Interviewer (Helmut Opletal): How did it come that you participated in the pro-democracy movement in Beijing? When did it start?

Liu Qing: When I was very young, I was labeled a reactionary student by the CCP. I was in the first or second grade of junior high school, about fourteen years old. Therefore I have a deep personal experience of the political and ideological persecution carried out by the Chinese Communists.

Interviewer: Was this during the Cultural Revolution?

Liu: It was before, in the early 1960s, around 1961.

Interviewer: Which year were you born?

Liu: 1946. And I have always been interested in politics. When the Cultural Revolution began, I did not participate in any political activities or factions. At that time I was still in the countryside, I had been sent there in 1965, but returned to Beijing later. During the Cultural Revolution, those students [Red Guards] arrested me, they said I had illegally returned to the city. Later those who had been sent to rural areas following Mao’s order, began to form their own organizations in various places. But I never participated, because I felt that all organizations were under the banner of the Communist Party and Mao Zedong, and I didn’t want to participate in such kind of activities.

Interviewer: When you were in school, you were only fourteen years old. Why did they detain you?

Liu: It’s because when some of our classmates were playing games together, they split into two groups, one group said they were the “Independent Party”, and the other group said they were the “Liberal Party”. One classmate also wrote a song called "Song of the Liberal Party." After he finished writing, he accidentally dropped the paper on the floor. It was discovered by a teacher who reported it to the police, which started an investigation. But when they realized it was just some students, fourteen or fifteen years old, they did not arrest them. But nevertheless he was described as having ideological problems. And I was said to be a reactionary at that time.

 

Later, I had no way to continue my studies, so I was sent to Shanxi to work in the countryside. When the Cultural Revolution began, I did not join any rebel organization, although many of our students in the countryside formed organizations and participated in rebellions. I did not because I think these were all used by Mao and the Communist Party to meet their own needs, and I didn’t want to be a person used by them.

In 1976, I became a student at the Nanjing Institute of Technology. After having gone “to the mountains and countryside”, one could become a “worker, peasant and soldier student” [the only ones admitted to the reopened universities at that time]. That’s how I was sent to the Nanjing Institute of Technology. When I entered school in 1976, a movement started in Nanjing that later expanded to Beijing, but there it was quickly suppressed. This was the famous April 5th Movement [commemorating the popular prime minister Zhou Enlai who had died in January, and attacking the radical Maoists at the top of the Party]. So this movement was originally launched from Nanjing.

At that time, "Wenhui Bao" was criticizing Zhou Enlai, so someone wrote a letter to this newspaper and asked them to explain. However, they did not explain, but criticized Zhou Enlai further instead. As a result, starting from Nanjing, many students took to the streets, then other citizens and even militia divisions. I also participated at that time; I was the first in our school. I had been exposes to my school's propaganda before, but now I took to the streets of Nanjing and participated in the movement because I felt that this movement basically represented a political desire that came from the hearts of the people. What I wanted to express by joining the movement were of course my political hopes I carried in my heart.

The movement was later suppressed, some students were arrested, and some sentenced. But I was very lucky at that time. Although I did go to Nanjing and, like many other citizens, joined this movement and its actions, gave speeches, organized street marches, etc., the school did not know about all these activities of mine, so they did not arrest me. After graduation, I was assigned to work in an aircraft manufacturing company in Hanzhong in Shaanxi Province. When I returned to Beijing, it was the moment when the Democracy Wall sprang up. I have always been interested in politics, and I wanted to express my own desires there. The Democracy Wall was similar to the April 5th Movement [of 1976], but not directed by the Communist Party. Instead, people came out to speak their own words and express their own wishes.

Interviewer: Was this the end of 1978 or the beginning of 1979?

Liu: This was in November 1978. At that time, the Democracy Wall was not organized yet. It was just individuals posting big-character posters there. Around November 25, the famous US columnist Robert Novak, one of the reporters who had exposed Nixon's Watergate Scandal, came to the Democracy Wall, where he told those present that he would see Deng Xiaoping that night. When he asked us what we wanted to tell to Deng, those present formulated about twenty questions. When he went to see Deng that evening, some 10,000 to 20,000 people, a very large number, gathered in front of the Wall to discuss and wait for Novak’s return as he had promised to come back after the meeting to report to us about his talk with Deng.

He did not come back personally though, but his assistant arrived to tell the Democracy Wall activists about his conversation. Deng Xiaoping had basically said that the Democracy Wall was a very good thing, and that people who had something to say should be allowed to speak out etc. The Democracy Wall was later organized on this basis.

