Hu Ping/Rui Chaohuai: Do the right thing right: The issue of resistance 35 years after the Tiananmen protests

Rui Chaohuai (hereinafter referred to as Rui): First of all, what do you think were the great successes or achievements of the 1989 Democracy Movement? What important strategic or tactical mistakes were related to its ultimate failure? Also, do you think that today, 35 years later, have the lessons learned from the 1989 Democracy Movement been correctly summarized?

Hu Ping (hereinafter referred to as Hu): The 1989 Democracy Movement was a great democratic movement. First, it was a true democratic movement. Since modern times, China and many other countries have experienced large-scale mass movements, some of which were religious, some of which were nationalist, and some of which were anti-government. These were not the pursuit of freedom and democracy, but China's 1989 Democracy Movement was a true democratic movement. Second, the number of participants, the scale, and the duration of the movement were unprecedented not only in Chinese history, but also in world history. Third, such a large movement always adhered to non-violence, which was amazing. In this movement, the nobleness, enthusiasm, sincerity, and unity shown by the Chinese people, including overseas Chinese, as well as the common hatred, indignation, and sadness shown in the face of the June 4th Incident, can really be called a peak experience of our nation. The spiritual outlook of the Chinese people has never been so pure, so beautiful, and so touching. I believe that everyone who has experienced it will not deny this, no matter how he views this movement now. Since you have witnessed it flying over the peak, you should know that it is not a chicken, but an eagle. In any case, we should not lose confidence in our nation. Unfortunately, although the 1989 democracy movement achieved remarkable success, it ultimately failed. In retrospect, the democracy movement's main strategic mistake was that it failed to stop when it saw success.

Rui: "When things get bad, go for it; when things get good, stop it" is a famous reflection of your conclusion on the 1989 democracy movement. Can you explain the meaning of this statement? At what point do you think the 1989 democracy movement could have stopped when things got good? In some training courses on non-violent struggle, there is a saying called "announce a staged victory." If "stop when things get good" is rephrased as "announce a staged victory," would it be easier to understand?

Hu: The so-called "go for it when things get bad, and quit when things get good" is the "tit-for-tat" of game theory. Yes, quitting when things get good means declaring a staged victory. I have said in my article that the democracy movement is not a one-time deal and it is impossible to achieve it in one step. The democracy movement needs to accumulate small victories into a big one. Therefore, it is necessary to propose certain staged goals at certain stages to achieve staged victories. The late Gene Sharp, an authority on non-violent politics, once conducted a serious investigation and research on China's Tiananmen democracy movement in 1989. One of the lessons he summed up is that if the students withdrew after obtaining sustainable political space through negotiations (the moderates in the Politburo were later proved to be ready to consider granting such space), the students could claim victory and spread this information throughout the country. This is what I call "quit when things get good." Another non-violent action expert, Serbian scholar Srđa Popovic (Srđa Popovic)
Popovic, in his book Blueprint for Revolution, which specifically studies how to defeat dictators through non-violent means, regards "quit while you are ahead" as an important strategic principle of non-violent resistance. Popovic said that in order for non-violent resistance to succeed, it is necessary to "know when and how to declare victory", that is, to quit while you are ahead. Popovic also studied China's 1989 student movement. He pointed out that the reason why China's 1989 student movement failed was that the students were too idealistic and did not take advantage of the authorities' concessions to declare a phased victory in a timely manner.

Some people say that there was never a "good" moment in the 1989 student movement. Of course not. There were more than one "good" moment in the 1989 student movement. The fact that the authorities were willing to sit down and talk with the student leaders, and the leaders of the students' own independent organization, was already a remarkable success. How could it not be considered "good"? In the 1989 student movement, there were several points where we could have stopped while we were ahead. For example, on May 16, Yan Mingfu went to the square to talk with the students, and on May 17, Zhao Ziyang delivered a written speech on behalf of the five standing committee members of the Political Bureau. If the student movement had stopped while we were ahead at these points, the outcome of the 1989 student movement would have been completely different.

Rui: But many people who participated in the movement personally disagree with your views, including the points you mentioned. They do not think that the movement should be withdrawn at these points. Moreover, many people think that it is difficult to withdraw a large mass movement at the right time.

