The Tiananmen Knot

The recent comments by veteran Hong Kong
politician Ma Lik have reignited media interest in the events of June 4, 1989,
sometimes – though less frequently in these heady days of the China economic
miracle – referred to as the Tiananmen Massacre. Mr Ma’s comments may have been
inopportune and ill-considered, but the media interest in and subsequent public
debate on the issue have brought to light issues that laid buried in recent
years.

 

On May 15, Mr Ma, who is chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and
Progress of Hong Kong, stated at an informal press conference that the June 4
crackdown was not a massacre because troops in Beijing did not fire
“indiscriminately” at the protesting students. It has to be said – there is not
point pretending otherwise – that these were foolish words. Mr Ma has seized on
the word “massacre” and, in denying that it can be strictly apply to events
that transpired on June 4, attempted to whitewash a very problematic moment in
recent Chinese history. It is small surprise then that Mr Ma has suffered a
fierce backlash from many quarters, including exiled dissidents such as myself.

 

I do believe, however,
that clumsy comments such as those by Mr Ma need to be considered, not only at
face value, but also in terms of the implications for all of us who have any
kind of relationship with China.

 

The truth is that China
is no longer the same country that galvanized the world with scenes of tens of
thousands of students and workers taking to the streets to demand change. For a
huge number of Chinese today, particularly the elite who have access to the
university system, that change has already taken place. Despite the manifold
problems – a precipitous wealth-divide, rural unrest and intolerance of
political dissent, to name just a few – China today is far wealthier and more
cosmopolitan than the country I was forced to leave in 1989. It is governed by
a new generation of leaders – technocrats who speak in terms of words like
“governance” – and the old-generation Iron-Curtain generals are gone.

In short, with the rise
of China as a global economic force, and the 2008 Beijing Olympics just around
corner, it comes as no surprise that businesspeople and politicians of all
stripes should be considering how to put the political bottlenecks of the past
behind them. Sooner or later, after all, the past has to take its place in
history so that we can all collaborate in making a better a future. It goes
without saying that this is something that occupies the minds of dissidents
such as myself who cannot return to their homeland.

 

I am sure that Mr Ma
too is one of those people. Like us, he would like to be able to move on.
Unfortunately, his remarks were so outrageous that mostly all they served to do
was to open old wounds rather than stimulate debate about what the
preconditions for reconciliation might be. Even, I am sure, most dissidents
would welcome reconciliation – indeed it is a necessary development. But until
this day, 18 years on, reconciliation has not taken place, and for the most
part the world deals with June 4 by pretending it did not happen. Mr Ma’s
comments were a reminder that, whatever we call it, it did happen, and that
ghosts of June 4 can still arouse powerful emotions. Amid widespread public
calls of “shameless” in Hong Kong, the Apple
Daily ran a front-page headline calling Mr Ma “a scoundrel”, while the
Tiananmen Mother’s Group accused Mr Ma of “helping evil people do evil”.

 

For me, these reactions
underscore the fact that, no matter how vital China has become to world economy
and how much it has changed with the times, the Tiananmen knot cannot be
unraveled either by ignoring it or by denying it happened. The truth has to be
confronted before reconciliation can take place. The question of whether it is
time to forgive and move on is on many people’s minds, including my own. But
forgiveness, like reconciliation, has as its precondition the truth.

 

To this day, the
Chinese government calls the Tiananmen student movement, a
“counterrevolutionary riot”, all the while denying the scale of bloodshed. This
is a convenient line that I’m sure many would like to go along with, but as a
falsehood it leaves no room for dialog. It is a position that asks us to
forgive by forgetting.

 

Forgiveness will come
with reconciliation, but for that to happen the Chinese government, and its
defenders such as Mr Ma, will have to extend the same goodwill to the victims
of June 4, and to those bereaved, imprisoned and exiled, that they are willing
to extend to China. That means confronting the truth. Reconciliation under any
other terms is nothing more than appeasement.

 

As I have said before,
I think often about reconciliation. Like many of us in exile, I would like to
be part of the new China. Unfortunately, the day for that to happen has not
arrived. The conditions are not right. And until Beijing and its champions are
willing to engage in open dialog about the events of 1989 that day will not
arrive.

