Chen Jun: An elegant democratic fighter
In February 1989, a world-shocking signature event occurred in Beijing. —This is the “open letter” to the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, jointly signed by Bei Dao, Shao Yanxiang, Niu Han, Lao Mu, Wu Zuguang, Li Tuo, Bing Xin, Zong Pu, Zhang Jie, Wu Zuxiang, Tang Yijie, Le Daiyun, Zhang Dainian, Huang Ziping, Chen Pingyuan, Yan Wenjing, Liu Dong, Feng Yidai, Xiao Gan, Su Xiaokang, Jin Guantao, Liu Qingfeng, Li Zehou, Pang Pu, Zhu Wei, Wang Yan, Bao Zunxin, Tian Zhuangzhuang, Wang Ke, Gao Gao, Su Shaozhi, Wang Ruoshui, Chen Jun, and thirty-three others.
The full text of the “open letter” reads: “After learning of Mr. Fang Lizhi’s open letter to Deng Xiaoping dated January 6, 1989, we expressed deep concern. We believe that implementing amnesty on the 40th anniversary of the founding of the country and the 70th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement, especially the release of political prisoners like Wei Jingsheng, will create a harmonious atmosphere conducive to reform, and also aligns with the growing global trend of respecting human rights. The date of the “open letter” is: February 13, 1989.
Of the thirty-three people, the vast majority are renowned writers, artists, and scientists. This method of soliciting signatures by writing an “open letter” and boldly expressing dissent to the Communist Party appeared among the prestigious and heavyweight intellectual circles, marking an unprecedented first for mainland China. It marked the awakening of intellectuals in mainland China and showed their attempt to resist the CCP’s authoritarian regime through unity and remonstrance.
One of theorganizers and initiators of this event was a man who had a very close relationship with the China Democratic League at the time and later joined it—his name was Chen Jun.
Chen Jun is known as a “young veteran activist.” He was born in 1958 and is from Shanghai. Coming from a family of “historical counterrevolutionaries,” he endured hardships from a young age. Adversity made him mature prematurely. At the age of twenty, in 1978, he met a group of pro-democracy activists active in Shanghai at the time—such as Fu Shenqi, Zhang Rujun, and Huan Guocang. His home became a gathering place for activists, and he was responsible for editing and printing an underground pro-democracy publication—”Voice of Democracy.” At the same time, he wrote the lengthy philosophical work “On Truth,” totaling 170,000 words. In 1979, he was admitted to the Department of Philosophy at Fudan University in Shanghai. During his studies, he became the organizer of the student club “Jiongsheng Society.” Once, he joined students from six universities to hold a seminar titled “The Current State and Prospects of China’s Reform.” The Shanghai Municipal Party Committee sensed something was wrong and wanted to stop it, but the clever Chen Jun changed the venue at the last minute, allowing the meeting to proceed smoothly. Afterwards, the Shanghai Municipal Party Committee issued a special document highlighting Chen Jun’s activities and warning all colleges and universities to be vigilant against dissenters forming among students. The Shanghai Municipal Party Committee also reported the matter to the Ministry of Education, which then reported it to the Central Propaganda Department, which specifically pointed out: Chen Jun is a very powerful person and his activities should be paid special attention. In 1983, Chen Jun married an American citizen and immigrated to the United States. When he saw the magazine “China Spring” published by the China Ethnic League, he contacted Wang Bingzhang, the head of the China Ethnic Federation. In 1983, he worked for three months as a special correspondent for ‘China Spring,’ using the pen name ‘Chen Honglin’ to interview renowned Chinese-American scholars Chen Xiangmei and Xu Zhuoyun, writing some articles. At the same time, he formed a good friendship with the China National Democratic Federation.