Hu: I disagree with this statement. In fact, the students in the square almost withdrew several times. It was a pity that they failed at the last minute. Of course, I know that mass movements are not like the army, and it is difficult to enforce discipline. It is not easy for mass movements to have the necessary self-control. I realized this problem before 1989. I wrote an article in 1988 and mentioned that some people asked why China's democratic movement always ended in failure. My answer is, because it will not end if it does not fail.

Generally speaking, there are two things that are essential for a mass non-violent movement to succeed. One is to have strict non-violent discipline and avoid violent behavior, and the other is to know when to stop and stop when you should. The 1989 student movement did the first thing extremely well. It was so good. Take Beijing as an example. Hundreds of thousands of people marched and held rallies again and again for more than 50 days, but there was no looting or smashing. Even thieves declared a "strike." Thinking back on it later, it was incredible. It was simply a miracle.

In comparison, it was much easier to get the students to leave the square. The 1989 student movement did the most difficult things, but failed to do the less difficult things. It is not that we couldn't do it, but that we lacked the concept of bargaining and the concept that politics is compromise. One of the purposes of my writing "Reflections on the 1989 Student Movement" is to strengthen these concepts. In this way, we can do better next time.

Rui: You also used the phrase “quit while you are ahead” in your analysis of the anti-extradition movement in Hong Kong. As far as I know, many Hong Kong friends do not agree with your criticism. At what point do you think the anti-extradition movement should “quit while you are ahead”? After the rise of the “brave faction”, the moderate wing decided not to “cut ties”. What do you think of this? What does the “braveness” of the brave faction mean? Does it mean resorting to violence?

Hu: I need to say a few more words about the anti-extradition movement in Hong Kong in 2019. On June 15, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced an indefinite suspension of the amendment bill, which was obviously a "good thing". The democracy movement should stop while it is going well. Moreover, the anti-extradition movement did not take the form of occupying the central square, so there was no question of whether to evacuate or not. However, the violence of the militant faction appeared in the anti-extradition movement. The failure of the anti-extradition movement was due to the violence of the militant faction.

Hong Kong people originally have a strong and deeply rooted tradition of non-violent resistance. However, the anti-extradition movement has seen increasingly violent behavior. It should be noted that the violence of the militants is not violent revolution, armed uprising, or guerrilla warfare. The violence of the militants is low-level violence, mainly targeting objects and government symbols, such as the exterior wall of the Legislative Council building, subway facilities, pro-communist shops, etc. Some militants threw bricks and burning objects at the police.

Why did the violent movement gain the upper hand in the anti-extradition movement? In fact, it was due to a serious misjudgment. The Hong Kong government wanted to implement the extradition bill, and Hong Kong people strongly opposed it. On June 9, Hong Kong people held a 1 million-person march to oppose it, but Chief Executive Carrie Lam still said the next day that she would implement the extradition bill. The chairman of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, Andrew Leung, announced that the second reading would be held on June 12. On the 12th, from the early morning, a large number of Hong Kong people, mainly young people, surrounded the Legislative Council, and then clashed violently with the police who came. Protesters threw bricks at the police, and the police fired rubber bullets and gas. The scene was heated, making it difficult for the Legislative Council to proceed. Chairman Andrew Leung announced the postponement of the second reading. Three days later, on June 15, Carrie Lam announced the suspension of the amendment.

In the eyes of many people, since Lam said she would amend the law after the peaceful march of one million people on the 9th, and changed her mind after the violent clashes on the 12th, saying that the amendment would be postponed, they concluded that peaceful marches were useless and that violence was needed. The New York Times published a news analysis on the 17th titled "How did China's biggest political concession under Xi Jinping happen?", quoting Hong Kong Baptist University political scientist Jean-Pierre Cabestan as saying, "The family-friendly march a week ago was not enough to send a message." "You will get nothing if you don't exert a little violence and political pressure on the authorities." As a result, the prestige of the violent faction was greatly boosted, and many peaceful and rational non-violent groups also looked at the violent faction with a new eye. But this was a serious misjudgment. I wrote an article at the time pointing out that the reason the Hong Kong government gave in was because of the peaceful march of one million Hong Kong people. Because the peaceful march of one million people triggered a series of chain reactions, especially the strong reaction of the international community, which put tremendous pressure on the Hong Kong government and Beijing.