 

 ——Published 2007.06.04, Asia Wall Street Journal

“廢統”的淺薄政治涵義

 

昨天陳水扁又一次依據他的習慣﹐在二二八紀念集會上嗆聲﹐幾次問台下觀眾﹐“我錯了嗎﹖”﹐恭喜他﹐又得到了他在“主場”睽違的掌聲。

其實要廢除或終止國統綱領這件事本身﹐沒什麼大錯。他在宣示的時候的文稿也不能說不漂亮﹐甚至反將一軍﹐問馬英九如果台獨真是人民選項﹐規定人民除統一以外並無選項的國統綱領怎可不廢除﹐也絕對在邏輯上站得住腳。邏輯再通順﹐還是沒有回答另外幾個相關問題。

第一﹐這算不算違背承諾﹖邏輯變得非常好的陳水扁恐怕沒辦法否認違背承諾的事實。

政治上的承諾﹐有時並不公平﹐也不見得就不能違背﹐但是﹐總統違背政治承諾總是必須面對幾個更基本的問題吧﹕當初作出這樣承諾的原因喪失了嗎﹖違背承諾的結果會怎樣評估過嗎﹖這個結果由誰承擔﹖如果要由人民承擔﹐有正當的原因嗎﹖當然了﹐陳水扁並不是以邏輯性強為特色的﹐而是以控制媒體焦點﹐政治議題為其強項﹐以詭辯﹐強辯為著稱。

第二﹐今天作出這樣的宣示有什麼國內國際環境因素﹖中國大陸的威脅有突然或顯著提昇嗎﹖如果有﹐我們台灣人民願意相挺﹐但是﹐有嗎﹖比起作出國家元首的承諾時候﹐有嗎﹖還是國際局勢突然或顯著友善起來了﹖

說台灣人記性差﹐恐怕也沒那麼差。我所看到唯一合理解釋陳水扁此番作為的國內因素就是去年底民進黨在縣市長選舉慘敗﹐人們要求陳水扁道歉﹐其實就是要求他認錯﹐他以反省為名﹐躲起來三個月之後第一次以明確議題現身。再次應驗民進黨篤信的真理﹕只要有對立﹐再爛的總統也還是有掌聲。

第三﹐宣示文中﹐口口聲聲“民主價值”“人民福祉”﹐陳水扁可否回答﹐在廢統這一議題上考慮過人民意願嗎﹖有時政治對立是為了尊嚴﹐有時政治和解是為了發展。今天台灣人民的意願是要對立還是和解﹐陳水扁果真那麼關心嗎﹖還是只會算計和解與對立﹐哪個可以帶來更多掌聲和選票﹖掌聲恐怕只剩下選的巧的場合主席台前一點了﹐而選票﹐去年底的結論雖然已經很清楚﹐但大概﹐沒有連任壓力的陳水扁根本就不在乎了。

 

沒有世人關注 民運仍在堅持

又有一位民運人士從金門跳船來到台灣尋求政治庇護。我意識到，這牽扯到台灣人民如何看待民運這樣一個問題。

世人過去這些年如何看待中國民運，我點滴在心頭，既有對我們理想的支持，也有對我們不成熟的失望﹔既有對中國政府的不滿而產生對我們努力的敬意，
也有對中國政府畏懼而對我們存在的排斥﹔既有對未來中國走向自由而終於不再威脅和平的期待，也有今天與中國大陸做生意而不得不避諱民主的顧忌。我常常被詢問到：「你們民運，嗯……還在繼續嗎？」問題中充滿關心，但也充滿狐疑與不信任，還有一些失望甚至不滿。


中國經濟埋沒民運


顏軍今年32歲，來自陝西，曾經因為公開著文呼籲為六四平反而被中國政府判刑入獄兩年，出獄後繼續被警察騷擾，不僅騷擾本人，連帶也騷擾其家人朋友。不准工作，卻又不准與家人聯絡得到他們的接濟。同樣的故事發生在中國過去16、17年來，中國各個地方，同樣的故事一再重複著。

不要誤會！我不是在控訴中國政府的殘酷！我不是在訴說我們的悲情！我們這些民運人士自始至終就瞭解所面對的邪惡力量有多麼強悍而無情，也都有「我不下地獄，誰下地獄」的堅定信念。我在講的所謂同樣的故事，是指在如此惡劣的迫害之下，一直就有顏軍這樣的民運人士以略顯微弱但絕對堅定的聲音堅持著良知，反抗那侵奪人民自由的龐大政府機器。

今天的民運，不再是1989年天安門廣場式的波瀾壯闊了，也不再是當初在美國在巴黎聚集全球支持者那樣的令人滿懷希望了。而且那希望被嚴峻的現實擊碎之後，對於民運，世人似乎感到失望，也更吝於支持。