In 1987, because Chen Jun’s girlfriend Janny Hotdaway found a good job in mainland China, Chen Jun decided to return to China with her. He first arrived in Shanghai and opened a “Cocoa Tree Liquor Bar,” and a week later, opened a “Jiejie Liquor Bar” in Beijing. Chen Junyuan’s desire to return to China was not politically motivated, as most of his interests had shifted to philosophy, literature, and business, so he was extremely cautious and tried to avoid exposing the CCP and government. But he didn’t want to touch “politics,” yet “politics” came to him. Because he had a criminal record, upon arriving in Shanghai, he immediately caught the attention and surveillance of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau. In February 1988, a former “friend” of Chen Jun took three letters from Wang Bingzhang from Chen Jun. He then reported the police that Chen Jun was exchanging US dollars for RMB on the black market. The Shanghai Public Security Bureau, which had long wanted to cause trouble for Chen Jun but had no excuse, was overjoyed and used this as a reason to detain him. Of course, what they were truly interested in was not the foreign currency transaction, but Chen Jun’s political activities. During the interrogation, Chen Jun discovered that the Shanghai Public Security Bureau was thoroughly familiar with his questions. In an interview, Chen Jun said, “The mainland security authorities are more familiar with my situation in the U.S. than I do myself.” For example, I interviewed Professor Xu Zhuoyun when I was in the United States. When they asked about this and I forgot Professor Xu’s name, they joked, ‘How come you even forgot Xu Zhuoyun.’ ‘There was another time when I visited Chen Xiangmei. Because it was so long, I don’t remember the scene much, but they could say who I went with and even took photos as a memento.’ Chen Jun’s detention was alternating between arrests and releases, repeating several times. Eventually, he grew impatient and questioned them, demanding a clear explanation of the matter, but the police kept delaying. Chen Jun asked: What exactly did I do wrong? The Public Security Bureau’s response was also clever: if you tell us everything you did wrong, I’ll tell you exactly what you did wrong. At the end of 1988, he was finally granted “bail pending trial.” Because of his detention by the CCP, he realized that it was unrealistic not to get involved in ‘politics’ in the past, so he decided to embark on the path of democracy once again. In early 1989, he went to Beijing to run “JieJie Liquor Bar.”
“Jiejie Bar” is doing very well. This bar can be used both as a bar bar and as a gallery, with many modern artworks exhibited and sold here. Chen Jun also designed the bar decoration himself, making the storefront stand out against the monotonous, gray backdrop of mainland China, highlighting its distinctive personality and atmosphere. Because of this, the bar quickly became a salon for artists, writers, foreign businessmen, journalists, and foreign officials stationed in China. Perhaps precisely because of the special nature of “Jiejie Jiuba,” Chen Jun became a target of attention for the Communist Party’s security department in Beijing.
It was during his business that he met many famous intellectuals and prominent pro-democracy activists, such as Fang Lizhi, Wu Zuguang, Lao Mu, Ren Wanting, Bei Dao, Wang Dan, and others. During the Spring Festival of 1989, Fang Lizhi invited him to attend a gala organized by the United Front Work Department. At the meeting, Fang Lizhi gave a speech discussing the responsibilities of intellectuals and issues of human rights. In a moment of impulse, Chen Jun broke the usual speech schedule and interrupted to give a five-minute impromptu speech. He said: Since May Fourth, what have we intellectuals actually done? I call on our government to release all political prisoners, abolish counter-revolutionary crimes, and ban any secret police, so that China’s human rights must meet global human rights standards. He did not expect that at an official venue, his bold speech would attract continuous applause, with applause coming from social celebrities and intellectuals who have made outstanding contributions to society. This greatly encouraged him and strengthened his confidence.
