What recently happened with Uighurs?

What recently happened with Uighurs?

There are four possible narratives about the Uighurs. (1.) This is not about separatism; (2.) This *is* about separatism; (3.) This started as harmonious, but it may lead to separatism; and (4.) This started out about separatism, but it will lead to harmony.

In a process of elimination, we can immediately rule out narrative # 4. Nobody is feeling very harmonious about what recently happened. This article will analyze narratives # 1, 2, and 3.

#1. This is not about separatism.

In this case, to understand the Urumqi incident of 7.5 [July 5, 2009], it is first necessary to understand the Shaoguan incident of 6.26 [June 26, 2009]. In the Shaoguan incident, Uighurs were getting hurt. Later, in the Urumqi incident, both Uighurs and Han were getting hurt. Shaoguan is the city in Guangdong province where the Xuri (or "Early Light") toy factory was the site of a violent clash between Han Chinese and Uighur workers. It is said that in May, the Chinese government brought 800 Uighur peasants to work at the toy factory in Shaoguan. This may have displaced some Han Chinese workers. If so, that is a grievance that should be taken up with the Chinese government, not the Uighurs.

A laid off, disgruntled worker is said to have started a rumor that the new arrivals (Uighurs) had raped Chinese women. The government itself has called that rumor false, and according to Xinhua (the Communist Party newswire), it has arrested two men for spreading rumors online about the alleged rapes. As far as I know, that is a change in the government's story since June 27, when the Associated Press (a Western newswire) quoted an unnamed "spokesman from the Shaoguan City government" saying, "the fight started after a Han Chinese girl entered a dormitory where Uighur workers were staying. Uighur workers tried to harass her, and she screamed."

The Wall Street Journal reports, "It appears many of the factory's 18,000 workers and Han Chinese across the country believe the rape allegations are true and the government is covering up the facts to protect minority people and preserve ethnic peace."

Well, the rumor alone was enough to start fighting in Shaoguan. What is described by Uighurs is a massive, racist mob attack. "Thousands of Han Chinese workers attacked the ethnic Uyghur workers in an electric toy factory in Guangdong province, southern China. By carrying metal pipes, knives and bricks in their hands, the Han Chinese workers in mass numbers entered the Uyghur workers dormitory to attack the Uyghurs." The government reports 2 Uighurs killed and 118 injuries. The World Uyghur Congress reports 18 Uighurs killed and 300 injuries. Less reliable YouTube comments suggest 26 - 300 killed.

Also troubling is this from the World Uyghur Congress: "Some Chinese distributed a truck load of batons to Chinese workers. Security guards on site not only did not stop them but also helped distribute batons. The police did not show up for three hours." Citing "reports that local security forces did not take an active role in stopping the violence," the WUC notes that "the Chinese government failed to protect the Uyghurs from violent perpetrators."

It is clear that the Chinese workers were able to raid the dormitories of Uighur workers, and that one grievance here is that the Chinese government did not respond in a timely manner to stop the fight. Also by the government's own reports, 81 of 118 (69%) of the injuries were to Uighurs. Reports about that fight indicate no deaths of Han Chinese.

Are Uighurs unhappy about their treatment by the Chinese government? Yes. However, there is a good argument to be made that this was not about separatism. These 800 Uighurs were only factory workers, people who were there for a job, not for political independence or a free East Turkestan.

And, if we accept that 6.26 led to 7.5, then we can see the Chinese government spreading lies in its propaganda after the 7.5 incident. The Chinese government says that 7.5 was "orchestrated" by the international influence of Rebiya Kadeer, the lady who is President of the World Uyghur Congress. However, that should logically imply that Ms. Kadeer arranged the fight at the toy factory on 6.26. Clearly, that is a preposterous way to explain 6.26!

In this narrative # 1, the government has much to answer for, and it has clearly lied to the public about recent unrest of Uighurs, and this is not about separatism.

#2. This *is* about separatism.

Plenty of analysts will make this about separatism, recounting the lengthier history about minority grievances in the west of China. Reuters (a Western newswire) put out a "Factbox" about "China's restive Xinjiang region."

Note for newbies: Western news agencies have a double standard about western regions of China. In the case of Tibet, they use the name Tibet, not the Chinese name "Xizang province." In the case of East Turkestan, they use the Chinese name "Xinjiang province," not East Turkestan. Western newswires are inconsistent in this way. Does this reveal a bias of more sympathy for Tibetans, and less sympathy for Uighurs?

In any case, Reuters included these tidbits in its report:

"The oasis cities in what is now Xinjiang were conquered by China during the Han dynasty. For the next two millennia, they were variously independent, under Chinese rule, or part of other central Asian kingdoms. The area was briefly an independent East Turkestan in the 1940s and has been ruled by Beijing since the Communist victory in 1949.

"Human rights groups say China has used its support for the U.S.-led fight against al Qaeda to justify a wider crackdown on Uighurs, including arbitrary arrests, closed-door trials and application of the death penalty.

"The Chinese government has accused militant Uighurs of working with Islamist militant group al Qaeda to bring about an independent East Turkestan by violent means."

Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng has commented that charges of terrorism against the World Uyghur Congress are "just a trick that the Chinese Communist Party used to graft rumors in an effort to defame."

Reuters again: Chinese security officials blamed attacks before and during last year's Olympic Games on independence-seeking Uighur militants. In the most violent, 16 armed police were killed in a bomb and stabbing attack in Kashgar.

