Interview with Jin Zhong (Yim Mou Wah) on Nov. 16, 2013 in a hotel in Hong Kong

Here you find the Chinese text of the interview.

Jin Zhong: The “Beijing Spring” era around 1980 was a very special period in modern Chinese history and more so in the history of the Communist Party rule. It was important for China's future and its political development and a good good opportunity to start a positive transformation and a new era. However, this chance passed by very quickly. Nevertheless, it was important not only for the society and that group of young people at the time, but also for the Communist Party. But they failed to make good use of this opportunity and let the occasion pass.

The first reason why the “Beijing Spring” failed so quickly and eventually disappeared was that the Communist Party lacked a serious and responsible attitude towards its own history. In 1978, it passed a resolution at the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee, effectively closing the debate on this period of history. It completely failed to deal with the Mao Zedong era; they didn’t clean up the mistakes, nor did they distance themselves from it or criticize it. They only moved away from the Cultural Revolution, but looking back today, their assessment merely remained an empty phrase: “The Cultural Revolution was a mistake, and our Party made a huge mistake.”

Newspapers also called it a disaster, a catastrophe. Yes, they certainly said these things at the time, but the fundamental problem was that they failed to settle scores with Mao Zedong. Mao’s mistakes and crimes surpassed those of Stalin, but the Russian Communist Party and the Russian people did a better job. As soon as Stalin had died, criticism and the settling of accounts began, and society started to transform, a process that took over thirty years. Finally, democratization occurred, the Soviet system collapsed, the Communist Party was repudiated, and a multi-party system implemented. A new Russian Communist Party emerged. Therefore, they did a very thorough and responsible job, and their Communist Party accepted the responsibility for Russia’s history.

The Chinese Communist Party was different. They remained very selfish. You know why I use this word “selfish?” Because when they speak, they use beautiful phrases like “serving the people” or “fighting for the ideal of communism,” but in reality, that was never the case. Their knowledge of communism was also limited, including Mao Zedong’s. How many Marxist-Leninist classics did he read? Actually none. At most, he read “The Communist Manifesto”. As for the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, he only read Lenin's “State and Revolution”. He didn't truly read Marx’ and Engels’ critiques of capitalism or their descriptions of communism. But he read ancient Chinese books. So Mao's revolution was actually a peasant revolution, similar to many others in Chinese history.

These revolutions were all very narrow-minded. The Chinese Communist Party has always believed that the greatest and most correct class was the working class. But the Party didn't represent the working class; it represented the peasantry. And the Chinese peasantry consisted of smallholder farmers, a very backward agricultural base. Therefore, their ideology, even today, up to Xi Jinping, and their political figures were born from this small-peasant economic foundation. Therefore, the revolution they led was different from the Russian revolution.

In 1980, they simply went on. In Chinese terms, they “slipped through the cracks,” they deceived everyone and passed through this historical checkpoint. Against this backdrop, the “Beijing Spring” was short-lived and quickly disappeared. Deng Xiaoping's speech where he formulated his “Four Basic Principles”, led to the abolition of big-character posters, the closure of all independent publications, and the arrest of some of the most fervent activists. Deng’s verdict was enough. So that’s the background of what happened.

Secondly, there were the individuals. We may compare the “Beijing Spring” with the dissident movement in Russia during the Brezhnev era. Who led that movement? Personalities like Andrei Sakharov, a physicist, as you know. […] There were also the brothers Roy and Zhores Medvedev, both highly learned intellectuals. The “Beijing Spring” figures in China could not be compared to them. Wei Jingsheng was a simple worker, and Xu Wenli and the Stars Art Group were all quite young. Of course, young people have their advantages; they are enthusiastic, brave, and open to new ideas. But as the leaders and main actors in the “Beijing Spring” movement, an “ideological emancipation movement” for the Communists, they revealed its inherent weaknesses and limitations. It was limited and not important enough. Therefore, its influence was also quite narrow.

Although many intellectuals at the time shared its ideas, Chinese academics had been persecuted too severely by Mao, had their spines broken and could not straighten up. Therefore, almost no Chinese intellectuals stepped forward during that movement, and it remained a stage for these young people to play their role. But their ideas, their knowledge, and their social influence had to remain very limited. Ten years later, in 1988 and 1989, things were different, and intellectuals began to emerge.

This showed a gradual development for Chinese society. Therefore, I think the most important question is the difference between China in the 1980s and in 1989, and the difference between them and the dissidents in Russia.

Of course, also the Russian movement eventually came to an end, but there were a group of people, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who could quickly emerge after Stalin during the so-called “Thaw” period in Russia. Writers like Ilya Ehrenburg or Konstantin Simonov began to use their works to initiate a transformation. This is my second point.