但今天的中國當然仍然還有民主運動，雖然注重收視率的媒體不再報導，失落的支持者不再關注，但我們這些沒有放棄的人知道，中國的民運仍然在堅持，在發聲，在串聯，不僅處處暗潮洶湧，而且發展為波瀾壯闊並非遙不可及。

世人對中國民運的冷漠，首先要檢討的是我們這些海外的民運份子們表現的不成熟，沒能夠滿足大家的希望。另外一個原因恐怕就是，當中國日漸強大之時，我們這些民運份子似乎慢慢變成了一種「不方便」。當年的殺人者今天仍然在殘酷迫害，仍然在殺人，但也越來越熟練地週旋於國際社會，享受著中國經濟奇跡的光環。

想去中國賺錢的人們會注意到的是上海浦東日新月異的城市面貌，卻不太願意談論中國農村的貧窮；對於開發官員的效率嘖嘖稱奇，卻寧可把這效率和那些就像發生在汕尾的慘案一樣的所有不公不義分割開來；世人雖然沒有忘記天安門，但常常提及似乎又和今天如潮水般湧向中國市場的行為有點不搭調，說重一點，有點莫名的良心不安。誰也不願意面對良心的不安，雖然中國的不民主同樣威脅著世人的和平，也威脅著在中國賺到的那些錢，但是，很多人仍然會覺得，中國的民運並不是世人的責任。不難想像，這樣的心態令我們總有些許的遺憾。


民主是一生的使命


推進中國的民主化，是我們這群「民運份子」一生不會推卸的責任與使命，十幾年前我們走上北京街頭，那時得到世人的理解與支持，曾給我們極大的力量。今天我們仍然在堅持理想，堅持民運，也仍然尋求世人一如既往的支持。

遺忘，鄉愿與逃避都是可怕的，歷史的悲劇往往在它們侵入我們的意識之時重複。而作為生活在自由社會的人民，面對專制者，捍衛自由民主的權力，不僅有其價值觀上的正當性，也有現實生活中能夠最大程度保護自己的功能性。至少吧，將心比心，給予這些為堅持理想而受到迫害的人庇護，這是唯一正確的選擇。

蘋果日報，2006年01月21日

長歌琴劍—遙祭賓雁

不見長城阻天關﹐ 唯有巨浪筑愁籓﹐

秋水已望穿﹐ 故人不得還。

無盡長天兮﹐ 低眉念﹔

神傷大地兮﹐ 舉頭看。

 

鄉愁未催琴心老﹐ 常笑遮天巨魔小﹐

劍膽流墨書似刀﹐ 軟紙成影泰山高。

白山長白兮﹐ 著素縞﹔

黑水悠悠兮﹐ 遙相悼﹗

 

——這首詩是在我的忘年好友劉賓雁去世時所賦。2005.12.06

民進黨沉淪莫此為甚

民進黨幾位立委爆料TVBS為港資﹐因為港資就是中資﹐所以﹐這是TVBS被中資掌控﹐TVBS與中國裡應外合﹐企圖顛覆顛覆台灣政府。

這一指控牽涉到政府與媒體的關係﹐我來自專制的中國大陸﹐因爭取包括新聞自由的民主價值被政府追緝﹐而流亡到了民主的台灣﹐對於專制與民主制度下﹐政府與媒體之間的關係有點淺顯的思考﹐想在此就教於以推動台灣民主的功臣自居的民進黨人。
 

•   民主制度下媒體批評監督政府。專制制度下媒體只能歌頌政府﹐為政府立場護航﹔
   


•   如果媒體批判政府﹐民主政府以媒體為第四權﹐無論多麼不情願﹐也必須給予尊重。專制政府會扣帽子指責其企圖顛覆﹔
  
  


•   民主政府對於媒體或任何民間公司只有依法行政管理的權力﹐哪怕該媒體或民間企業背後的投資主導者是政治立場敵對力量的侵入﹐也不能以此為超越政府與民間關係的籍口。專制政府會對令其頭痛的媒體或任何民間公司背後的投資進行政治審查﹐哪怕只是懷疑有所謂“敵人”力量的涉入﹐都會以“裡應外合”等名詞羅織罪名﹐直到這種令人頭痛的壓力消失為止﹔
  