Wei Jingsheng has also commented about that, but his comment reveals that in his definition, terrorism requires civilian casualties: "We should notice that, during the Beijing Olympics period last year, the violent attacks against the Chinese Communist regime by some Uyghurs targeted the Chinese police and armies, instead of the common people. That kind of action is different from 'terrorism.'"

Wei looks upon the instant villification of Rebiya Kadeer as evidence that the 7.5 incident was pre-planned by the Chinese Communist regime. It is true that the accusation came swiftly. In the early morning of July 6, less than 24 hours after the violence, MSNBC (a Western news outlet) was reporting, "Xinjiang’s government accused Uighur exiles led by a former businesswoman now living in America, Rebiya Kadeer, of fomenting the violence via the Internet."

By all reports, the original protest started peacefully, and according to the WUC protestors demanded "justice for Uyghurs wounded and killed in Guangdong. They also protested against increased racial discrimination they face as Uyghurs across China." Hence, this was a protest about civil rights and equal justice under the law – these are laudable and high minded objectives to promote.

The protest became a violent riot only after police brutality started the violence. That’s when buses and shops were burned. The government responded with one of its trademark crackdowns and a massacre of protesting civilians.

The Chinese state media says 156 died in the 7.5 [July 5] violence. Other credible reports have ranged from 500 - 800 dead, and one in Turkey even suggested over 1,000 died. Another report indicated that 17 demonstrators were crushed by armored vehicles near Xinjiang University.

Wei Jingsheng blames the government, saying, "Obviously, the Chinese government planned beforehand and according to their plan, produced this bloody massacre. The Chinese Communist regime must take responsibility for all the people who were killed, including both Han Chinese and Uyghurs. The Chinese Communist regime in XinJiang is the real ringleader for the massacre and arrests."

It is true that Uighurs have long standing grievances with the Chinese government, beginning with being conquered in 1949, and going on to being occupied, annexed, and colonized. The WUC said, "We ask the Chinese government to change their six-decade long heavy-handed policies of forced assimilation, as well as cultural and ethnic genocide imposed upon the peace-loving Uyghur people and seek to resolve the East Turkestan Question through peaceful dialogue."

These complaints echo those of Tibetans, who have had their freedom, their religious worship, and even their language curtailed. They have complained of cultural genocide, and they had an uprising and crackdown last year (in 2008). While they are not involved in the Urumqi incident, they are observing.

On July 8, Tibetan blogger Bhuchung Tsering wrote, "This development should be a wake up call to the Chinese Government on its overall policies relating to people like the Uyghurs and the Tibetans....those policies have failed and the Chinese Government needs to understand that." He also dismisses analysis through the prism of economics, and said:

"Highlighting economic reasons, which are logical and plausible, provides the authorities the opportunity to divert the attention from the root cause, i.e. misplaced policies on people like the Tibetans and the Uyghurs and denying them basic rights.

"To take another case, rather than trying to understand the root cause of discrimination and denial of rights of the Uyghur people, the authorities and Chinese opinion makers have sought recourse to blaming Rebiya Kadeer and the World Uyghur Congress for the unrest. To this, they have added the three forces of separatism, radicalism and extremism as being responsible for the unrests. This is very typical of the mindset that is responsible for the increased grievances among the people.

"Another attempt at diverting attention from the real issue is by calling this 'an isolated incident.'"

On the whole, whether or not the 7.5 incident is about separatism, clearly there are longstanding grievances and the victims of them can understandably want a separation between them and the malarkey that is brought to them by the central government regime in Beijing.

#3. This started as harmonious, but it may lead to separatism.

The real situation didn’t start as harmonious. Only Hu Jintao’s narrative started as harmonious.

The Chinese government seems to have "branched" its strategy. It's media did something different this time: actually cover the unrest. Writers for The Motley Fool investment newsletter witnessed this in Shanghai. They wrote in English to Western investors:

"There wasn't a person in Shanghai today who wasn't talking about western China. And though the business leaders we spoke with were happy to focus on the enormous economic opportunities in that part of the country, most people were focused on something else: the violent riots in Urumqi.

"We're not sure how much play this got in the States, but the news in China covered nothing but the turmoil that left more than 150 dead and 800 injured. This is big news here -- not only because uprisings against the government are so rare, but also because this uprising was based on the ethnic divide between the Uighur and the Han Chinese in a country that advertises its unity. The riot was sparked by the Uighurs' protest of how the Han Chinese government handled a fight in late June. That conflict in a Guangdong toy factory between members of the two groups left two Uighurs dead. In the eyes of the Uighur, the Han-dominated government eschewed justice to protect its own.

"China's normally staid, state-run media did nothing to play down the nature of the conflict. In fact, they stoked the fire by running bloody images of the riot in newspapers and on television-- and by running this quote from Urumqi Public Security Bureau deputy director Huang Yabo over and over again: 'It was like a war zone here, with many bodies of ethnic Han people lying on the road.' We heard that thousands of Han Chinese were mobilizing to go to Urumqi to protect their brethren."

The Western media largely downplayed this whole confrontation. At a time when "the news in China covered nothing but the turmoil...," the news in America covered nothing but the memorial service for pop singer Michael Jackson.

Tuesday, July 7, included two events: Muslim women (Uighurs) began confronting the Chinese authorities, saying, “Give us our men back!” And in the evening, a mob of civilian Han Chinese went charging into Uighur neighborhoods, getting “revenge” upon terrified Uighurs. On Wednesday morning, it became clear that there was an exodus of Uighurs moving out of the city
of Urumqi.