Rui: Why do you say that the strong reaction from the international community has put tremendous pressure on the Hong Kong government and Beijing? What are the important reactions from the international community?

Hu: Just the day after the June 9th march, a U.S. State Department spokesperson issued a statement: Yesterday's peaceful demonstration by hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people clearly showed that the public opposed the proposed amendment. The United States believes that the amendment may undermine Hong Kong's autonomy. If the amendment is passed, the United States will consider Hong Kong's special (independent customs area) status in international affairs, etc. Immediately afterwards, on June 11, Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, also issued a statement, highly praising the peaceful march of millions of Hong Kong people, and pointed out that the Hong Kong government's amendment to the law is related to the United States' assessment of Hong Kong's autonomy. On June 12, Trump also specifically talked about the June 9th march of Hong Kong people in the White House, saying that it was really a march of one million people. I have never seen so many people marching. In addition, the German government also responded strongly and stated that if Hong Kong signs an extradition agreement with the mainland, Germany will consider terminating its original extradition agreement with Hong Kong. And so on.

In fact, Beijing itself admitted that it made concessions due to the strong reaction from the international community. According to a June 16 report by Hong Kong 01, a pro-establishment media in Hong Kong, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sent someone to Hong Kong to explain to the pro-establishment why it had to make concessions, saying: The original intention of this amendment was correct, but foreign forces made a total of 67 statements, attempting to interfere and smear, making things complicated, so the amendment had to be suspended.

The reason why the Hong Kong government and Beijing still planned to hold the second reading of the bill in the Legislative Council on June 12 after the US State Department and Congress issued warnings on June 10 and 11 was that they had not yet weighed the weight of the US warning. They soon weighed the pros and cons and announced an indefinite suspension on the 15th. It can be seen that the concessions made by the Hong Kong government and Beijing were the result of the peaceful resistance of Hong Kong people and the strong reaction of the international community to the peaceful resistance, not the result of the violent action on June 12.

Unfortunately, many Hong Kong people do not realize this. The initial success of the anti-extradition movement has led many people to mistakenly believe that peaceful protests are useless and that only violence is useful. Next, the protesters put forward the "five demands, none of which can be ignored", and the violent faction, encouraged by them, further escalated their actions. On July 1, some violent factions smashed the glass door of the Legislative Council building and occupied the Legislative Council for a time. At this time, Carrie Lam, who had been embarrassed and silent for half a month since announcing the indefinite suspension of the amendment, immediately stood up and declared that she would "stop the violence and chaos."

I said at the time that some of the demands raised by Hong Kong people can be achieved through peaceful resistance without the need for violence, while some demands cannot be achieved through peaceful resistance, nor can they be achieved with the addition of violence. The Hong Kong people's courageous resistance is certainly morally justified, but we cannot ignore its side effects, especially the possibility of being used by the authorities to suppress the freedom of Hong Kong people.

Rui: What are the side effects of violent resistance?

Hu: On the second day after the violent attack on the Legislative Council building by the radical faction on July 1, former U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong and Macau Thomas Edison made a speech saying that the United States, like many others, was disappointed by the violence and destruction in the Legislative Council yesterday. British Foreign Office officials also made similar speeches. But the radical faction could not listen to these words. Many Hong Kong people still mistakenly believe that peaceful protests are useless and that only radical protests are useful. The slogan "You taught us that peaceful protests are useless" is very popular, and even some representatives of peaceful, rational and non-violent protests often mention this slogan.

