in Tiananmen Square -- standing for democratic reform, human rights, and freedom in China. For dissident news; to support a stronger China policy; or get more information, see http://www.chinasupport.net/.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Presidential Debate on China, as seen thus far

U.S. presidential candidates'
state of debate on China

The topic of China arose in Tuesday night's
Republican candidates' debate. We review.

By John Patrick Kusumi

China presents policy implications for politicians, and this year we are hearing increasing amounts of debate about China-related issues in U.S. mainstream discussions. During this early U.S. presidential campaign, we have heard interesting statements from Hillary Clinton on the Democrat side, and in Tuesday night's debate for Republican candidates, Duncan Hunter fielded two questions about China. It is apt that those questions were directed to Hunter, who is an anti-communist with a strong stance on U.S.-China relations.

Would I enjoy telling you "three cheers for Hillary Clinton," and/or "three cheers for Duncan Hunter"? Yes, if they deserved the enthusiasm. At this point, I will at best say "one and a half cheers" for both of them. Let's review the state of U.S. mainstream China debate.

I must measure the U.S. presidential candidate statements against "the gold standard" of China pronouncements: An earlier article from this quarter, titled 'A Clear Head In The China Debate' (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-5-27/29094.html). The key paragraph bears repeating:

The China Support Network and I have long advocated a prohibitive “tyranny tariff,” and I have stood my ground on saying that “free trade is for the free world.” Global free trade is flawed in two respects. It encourages trade deficits, and it is tantamount to a vast largess of “welfare for tyrants.” I believe that all free world nations should tariff all tyranny nations with which they run trade deficits- and conversely, they should not tariff if they are running a surplus with, e.g., China.

If Hillary Clinton or Duncan Hunter found their way to similar positioning, then it would indeed be time to say "three cheers" for them. Unfortunately, that's not what they recently said. In addition to a prohibitive tyranny tariff, my article noted that there are two compensatory tariffs that are justified based on China's currency manipulation and slave labor. Hillary Clinton and Duncan Hunter get one and a half cheers, because they appear to be in favor of a tariff to compensate for China's currency manipulation.

On March 1 2007, Clinton appeared on CNBC and spoke of "the sorts of changes, from intellectual property protection to currency evaluation that we need to do." In remarks aimed at China, she said that she wants "the countries with whom we do business to have protections for intellectual property; I want them to have a rule of law that is enforceable; I want them to not manipulate their currency." I have not seen her explicitly say tariff China, but the currency corrective tariff is sponsored by Chuck Schumer, the senior New York Senator and Clinton's opposite number in that state's delegation to the Senate. I am sure that she has heard about that tariff proposal; and, tariffs are inevitably a part of fixing trade deficits. Clinton has also said that she wants to fix those. If she follows through, then the word "tariff" is inevitably in her future.

On Tuesday, May 15, in the presidential debate, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) fielded two China related questions:

FOX NEWS: Congressman Hunter, virtually all U.S. exporters want access to China's huge market. You have said that you would deal with the enormous trade deficit this country has with that country. Tell me how you'd do it and how fast.

Duncan Hunter: Very simple. China is cheating on trade. They devalue their currency by 40%. That undercuts American markets [and] wipes American products off the shelf not only here, but around the world. And the latest study I've seen shows that we've lost 1.8 million jobs in the United States --high paying manufacturing jobs-- to China; 27,000 jobs lost in South Carolina alone. I would enforce the law with China --the trade rules with China. And the other thing I would do is, I would zero the manufacturing tax on American manufacturers. Our guys are down right now. They've been buffeted by these unfair trade practices. Let's bring back the American industrial base. And that's important for national security as well. That means we'll be able to have --you know, I sent out my teams, a couple of years ago when our [troops] were getting hurt by road side bombs. We found only one company left in America that could still make high grade armor steel plate. The arsenal of democracy is leaving these shores; we need to bring it back; I'll do that.

FOX NEWS: Congressman Hunter, many people feel the billions of dollars in American debt that China holds is a problem. If the Chinese decide to convert those dollars to euros, the value of the dollar drops. Do you see that as a security threat, and what would you do about it?