After November 25, many people got acquainted with each other while posting big-character posters. They felt that there should be a more stable form of expressing political views and demands, so they created some organizations and publications. Our journal, the April 5th Forum, was a relatively early one, the first issue was published around December 6 [1978]. Also "Today" appeared relatively early in front of the Democracy Wall. There were some thirty private magazines and corresponding “people's organizations” that became active at the Democracy Wall. Before, most of these organizations had been at their own.

In early 1979, there were many “petitioners” [people who had returned to the cities and tried to have injustices from the Cultural Revolution rectified]. The CCP arrested one female petitioner named Fu Yuehua who had organized a march on January 8, 1979. The participants carried slogans, and one banner read "Against hunger, against persecution, we want democracy, we want human rights." After she was arrested, we also heard rumors from within the CCP that they were going to take action against the Democracy Wall. In view of this, various organizations began to form a coalition and a Joint Conference. This was around January 1979. The venue of this Joint Conference was at my home, I was the convener and the person in charge.

Interviewer: Where was your home?

Liu: In Dongcheng, No. 76, East 44th Street. At that time, organizations often held meetings at my apartment. At the beginning, our motive was to protect and report the truth. After Fu Yuehua’s arrest, we launched activities to liberate her. Other people were also detained at that time; one person was named Wang Zhenshan(?), also a petitioner. Many were arrested together with Fu Yuehua. And we felt that we were also threatened, that is why we organized and established this Joint Conference.

Later, in March, Wei Jingsheng was arrested. Before and after his arrest, Ren Wanding and others were also detained. For the Joint Conference of the Democracy Wall it became the main task to work for their liberation. These activities did not stop until I got arrested myself. For example, when Wei Jingsheng was tried in court in October [1979], we also organized activities. Qu Leilei [an artist of the “Stars” group working for the state TV] was by chance able to be present at Wei’s court trial that otherwise did not allow foreigners or independent observers to assist.

Interviewer: How could Qu Leilei get in?

Liu: Qu worked as a TV reporter and photo journalist at that time. The court trial was videotaped, and he was assigned by his superiors to make the recording of this video. We had already received this news before the trial, and Lu Lin and I took a cassette recorder and gave it to Qu Leilei. We had received this recorder from Wei Jingsheng’s Exploration magazine. And where had they got it from? It seems from Emmanuel Bellefroid and Marie Holzman from France [sinologists, Bellefroid also worked for the French embassy]; they were husband and wife at the time. This recorder was kept by Lu Lin, who hid it in Zhao Nan's home. After I had received the news that Qu Leilei would be in the court room, being able to [secretly] record Wei Jingsheng's trial, I discussed this with Lu Lin [Wei’s colleague from the Exploration journal], and he said it was best for us to record it. Then we went together to Qu Leilei's home. Qu was still sleeping when we knocked on his door. He was a little hesitant first, but eventually decided to do the recording it for us.

Interviewer: Ma Desheng was not involved?

Liu: Ma Desheng told me that Qu Leilei would make the recording that we thought could save Wei Jingsheng. After Ma Desheng had told me, I quickly found some people to discuss how to deal with it. I discussed it mainly with Lu Lin and also with Xu Wenli. Lu Lin was a member of Wei Jingsheng's Exploration magazine. At that time, he was mainly engaged in activities in support of Wei, so he accompanied me to Qu Leilei's house to hand the recorder to him, and we asked him to do the recording the next day. When there was a break during the trial, Qu went out to use the toilet. It would have been inconvenient to get the tapes directly from him, so we asked a young girl to meet him to receive these recordings. The girl’s name was Cui Deying, we called her Xiao Yingzi. She was also an active participant of the Democracy Wall Movement. I think she is still in Beijing. I met her after I had got out of prison. She was one of the youngest at the Democracy Wall at that time, probably only fifteen or sixteen, maybe seventeen years old.

This is basically what the situation was like. When we received the recording, we first made a few copies of the cassettes and played them to the April 5th Forum where different opinions arose. One person was named Lü Pu. His father was the chairman of the Central Musicians’ Association at the time and actually in charge of the Communist Party in the music industry, a senior official therefore. Lü Pu was a leading member of the April 5th Forum besides Xu Wenli and myself. Lü objected, he said the April 5th Forum should never help spies or people who sell intelligence, and “we should not help counterrevolutionaries." This was his opinion. He meant that we shouldn't interfere with the Wei Jingsheng case, the CCP would deal with it in their way, and we would not be able to influence it.

Xu Wenli felt that this matter was very sensitive, it would be very dangerous [to publish this] he said. I on the other side firmly advocated that we should do it. The final decision was that the April 5th Forum would not engage, but whoever was willing to do it could come to my home and help me preparing this. Some people from the April 5th Forum also came, like Yang Jing, Xin Guiran, Qi Jinguo etc. They all came to my apartment to assist. When the recordings had been edited, Xu Wenli of the April 5th Forum still led some people to write a big-character poster based on the recordings [of Wei Jingsheng’s plea in the court] and posted it on the Democracy Wall. I organized the events and the duplication of the transcript. After it had been printed, some people helped me to post it and sell copies at the Democracy Wall.