Above, I mentioned that the Chinese government seemed to “branch” its strategy. What is new or notable is its use of media. Usually, when there is unrest in China, its media has no story. This time, its media has two different stories, one broadcast in Uighur language for a Uighur audience, and the other broadcast in Mandarin for a Han Chinese audience.

For the Han audiences, they have highlighted “Uighur thuggery,” continuing the divisive insult campaign that demonizes or devalues many ethnic and religious minorities. Newsweek magazine notes, “Prejudice against Uighurs often portrays them as violent criminals.” Newsweek described segmenting the message—

"Since Urumqi's protest erupted, the government's Uighur-language TV channel has carried a statement from Xinjiang provincial government chairman Nur Bekri promising 'strenuous efforts' to investigate the killings in Guangdong. On Tuesday, Xinhua also reported 13 arrests over the false allegations. This attempt at redress segments the message. Awareness of local grievances is aired on regional TV in the Uighur language, while the wider message of Uighur thuggery plays to a receptive national audience."

On July 7, the WUC said that "the Chinese media showed yesterday only some wounded Chinese victims and scenes of Uyghurs attacking various vehicles--images that they carefully selected for the world and the Chinese audience to see, portraying Uyghurs as bad, troublemaking terrorists."

Indeed, Newsweek corroborates: “Official media depicts the rioters as thugs rather than people with political grievances.”

Why is the Chinese government trying to calm the Uighurs, but inflame and incite the Han Chinese? And at the same time, the government shut off the internet and cell phones. The obvious desire is to block unofficial information. Observers must conclude that the government has something to hide.

Unmistakably, there is the sense of coordinated “spin” in government media coverage. It is reinforced by what we quoted above, written by Motley Fool investment newsletter:

“In fact, they stoked the fire by running bloody images of the riot in newspapers and on television-- and by running this quote from Urumqi Public Security Bureau deputy director Huang Yabo over and over again: ‘It was like a war zone here, with many bodies of ethnic Han people lying on the road.’"

Newsweek also reports, “At the same time, state media ignores the role of the security forces in the body count.” So, the Chinese media swung into action with slanted, one-sided reporting that essentially says, “Uighurs: bad. Government: not bad.” The truth is the reverse, but many Han Chinese are falling for this slanted media reporting.

The Chinese government, which says it wants a harmonious society, deliberately fanned the fires of hatred. In the result, Motley Fool reported, "We heard that thousands of Han Chinese were mobilizing to go to Urumqi to protect their brethren."

So now, Han Chinese people are deliberately running into the middle of a riot, seeking vengeance for a “blood debt.” What should we do? Congratulate Beijing for its success in starting a race war? And what happens when Han Chinese people remember the blood debt of the Communist Party?

Chinese dissident Xiao Qiang told Newsweek that Chinese state media "is very unified. They all point to Rebiya Kadeer, they all have the same narrative, there's no independent reporting—it's a very highly controlled version of the story."

Perhaps Han Chinese people should take into consideration that their government, through the media, lies to them. Their story will always take the form, “Other people: bad. Communist Party: not bad.” I repeat that the truth is the reverse, and it would be good if sophisticated news consumers would finally see through the media’s web of lies.

If China continues on its present course, it can indeed lead to separatism. There are cycles in Chinese history, where a divided China will next come together, but then in a united China, the center cannot hold. After a period of strong central government, the next stage in this cycle is separation. If history is a guide, separatism may indeed be next.

Dictator Loses Face In Iran; CSN reax

Dictator Loses Face In Iran;
CSN supports civilians

A public statement of
the China Support Network
- June 21, 2009 -

The 2009 crisis in Iran has been compared with Tiananmen Square, the occasion 20 years ago when China's dictatorship responded violently to civilian protests with a military crackdown that killed over 3,000 people.

Of course, these two events are not the same and there are comparisons and contrasts that may be drawn. But at a deep level, the two occasions are both stories of civilian masses of ordinary people encountering "state violence," armed and bloody suppression that violates basic precepts of freedom and fundamental human rights.

This statement is written from the China Support Network, where the ostensible scope of our organization is to support the Chinese civilians against the Chinese dictators. However, we are a part of the international human rights community, and we are not blind to the suffering of others. For example, in 2005 the dictatorship in Uzbekistan opened fire and slaughtered civilians in the Andijon massacre. That was on May 13, 2005.

On June 3, 2005, for the 16th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, the CSN speech was titled, "There is no future in being a dictator!"

Most of the speech denounced the Chinese dictatorship, but Uzbekistan was mentioned so that in 2005, CSN said: "The publics of China and Uzbekistan could rightly be angry at the authorities in those countries; the authorities have been mass murderers of innocent civilians." Now in 2009, the publics of China, Uzbekistan, and Iran could rightly be angry at the authorities in those countries.

The statement in 2005 said, "As the Tiananmen community, we should extend our sympathies and heartfelt condolences, where we can relate to the victims, and the population that is being violated in government atrocities. We know just what those civilians are going through. Enough is enough of regime aid for Uzbekistan! --By that, I mean that the Western establishment should cut off Uzbekistan."

Today in 2009, as the Tiananmen community, we should extend sympathy and condolence once again. Regrettably, Iran 2009 has joined a list that includes Uzbekistan 2005 and China 1989. The China Support Network can underscore that "no, it is not acceptable to slaughter unarmed civilians at a lawful protest. That applies no matter what country is in question, and what year is on the calendar."

In this case, Iran's "supreme" dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, overplayed his hand. The role of a final arbiter ought to be to "settle the argument" when disputes arise. Khamenei was swept into the drama of Iran by taking sides in the present dispute too early -- he helped to start the argument. He can no longer be looked upon as neutral or impartial; he is clearly one side of the power struggle that is now dividing Iran. And now, there is no remaining final arbiter to settle the argument.

