It is the 10th anniversary of the 1989 movement for democracy. We express our condolences to and sympathy for the relatives of those who died and to those who suffered for the cause of democracy in China.

In the past decade, while dissidents fighting for democracy have been continuously subject to arrest, detention, and harassment, new fighters have emerged to continue the struggle. In the 1980s, students and intellectuals took the lead. In the ’90s, with the aggravation of social conflicts under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bureaucracy, with all its corruption and abuse of power, workers and peasants have come out in struggle. According to official reports, organized workers’ struggles in 1998 had increased by over 30% over the preceding year. Peasant discontent has also found expression in riots and demonstrations.

Despite the government’s prohibition, in recent years, numerous sit-ins and protests have occurred outside the party-government center of Zhongnanhai in the capital, Beijing. One that shocked the authorities occurred on April 25, when over 10,000 people of the Falun Gong cult launched a 13-hour action to surround the Zhongnanhai, protesting official criticism of their cult and demanding formal recognition of their right to practice this form of martial arts and meditation. Such a mass action totally beyond the control of the party and state apparatuses alerted the authorities to the existence of an influential religious force, numbering tens of millions of people, many of whom are high-ranking party and military cadres.

The tide of mass protest that erupted on May 8 in reaction to the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was the biggest mobilization in the past decade. It was reported that 250,000 people took to the streets in Beijing, over 100,000 in Guangzhou, and tens of thou sands in some other major cities. This was not a mere expression of nationalist sentiment against U.S. imperialism and its push for world hegemony, though some protests were orchestrated and carefully controlled by the authorities.

This massive outburst should be seen in the light of the tensions in Chinese society, of the people’s discontent over domestic social contradictions, and over the government’s impotence in foreign policy, in particular in relation to China’s application to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was reported that during the protests, a teacher from Beijing said, “Our leaders are too feeble; they dare not be like in the times of the Korean war [of the early 1950s].”

Some students chanted the slogan “Down with Japan!” and some chanted “Zhu Rongji [the premier] should step down!” In Shenzhen, some people shouted “Down with traitors!” After orchestrating the protests for two days, the authorities quickly turned to their containment, and party leaders appealed to the people to abide by law and order, and to be vigilant against elements who might seize the opportunity to cause havoc.

Though the wave of protest subsided, the repercussions are still spreading. The opportunity has been taken to expand public space for open political discussions. At Peking University, the democracy wall has been reactivated, and big and small character posters have appeared. One of them said, “the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugo slavia should bring us science and democracy.” Another one said, “Is it not high time to put forth a plan for political reform and against corruption?”

Faced with increasing discontent from workers, peasants, students, and other citizens, Zhu Rongji proposed, in his Government Work Report of March this year, submitted to the National People’s Congress, that “prompt resolution” of the internal contradictions among the people should be conducted. “The problems should be resolved when they start burgeoning, one should not simplistically and brutally aggravate the contradictions, and should not deal with the people and the masses by autocratic means.”

If he truly meant such words, the first move should be to release all political dissidents. Yet, as May approached, arrests and monitoring of political dissidents in the whole country increased.

When Zhu visited the United States, he openly said that in 1989, students were fighting for democracy, but they breached the rule of law. He believed that after such an experience, similar incidents would not recur. This tone was somehow different from the usual official labeling of the 1989 movement as a “counter-revolutionary riot,” though officially, the 1989 movement is still not rehabilitated.

The voices demanding rehabilitation of the 1989 movement for democracy included that of the relatives of the victims of the June Fourth crackdown. Ding Zilin, associate professor at the Philosophy Department of the People’s University, and other relatives of the deceased during 1989, recently sent an open letter to the authorities demanded a settling of accounts with history, the launching of political reform, the safeguarding of civil rights, and the establishment of an independent commission to conduct an investigation into the June Fourth events — to announce the number of deaths and their names, to require the government to pay compensation to the relatives, and to bring to court those responsible for the tragedy.

We call on the people inside and outside of China to work together to compel the Chinese government to:

1.  Immediately rehabilitate the 1989 movement for democracy, and bring to justice those responsible for the bloody repression on June Fourth;

2.  Immediately release all detained dissidents and political prisoners, bring to a halt the surveillance and detention of dissidents, and restore their reputation and status;

3.  Abide by the United Nations Human Rights Covenants and the provisions of the Chinese Constitution, to safeguard the democratic freedoms and rights of the people, in particular the freedoms of speech, publication, assem bly, association (and formation of political parties), and demonstration;

4.  Mobilize the entire population to discuss and decide on plans for democratic political reform, and to end one-party dictatorship.

We believe the official rehabilitation of the 1989 movement for democracy will take place in the near future. The history of the Tiananmen Incident of April 5, 1976, the Taiwan Incident of February 28, 1947, and the Kwangju uprising in South Korea, tells us that victory can be won when the movement for democracy is linked to the struggle of the workers and peasants for better livelihood and against the bureaucracy.