In the process of selling, a person suddenly came up to me and said: "Come here, I will tell you something." When I approached, he immediately said to me: "Something is going to happen today. Didn’t you see all the blue license plates?" I was not sure what he meant, but I think he wanted to tell me that police was arriving. After hearing this, I quickly went back to see it myself. There already were about sixty or seventy police officers who had surrounded the Democracy Wall, they had arrested several people who were selling the transcript, and they confiscated these copies of the "Wei Jingsheng Court Defense Recording". When I arrived, I just saw them throwing the papers on a car which drove away quickly. I quickly discussed with some friends how to handle this matter. First of all, I thought there was nothing illegal about what we had done. We just wanted the world and the society to know the real situation and what had happened in the court room. Because when the CCP tried Wei Jingsheng, their reports were one-sided and it was only the CCP who was allowed to explain. Not only was this very little of what had actually happened, but they also distorted many things and did not tell the truth. So we needed to report the real situation.

Furthermore, as a member of the Democracy Wall Movement, and after listening to the recording of his defense speech, we believed that Wei Jingsheng had not committed a crime. Therefore, the Joint Conference was established, the obligations of mutual support and assistance were formulated. These provisions were put in place. As the person in charge, I had to implement the regulations at that time. This is the second point.

The third thing was that some of the people who had helped me were arrested, so I had an obligation to go to the police station and ask about these people and what had happened to them. I told them if they could prove that their doings were illegal, then they should arrest me instead, because I was responsible for this and it had nothing to do with anyone else. This was what I wanted to achieve when I went to the police station. As a result, they detained me there, and I became imprisoned for more than ten years before I was released.

After I had been discharged from jail, the June 4th Incident in 1989 [student revolt at the Tian’anmen Square] happened. The international community got very concerned about the situation in mainland China. Many countries called for people like me and others to be allowed to leave China and go abroad. I received an invitation to be a visiting scholar very early on, so I was to become a visiting scholar invited by Columbia University. After more than a year of continuous pressure from the international community, I and a few others were allowed to leave China. It was around May 1992. Han Dongfang [an activist for independent unions in 1989] and I were informed that we were the first batch to go abroad, and we went one after another, followed by a lot of other people. And I could come to America with my wife.

Interviewer: I would also like to ask you, how was the question whether to support Wei Jingsheng or not debated within your April 5th Forum?

Liu: Yes, after Wei Jingsheng was arrested, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. At that time, the entire Chinese society felt terror and pressure. In the April 5th Forum, we listened to the recordings again. After listening, most people became relatively silent because they felt a kind of fear for themselves under this pressure. Several things became obvious. First, during that period, everyone's thoughts were relatively confused, and activists were not clear enough about their rights and their own goals, for example the rights that Wei Jingsheng had. It was Wei Jingsheng’s right to speak out, and we had to support him. Especially as colleagues of the Democracy Wall, it was our obligation to support him. If all of us, those who engaged in democratic activities at the Democracy Wall, hadn’t supported him, then this society would have been even more miserable.

Interviewer: You also thought like this at that time?

Liu: This was my view at the time. But there were other people who had a kind of fear. Those who participated early in the Democracy Wall Movement were not dealt with very severely by the CCP. Like Fu Yuehua, who only received three years of reeducation through labor. Various activities such as poetry recitals, the “Stars” art exhibitions or our discussions in front of the Democracy Wall, could all take place at that time and had never been under a lot of pressure. So everyone felt a little bolder. But after Wei Jingsheng had been sentenced, our people began to feel a terrible pressure. Therefore, at the Democracy Wall and in the internal discussions of the April 5th Forum, even though many people sympathized with Wei Jingsheng, they were still quite afraid of organizing support for him. They felt threatened and began to fear for themselves. I think Xu Wenli probably was in the same mental state as most of us.

Lü Pu on the other hand felt that the Cultural Revolution was wrong, it should be corrected, and society should help the Communist Party with this. He wanted to firmly oppose everything that went against the Communist Party, therefore Lü Pu was a supporter of the Communist Party within the April 5th Forum. His family was also high-ranking cadres and senior officials of the Communist Party, another reason why he supported of the Party.

In the April 5th Forum, Xu Wenli had never clearly expressed opposition to the CCP. He only thought that there should be other political forces in society, but not necessarily as an opposition to the Communist Party. So I was the one who opposed the Communists. In the April 5th Forum they regarded me as a counterrevolutionary, because I was relatively strict in criticizing the CCP and relatively sympathetic to the forces and actions that opposed the Communist Party. You can see, the April 5th Forum was basically split into three factions.