On July 24, American scholar Larry Diamond said in an interview with the New York Times that Hong Kong people should stop while they are ahead and prepare for negotiations on long-term goals and the next district council elections. Diamond is very worried about the increasingly radicalization of the movement. He is particularly worried that a minority of people will turn from the previous non-violent strategy to violence against property. Diamond said that although Hong Kong is not the mainland, the authorities are still capable of strong suppression. Once Beijing decides to take heavy measures to control the situation, "no one in the Western society will ride to save these Hong Kong democrats. We have no ability and legal status to intervene." Yasuhiro Matsuda, a professor at the University of Tokyo, said that politics is the art of compromise, and Hong Kong people should stop while they are ahead. If some demands are resolved, they will temporarily end and then start again in a peaceful way. Richard C. Bush, former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, also said that Hong Kong people should stop while they are ahead and sit down to talk and solve the problem. Diamond and Yasuhiro Matsuda both mentioned the failure lesson of the 1989 student movement that failed to stop while they were ahead. Some senior pro-democracy leaders, such as Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai, and Chu Yiu-ming, have expressed opposition to the violent actions of the violent faction, fearing that this would lead to a strong crackdown by the authorities. Li Ka-shing took out an advertisement in the newspaper against violence, warning that "the best cause can lead to the worst result." However, many people still believe that peaceful and rational protests are useless and that they must escalate to violent protests.

At this time, some people proposed that the democrats should unite, not fight among themselves, and not criticize each other; they should "not cut ties", and brothers should work hard on their own, and wouldn't it be better if both the literary and the martial arts could come? At that time, some people also advocated decentralization, no big platform, and advocated that the movement should be as amorphous as water, and so on. These ideas were very popular for a while, and many people even thought they had invented some new strategy for social movement.

Rui: Why do you not agree with "decentralization" and "no big platform"?

Hu: I strongly disagree with these popular sayings. "Decentralization, no big platform", the result is the barrel law - how much water a barrel can hold depends on the shortest plank - the result of the movement depends on the most radical minority, that is, the most radical minority kidnaps the majority. "Not cutting ties" is a luxury, which can only work in places with a high degree of rule of law - the police can strictly observe the boundaries when suppressing violent acts and not suppress peaceful, rational and non-violent people. How can the Hong Kong government and Beijing be so good? Once the Hong Kong government and Beijing decide to severely crack down on the violent and violent factions, they will definitely cook the peaceful, rational and non-violent people in the same pot.

Then, some militant groups proposed a grand plan called "burn it all down with the enemy", which means to destroy everything together. They want to use constant street violence, destroy public facilities, create traffic jams, and interfere with government administration. Because no society can be in such chaos for a long time, in the end, the authorities will be forced to choose between two options: either make concessions that the protesters will gain, or severely suppress them. They also believe that if the authorities brutally suppress, it will inevitably lead to strong counterattacks from the United States and other Western countries, causing great losses to the Chinese government, and even triggering a crisis of the CCP's rule, leading to the collapse of the CCP's rule.

As soon as I saw this strategy, I opposed it, because it was obvious that if the "burn with us" strategy was implemented, the authorities would most likely choose to severely suppress it, which would certainly lead to sanctions from the international community. However, the authorities could afford this price, but the democracy movement could not afford such suppression. In the end, the jade was burned, but the stone was not. Later, Beijing took direct action, and the National People's Congress passed the National Security Law for Hong Kong. To go all out, they then amended Hong Kong's election rules, depriving democrats of the qualifications to become official candidates. Recently, Article 23 was passed. Hong Kong has completely fallen. Looking back on the whole process, the Hong Kong democracy movement has turned from victory to defeat. From the perspective of the democracy movement, the defeat was due to not knowing when to stop and the violent resistance of the brave faction.

Rui: Some friends in Hong Kong also said that it is impossible to stop a large-scale mass movement just when it is going well.

Hu: This is simply repeating the arguments used to defend the failure of the 1989 student movement. The anti-extradition movement has repeated the mistakes of the 1989 student movement. They both failed because they did not stop when they saw the good results. Then they defended themselves by saying that mass movements cannot control themselves. Hong Kong people have not learned the lessons of the mainland student movement, and we overseas student movements have not seriously learned the lessons of the 1989 student movement. If the overseas student movement had seriously learned the lessons, we could have given advice and suggestions to Hong Kong people. But there are very few people who do this. Most people just cheer and shout. This reminds me of a sentence in the Bible story: "They have forgotten nothing, but they have learned nothing."

Rui: Let’s return to the question of summarizing the experience and lessons of the 1989 student movement. Everyone knows that we should sum up the experience and lessons, but not all “summaries” and “reflections” are correct and beneficial.

