Countering China’s tactic of separating domestic and overseas pro-democracy Movements

Just like the way they dealt with all previous attempts of peaceful petition and peaceful resistance. The Chinese Communist authorities has once again use charges that the four petitioners representing the laid-off workers of Liaoyang “colluding with overseas hostile elements” or “accepting support from overseas hostile forces.” The authorities use these charges not only to try to impressed that the accused is in for serious offenses, which is part of the pressure tactic devised to force them to give in, and to weaken any empathy and support ordinary people may have towards the accused; these charges on the other hand are also part of a tactic devised to sever domestic ties with overseas democracy supporters. To avoid being affixed with this scary label, many advocates of democracy in China resort to “purification” - avoid being affiliated with such entity. This fear stems from the reluctance to give the Chinese Communist authorities additional excuses to persecute more severely. Each time such incidence occurs, the overseas supporters also clamp-up, rendering all previous ideological, organizational and financial groundwork useless. Unfortunately, this has been one of the dominant tactics that has enable the Chinese Communist authorities to kill three birds with one stone, and has been hard to counter.

These grim consequence cast by the Chinese Communist authorities has long plagued the minds and actions of overseas pro-democracy activist; it is akin to having their hands tied behind their backs. If this tactic by the Chinese Communist authorities of severing domestic and overseas pro-democracy movements cannot be overcome, our efforts would amount to no more than just lobbying to foreign governments.

Many overseas friends have been trying to figure out ways to break this dilemma. Most democracy advocates believe that communications with people in China should be secretive or low profile, and that there should be more communication during peaceful times and less so when activities are under way; and that publicly we should deny all connections. This in my opinion is perhaps a fault. In reality, there exists little secrecy in content to speak of in our communication and collaboration with each other. In particular, when concrete steps are under way, how can that be keep a low profile. When in action, we need to augment our communication, collaboration and support. If we stop our communication with each other during those times, we are stepping right in the trap already in place.

The traditional mode of thinking should be abandoned. The best way to avoid this separation is to communicate more openly and loudly with our colleagues in China. The more open the communication, the less justifiable the accusation of conspiracy. With increased frequency and broader communication, the less possible for the authorities to single anyone out; the grander the scale, the greater the impact; the more specific and aboveboard the content of communication, the harder to prove breaching of state security as opposed to petition for the people. This way, the Communist authorities will have greater difficulty making charges of "conspiracy with overseas hostile forces."

To be even more effective, overseas pro-democracy activists should parallel these activities with actual attempts to enter China. If it is a crime to communicate with "overseas hostile elements," then these overseas elements is the most guilty, but that imply it would be less guilty if repatriating and becoming "domestic hostile elements" who are ready to stand in place of the original "domestic hostile elements" and bear the punishment.

The current situation can be changed only by open-minded thinking and self devotion. The overseas pro-democracy movements cannot wait any longer.