Interviewer: Then after you were arrested, you were sentenced to ten years...

Liu: When I was arrested, they first didn’t want to put me on trial. But they tried to pressure me to confess, but I could have never done this. In the end they sent me to a labor camp. There I wrote up my memories of the Democracy Wall. The book was called "A Frustrating Review and Outlook." When the book was published, they sentenced me to eight years in prison. Combined with the previous sentences, this became more than ten years. After I had left jail, they arrested me again. Around May 1990, they detained me for more than half a year. When I had been released from prison at first, I was sent to live at an aircraft manufacturing unit in Hanzhong, on a hilltop with no people. To get off the mountain, I had to pass by the police station of the factory security department. Of course I was not willing to submit to whatever they wanted me to do. So I went back to Beijing. There they arrested me, because I had I returned to Beijing without permission.

Interviewer: Was it your brother who took your manuscript?

Liu: Yes, that was my younger brother. But the person who brought my manuscript out from jail was a friend of mine, another inmate. There were two copies of the manuscript, one I keep myself and the other one I handed to this friend. He was in prison only for one year, and when he was released, he secretly brought this manuscript out. He was from Xi'an and traveled to Beijing to hand the manuscript to my brother and Lu Lin. They gave the manuscript to “Elibo” [? phonetic transcription]. “Elibo” was a reporter for Time Magazine in the United States. He seems to be a columnist for The New York Times now. He successively forwarded the manuscript and had it published in Hong Kong and the United States.

Interviewer: Later Wei Jingsheng also came to the US?

Liu: That’s right.

Interviewer: He arrived after you?

Liu: Actually many years later. I arrived in 1992, and he in 1998 I think. [It was actually November 16, 1997.]

Interviewer: Did you meet him then?

Liu: Yes. When he arrived in the US, he was brought to a hospital in Detroit, and I went there to pick him up. Of course I can talk here about those things that happened after he had come to the US. When Wei Jingsheng and I were at the Democracy Wall, our practices and thoughts were not exactly the same. And also after his arrival to the United States, our practices and thoughts were not exactly the same. I had already worked in the US for the organization "Human Rights in China". After his arrival, he seemed to be more interested to contact and lobby the upper levels, government officials or congressmen. Whether in Europe or in the United States, he tried to meet and lobby politicians and members of parliament. I was more willing to do specific work related to the mainland, and support things that helped the mainland’s fight for democracy and human rights. I am not saying that I had no contact with governments or officials in the US and abroad, but I did not regard this as the most important task. My most important job was to support China's democracy and human rights activities.

Interviewer: So you have no contact with him now?

Liu: We do have some contact. Some time ago, he was very seriously ill.

Interviewer: I know. But did Wei Jingsheng ever express his gratitude to you?

Liu: Wei Jingsheng didn’t express any special thanks, but in his heart I think he knows what happened. Generally speaking, few people express gratitude directly for such kind of matter. It seems there are some issues, for which you can easily say thank you, but for more important things, you do not necessarily say thanks, but you either know or don’t know it in your heart.

Interviewer: Do you think he should have said thank you?

Liu: It doesn’t matter; I don’t care.

Interviewer: What you have done does not seem to have affected him directly though...

Liu: I would say it still had an effect. For example, after I had left China, we organized many international activities related to Wei Jingsheng; we published books for him, held seminars, testified in Congress, released news and appeals about Wei Jingsheng, etc. I think these actions had an impact on his later ability to leave prison and his later ability to be taken seriously.

Interviewer: When you look back at the Democracy Movement at that time, do you feel like it has failed?

Liu: No, why? Because I know that the Democracy Movement was to oppose an authoritarian totalitarianism. It is a process. In this process, there are many setbacks and failures. But the Democracy Movement, no matter how much setbacks and failures it encountered, will never die. It will eventually defeat autocracy. This authoritarian regime may defeat democracy countless times, but when it fails to defeat it only once, it will be poised to die. The authoritarian regime knows this very well and they have always tried their best to suppress it. Why? They cannot afford a failure. After a failure and death, they will never have another chance to turn around. But the democratic system is different, and the strength of a democratic movement is different. It may be defeated repeatedly by the autocratic system or suppressed repeatedly, but will not die because a democratic movement is in line with the majority of the people’s interests and dignity.

But there is a problem for us individuals. Different people will have different views. If one is pursuing a process of realizing the value of democracy, then for me this cannot be like a failure. I felt like doing those things I wanted to do, and I have done these things. But if one not only believes in the value of democracy, but also hopes that it will convey something, such as status, honor or benefits, or if one uses it as a speculative opportunity, then it may become a failure for him. Under an autocratic system, most of its earliest rebels will suffer suppression. If one doesn't know this and thinks that resisting autocracy will bring honor and status, then one will definitely fail.