Hu: After June 4, my biggest worry is that the general public will learn from the negative experience: that nonviolent resistance is useless against a regime like the CCP. The problem is that when people think that nonviolent resistance is useless, they will not turn to violent resistance as many people imagine. Because under the current conditions in China, it is not realistic for ordinary people to carry out violent resistance. Therefore, when they lose confidence in nonviolent resistance and give up nonviolent resistance, they also give up resistance itself. So I think it is necessary to explain to everyone that even in China facing a regime like the CCP, nonviolent resistance is still feasible and can succeed. The failure of the 1989 student movement was not inevitable. It had a lot to do with our own strategic mistakes in the student movement.

Many people agree with my analysis of the 1989 Democracy Movement and believe that the failure of the 1989 Democracy Movement was not inevitable. If it could have stopped when it was going well, it could have succeeded. But some people say that it is impossible to require a large-scale mass movement to have the necessary self-control. According to this statement, the democracy movement is like a car with only an accelerator but no brakes. How many people are willing to get on it? We don't want children to play with fire, because children cannot control the fire and often end up burning themselves. If a large-scale democracy movement cannot have the necessary self-control, then the conclusion should be that there should be no more democracy movements in the future, so as not to fail more than succeed. My article "Reflections on the 1989 Democracy Movement" is very long, with more than 80,000 words. It was serialized in the monthly magazine "China Spring" for 8 issues before it was published. At that time, some critics expressed impatience. They said that perhaps the next democracy movement would have erupted, and you would still be reflecting endlessly. What I want to emphasize is that if there is no profound and correct reflection on the 1989 Democracy Movement, the next democracy movement will not come at all.

More than 30 years have passed. In China, there has been no large-scale democratic movement involving tens of millions of people. If this continues, it will be difficult for a democratic movement to occur in the future. It is in this severe situation that we once again raise the issue of non-violent resistance. We must seriously summarize the experience and lessons of past democratic movements and work hard to restore people's confidence in non-violent resistance.

Rui: Specifically, how can we draw lessons and make improvements from the 1989 student movement and the anti-extradition movement?

Hu: Both major movements have failed. We must learn from them. Hardy Merriman, president of the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), summarized the three key elements of successful nonviolent resistance: unified resistance, planning, and nonviolent discipline. He stressed that there must be strategic planning and nonviolent discipline to prevent violence by some participants. The "brothers climb the mountain with their own efforts", "peaceful and rational non-violent and violent are not separated", decentralization, and no big stage proposed during the anti-extradition movement are all contrary to these three elements. How can this be done? As for the fact that the students in the square could not be withdrawn during the 1989 student movement, the lesson Keen Sharp summarized is that "non-violent occupation of a symbolic site is dangerous for protesters after all, and they can be easily removed by opponents." The Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong in 2014 also adopted the method of occupation, but it was not possible to withdraw when it was time to withdraw, which led to the forced clearance of the site by the authorities and the end of the entire movement. In order to avoid this mistake, in future struggles, unless we have established an exit mechanism in advance, we should not adopt the method of occupation.

Rui: Overseas, you and Wang Tiancheng and others have emphasized the need to strengthen confidence in nonviolent resistance. However, the authorities’ control is becoming increasingly tight. Since Xi Jinping came to power, China has returned to totalitarianism and high pressure, and the development of high-tech surveillance technology has also provided the authorities with new and convenient means of control. In this context, how can we rebuild people’s confidence in nonviolent resistance?

Hu: The authorities are controlling very tightly now, but it was relatively loose during the Jiang and Hu eras. In the early days of the Internet, coupled with the emergence of human rights lawyers, people had more room to express dissent than in the 1980s.

For example, during the trial of Wei Jingsheng in 1979, Wei Jingsheng's self-defense statement and his lawyer's defense were kept secret. A friend who worked at the official TV station secretly recorded the court scene, and then a friend from a private publication compiled the recording into text and printed it into leaflets, which were distributed on the streets, but he was soon arrested and sentenced by the authorities. However, during the Hu-Wen era, when the democracy activist was tried in court, his self-defense statement and his lawyer's defense statement were immediately posted on the Internet and widely circulated. This shows that at one time, in China, there was more room for expressing dissent than in the 1980s.