In 1989, mainland China will face two commemorative holidays of special significance: one is the 70th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement, and the other is the 40th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Regarding these two commemorative days, Chen Jun had some ideas. He felt he should use this opportunity to support Fang Li’s open letter to Deng Xiaoping on January 6, seize the momentum, and launch a nationwide signature campaign. The issues addressed by the signatures were: First, release all political prisoners; 2. Abolish the crime of counter-revolution; 3. Mainland China should abide by international human rights laws. He communicated this idea with the poet Lao Mu, who then approached the poet Bei Dao, forming a complete plan. Within three days, the three of them collected signatures from the thirty-three individuals mentioned above. On February 16, Chen Jun and others held a press conference under the guise of “Jiejie Jiubar.” Attendees included journalists from the Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, The New York Times, and others from around the world. At the meeting, Chen Jun read an “open letter,” and Lu Lin, who co-founded “Exploration” magazine with Wei Jingsheng, introduced Wei Jingsheng’s past and present situation, and made four appeals: First, turn the matter of pardoning political prisoners into a proposal for the conference; 2. Establish a Wei Jingsheng Issue Investigation Committee; 3. Establish an information center related to contact signatures; 4. Require that “protection of human rights” be written into the Constitution at the next National People’s Congress. Journalists from around the world responded quickly. The next day, newspapers in many countries widely reported on the “open letter” signed by thirty-three people to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the National People’s Congress.
The33-person petition quickly received response and support from the “China Democratic Federation.” Hu Ping, chairman of the China Democratic League, wrote in his article “Pushing the Signature to a Climax”: The “open letter” jointly signed by thirty-three mainland intellectuals reached overseas and “sparked a strong response. In less than ten days, a large number of overseas students, overseas Chinese, as well as intellectuals from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other places, as well as those concerned about national affairs, all rose up and responded, and a large-scale signature campaign was flourishing.” Hu Ping said, “There is only one secret to winning the democracy movement: to mobilize as many people as possible to participate broadly.” This signature was initiated from within the mainland. This once again proves that in the struggle to promote democratization in mainland China, the role of the people within the mainland is the most important and important thing. He hopes that Chinese people overseas will do their best to do more for this signing event: First, besides actively signing themselves, they should mobilize more friends and family—whether Chinese or foreigners, mainlanders or Hong Kong and Taiwanese—to create a chain reaction—the more, the better. 2. Closely monitor and care for those involved in this activity within the mainland, using the powerful influence of overseas public opinion to strive to ensure the personal safety of mainland democrats. 3. To break the news blockade in mainland China, you can use letters, telephones, telegrams, or travel to share as many of the 33-person signed letters and domestic and international contact addresses as possible with relatives and colleagues in the mainland. The more, the better; the faster, the better.
Thethirty-three signatures launched a signature campaign among overseas Chinese, such as Fang Lizhi, Yu Yingshih, Xu Zhuoyun, Li Oufan, Ni Yuxian, and sixty-five others (including several members of the Democratic League) in the first batch of signatures for the “Declaration Urging Democratic Reform on the Mainland,” and the “Statement Calling for Democratic Reform in China” initiated by thirty renowned scholars in Taiwan, including Tao Baichuan, Hu Fu, Wang Zuorong, Yang Guoshu, Li Yiyuan, and Wei Zhengtong, among others. This has pushed overseas Chinese people’s concern for mainland China’s political situation to a new peak.
Under the wave of signatures, the CCP feels both furious and embarrassed, and troublesome. On February 22, 1989, Xinhua News Agency reported on a conversation with a relevant official from the Ministry of Justice of the CCP, in the case (27). It avoided mentioning the list of signatories and instead blamed Chen Jun solely for the fault. This official pointed out: “Chen Jun and others’ attempt to create public opinion and create pressure through signatures to influence judicial independence violates Chinese legal principles and is therefore wrong.” He also said: “The main organizer of this letter, Chen Jun, was once a contributor to ‘China Spring,’ a reactionary organization based in the United States organized by the China Democratic League. He claimed he would use Taiwan and other ‘largest and most influential media outlets’ to support Fang Lizhi and others, forming a ‘pressure group’ against China.” This shows the CCP’s deep hatred toward the China Democratic League.