對於TVBS指責是企圖顛覆政府﹐我也是因“陰謀顛覆政府罪”而被中國政府通緝﹐專制的中國政府拿出的罪證就是我曾經組織數十萬人遊行抗爭﹐雖然所有的抗爭均為和平方式﹐也從未提出對政府統治權的挑戰﹐然而﹐專制政府照樣以此為罪名通緝起訴。

我想在一個民主社會的執政黨國會議員指責任何人顛覆﹐那麼所依據的事實一定鐵證如山了吧﹖事實上﹐被指控的TVBS最近的所作所為﹐正是善盡媒體職責﹐監督批評政府﹐其職責內容也遵守媒體舉證義務﹐令上至總統的執政當局窮於應付﹐顛覆之議﹐只能凸顯指責者居心叵測或水準太差。

這些立委爆料的證據不足﹐指責的邏輯混沌﹐其它民進黨人應該也一目瞭然﹐如果這些國會議員水準太差﹐總是會有其它有水準的國會議員﹐政府官員﹐政黨發言人出面澄清吧﹖

然而﹐整個民進黨因道德勇氣不足或道德標準模糊而緘默不語。

不僅如此﹐新聞局更是配合默契﹐抽絲剝繭﹐找到了聯意公司未依法向新聞局申報董監事名單變動的證據﹐先依衛廣法三十八條﹐開出新台幣二十萬元罰單﹐並宣稱TVBS公司股權登記若以偽造文書申請﹐違反衛星廣播電視法﹐以不法手段取得許可﹐可撤銷執照。

姚局長可以以身為政務官必須嚴格執法為自己的行為解釋﹐若以同樣嚴格的標準審視﹐台灣的所有港資企業是否都應該噤若寒蟬了呢﹖把依法以台灣公司投資說成是港資﹐把港資說成是中資﹐姚局長這是瀆職以及濫權﹐至少算是不熟悉法律﹐不適任政務官職。

而對於TVBS未依法向新聞局申報董監事名單變動的技術過失﹐姚局長以撤照為恫嚇﹐這屬於缺乏基本民主修養。在一個以民主進步為宗旨為黨名的執政體系﹐缺乏基本民主修養本應令其長官震怒撤職﹐但似乎這已經屬於民進黨執政的常態﹐人民至今也只能搖頭嘆息。

人民因為對於民主價值的尊崇而給予衝撞國民黨專制體制的民進黨今天執政的機會﹐當TVBS這個媒體對於其執政的腐敗給予嚴厲批判的時候﹐就算TVBS的投資背景完全是中資﹐完全是中共這個專制體制﹐他們的聲音也必須給予尊重。然而﹐不去對於他們言論的內容給予嚴肅誠懇的回應和反省﹐反而從TVBS的投資背景開刀﹐民進黨的沉淪令人民扼腕悔嘆。

民主進步黨﹐還記得民主﹐進步嗎﹖人民還記得。

柴玲是個好樣的﹗

 

轉眼之間﹐我們已經在紀念“六四”十六週年的紀念日了﹐我們是不是還要在明年後年繼續感慨這轉眼之間呢﹖更加令我們深思的應該是這轉眼之間逝去這麼多年之後﹐丁子霖還不能從政府口中得到一個公道﹐當年的殺人者今天卻越來越熟練地週旋於國際社會﹐享受著中國經濟奇跡的光環﹐我們還在流亡﹐而且不得不面對我們已經成為越來越多的人的“不方便”這樣一個嚴酷現實。

 

去年的今天﹐我曾在華爾街日報發表一篇文章。在那篇文章裡﹐我作為天安門學運的領導者之一﹐向丁子霖道歉﹐痛苦但誠實面對我內心深處必將跟隨我一生的負罪感。同時提醒世人﹐丁子霖等待的道歉更應該來自開槍殺人的人﹐我以這樣的聲音呼喚世人的良知﹕天安門不僅僅是當年鼓舞世人﹐喚醒良知的一個逐漸淡去的畫面﹔天安門之後倒塌的柏林牆﹐走出監牢的曼德拉﹐獨立的東帝汶在告訴世人﹐這世界的確在我們的良知力量之下變得越來越美好﹔天安門也是提醒我們這個良知的事業是個未完成的事業﹗我們決不能遺忘﹗

 

事實上﹐我們不僅背負倖存者的罪惡感﹐還背負著倖存者責任感﹐這樣的責任感要求我們必須理性地反思﹐過去的十六年﹐我們常常聽到的一些說法﹕學生是不是太激進了？八九年的屠殺學生應不應負責？對於這樣的指責﹐我們從未停止表達我們的反省。