There is a loss of face entailed for Khamenei. At the Friday prayers of June 19, 2009, he drew a line in the sand and personally forbade demonstrations on Saturday. On Saturday, demonstrators defied that order and went to the streets in protest. Some number of people were killed by security personnel who attempted to enforce Khamenei's premeditated crackdown. Violence may still be underway as this statement is prepared on Sunday, June 21, 2009. Hence, the death toll may still be rising.

The China Support Network applauds the bravery of the Iranian civilians and notes that Iranian government has devolved to a Fascist Islamic Mafia. It may be said that civilians crossed a line by demonstrating on Saturday, but when bloodshed starts from a violent government crackdown, that too is crossing a line. The lines are crossed sufficiently that the China Support Network rejects and denounces both the violence and its perpetrator, the less-than-democratic Iranian government.

It is time to stand in solidarity with the civilian population of Iran, and with Iranian dissidents in an Iranian democracy movement. We must hope for the improvement of conditions there and for the emergence of self-government in an Iran that respects freedom, democracy, and human rights. In the future, we may include Iranian dissidents in our human rights rallies. (They are already venues that sometimes see Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongols, Vietnamese, Burmese, and Laotians on the program.) It is time to expand our human rights efforts for all oppressed peoples.

20th anniversary of Tiananmen commemorated

This is a China Support Network update in a different format.

So many events have accompanied the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown, they do not all fit into one update.

There are seven new blog posts to cover some events of June 2 - 4, 2009. This email is merely an index to the other posts which can be read at links below:



June 2, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives passes H. Res. 489,
for the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square
http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-2-2009.html


June 3, 2009 (a)
U.S. Secretary of State releases four paragraph statement
for the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square
http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-3-2009.html


June 3, 2009 (b)
John Kusumi, founder of the China Support Network,
calls for Chinese people to rise up and sweep
away "the model of government-by-gangster"
http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-3-2009-b.html


June 4, 2009 (a)
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made four more gestures
(in addition to her hand in the June 2, 2009 passage of a House Resolution)
for the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square:
http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-4-2009-nancy-pelosi-statements.html


June 4, 2009 (b)
Tiananmen Square student leaders again call
for Chinese democracy
http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-4-2009-b-tiananmen-leaders-presser.html


June 4, 2009 (c)
Enormous crowd quadruples the usual size of turnout
for a Tiananmen anniversary vigil in Hong Kong
http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-4-2009-c-hong-kong-crowd.html


Good videos - June 2 - 3, 2009
The China Support Network recommends taking in these YouTube videos
http://chinasupport.blogspot.com/2009/06/good-videos-june-2-3-2009.html


There are more stories that the China Support Network is likely to blog about later, such as:
Wuer Kaixi arrested
Light Club rained out
Wei Jingsheng and Ni Yuxian call for revolution
CSN's Kusumi buttonholes Congressman Rohrabacher

And here is an interesting quote from Congressman Rohrabacher:

"Twenty years ago this day, the government of China affirmed to the world that it is a criminal enterprise that is perfectly willing to murder unarmed people to stay in power."

20th anniversary of May 19

The Ghost of Zhao Ziyang,
a Chinese Gorbachev

And more China Support Network news as
we prepare to commemorate the 20th anniversary
of the Tiananmen Square massacre

May 19, 2009 (CSN) -- Is anything new in the Tiananmen Square matter? Yes, in fact. Here in 2009, it is the 20th anniversary of the events that transpired at Tiananmen Square, and we are two weeks away as we approach the anniversary of that massacre. (On June 4, 1989, the Chinese government used its "People's Liberation" army to clear Tiananmen Square of civilian demonstrators, who were in a peaceful protest. The army used tanks, troops, and live ammunition -- killing over 3,000 people.) The issues remain mass murder, and the demonstrators' demand for political reform, freedom, democracy, and human rights.

The Ghost of Zhao Ziyang, a Chinese Gorbachev

Posthumously, a deceased leader is projecting his presence into this year's observances. Twenty years ago today, former Communist Party chief Zhao Ziyang was last seen in public. He was refusing to call out the military to deal with the student-led pro-democracy movement. He was in fact a reformer, and he had just lost a power struggle within the top echelons of the Communist Party. The hardliners such as Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng pushed him out, and on May 19 they were preparing the announcement of martial law. Zhao Ziyang went to Tiananmen Square and spoke to students with a bullhorn. He was apologetic, saying "We have come too late," and he urged the students to end their hunger strike and to care for their own safety.

Zhao Ziyang spent the rest of his life -- sixteen years -- under house arrest. He died in 2005 and that caused the China Support Network to raise its estimate, from 3,000 dead to 3,001 dead in the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Now in 2009, his memoirs are being published. This leads to a new view of the history of the Communist Party at that time. "Prisoner of the State" is the book now being published in English, based on voice narration that was furtively recorded by Zhao onto cassette tapes during his time of house arrest. The publication of these memoirs is being supervised by Bao Tong, who was an aide to Zhao and who spent time in jail after the crackdown. Bao Tong is a famous Chinese dissident himself.

Speaking to the Epoch Times, Bao asserted that Zhao "believed China should adopt a western style parliamentary democracy. I believe this is his most important conclusion."