The problem is that, although the space has expanded, the participation of millions of people is missing. Let me give you an example. On the eve of June 4, 2000, Jiang Xulin, a graduate student in the Department of Philosophy at Peking University, posted a poster at the famous Triangle, calling on everyone to commemorate the 41st anniversary of June 4. At that time, most Peking University students knew about June 4. At that time, liberalism could be openly discussed on campus, but no one responded to Jiang Xulin's call. Jiang Xulin also proposed to establish a student self-governing federation, but no one responded. At that time, the Peking University authorities did not take any harsh measures against Jiang Xulin. Jiang Xulin later graduated, went to study in Hong Kong, and after obtaining a doctorate, he was able to teach at East China Normal University in Shanghai. This shows that there is a certain space and there are brave people who dare to take the lead, but what is lacking is the response and participation of the general public.

In May 1998, a large-scale democratic movement broke out in Indonesia, and Suharto's authoritarian regime stepped down in disgrace. Before that, Indonesians had a saying: "If ten people take to the streets to protest, the government will ignore you; if a hundred people take to the streets to protest, the government will arrest you and imprison you; if a hundred thousand people take to the streets to protest, the government will negotiate with you." Over the past 30 years, a small group of brave warriors have continued to fight and struggle, but unfortunately, a large-scale democratic movement involving tens of millions of people has never happened again.

As time goes by, there is no breakthrough in the civil movement, and the rulers seize the time to patch it up, improve their suppression skills, and the authorities' control becomes more severe. The space for non-violent resistance is severely compressed, but this control cannot be perfect, and there is always a certain space for opposition. The occurrence of the White Paper Action is an example. The key problem is that too few people participated, and the general public has lost confidence in non-violent resistance. So we still have to work hard to rebuild confidence in non-violent resistance.

Rui: Now there are many people overseas who advocate violent resistance and violent revolution. They say that non-violence is a dead end and violent revolution is the only option. Some say that non-violence and violence cannot be neglected and we need both non-violence and violence, etc.

Hu: Don’t think that this kind of voice and this kind of advocacy have only appeared now. They have existed before, more than 20 years ago, more than 30 years ago. There were such voices in China, but there was no Internet at that time, so the outside world rarely heard such voices. Overseas, there is freedom of speech, so we hear a lot of them.

Shortly after June 4, Zhang Xiguo, a Taiwanese who was a science and engineering professor in the United States and a famous science fiction writer, placed an advertisement in the World Journal at his own expense: "A reward of $100,000 is offered for the capture of Deng, Li, and Yang, dead or alive." Some democracy activists felt that the old democracy movement organizations were not strong enough, so they set up new organizations and parties, claiming to overthrow the CCP, not ruling out violence. In addition to student and labor movements, they also specifically proposed to engage in military movements and instigate mutinies. Wang Bingzhang published a book called "China's Road to Democratic Revolution" in 1998. In addition to talking about peaceful struggle and legal struggle, he also spent a lot of space talking about violent revolution, armed uprisings, military coups, kidnappings, assassinations and other actions.

But more than 30 years have passed, and none of the action plans proposed by friends who advocate violent revolution have been implemented. It is not that they do not want to implement them, but they really cannot find practical ways, means and tools, so in the end they do nothing. Their own experience over the past 30 years has proved that their ideas are not realistic.

Rui: Some people also argue that violent protests have occurred over the past 30 years, such as those by Yang Jia and Zhang Koukou. Another example is that villagers in some places have fought against forced demolitions, and they have gathered together, picked up weapons and fought against the evil forces with violence, and some have succeeded. Please share your views.

Hu: The violent and non-violent resistance we are talking about mainly refers to social movements with political demands. The violent resistance against grassroots evil forces by Yang Jia, Zhang Koukou, and the villagers who opposed forced demolition do not fall into this category. Many heroes in "Water Margin" had done such actions before joining Liangshan, but only when they joined Liangshan and gathered with other heroes and raised the banner of "doing justice for heaven" did they start their rebellion. Have you noticed? No democracy activists acted like Yang Jia or Zhang Koukou, and no democracy activists gathered together to pick up weapons and fight against the government's minions. It can be seen that the parties involved understand this difference.