 

不久之前﹐我在台灣的一所大學演講時﹐這個問題再次浮現﹕八九年學運的失敗﹐學生堅持不肯撤退是否要承擔部份責任﹖我舉了這樣的一個例子來回答。

 

一個小村莊﹐有一個雜貨店﹐店老闆是一個很粗魯的人﹐一天到晚酗酒打孩子﹐結果有一天其中有幾個小孩子站出來反抗﹐反抗的小孩脫口而出一句頂撞﹐於是這父親惱羞成怒就把幾個小孩子打死了﹐全村決定譴責這個父親﹐可是過了這些日子﹐因為全村就只有這間雜貨店﹐買醬油還是得找他﹐買大米也得去找他﹐那怎麼辦呢？

 

這家雜貨店這幾年生意愈做愈好﹐先做成超市﹐而後繼快速續發展﹐而成為一個有規模的商業中心﹐很多人在這裡上班。那個老闆呢﹐慢慢改變過去的粗魯形像﹐現在也不穿拖鞋咬檳榔﹐偶而也穿個西裝打領帶﹐也比較有笑容﹐也學會用英文說歡迎光臨了。但任何人提起打死小孩這件事情他仍然堅持沒這回事﹐或者說這是當時不得不採取的措施﹐否則沒有紀律﹐就不可能有發展﹐就不可能有大家所依賴的全村經濟引擎﹐再或者說這是他的家務事﹐跟別人不相乾。過了一些日子﹐村子就有這樣的聲音出現了：“那小孩子也有不對之處﹐就算小孩反抗有道理﹐畢竟不能對大人那麼不禮貌嘛。”

 

今天的中國就是大家不得不去打交道的雜貨店嗎﹖世人就是無奈的村人嗎﹖我們是那群還在主張為死者討回公道的常常令人覺得“不方便”的反抗孩童嗎﹖然而﹐我們不該忘記誰才是真正的兇手﹐面對這個兇手﹐世人也許常常覺得無力﹐但即使無力我們也不能錯誤地指責受害人。在理解村人需要醬油大米和工作機會之餘﹐提醒世人這村莊還需要公平和正義﹐還需要不再打死無辜孩童的保證啊﹗一個會打死自己孩子而不受制裁的人很可能搶回醬油大米和工作﹐甚至還可能繼續向其他無辜的人的逞凶啊﹗

 

去年的今天﹐我在美國華盛頓市與王丹等十幾位當年的學生領袖一起﹐在中國大使館前繼續呼喊沒變的口號時﹐我望著台下站著的當年夥伴﹐十幾年前﹐我們投身於這場驚天動地的運動時﹐展現出了不起的勇敢與理性﹐在過去的十幾年間﹐我們這些當初被稱為天安門的孩子的一代人經歷了許多﹐已經不再是孩子了﹐但理想始終沒變﹐責任感始終沒有放棄。我望著他們十幾年之後更加堅定的眼神﹐大聲告白﹕“夥伴們﹐我們當初是好樣的﹐我以能和你們並肩為榮﹗”當時台下沒有柴玲﹐柴玲因為主張堅持下去﹐而受到很不公平的指責﹐我們沒能站出來保護她﹐深深覺得有愧。柴玲也是這樣一個好夥伴﹐也是我深感榮幸與之為伍的英雄。

 

推進中國的民主化﹐是我們這群“天安門的孩子”一生不會推卸的責任與使命﹐在十六年前我們走上北京街頭至今我們流亡海外﹐這一點認知不曾改變﹐而那時得到的世人的理解與支持﹐曾給我們極大的力量。今天我們堅持著理想﹐也仍然尋求世人的堅定支持﹐提醒世人十六年前被殺死的逐夢者﹐他們的夢想在我們不再堅持時就也死去了。

 

遺忘﹐偏頗與縱容都是可怕的﹐歷史的悲劇往往在它們侵入我們的意識之時重複。我繼去年向丁子霖道歉而大聲疾呼不該遺忘之後﹐今年應該盯著因為人們的無力感而衍生的偏頗縱容﹐大聲說出﹕柴玲是個好樣的﹗

 

——發表於《世界日報》2005.06.04

 

China Should Extend a Hand

 

As a former student leader who has been exiled for 16
years since the Tiananmen massacre of June 4, 1989, I see cause for cautious optimism in the
recent developments in cross-Strait relations. Taiwan is now my home, and the hostility
with which Beijing so often treats this young democracy never ceases to remind
me of the hostility that I and so many others--too many of them now dead--faced
in 1989.