The publication of Zhao's book has already led to much comment in Western mainstream media, including CNN and the neoconservative Washington Post. In its preface, Harvard Business Review editor in chief Adi Ignatius says, "It is the first time that a leader of Zhao's stature in China has spoken frankly about life at the top. He provides an intimate look at one of the world's most opaque regimes. We learn about the triumphs and failures, the boasts and insecurities, of the man who tried to bring liberal change to China, and who made every effort to stop the Tiananmen Massacre."

He concludes, "Although Zhao now speaks from the grave, his voice has the moral power to make China sit up and listen."

Another Prisoner of the State: Zhou Yongjun

Last week in China, the family of Tiananmen Square student leader Zhou Yongjun received official notification by the government that Zhou is arrested and charged with trumped-up charges. This notice, which the law requires immediately upon arrest, came after the regime held Zhou secretly for seven and a half months.

It was also in the news recently that another leading Chinese dissident, Yang Jianli, was turned back as he attempted to enter China at Hong Kong. Authorities held him for two hours and then put him on a plane back to Taipei, Taiwan. The difference between these two cases is striking. Both are Chinese dissidents, attempting to enter China. In the case of Yang, he wanted to meet with activists based in Hong Kong, to coordinate the movement's observances of Tiananmen Square's 20th anniversary, which is upcoming on June 4, 2009. In the case of Zhou, he wanted to visit his aging and ailing parents. Yang was politely turned back at the point of entry; Zhou was grabbed by authorities, thrown in the slammer, held secretly without charges, and perhaps tortured during seven and a half months. And now, the regime has charged Zhou and threatens to keep him as a political prisoner for the third time.

The difference between these two cases, and the weak response of the U.S. State Department, led to a "Special Comment" by John Kusumi, the founder of the China Support Network. In the Special Comment, he scolds both of the governments -- Beijing and Washington -- who are mishandling the case of Zhou Yongjun. He nominates all U.S. Presidents from the time of Tiananmen Square to the present to be featured on a "Mount Rushmore of Corruption," because the U.S. executive branch never replied to the atrocity of mass murder in Beijing. And, he calls for U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to resign.

Beijing and Washington are "two emperors with no clothes between them," Kusumi asserted. One can read his Special Comment at OpEd News by visiting http://tinyurl.com/p79ugp

During the past week, reports about Zhou Yongjun written by Reuters, the New York Times, AFP, the AP, DPA, and the London Telegraph were picked up and republished in hundreds of news outlets around the world.

Commemorate the 20th Anniversary of June 4

Plans are shaping up for the China Support Network and the Chinese democracy movement to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the bloody massacre as occurred in Beijing to stop the Tiananmen Square movement. Every city with a Chinese embassy or consulate is likely to see vigils and protests on June 3 and June 4.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong has four upcoming events. The march on May 31 and the vigil on June 4 are likely to be the largest public gatherings among those slated.
• “Reflections on June 4: 20 Years On” Forum (May 24, 2009)
• Public Calls for the Rectification of the June 4 Verdict (May 29 and June 4, 2009)
• Demonstration to Commemorate the 20th Anniversary of June 4 (May 31, 2009)
• Candlelight Vigil for the 20th Anniversary of June 4 (June 4, 2009)

Washington DC

Washington DC has three related events.
• A Washington Monument vigil, on Saturday May 30 from 6-9pm (photo exhibit in the first hour, music in the second hour, speeches in the third hour).
• IFCSS, China Support Network, and others hold a vigil at the Victims of Communism Memorial, Wednesday June 3 from 7-10pm.
• Yang Jianli's Initiatives for China holds a rally at the U.S. Capitol in the morning of Thursday June 4.

The Wednesday, June 3 event will include a speech by CSN's John Kusumi, and an appearance by the rock band Light Club, performing rock music that was written for the Chinese democracy cause.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been invited to both the June 3 and June 4 events. She has previously appeared at events organized by both groups.

Related web sites:
Hong Kong www.alliance.org.hk/english
Washington Monument www.remember64.org
IFCSS www.ifcss.org
China Support Network www.chinasupport.net
Initiatives for China www.initiativesforchina.org

Note that, in recent times, the Initiatives for China website has been inaccessible and reported hacker attacks. The URL is included because it may be fixed by the time you read this.

Book Review: Standoff At Tiananmen

Due to the impending 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, China, it is very timely that author Eddie Cheng has published the new book, Standoff At Tiananmen.

With details never before seen in English, Standoff at Tiananmen is a riveting narrative, telling the story of the student-led pro-democracy movement which, in 1989, took over Tiananmen Square in the heart of Beijing, China -- until the Communist Party dictatorship struck back, using its army to clear the square.

While every history of the Chinese democracy movement is a partial history, this book has more detail about these matters than ever before in English. Tiananmen Square had world press attention, so that the largest features of the story became well known--

The Short Story

In the widely known version of events, former Chinese reform-minded leader Hu Yaobang died on April 15, 1989. The Chinese students chose to mourn him in a very public way, as a show of support for the pro-reform current of political thought. The earliest images beamed around the world may have been the flowers, wreaths, and portraits of Hu Yaobang, which were placed in the middle of Tiananmen Square to mourn his passing.

The widely known events include the April 22 funeral of Hu Yaobang; the April 26 editorial in the People's Daily condemning the students (and a huge march on April 27 that was a reply to the editorial); the May 13 - 19 hunger strike, with a visit by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on May 15; and the period of martial law from May 20 until the bitter end on June 3 - 4, when the massacre occurred. Also well remembered is the Goddess of Democracy, a 30 foot statue which appeared similar to the Statue of Liberty. The Goddess statue was unveiled on May 30 and stood until tanks knocked it down on June 4.