At the same time, the CCP has taken a series of measures to reduce the impact of the “open letter.” First, they block the news, leaving mainlanders completely unaware. Third, pressure was applied to each signatory, even using phone interference, secret agents monitoring, and round-the-clock surveillance to prevent the signers from being aborted.
Under such extremely dangerous and difficult conditions, Chen Jun and others continued their work with calmness and wisdom. They established the “89 Amnesty” office. Chen Jun and Lao Mu issued a statement regarding the Ministry of Justice official’s remarks. Chen Jun said: “The leader’s assessment of the open letter did not provide readers with a factual basis, which could instead cause public confusion and prevent the public from making an objective judgment.” From the content of the open letter to the signatories’ will, it is based on humanitarian principles, expresses hope for the government, and that the request for amnesty is made directly to the highest authority—the NPC Standing Committee. Personally, I believe only the NPC Standing Committee can provide an authoritative response. Chen Jun admitted to writing for ‘China Spring’ and said, “The leader only disclosed and made no criticisms, which I think is progress.” He concluded by appealing: “Today, we are in an era where cooperation replaces conflict and peace instead of violence. Everyone should exercise restraint, and the government should restrain itself so that the Chinese nation has a historical opportunity to realize its ideals through civilized and progressive democratic consultation.” ”
After the ’89 Special Amnesty’ office was established, Chen Jun and his staff quickly found the office and set up a hotline, which is very difficult in Beijing. Every day, they transmit updates from within the mainland to the United States, then distribute overseas telegrams to more than thirty signatories and those concerned about the progress. Two public signature sections were set up, each staffed by dedicated personnel responsible for the signature process. According to a report sent by reporters to New York on February 22, more than fifty signatories had arrived, including one member of the “Li Yizhe” group—pro-democracy activist Li Zhengtian, as well as Bo Yun, Ren Wanting, and others. It has steadily and gradually expanded into major institutions nationwide. At the same time, Chen Jun also conducted a special interview with the family of imprisoned pro-democracy activist Xu Wenli, under the name of the ’89 Special Amnesty’ Office. Xu Wenli’s wife, Kang Tong, and daughter Xu Jin said: “We thank all of you who are strangers for showing such concern for Xu Wenli’s situation. We hope you can convey this to the National People’s Congress, and based on the spirit of humanitarian principles, a general amnesty for Xu Wenli can be implemented as soon as possible.” ”
On March 18, 1989, Chen Jun, in his personal capacity, wrote a report titled “On the 1989 Amnesty Issue” to the representatives of the National People’s Congress, Wan Li, Chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, and Yang Shangkun, Chairman of the People’s Republic of China. The report stated: “The special pardon for Wei Jingsheng and others is not only the wish and suggestion of our thousands of signatories, but also aligns with the historical process and fundamental interests of our country’s ten-year reform.” Although Chen Jun’s report was submitted, it went silent and received no response.
But the situation is becoming increasingly severe. Beijing’s security authorities increased surveillance of the “1989 Special Pardon Office” and Chen Jun and others, even setting up offices across from them by police officers tracking them. Over time, they all became acquainted. Once, during a press conference, three police cars were under 24-hour surveillance.
At the end of March, the situation changed dramatically. The Shanghai Public Security Bureau suddenly notified Chen Jun to return to Shanghai. On April 2nd, Chen Jun was detained by Shanghai police while taking a train. The next day, he was forcibly expelled from the country. On April 6th, Chen Jun was transferred from Hong Kong to New York.
Chen Jun is a progressive advocate of democracy, and he has a particularly admirable saying: “To pursue democracy, you must be a bit more elegant.” He said, “Chinese people who pursue democracy are often very radical; they are suited to ‘doing revolution,’ but not for democracy.” Those who pursue democracy cannot be ‘filled with hatred.’ If you want to eliminate your opponents politically, you cannot achieve democracy. “So his principles have always been peaceful, steady, reasonable, and measured.”
But such an “elegant” democrat still could not be accepted by the CCP and ultimately could not escape the fate of being on the run. □