 

That’s why I was so pleased to see the recent
reconciliation between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist
Party, symbolized by CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao’s historic handshake with
visiting Kuomintang Chairman Lien Chan on April 29. I’m not suggesting that any
dramatic changes will come directly from this meeting--the way ahead will not be
easy simply because of a single handshake. Nonetheless the fact that Mr. Hu
greeted Mr. Lien in such a friendly manner marks a significant shift from the
usual strategy of threatening military action against Taiwan, which Beijing was still pursuing
only a month earlier with the passage of the anti-secession law.

 

The handshake took place against a very troubled
background on both sides of the Strait. Many Taiwanese--in particular
supporters of the island’s so-called “pan-blue” opposition parties--have long
been frustrated by confrontational domestic politics and the economic setbacks Taiwan has
experienced in recent years. But distrust among the island’s political forces
had made it almost impossible, until now, for them to reach agreement on how to
reach out to the mainland.

 

On the Chinese side, there is even less trust and
understanding. Modern Chinese have grown up indoctrinated in the belief that a
unified China
would be an even greater China.
The orthodoxy of this faith is reinforced by the fact that they live in a
politically monochromatic system that exiles diversity of opinion and dissent.
This in turn makes it difficult for both Chinese citizens and their leaders to
understand either the KMT or the democratic Taiwanese environment in which it
vies for power.

 

That gulf still separates China and Taiwan. But
reconciliation has to start somewhere, and that’s is why I found some hope in
the smile that creased Mr. Hu lips when he shook hands with Mr. Lien. I know that
smile conceals a greed for power which could one day cause China to attack
Taiwan,
and that the island will have to remain vigilant against this possibility.
Nonetheless a smile is far more likely to lead to a brighter future than a
scowl. Even though the way ahead is still difficult, and will require much hard
work and sacrifices from many people, the goodwill that was extended during Mr.
Lien’s visit makes for a good start.

 

It also makes me wonder whether it is possible to
start bridging another fissure in China’s modern political landscape.
In the run up to Saturday’s 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, I would
like to call upon Mr. Hu to stage a similar reconciliation with the student
protesters. The bloody confrontation between peaceful petitioners and the Beijing regime that took
place that day was a tragedy born of poor judgment and bad decisions by the
government. And the skirmishes that have persisted between Beijing and a generation of exiled dissidents
over the past 16 years are a result of the central government’s inability to
accept dissenting opinions. The outcome has been lives lost, wasted in
imprisonment or lived in exile far from home, while families have been torn
apart, not to mention the immense damage done to China’s image on the international
stage. For some, perhaps, memories of Tiananmen may have dimmed, but there are
still enough people who have not forgotten that, whenever China turns to
the world with a request or demand, inevitably the word “Tiananmen” comes up.

 

The truth is, China continues to politicize Tiananmen
by suppressing information about it and failing to face up to its
responsibility for the lives that has lost on June 4, 1989, just as it has
politicized the Falun Gong religious movement with extensive and ruthless
suppression. If China
truly wants to be accepted into the international community, sooner or later it
will have to settle these grievances by staging reconciliations with both its
political and religious opponents--and a good way to start would be with my
fellow exiles and I.

 

For my part, I would leap at the chance to be able to
return to my homeland, to see my family again and participate in the new China,
providing there were no conditions, such as a prison sentence, an apology for
my student activities or a demand that I not raise my voice with unwelcome
opinions.

 

The international applause for such a step would ring far
louder for Mr. Hu than when he shook hands with Mr. Lien. And it would be far
more than applause--a friendly gesture to a generation of peaceful protesters
would show that China
is taking its first step toward greater tolerance of diversity, out of which
springs the only real hope for a great nation.

 

If the leaders of two parties who fought a civil war
half a century ago can shake hands, it should not be too much for China’s leaders
also to extend a welcoming hand to the students of 1989. Like all other Chinese,
we dream of a greater motherland, and I say to Mr. Hu--let us come home. That
is our undeniable right as Chinese citizens--guaranteed by China’s
constitution--and it would show the world that China is sincere in its efforts to
become a truly modern state. Let us start with a handshake, and bring smiles to
the faces of all those who have suffered in exile over 16 long years.

——Published 2005.06.04, Asia Wall Street Journal