But my purpose was to oppose this autocracy. Thus it was equivalent to realizing my values and my desire for life. Therefore I cannot have the feeling that I have failed. After all, I have done something. Other people were executed just because they had said a few words. They have not been able to do something like me. As for us, after all, we could undertake these activities in society; we had a certain impact and played a certain role. Later, although most people did not much information, some people still knew about it, and we continued to have a certain influence. So from this perspective, it has become a continuous process.

Interviewer: So what specific impact will your activities from that time have on future generations and on China ten or twenty years from now?

Liu: As for the future, I think it’s harder to say. There is a saying that a butterfly in South America flapped its wings, and two hundred years later the emperor had to give up his position, the one who was supposed to be the emperor could not ascend the throne, but it was another one. That is to say, an influence between the events must exist, although it is not so obvious. This is the so-called "butterfly effect." [A chain reaction theory proposed by American mathematician and meteorologist Edward Norton Lorenz (1917-2008). The most common example is: "A butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas a month later." It means that although the initial force might be extremely weak, it has the power to produce huge changes.] Therefore we will also have an influence and will exist, but how much effect this influence will have, and in which way, I cannot predict now. So what can I say clearly now? It is this: If I were asked to go back to 1979 or 1978 and start all over again, I would still do the same thing. For someone who is enslaved and exploited, the most important thing is to oppose such slavery and exploitation. This is what I wanted to do. Although in the past, due to the Communist Party’s deceptive propaganda, I did not know the nature and history of the Communist Party as clearly as I do now. Now that I have left the mainland, I found out a lot more about the history and essence of the Communist Party. The CCP have been bandits from the beginning. The gangsters are still bandits and a band of gangster to this day. They have always used very evil and dark methods to oppress and persecute others. So humans can be proud of opposing such a group,. I have dared to oppose it, this is my pride.

Interviewer: Has your analysis of Chinese society changed? Is it different now?

Liu: Some changes and developments have occurred in society. For example, people today don’t seem like those in our time. We had a lot more ideals and we were more enthusiastic about politics. People nowadays are more interested in achieving a comfortable life and obtaining more from this world. This is what it looks like on the surface at least. But I think no matter what environment you are in, there is always something in human nature that will burst out at special opportunities and occasions. It lies in human nature for example, that people's sense of fairness and dignity, will still explode sometimes in the future.

The Communist Party with its current approach works to make as much money as possible without opposing autocracy or oppression. If you oppose autocracy and oppression, they will kill you. As long as you don't object, if you move around in society to make money, there will still be room for you. It is this kind of thing that makes many people focus on how to make money. But I belief this is just a limited period. When this period is over, people will return to normalcy and have this awareness of human dignity and rights. So the present status will not last forever. As long as a society survives, it will seek its own values. Now the mainland has no values, or money has become the value. This is the current mainland society. But this process will come to an end one day.

Interviewer: If you look back at articles you wrote at that time or articles by your colleagues, how does it feel to read such articles now? It seems in 1979 or 1980, Mao Zedong’s language and thinking were still widely used.

Liu: Yes, your question is exactly what I just talked about with you. Although I have long been aware of the Communist Party and their persecution, I have still received a lot of deceptive propaganda. My knowledge of their history and their evil was still very limited. So now that I have come overseas, with the discovery of information and various other aspects, I could gradually become aware that our understanding used to be very limited. This is the first point. Because of the insufficient understanding, our criticism of them was also unsatisfactory. It did not go deep enough, and it was not resolute enough. To some extent, when we expressed some recognition, it meant certain recognition of the Communist Party as such. This is reflected in some of our articles from that time.

Nowadays I would never say such thing that it was a normal government and a normal regime. It is certainly not a normal government or regime. It is an evil group that specializes in persecution and oppression. But we didn't know enough at the time, we knew very little. Even though they called me a counterrevolutionary of the April 5th Forum, my understanding was by far not enough at the time. Not to mention the other people in the April 5th Forum who understood even less. There were even supporters of the Communist Party, like Lü Pu.

Interviewer: Did you have any contact with him later?

Liu: He traveled to the United States in 1995 and 1996 and contacted me. We met. He is at the National Institute of Structural Reform or something similar, an organization of the Chinese Communist Party that studies institutional structures. In a situation like his, of course he can change his views, but such possibility is relatively small. And there is also his family background. He is not a victim of the Communist Party. He and his family are benefiting from the Communist Party. Therefore, they are not suffering like the victims; on the contrary, they have privileges. This is my first point.