Duncan Hunter: If we don't do anything about it, it will be a security threat; and the other thing that will be a security threat is the fact that China is buying ships and planes and military equipment with hundreds of billions of American trade dollars coming their way. They've bought the Soveremenny class missile destroyers from the Russians, that were designed to do one thing: kill American aircraft carriers. So there is a security threat as we move --as we allow China to continue to cheat on trade. They are arming with American trade dollars. And they're lending our money back to us, and some people say, "Well, they'll treat us right if we get in a crunch." And I say "yeah, just like they treated that guy in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square." It's time for us to enforce trade rules with China: create a two way street, not a one way street, and that will give us much less exposure on the economic side that you're talking about, and the security side.

Duncan Hunter seems similar to Hillary Clinton in this one respect: The word "tariff" did not escape his lips in the remarks reported here. However, he is bound by the same laws of arithmetic that should bind Hillary Clinton, and indeed all presidential candidates. So again, tariffs are inevitably a part of fixing trade deficits. Hunter has said that he wants to fix those. If he follows through, then the word "tariff" is inevitably in his future.

I might have answered Hunter's second question differently. The worry is about the prospect of China selling off its dollar denominated holdings in the financial markets. American politicians should not feel "frightened into submission" to China on this account. In a free market, things sold are also bought at the other end of the transaction. In the "feared" eventuality, the U.S. debt instruments would change hands. Instead of feeling in debt to China, we would then be in debt to Japan and Europe -- our friends, rather than China. Would the shift depress the value of the dollar? In the short term, yes, somewhat. But the dollar has another reason for its decline in value -- the persistence (indeed the growth) of the U.S. trade deficit with China. In the midst of a shift (a rift?) in U.S. China relations, a falling trade deficit would relieve downward pressure on the dollar.

Let's imagine a spat with Communist China. The U.S. says to China, "Screw your exports. Stop sending us toxic food and defective products that need a recall anyway." This is a trade deficit reduction move and points the dollar upward. In reply, China says to the U.S., "Screw your debt instruments. We're selling them." This is a financial market event, and points the dollar downward. --Perhaps the reader can see my point, that this is like two chapters that cancel each other out. One adds lift to the dollar, and the other pressures it downwards. The two forces at least partially offset each other.

The value of the dollar is thereby balanced so that it is not the big worry in this scenario. More worrisome is the value of the bonds, yields, and interest rates. However, this concern would no longer have anything to do with China. As a financial market event, it can be left for Wall Street and the Fed to sort out. Big boys are supposed to be able to pull up their own socks, and tie their own shoes. Meanwhile on Main Street, trade deficit reduction actually eases inflation pressure, allows jobs to return, employment to rise, and wage growth to occur -- economics would remind us of the pre-Bill Clinton days, and Americans would no longer compete with Chinese slaves. Americans would have to value Americans more highly. A sense of community and nationhood could return as we emerge from recent dark years of profound betrayal by our own government.


The entire U.S. establishment -- officials, candidates, media, and Wall Street -- deserves correction from the China Support Network in the following way. They have complained bitterly and given great attention to the matter of China's currency manipulation, which indeed needs correction. When the value of the Yuan / Renminbi is held down, it is tantamount to an export subsidy. The overall logic says that China is practicing economic dirty pool and is tilting or rigging the playing field for its exporters. --By the same overall logic, the application of slave labor is economic dirty pool, and it tilts or rigs the playing field in favor of its exporters. Indeed, the United States removed the economic implications of slave labor in the 1800s by adopting the Emancipation Proclamation. After that, the U.S. had a domestic market that was free of the influence and implications of slavery -- until more recently. The embrace of Communist China as a trading partner abrogates the Emancipation Proclamation in its economic dimension and spirit. This matter is just as foul, economically, as currency manipulation.

--So, why the double standard? As we see above, two presidential candidates have currency manipulation as matters with top of mind awareness. China's practice of applying slave labor is another violation of free market economics, equally hurtful to America, and deserves equally as much to have top of mind billing.