Another widely known event happened afterwards, on June 5: One lone man stepped into the middle of Chang'an Avenue, to stop a line of tanks. The identity and fate of "the tank man" remains unknown, but his picture became an icon of 20th century resistance to communism.

A Closer Look

--However, it is good to have deeper and lengthier historical accounts. Now, just in time for the 20th anniversary of these events, Eddie Cheng has published Standoff at Tiananmen, and it is a valuable contribution to the literature about Tiananmen Square. For average readers, the book is engaging and readable, and for those who care about details, it adds depth to previous accounts.

It is a blow-by-blow chronology of the action, but as I mentioned, every history of the Chinese democracy movement is a partial history. There are points left out by Eddie Cheng, and those points can be gleaned from other sources.

Cheng’s book becomes a narrative of the students’ side of the story, and of the politics and decision making on their side. To account for the other side – the power struggle and decision making inside the government – is left to be the scope of others’ books, such as The Tiananmen Papers.

That choice to limit the book’s scope is fine with me – as a Generation Xer, on the side of the pro-democracy and anti-communist people, I believe that freedom is the right side of history, and I am most interested to have “our side” get its story straight.

Cheng was a Beijing University physics student beginning in 1980 and ending in 1986, when he left China. During the 1989 action, he could only watch on CNN just like the rest of the world public. But, he had remained friends with Liu Gang who was also in the physics department at Beijing University. Liu Gang had organized the “Democracy Salon” at Beijing University, a group that incubated student leaders of 1989.

A Comparison of Narratives

Before I say more about Cheng’s book, let me make a comparison between CNN coverage and another book, Tell The World by Liu Binyan.

A Chinese dissident has grumbled to me that “leading Chinese dissidents” are always creations of the news media. It’s simply whomever is getting the most attention at any given time.

If you look at CNN coverage at the tenth anniversary of June 4, they ran a human-interest retrospective that asked “Where are they now?” about June 4 student leaders. The only problem is that to watch CNN coverage, a newbie would think that only four students led the movement: Wang Dan, Wuer Kaixi, Chai Ling, and Li Lu.

For those who know better, the CNN coverage is cartoon-like in its over simplification. There were dozens of notable student leaders in the overall scene, and hundreds of individual campuses that went to the square. Even if every such delegation had just one leader, it adds up to hundreds of leaders on the scene.

The late Chinese journalist Liu Binyan provides a much better view of the action in his book, Tell The World. Tell The World was a narrative account about Tiananmen Square’s movement that was published in English almost immediately after those events in 1989. Liu Binyan was a famous and investigative journalist of high integrity, who reported for the People’s Daily in the 1970s and ‘80s.

The book by Liu Binyan formed a baseline understanding of Tiananmen’s events and informed my own views for many years at the China Support Network. That group, CSN, is one that I formed immediately after June 4’s massacre for American students to support Chinese democracy. At the time, I was a 22-year-old undergraduate of Arizona State University.

As the first book in the same genre – narratives about Tiananmen Square – Tell The World provides a basis for comparison and a yardstick by which to judge Cheng’s new Standoff At Tiananmen. Of course, these two views of the action are from 1989 and 2009, respectively. We might expect the later book to include more research and to have the benefit of more hindsight.

And that is exactly what is found in Standoff At Tiananmen. In 2005, when Liu Binyan died, the China Support Network eulogized him with high praise. Liu was an exceptional figure, and heroic to the pro-democracy movement. But, Cheng has released the better book.

Cheng’s book does an excellent job of blending myriad source narratives and anecdotes into a cohesive and coherent overall narrative. It’s more nuanced than Liu’s account, and more credible than Seeds Of Fire, another book with narrative about Tiananmen Square.

To my knowledge, Cheng has produced the best “T-Square” book yet. However, I do not read Chinese – I can only compare those I have seen in English.

Internecine Politics of the Student Leaders

It seems to me that translations between English and Chinese are often inexact. For example, the name of the student association can be translated many ways. When I met Wuer Kaixi in August, 1989, he spoke about re-constituting in exile ASUBU, the Autonomous Students Union of Beijing Universities. In the book by Liu Binyan, it is called the Interim Student Association of Beijing Colleges and Universities (ISABCU). Student leader Lian Shengde calls it the Autonomous Federation of Universities Inside Beijing (AFUIB).

In Eddie Cheng’s book, it is called the Beijing Students Autonomous Federation (BSAF). Lest my readers worry, I can assure you that these are four alternate translations for one name. In each case we refer to the same group.

The group is “autonomous” because it sprang up independently of the government. With prompting from Liu Gang behind the scenes, it was announced by Wuer Kaixi on April 21. On April 23, it elected Zhou Yongjun as its first president. Riven by disagreement, the group replaced Zhou with Wuer on April 28. On April 30, it replaced Wuer with Feng Congde. On May 5, it expelled Zhou. On May 6, Feng passed the baton back to Wuer Kaixi. On May 14, Feng returned. On May 15, it expelled Wuer.

However, the organization had lost its relevance because it was not Hunger Strike Headquarters. On May 11, Wang Dan and Wuer Kaixi participated as the autonomous federation passed a resolution to not have a hunger strike. However, they and Chai Ling decided that they would lead a hunger strike, but as individuals outside of their affiliation with the autonomous federation.

The hunger strike ran from May 13 – 19. Hunger Strike Headquarters became the operation run by Chai Ling as its Commander in Chief, with Li Lu as its Vice Commander.

The autonomous federation also had another challenge to its relevance, because Xiang Xiaoji and Shen Tong ran its Dialogue Delegation, which sought to negotiate with the government, as a splinter group.