My second point is that no matter what, he always remained with the Communist Party in mainland China, traveling overseas only for a few days. He will not see enough to realize how the Communist Party’s deceives people, of the Communist news blockade and obstruction of information. He cannot see enough of the Communist Party’s dark and evil side. So I think even though he knows more about the Communist Party now than he did back then, he will not become a complete opponent of the Communist Party. There are also some people, for example around Hu Yaobang's son Hu Deping, who have a lot of knowledge and critical opinions about the Communist Party, and also a lot of sympathy for the society. A few days ago, they exposed that people like Zhou Yongkang [a Politburo member toppled and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2015] embezzled hundreds of billions. It is very sensational what they are saying. But even so, my feeling is that they have not completely broken with the Communist Party.

Interviewer: How do you see the role of foreigners, like foreign journalists or diplomats, in the Democracy Movement at that time?

Liu: I think the sympathy, support, and help of foreign media and officials from democratic countries was very important and meaningful to people who were persecuted by a dictatorship and to those who were resisting. On the one hand, I felt that I was not alone in the world, and there were people who helped us talk and even provide us with some assistance. This had a great psychological and spiritual boosting. So I can say they did help us to some extent.

Interviewer: Did they give money?

Liu: Some may have given money. However, the April 5th Forum has never accepted any money or goods from foreigners. Why? Even at that time, our imaginations were still very limited, so what can I say? If we had not had these contacts...

Interviewer: Was this discussed?

Liu: Yes, there was a debate whether to accept money or not. When we sold our publications such as April 5th Forum, when the foreigners paid more when they bought it, we accepted that. There were also Chinese who paid one or two Yuan per copy. We saw two aspects with this: One was that we were afraid of being arrested by the Communists for cheating. The second one was that we thought we would be more idealistic and genuine when we did not accept financial help. So there were both. We were afraid that the CCP would arrest us saying that we were accepting money from foreigners, maybe that we were spies, a common method by the CCP. Another point was that we also felt that by not accepting money, we would feel purer and more idealistic.

Interviewer: In fact, people from the United States and from Taiwan made efforts to influence the Democracy Movement. Did you see this happening?

Liu: A little, but not a lot, I can say. Through contacts, we wanted to have a clearer understanding of democracy and human rights, and we wanted to be able to have more of it. But this was never a systematic learning process, just a feeling when we made contacts. Sometimes it was not very clear and specific, but a feeling. One can feel some of it in terms of human nature, sense of responsibility, kindness and attitude towards people.

For example, if a reporter or foreign official has contact with someone, and this person gets arrested or something happens to him, the foreigner will of course feel very concerned also. He will always try his best to inquire about it, and he will also be worried by this matter. You can feel it from this aspect, from a human perspective. Even if it is a hazy and not so clear feeling about the concept of democracy, but it still becomes a positive feeling.

Interviewer: It seems that some cadres within the Chinese system also had some sympathy and support for your activities?

Liu: Yes, they had some contact with me and came to see me every once in a while. When they came to visit, they also conveyed messages or expressed sympathy and support. Others came to see me in the name of the Central Committee of the Youth League, or they were representatives of Deng Yingchao [Zhou Enlai’s widow] and Deng Xiaoping, we had all these kinds of contacts.

For example, there was a person named Tang Xin who worked for the Beijing Daily. His father, I think, was the Chinese Minister of Petroleum. Tang Xin was one of those people who had regular contact with me. He made many suggestions, which the Communist Party later implemented. One thing he mentioned very early to me was: What do you think about moving the Democracy Wall [from the central Xidan intersection] to another place such as the Yuetan Park? He asked me what I thought about it. I answered that the creation of the Democracy Wall was due to various factors. If you moved it to a different more secluded place, the significance of the Democracy Wall would become much smaller. The question was, could the Democracy Wall then preserve such strong vitality? Certainly not. But Tang Xin still advocated this to me. He also proposed something else when he said: Why don’t some influential people at the Democracy Wall like you come to work with the Communist Youth League Central Committee? You could do some youth work there. This was suggested by him. Although he explained again and again, he kept saying, I am just having such an idea.

Interviewer: Was he speaking to you in a personal capacity?

Liu: No.

Interviewer: Or on behalf of his superiors?

Liu: The superiors must have asked him to test these suggestions. What he told me about the Yuetan Park, happened five or six months later after my arrest. The Democracy Wall was moved to the Yuetan Park. They had been thinking about this intention for a long time, they were just waiting for a suitable moment for a transfer. Approaching us like this, they also wanted to know the thoughts and opinions of us. Tang Xin talked about this issue again and again, saying all this was just his spontaneous inspiration and personal opinion that came to his mind. We shouldn’t take it too seriously. Just a casual question. But every time he asked me, he also said: You'd better discuss with them, see what the other people think. So he was obviously on a mission to find out what we thought. But we may also say, the Communist Party was prepared to use various methods to solve the Democracy Wall issue in a relatively gentle way.