Thirdly, what did the “Beijing Spring” leave behind? What results did their movement produce? I think the first was their organizations. There were many groups running “people’s publications” at the time, but of course, they disbanded after a short time, including organizations like the Guizhou “Enlightenment Society”, which were quickly banned by the government. On the other hand, their publications – their independent journals and big-character posters – have survived.

They were just grassroots activist, and some went abroad later. In France, our elderly author Xu Xing, [“Stars” artist] Li Shuang and her husband Emanuel Bellefroid, as well as [sinologist] Jean-Philippe Béja and others were all collaborating and supportive of the “Beijing Spring” movement in China. But the scope of circulation and distribution of the independent journals on the mainland was obviously limited and also quite small abroad, so they had little impact.

Interviewer (Helmut Opletal): Did the ideas of the “Beijing Spring” influence the ideological changes and political reforms in China in the 1980s?

Jin: In terms of ideological influence, they did leave some impact, but this influence mainly shifted overseas later. In mainland China, everything was censored and completely blocked by the Communist Party. So there was very little influence in China, although it wasn’t completely nonexistent.

Let me give you an example. During the 1989 Tian’anmen student revolt, one student leader, Wu’er Kaixi, became quite well-known. But when a reporter asked him, who Wei Jingsheng was, he didn't know. Even a famous student leader in China didn't know who Wei Jingsheng was. Just like today, many university students in mainland China for example don't know Zhao Ziyang.

So the Party's autocracy is very powerful. Under such a Communist Party’s rule, the influence of dissidents in China has shrunk to a very small extent. Just when they come overseas and continue to speak out, they might still have some influence. For example, Hong Kong and Taiwan aside, in free societies and democratic countries like the United States and Europe, they still have a strong force there, although their influence is not too great either. But after 1989, the democracy movement of the students has completely replaced the influence and status of the “Beijing Spring” people in exile. So that's a change I notice.

Among the CCP leaders, Hu Yaobang was relatively open-minded during the period that followed the Cultural Revolution, and he certainly rejected Mao's rule. It's said he sympathized with Wei Jingsheng and others at the time.

While Hu’s political skills weren't as sharp as Deng Xiaoping's, but he was ok, unfortunately he stepped down too quickly. However, Hu Yaobang exerted his influence within the CCP's system, institutions, and traditions, during the ten years after the Cultural Revolution. How could this be? Because he was the General Secretary and de facto Chairman. From this high position, he did a lot of work within the limits of his power, gaining the approval of the Party elders. His most significant contribution was in redressing some of the injustices of the Mao era. And he also played a role in promoting an ideological liberation of the entire officialdom. That's undeniable.

However, regarding Wei Jingsheng and the entire "Beijing Spring," he couldn't stand up against Deng Xiaoping because of Deng and his group of very conservative first-generation elders. Deng Xiaoping knew that it was necessary to break away from the Cultural Revolution, that it had to be criticized and shouldn't happen again. However, Deng’s approach was not thorough enough, and his big problem was that he didn’t really understand modern democracy. He knew the system of the Communist Party had its problems. He tried to address them, but he didn't use democratic methods to reform the Party system. Still, his legacy is profound and continues to influence us today.

When Zhao Ziyang became Premier, his main contributions were in the economic sphere. During the 1980s, he has laid the foundation for today's market economy, opening up to the outside world and attracting foreign investment. Later, after Hu Yaobang had stepped down, he was General Secretary from 1987 to 1989. During this period, he also contributed to political reforms. He established an Institute for System Reform to further promote the reform and opening up policies and changes in the political system. This eventually led to the 1989 student movement, because without such a relatively tolerant approach to governance, the 1989 student movement could not have happened.

Interviewer: How was he acting during the “Beijing Spring” period?

Jin: There was not much that he did. He was in Sichuan before he came to Beijing as Premier. His main task was the economy. On the other hand, in your research you have dealt with some figures, their fates, their roles at the time, what they did, and how their paths have unfolded over thirty years. Of course, there are too many stories to tell; each person's experience is different. The first is Wei Jingsheng. He is well-known in mainland China.

Later, he came to the United States. I met him many times and interviewed him. Many people hoped he would emerge as a leader in the overseas pro-democracy movement, and he himself wanted to, but he lacked the ability. Be it Eastern Europe, Asia, or Africa - there weren’t many outstanding leaders like Nelson Mandela, Lech Wałęsa from Poland, or Aung San Suu Kyi from Myanmar. There weren’t many like them, neither like China's Dalai Lama. I think the problem lies in what I just mentioned, in the background of this “Beijing Spring” movement in China. Their education level was insufficient, and many were too young. The ten years of the Cultural Revolution destroyed China’s entire education system, and they couldn’t receive much formal education

Today’s Xi Jinping is not different. He was in the rural areas after elementary school. His middle and high school years were completely blank. Suddenly, he went to university in Beijing, skipping from elementary school directly to university. Middle school usually is a crucial period, but he completely missed it. That's why people don’t have a high opinion about Xi Jinping now. The same is true for Wei Jingsheng and his group.