In fact, as we learn from Cheng, the autonomous federation was supposed to rotate its presidency among campuses, not individuals. In another view of this matter, that is in fact what happened. Its first three presidents, Zhou, Wuer, and Feng, hailed from the University of Politics and Law, Beijing Normal University, and Beijing University, respectively.

But no one could have anticipated rotation and turnover at the breakneck pace as was happening at Tiananmen Square. On May 29, Tiananmen Square got a new commander named Yang Tao, a student from Beijing University. He lasted less than a day, but at least he gave Chai Ling a day off.

May 29 was deep into a new phase after the hunger strike – namely, martial law. At that point, residents of Beijing had been holding off the army for ten days, and on that day, art students were assembling the new Goddess of Democracy statue, which was unveiled the next day in Tiananmen Square.

Massacre

As the world knows, martial law troops entered Beijing on June 3, and opened fire with live ammunition at anyone in the way and even at bystanders, killing some 3,000 civilians of Beijing on their way to retaking Tiananmen Square. A tank knocked down the Goddess of Democracy statue in the early morning hours of June 4. The government of China has still not acknowledged or admitted to its crime against humanity, and there has been no accountability, no restitution, and no peace for the victims.

Those who remain outspoken continue to be harassed, or worse, by the Chinese government. For all of China’s development in the twenty years since June 4, political reform, progress, and development has been nil. China continues to be a one party dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party – which has committed more human rights abuses in recent years, such as crackdowns against the Falun Gong health / exercise / spiritual group, and against Tibetan monks who follow the Dalai Lama.

Standoff At Tiananmen is an excellent blow-by-blow account of the matters which it covers. However, it is not the “Everything” compendium. My only quibbles with the book are the things that it does not mention.

Epilogue

There are people who became important to the movement in subsequent years, and it would be helpful if a book expressed where they were during 1989’s action. Yang Jianli, for one example, is a figure with great stature today, but Cheng’s book does not connect him with the action, nor indeed mention Yang at all.

The same can be said for those from outside Beijing who can trace their fame to the June 4 uprising – Lian Shengde, Tang Baiqiao, Liu Junguo. Lian traveled from Tianjin to Beijing; Tang organized in Hunan province; Liu organized in Guangdong province. Lian headed the Autonomous Federation of Universities Outside Beijing; Liu presided over the Autonomous Student’s Union of Guangzhou Universities.

Cheng’s book also says very little about the incident with paint filled eggs, thrown at the giant portrait of Chairman Mao, on May 23. In years after the June 4 uprising, the story became legend about the “Three Gentlemen” – Lu Decheng, Yu Zhijian, and Yu Dongyue, all from Hunan province – who defaced Mao’s portrait.

The omission of those stories does not detract or take anything away from Cheng’s book; it is excellent and commendable work – as far as it goes. I did say that any history of the Chinese democracy movement is partial, and the extra stories could make a book more complete, but not totally complete. While I am not a historian, I can clearly see that this is a pitfall of that profession.

A Sequel?

Such is life. On June 5, 1989, one lone man stopped a line of tanks on an avenue in Beijing, and American students started moving to form the China Support Network. That’s where I came in, and that is where I continue to work today. A sequel book that tells what happened to the democracy movement afterwards in exile would very likely include a lot of information that the CSN can report from first hand experience.

Perhaps Cheng will write that book, or perhaps I will. Because the struggle for freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law is not yet won, the story continues.

I highly recommend Mr. Cheng’s book, Standoff At Tiananmen. I also urge interested readers to stay tuned by watching the China Support Network, where we often release contemporary news and activities for democracy in China.

Tiananmen Square Student Leader Captured

Tiananmen Square Student Leader Captured

CSN demands the immediate release of Zhou Yongjun

April 16, 2009 (CSN) -- From the China Support Network, I can tell my readers of a student leader at the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989. His name is Majer Zhou (pronounce Major Joe) -- or if you are Chinese, his name is Zhou Yongjun (pronounce Joe Young Gin). He has been captured on a return visit to China, and is now the latest case of a Chinese political prisoner for whom we must demand freedom.

He has been living in the United States and has been an enthusiastic ally of the China Support Network. He spent some time being the North American Director of the Free China Movement. And, he has been a leading proponent of Chinese democracy from the days of Tiananmen Square to the present.

When university students rose up in Tiananmen Square, he led the first student march into the square -- that got the action started in the first place. Then he was the first leader elected by students in the Association of Student Unions of Beijing Universities -- the ad hoc group that was formed spontaneously to represent the student takeover of Tianamen Square.

Elected there, he was a spokesman of the students; and, he appeared in a famous scene during the state funeral of ousted (reform minded) Chinese leader Hu Yaobang. The scene is of students kneeling on the steps of the Great Hall of the People, as if waiting for the emperor to emerge and receive their scroll. Zhou was one of three students kneeling with a petition to Chinese Premier Li Peng.

One can read about Zhou in books about Tiananmen Square's 'June 4' movement. Now, on the eve of the 20th anniversary of June 4, 1989, we regret to report that such a blue chip student leader has again been captured in China.

This is his third stint as a political prisoner in China. He was jailed immediately after Tiananmen's 1989 atrocities, then released in 1991. He made his way to the United States to live the life of enforced exile that awaits many Chinese dissidents. In 1998, he attempted a return to China. That is when he was picked up by the authorities and sentenced to three years in a labor camp. In 2001, he was released nine months early, as a government gesture to win favor with the International Olympic Committee.