As for the two proposals mentioned before, one is to work in the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League. This was pure bribery. The other thing Tang Xin once mentioned to me was that they didn’t want to destroy the Democracy Wall at once, but to change it to a different place. Some officials from the League also visited me that time. Such contacts happened at least four or five times. Tang Xin asked me again after a while, what do the other people think? He told me directly that he was seeing me on Deng Yingchao’s behalf, Zhou Enlai’s widow. But I think it was not just Deng Yingchao, he must have been sent from higher above to contact to us, and then report regularly on our situation.

Interviewer: Have you also met the journalists from the People’s Daily?

Liu: I don’t think I’ve seen anyone from the People’s Daily.

Interviewer: I think there were two of them. One was named Wang Yong’an.

Liu: Yes, Wang Yong’an and his colleague were in contact with us, and he also made some suggestions. What did they propose? One thing he said was: In fact, we all have these ideas about reform and change, but the time is not ripe yet, so we don’t feel comfortable talking about these ideas. You can speak out more easily. After you say something, we can publish it for you in the People's Daily. That was his proposal at the time. But we didn't give him anything. We said, if we wanted to publish something, we would do it in the April 5th Forum first, and then the People’s Daily may quote it. But this he wouldn't do.

My feeling was that the higher-ups were somewhat peculiar. They thought that things were not that drastic, although this happened after Wei Jingsheng’s arrest; our conversation was between June and August 1979. Later, Wang Ruoshui, the deputy editor-in-chief of the People’s Daily, told me that he knew about this matter. It had been arranged by his superiors for Wang Yong’an to contact us and make such a suggestion.

Interviewer: Nowadays, there seems to be a lot of dispute within the overseas and US Democracy Movement, at least in some organizations and among some figures. How do you see this issue?

Liu: I think this is normal. Not only for mainland China, in fact among exile groups of any authoritarian country such debates and the formation of factions are inevitable. At that time of the Kuomintang, didn't Sun Yat-sen and others all argue very fiercely? The Communist Party was also fighting all the time. But I think that although we have debates today, different views, different factions, and even struggles arising from different interests, in terms of quality, we are much better than the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. The Kuomintang or the Communists, they did everything from assassinations to drug trafficking. Now, whether overseas or in mainland China, people are being attacked in several ways. One is that the Communist Party deliberately spreading rumors. What is the other kind? A Chinese proverb says “they hate iron but cannot make it into steel;” it means they are telling you, it is all for your good, but you’re not living up to it, so they feel dissatisfied. Some hope that the Democracy Movement will be efficient, but it is not as good as they imagined. So they feel dissatisfied and complain. There are also mutual attacks on each other, so yes, such things happen.

But first of all, they are normal. Every opposition movement has seen such phenomenon. It has never happened before that all spoke with a single voice and there were no differences. They all had different voices. As for us, I think is relatively good, in the process of fighting for democracy, everyone is basically using democratic methods, such as elections and debates, or have you ever heard of assassinations? The Kuomintang and the Communists were responsible for many assassinations. The Communists killed hundreds of thousands of their own people. So today’s movement, first of all, is much more innocent and better than those in the past. Second, it basically follows the rules of a democratic game.

Interviewer: To which extent are these disputes related to money?

Liu: First, as far as I know, the US government will never give money directly, it is not allowed. Every penny it spends must be discussed in Congress, and only with congressional approval they may allocate money. There is a foundation in the United States called NED [National Endowment for Democracy]. The U.S. government allocates about 20 to 30 million U.S. dollars to this foundation every year. This NED supports democracy and human rights activities in various countries around the world. The government allocates money based on its understanding of democratic movements in various countries and various organizations, but it is not much, very little. Our "Human Rights in China" was once one of the largest organizations supported by NED. At most, they gave us about half a million dollars a year. It seems a lot, but now it is much less, or even has completely stopped. This is the only one. One may discuss whether they belong to the US government. But the government has no way to directly control NED; it is under its own charter, under its own regulations. The only thing is that they cannot go against the US government. It is in this way the government's money is used to support democracy and human rights activities in various countries around the world. But as long as it supports democracy and human rights activities, the US government does not care which organization it is given to.

There are also some private foundations or individuals that give money, for example, the Open Society Foundation of George Soros. They use money to support democratic and human rights activities. Basically, they support specific actions and projects. NED also supports certain works and projects. They give money based on a specific work plan. For example, when I want to compile a report on the human rights situation in China and draft a plan of action, they ask how much manpower and funds will be needed. You make an application, and based on this they will approve it. They will not fund organizations or individuals. These foundations work in the same way, based on projects. For example, for a project on freedom of speech on the Internet, it will be for the project that they allocate the money, whether it will be one or two hundred thousand or even more per year, will depend on the specific project.