Interviewer: What about figures like Hu Ping or Wang Juntao?

Jin: Hu and Wang went to university after the Cultural Revolution, and made up for this. But they weren't the main figures in the “Beijing Spring” movement at the time. They were candidates in the university elections, which was one aspect, but they didn't really approach the society.

Wei Jingsheng and the Stars Art Group, on the other hand, were linked to the society, so they had some influence at the time. That was different. But the problem was that although these people were very brave, intelligent, and smart, you could see the deficiencies in their educational and cultural background.

So after Wei Jingsheng had come to the US, he couldn't become the leader everyone hoped for. Now he has a very good assistant, Ms. Huang Ciping, who had come to study in the US. Her English is quite good, and she now helps Wei Jingsheng with translation, website building, and many other things. She's probably also his girlfriend. He is mainly running a website now. From time to time he also chairs joint meetings of pro-democracy groups, but he is really just a part of it.

Interviewer: What about Xu Wenli?

Jin: Xu Wenli, of course, had quite some experience in mainland China and he is politically talented, so he was highly regarded when he left China, especially by those in the US who were interested in China. At Brown University, they set up a research center for him: He is in charge and doing quite well there. He's involved in Chinese studies at the university, but his actual academic experience is not very extensive.

Another aspect is the media. Many of those in exile try to obtain influence through the media, but their efforts were insufficient. Many have websites, but they are often poorly designed, simply displaying text and that's it; therefore, their influence is limited.

Xu Wenli is a member of the Democratic Party in exile. In 1998, there was a grassroots movement to form parties in mainland China, and he was with the Democratic Party. Some of them stayed in China, while he came out and continued his work in exile. But forming a party in the US is too easy. I’ve heard that there are five Chinese “Democratic Parties” in New York alone. Wang Juntao has also founded his Democratic Party. But their membership and influence are limited, and their strength is also scattered and they are not able to unite. This seems quite normal. But in addition, they are not presenting themselves well in the media. Their viewpoints sometimes don't align with those of the outside news world. They aren’t able to keep up with the times. These are some of the their problems.

Whether it's the “Beijing Spring” or the “June Fourth” of 1989, quite a few people emerged, forming a Democracy Movement in exile. However, their biggest problem is that they don’t have a leader. Take Wang Juntao, for example; he's not good at writing, so his influence in the media is relatively small. He focuses on organization, building a party, the Democratic Party. But he couldn't make it large and strong enough, and there are only very few members and activists.

At the beginning, he had three deputies, but eventually only Wang himself remained. There are still some others with him, but nothing like during the “Beijing Spring”. It’s a fact that people from such movements, when they arrive in exile, are often marginalized, and they face numerous difficulties, including funding and cohesion, and a lack of acceptance.

We know that dissidents in Europe have experienced similar situations. Many individuals, who left for exile after 1989, didn’t find a favorable environment there, and they were not able to form a strong force or exert a substantial influence, but perhaps a few fared slightly better and had some success.

Interviewer: Did the Chinese activists receive any external help in exile?

Jin: Of course they did. They could usually start out in universities. Wei Jingsheng was invited by Columbia University where they treated him very well, providing him with a house, a secretary, money, and an office, but he couldn't accomplish anything.

Then there's Ren Wanding, also a veteran, but he handled his personal life very poorly, making everyone dislike him. His wife had supported him in China for so long, raising their children, helping him maintain the family despite his poor health, just giving him tremendous support. But once outside, the so-called democrats and liberals were very hostile towards him. There's an Independent Chinese PEN Center with many mainlanders participating, but they rejected him because of his personal issues. If you're involved in politics, your image is very important, and he's a prime example.

Another notable figure is Bei Dao, who is considered one of the better examples. He doesn't participate in the pro-democracy activities; he writes poetry instead and focuses on literature. His poetry is highly regarded, and he has even been nominated for the Nobel Prize. He has been invited by several universities. Currently he is at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where he enjoys excellent benefits, but his health is not very good.

Huang Xiang's situation isn't ideal either. He has a wonderful and helpful wife in the US. She’s young, speaks excellent English, and is very supportive. However, after he had been invited back to China, he stated that his writing had shifted away from criticism. But he still belongs to the group of intellectuals in exile in the US. Like Xu Wenli, he was initially invited by universities. Like Bei Dao, he’s a poet, so his status differs somewhat from the pro-democracy activists. Of course, being successful is not that easy.

In short, I think their era has passed, but their history should be preserved, and they deserve recognition and appreciation. They were indeed a milestone on China's very difficult path of progress. For a period of time, they were truly remarkable. Different groups passed, and now these people are getting old. Their current situation, their inability to play a greater role, seems normal to me. No hero can be a hero forever, right?