Rui: You mentioned in your article that coups and mutinies are other people's business, not ours. You also mentioned that those who advocate violent revolution actually don't have guns in their hands and have no way to really carry out violent revolution, so the only option left is non-violent resistance. But I also saw some people advocating that why can't we use our efforts to promote coups or mutinies? If we invest our energy and resources in promoting mutinies and coups, is it possible that the cost will be lower?

Hu: A coup must be carried out by a high-ranking official who is close to the highest power, and a mutiny must be carried out by a soldier who controls a certain amount of armed forces. If you are Hua Guofeng, Ye Jianying, or Lin Liguo, that is another matter. We are civilians, we are the people. We cannot carry out a coup or a mutiny. Of course, we can use our articles and speeches, our thoughts and ideas to influence those high-ranking people and those soldiers, and through peaceful collective actions, we can demonstrate our will and strength, put pressure on the ruling group, and force it to split and change. This is still non-violence for us.

It should be noted that high-level coups, disobedience of military and police, and even mutinies do not conflict with what we call nonviolent resistance. Because so-called nonviolence refers to the people adopting nonviolence. Keen Sharp, an expert on nonviolent resistance, said that one way nonviolent resistance can win is that massive nonviolent resistance intensifies the contradictions within the authoritarian ruling group and promotes the division of the ruling group: many officials refuse to carry out orders from their superiors, the military and police are unwilling to suppress the peaceful protests of the people, and even launch coups and mutinies. Another way for nonviolent resistance to win is that under the huge pressure from the people, the upper echelons of the ruling group split, the liberal faction defeats the hardliners, and reaches an institutional compromise with the people.

Rui: Finally, could you please talk about what issues the opposition camp needs to think about in particular when commemorating the 35th anniversary of the 1989 student movement?

Hu: I think the question we need to think about is how to improve ourselves and how to do the right things right. If we count from the Democracy Wall Movement, the Chinese people have been fighting for freedom and democracy for 45 years. Looking back, we have had exciting peaks, inspiring developments, and great optimism and strong confidence in the future. However, today, 45 years later, we cannot help but find that we have fallen into a sad trough, and all the achievements we once had have disappeared.

Faced with such a reality, we cannot help but ask ourselves: How could such a change happen? Where did we go wrong? No regrets should refer to the persistence of belief and the unswerving dedication, which does not mean that everything we did before, in terms of methods and strategies, has nothing to review and improve. What we did was right, but the serious setback we suffered shows that we did not do the right thing right. If today, 35 years after the "June 4th Incident", we still cannot find out where we made mistakes and seek ways to improve in the future, then we have wasted 35 years.

When talking about why Poland was the first to achieve a breakthrough in freedom and democracy, Walesa of Poland said: "Because we are smarter than everyone else, we have learned lessons from other people's models and surpassed them." Walesa said: "All difficulties can be overcome and defeated! It depends on what weapons, methods, or blind impulse you use. I used to do bad things because I was often impulsive - what? No? Oh my God, how can this be possible! Then I was punched in the chin by the opponent. Later I finally figured it out, this is not the way. I lost, which proved that my method must be wrong. So I changed my tactics later. I thought, hey, I can't beat you today, okay, see you later. Try another way another day, and if it doesn't work, try another way, and another one. If I still lose, it means I haven't learned my lesson or I didn't choose the right weapon.

In contrast, what we lack is this spirit of constant self-examination and continuous improvement. The 1989 student movement suffered a serious setback, and many people simply blamed the CCP - not because we did not do well, but because the CCP was too bad; or they blamed the people and criticized the bad nature of the Chinese people or Chinese intellectuals. Even if all these blames are correct, so what? Since our opponents and our people are given facts, our mission is to promote freedom and democracy under such realistic conditions, not under other hypothetical conditions. Therefore, we must improve ourselves, and we can only improve ourselves. It is not enough to just do the right thing, we must also do the right thing right.

Rui: Thank you. Today we are discussing such an important issue. I hope that future protests can be better and achieve the goal of ending autocracy and establishing democracy.

China Democracy Quarterly, Issue 2, 2024 (April 15, 2024)
Link: https://chinademocrats.org/?p=3110