Then there are also some individuals who give money. They look at the performance of an organization in the past, its reputation, and the effects of their work, and give you money based on this. Normally, most money comes this way. For example, there is a billionaire in New York who is very interested in human rights. He is supporting human rights activities with money. Most of the money that our organization "Human Rights in China" receives comes from such private sources. This kind of person says, I give this to you, I support you, I give it for your human rights activities, because you have been doing it for ten or twenty years, and I am satisfied with the impact, the well-functioning and the effect it has had in these ten or twenty years, therefore I will support this organization with money.

Taiwan may give money to both organizations and projects. For example, Taiwan supports the publication of the "Beijing Spring" magazine; they pay to do this work. As far as I know, they give practically no money simply to individuals. Those who allege this are just out to attack and discredit the Democracy Movement. Simply giving money to organizations or individuals will become money that one can spend as he likes. I have never heard of such a situation. What I have heard is that on the Internet, some people write such articles, they criticize the pro-democracy movement, but these are all rumors.

Interviewer: What can you say about the mainland Chinese government's efforts to undermine and affect the overseas Democracy Movement?

Liu: Such destruction efforts definitely exist, and they come in various forms. They are sending spies to infiltrate organization and activities, and they are spreading rumors. We know some very suspicious people. But today, mainland China cannot act against the Democracy Movement like the Communists or the Kuomintang did in the past. They used to arrest people, extract confession or execute them. Here nowadays, even if we suspect someone, we cannot catch or kill him. Even if we discover someone, there is basically nothing we can do. At most, we will warn each other, for example, that a person may be a spy of the Chinese Communists or something like this, but there is nothing we can do, because the democratic system has almost no way to deal with such kind of situation. Doesn’t the United States know that many people sent by the mainland are spies?

When American or international reporters go to the mainland, they will not be allowed to do investigations. They might be arrested and beaten up wherever they go. But on the other hand, Chinese reporters can come to the United States, conduct interviews, spy and spread rumors. The United States knows about it, but there is basically nothing they can do. Why? Because this is a democratic system, they cannot just create a separate standard. If the US wants to be open to media, they must be open to both sides. We cannot say that we are open to one country and not open to another. This is the democratic system.

We know that there is a pro-democracy movement currently in China. But how can we grasp real evidence of it? This kind of real evidence must be in the archives of the Communist Party, and we cannot grasp it at all, but we know it. For example, if we try to contact someone, the Communist Party will immediately have this information and become suspicious. If you are talking to someone about the route you want to take when you travel to China, the Communist Party will immediately know about it. For example, when my wife wanted to travel to China to see her mother, someone asked her question and tried to find out which places she would go, the person even ask for her ticket and make a copy of it. My wife happened to see this. This was very suspicious. Still one cannot conclude that there was a spy, let alone that you could take action against him. There's nothing you can do about it. But this is also where the power of democracy lies. Democracy will not die because of such spies and espionage activities, it will develop even more.

Interviewer: You said there were spies at the Democracy Wall or in the Democracy Movement at that time?

Liu: Take the April 5th Forum for example. There was a person named Suo Zhongkui who worked for it. This man had originally been in prison and sent to a labor camp, but he was later released. But as you know, people who participated in the Democracy Wall Movement usually had democratic ideas. But Suo Zhongkui never said a word about democracy, although he enthusiastically participated in various activities. In the end, we discovered that all the information he had collected was conveyed to the police. Based on his information, the police took disruptive measures against certain people. It was information that only Suo Zhongkui could know, and we could be sure that he had passed this information to others. Once in the hands of the Public Security Bureau, they would persecute the person concerned by this information, for example, fire him from his work. That kind of things happened. Also once when I went to Suo Zhongkui's home, I detected that there was a policeman with Suo Zhongkui, an agent of the Security Bureau. In the end, Suo Zhongkui admitted that he had given information to the police, because the police had offered him a job. He said otherwise he wouldn’t have be able to live, so he handed these things over to the police just to have a job, as he was without work when he was released from prison. So these are cases that we know of.

But they have also their own people, formal spies trained by the CCP. Others would rather be called informants in the United States, people who are not official spies of the Communists, not formal spies. They are just used to serve and work for the Chinese secret service. But of course there are also the regular spies. Also in China before, when I was arrested by the Public Security Bureau, there were things that I did not want the Security Bureau to know. But there were one, two, three, four, five agents that interrogated me. Which day, at what time was I where, what exactly did I say, what did I do etc. There had definitely been someone who had already reported to them all these things about me. This shows that they have their spies, otherwise how could they know all this.