In my view, the U.S. establishment reveals a dark heart on this issue. Currency manipulation is an economic issue. Slave labor is an economic issue, but it is also a human rights violation. Those who are mean-spirited in the U.S. establishment too often COVER UP human rights violations, perhaps thinking that "hey -- if it lowers costs, it adds to the bottom line, right?" There are K-Street lobbyists and news executives who will snarl derisively at any mention of labor issues or human rights issues. When there is deprivation and human suffering, it seems to be to the merriment of such K-Street lobbyists and news executives -- are they taking pleasure at the expense of others, while they write, promote, and pass trade deals that give short shrift to these issues? They perhaps assume that history is written by the winners -- hence, as long as their side wins, "Who cares about underlying truths, or outcomes on the ground?" That suggests a false sense of impunity. For them to continue to "look good" in light of their actions, it requires their assumption to be correct.

The U.S. establishment has a double standard. Currency manipulation is an economic issue, and it has become popular for politicos to decry. Slave labor is an economic issue, and it has languished in the basement where the establishment keeps the issues it won't address. (We should admit that the China Support Network writes from that basement, "under the rug" of the establishment. The basement is shared with the likes of Ralph Nader, consumer safety, America's spine with communism, national security, and of course those like us, who want "a level playing field" as a matter of practice, not platitude.) They are two economic issues, both pertinent to a level playing field; and, they have achieved different levels of popularity and response from the decision makers.

Hillary Clinton and Duncan Hunter, while they get credit for raising some China issues, cannot receive "three cheers" from the China Support Network until they raise and address the issue of slave labor as employed by Communist China. (There is another double standard of the establishment: The administration opposes trade with Communist Cuba, because it "helps the regime." If it is bad with Cuba, then why does the establishment pretend like it is good with Communist China? The China Support Network can see right through the kabuki dances that U.S. politicians employ with the China issue.)

As was noted in my earlier article, 'A Clear Head In The China Debate,' to correctly handle the currency issue requires a corrective tariff, and to correctly handle the slave labor issue requires another corrective tariff, which is additive or cumulative, over and above the first corrective tariff. Better still would be to throw the whole WTO out the window and begin anew with writing trade policy. Tariffs are a step in the right direction, to the best interests of America and its people. As a cheerleader for tariffs, I should pick up a bullhorn and say, "Give me a 'T'!...." :-)

Published May 19, 2007 by the China Support Network (CSN). Begun as the American response group in 1989, CSN represents Americans who are "on the side" of the students in Tiananmen Square -- standing for democratic reform, human rights, and freedom in China. For dissident news; to support a stronger China policy; or get more information, see http://www.chinasupport.net/.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

CSN Warning To Wall Street: Divest PetroChina

China Support Network
Warns Wall Street:
Divest PetroChina

And CSN introduces new point man to pressure Wall Street:
Former U.S. Senate candidate, attorney Robert Gerald Lorge (R-WI)
is newest addition to CSN Board of Directors

Washington, D.C. (May 13, 2007, China Support Network, CSN)-- The China Support Network warned Wall Street today to start divestment of PetroChina Co Ltd (NYSE:PTR). "Corporations will increasingly be judged based on social responsibility, not just economics. PetroChina fails this test because it and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government of Mainland China, of which it is a part, both are supporting the genocide in Darfur, Sudan of millions of Christians and other ethnic minorities persecuted by the Islamic Republic of Sudan and its proxy Janjaweed militia death squads. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed thus far and some 2.5 million people have been made refugees. This is the result of Communist China being the dominant player in strife torn Africa today. We can expect more of the same in central Asia, Latin America and everywhere globally that Communist China seeks oil and other vital resources to feed its military industrial complex, which is based in part on slave labor," commented Attorney Robert Gerald Lorge, a 2006 U.S. Senate candidate (R-WI) and the newest board of directors member at the China Support Network.

The China Support Network (CSN) warning aligns with and supports recent efforts by the Save Darfur Coalition to demand divestment by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRKA, NYSE:BRKB) and Fidelity Investments who are the largest stockholders in PetroChina (NYSE:PTR) and its parent company China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., known as Sinopec (NYSE:SNP).