For the past half year, this has been the "rumored disappearance" of Majer Zhou. The China Support Network (CSN) is now confirming the story ahead of the newswires and the Chinese government. Mr. Zhou is being held at a prison in Shenzhen, as the CSN is learning from multiple sources.

In English, the only earlier report was on Dec. 19, 2008 when the China Aid Association (CAA) reported that Zhou was arrested on Sept. 30, and that authorities first charged him with "espionage," then changed the charge to "financial fraud." If true, the government undermined its credibility by changing its story. With his renown from Tiananmen Square, Zhou is certainly a political prisoner.

The China Support Network calls upon the government of China to immediately release 'Majer' Zhou Yongjun. Absent that, he is a natural high profile case, and we will surely press for his release during the upcoming 20th anniversary of the June 4 massacre. June 4 is a high profile time of the year in the cause of Chinese democracy. Inevitably, his case will soon come to world attention.

National Human Rights Action Plan of China fails to impress

'National Human Rights Action Plan'
Fails to Impress the China Support Network

April 13, 2009 (CSN) -- The State Council (cabinet) of China today released its National Human Rights Action Plan of China for 2009-2010. The Chinese government appears to be responding to the United Nations, which had challenged China to create a national human rights action plan. The China Support Network was reached for comment by a reporter for the People's Daily, and we have decided to make a public statement that encapsulates our response.

The report seems to be half humorous and half serious. It begins with self-congratulation for the Chinese Communist Party. Perhaps the CCP wants to fool the world into believing that it is "great, glorious, and correct" about human rights, while in fact the CCP has been the world's biggest human rights abuser. Can you imagine a man with a criminal record of 80 million burglaries, saying "Okay. I'm not going to burglarize any more." The government of China deserves the same amount of credibility that we would ascribe to the recidivist burglar in this analogy.

In that light, the report's first three sentences are sheer comedy:

"The realization of human rights in the broadest sense has been a long-cherished ideal of mankind and also a long-pursued goal of the Chinese government and people. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese government, combining the universal principles of human rights and the concrete realities of China, has made unremitting efforts to promote and safeguard human rights. Hence, the fate of the Chinese people has changed fundamentally, and China has achieved historic development in its efforts to safeguard human rights."

This is the sound of government propaganda. However, the report turns serious as its third paragraph concludes: "China still confronts many challenges and has a long road ahead in its efforts to improve its human rights situation." Clearly, the report has more than one author, and at least one has his feet on the ground, and is doing his writing from the planet Earth.

Yes, in fact. China still has a long road ahead of it to emerge from its human rights hell-on-earth. The English version of the report is posted in 26 web pages by Xinhua, the state-run news agency.

What the report tells us is that Chinese authorities are learning to "talk the talk" of human rights. The bulk of the report is a review of the actual areas in which China has problems. Section 1 speaks of economic, social, and cultural rights. Section 2 speaks of civil and political rights. Section 3 mentions ethnic minorities, women, children, elderly people, and the disabled. Section 4 promises more education on human rights. Section 5 might be summarized, "We've done our homework."

The actual title of Section 5 is "Performing International Human Rights Duties, and Conducting Exchanges and Cooperation in the Field of International Human Rights." However, it reads like a student making a list of all of his school homework assignments completed. China has been submitting many reports to many international panels, and this section of the report makes China seem to be very fastidious, "crossing its t's and dotting its i's."

In this report, the high minded words are laudable. But, the China Support Network finds this immediate problem: the report is words, not actions. As noted above, Chinese authorities have learned to "talk the talk" of human rights. This is not the same thing as "walking the walk."

The Chinese government would not publish its "first working plan on human rights protection" unless leaders at the highest levels feel that it is imperative to do so. Economic conditions, social unrest, and Charter 08 (a renewed democratic movement) are the factors which make the high leaders feel "pushed into a corner." In fact, if the government cannot guarantee a growing economy, then it needs new legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

The party line has been that "China is successful because of our growing economy." The party leaders did not say, "China is successful because we are improving human rights." Now, the new working plan may does a splendid job of moving rhetoric around, but rhetoric is rhetoric -- words and not actions. The party leaders may have a new story: "We are improving human rights."

Before reporting that story uncritically, I hope that Western news organizations will check the facts on the ground. The China Support Network wants China to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The human rights community will rightly have skepticism, if not suspicion, of this report. That is because we know that three factors: the falling economy, social unrest, and Charter 08 -- are eroding the last legitimacy of the CCP. The party leaders needed a new story line -- an excuse to rule, and a way to placate the people.

First, they raised expectations about economic growth and now they cannot deliver on those promises. Now, they are raising expectations about human rights, but when the promises are not kept the people will be very angry. Accordingly, the China Support Network calls upon the leaders of China to take the following actions to match their words:

1.) Unblock internet access to overseas human rights web sites, including Tibetan and Falun Gong web sites.

2.) Abolish Laogai and Laojiao systems (reform through labor camps and administrative detention).

3.) Respect the rights of the Dalai Lama as a resident of Tibet. Allow him to return.

4.) Free Wang Bingzhang, Peng Ming, and Zhou Yongjun. They were exiles; now, allow them to live in China and welcome ALL of the exiles home.

5.) Free Gao Zhisheng, Liu Xiaobo, and founders of the China Democracy Party.

6.) Free all related prisoners of conscience from, and apologize to, the following groups: the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans, June 4 victims, Uighur Muslims, and Falun Gong.

If the six steps above are performed, then we can herald a breakthrough on human rights. The new report from China's State Council, if not accompanied by decisive action, is not a breakthrough on human rights.

# # #