CSN demanded that Wall Street become socially responsible and divest all holdings that support Communist China's human rights abuses in China and around the world, including holdings in PetroChina, Sinopec, China Petroleum & Chemical, CNPC (Hong Kong). The controlling shareholder of PetroChina is owned directly by the Communist Chinese government and does business directly in Sudan. Other socially irresponsible Communist controlled holdings include CNOOC, and China International Trust & Investment (CITIC).

CSN's Founder and President John Patrick Kusumi, a 1984 independent U.S. presidential candidate, added, "We are asking socially responsible investors to call their brokerage firms and demand they sell their shares in these Communist Chinese government controlled companies that are supporting human rights abuses in China, Sudan and around the world, and demand that their mutual funds divest from these socially irresponsible holdings."

Lorge also criticized Fidelity Investment spokeswoman Anne Crowley's statement that the funds will be managed in such a way that meets the funds' investment objectives. "Make no mistake about it, the sole objective of profit above all else is not only pure greed above morality. In the case of genocidal regimes like China and Sudan, it leads to blood-soaked profits!" Lorge warned.

Demetrius Klitou, a CSN board member and author of The Friends And Foes Of Human Rights, also weighed in. "A corporation or an individual judged to have aided, or in any way contributed to the genocide in Sudan must be held responsible," said Klitou.

Lorge concluded, "We the free peoples of the world cannot allow our neighbors or any freedom loving people to have their very lives sold for the profit of a greedy few. After World War II the world vowed to never forget the Jewish Holocaust. We will never forget the genocides of this past century and we will never forget those who financed these human rights abuses and genocides either--whether in China, Cambodia, Darfur-Sudan, and around our world. Wall Street would best serve its own interests by learning from South Africa and make its divestment decisions now, ahead of the time for accounting for what is right and what is wrong market behavior and start investing accordingly."

The China Support Network is one of the leading groups internationally supporting the Chinese pro-democracy movement. Organized after the Tiananmen Square massacre of June, 1989, CSN has long worked in an integrated way with leading Chinese dissidents. The China Support Network has opposed the United States' PNTR (Permanent Normalized Trade Relations i.e. "Most Favored Nation") trade measures for China, and the China Support Network opposes the International Olympic Committee's decision to site the 2008 Olympics in Beijing (Peking), China. CSN has also joined coalitions such as "Boycott Made In China", "Bring Jiang (former Chinese President Jiang Zemin) To Justice", "Bye Bye CCP", and the "Coalition for the International Criminal Court" to hold the Communist Chinese regime accountable for human rights abuses and to promote pro-democracy activists and dissidents in China.

Charles Lee was a high profile case as a U.S. citizen imprisoned by Communist China, until his release in 2006. Reached by CSN for comment, he said, "I would be happy to support the cause of pressuring the CCP on the issue of Darfur, and I would be happy to see foreign investment coming out of China, not just Petro China, so that the CCP would have much less resources to persecute people in China--the sooner to end the persecution."

Lee also offered a first hand account of slave labor by prisoners for export to the West. While incarcerated, he was forced to produce Homer Simpson slippers. Lee said, "As for the Homer Simpson slippers, it is an American company and it is a shame for sure for them to go to China and use prisoners of conscience to produce them -- even though they might not know it, but have they ever cared?"

In addition to its call for divestment on the part of Wall Street, the China Support Network is also calling for long form journalism on issues raised here by U.S. news organizations -- and to include this in coverage of the upcoming June 4 anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown in China.

In an exclusive interview yet to be published by CSN, leading Chinese dissident and co-founder of the China Democracy Party Xu Wenli was asked how the U.S. government could improve its support of the Chinese democracy movement. He said, "Most importantly, the U.S. government should increase its attention and spotlight on China's pro-democracy movement and offer at least a symbolic sign of support for the cause. In the last few years, the Bush administration has generally been lukewarm in its support of China's democracy activism at best."

Published May 13, 2007 by the China Support Network (CSN). Begun as the American response group in 1989, CSN represents Americans who are "on the side" of the students in Tiananmen Square -- standing for democratic reform, human rights, and freedom in China. For dissident news; to support a stronger China policy; or get more information, see http://www.chinasupport.net/.