by Adi Ignatius
There was a fear of being exposed, of having it leaked to the outside world. In this way, they could deny responsibility in hopes of preventing unpredictable consequences. This was truly abnormal.
They said that I could receive guests at home, as long as they were not reporters or foreigners. But in reality, no one has been allowed in without an appointment. Without letting me know, they have turned everyone away. I don’t even know who has come by. I informed them in advance of some visitors I was expecting, but they were still subjected to approval. Upon arrival, they are subjected to ID checking and registration, and all efforts are made to block visits. My place has always been a highly sensitive location; with the addition of so many rules and procedures, it has become too troublesome for many people. As a result, the entrance to my home is a cold, desolate place.
I receive even fewer visitors when I travel outside of Beijing. Besides service personnel and top provincial leaders, no one is allowed to know about my arrivals. They are kept secret.
For example, an old acquaintance, Comrade He Yiran, called and asked to meet with me. It was not allowed. Another example was my old friend Liu Zhengwen in Anhui, who has since passed away. When I arrived in Hefei, he tried to visit me. He phoned but was told I was outside the area. The second time he called, he was told that I had already left. They were afraid of my meeting people.
Once I was in Sichuan and some of the city and county level leaders found out and wanted to come to see me. When the matter was later reported to the Central Committee, the Central Committee criticized Sichuan provincial leaders and demanded an explanation for why the secret had not been strictly kept, resulting in so many people attempting to visit Zhao.
I went out of town every winter, except in 1997 and 1998. I wrote seven letters to Jiang Zemin and the Politburo about my going to Guangdong, but received no replies. I received a response only through the General Office, telling me that I could not go to Guangdong, but could go to other areas. In January 1993, I went to Nanning in Guangxi, passing through Changsha on the way back; in 1994, I went to Guizhou, and spent a week in Chengdu; in 1993, I spent time in Heilongjiang; in 1994, I went to Changchun and Harbin; in 1995, to Jiangxi and Anhui; in 1996, to Wuxi in Jiangsu and Zhenjiang; in 1997, to Hangzhou and then Sichuan; from the winter of 1997 to the spring of 1998, I did not leave Beijing; in 1999, I went first to Hangzhou and then to Yantai. In January of this year, that is, 2000, I went to Guilin and then Sichuan. The range of movement has been gradually enlarged.
In addition to the annual denials of my requests to go to Guangdong and Hainan, requests to go to Wuxi and Suzhou were turned down in 1995, as were requests to go to Guangdong, Hainan, and Fujian during the winter of 1999 and spring of 2000. Instead I went to Guangxi and passed by Sichuan on my way back.
As a result, I concluded that they had said “no coastal areas allowed” as a way to hide their intention of preventing me from going to Guangdong. If they had mentioned only Guangdong, it would have been too blatantly singled out. But aren’t Yantai and Hangzhou both in coastal regions? I was allowed to go to those places, but not Guangdong. As for why Guangdong was excluded, I have no idea.
In autumn of 1995, Comrade Chen Yun died. I was in Beijing at the time. I was very sad when I heard the news. Even though I hadn’t always agreed with his ideas about reform, I felt nevertheless that in many ways he was deserving of respect. I wanted very much to go to Chen’s family to offer my condolences and express my sentiments. I made a request to the General Office and they quickly replied, saying that it was inconvenient. In the end I was not permitted to go. I was later to learn that after I had made my request, the General Office had contacted Comrade Chen Yun’s family, hoping they would express a desire to have me stopped from going. Instead, the family expressed a willingness to receive me, so the General Office had no other choice but to tell me it was “inconvenient.” They have always denied me the right to go to similar events, yet at the same time they do not want the outside world to know that they impose such restrictions.
When Comrade Deng Xiaoping passed away [in February 1997], I was resting in Hangzhou. I was very sorrowful when I heard the news. I immediately phoned the General Office asking that it relay a message to leaders of the Central Committee: first, to express my condolences and second, to request an immediate return to Beijing to take part in memorial services. The Central Committee quickly replied to say that there would not be a ceremony to bid farewell to the deceased, and asked me not to return to Beijing.
In May 1997, on my way back to Beijing from Chengdu, I heard that Comrade Peng Zhen had died. As soon as I arrived in Beijing, I called Peng Zhen’s family and told them I would go to their home to pay my respects. I then called the Security Bureau to inform them that I was going to Peng Zhen’s house. As soon as the General Office learned of this, they sent Meng Xianzhong to my house to dissuade me from going. Meng said, “Peng Zhen’s family has not yet set up the mourning hall,” and he told me I must “consider the big picture” and “consider the ramifications.”
I was very angry with Meng for telling me a barefaced lie, and we quarreled. Why should I not be permitted to commemorate an old comrade’s death? What was there to fear?
On September 12, 1997, I sent a letter to the 15th Party Congress and to nine other people through the General Office Service Bureau and asked them to forward it to the Congress. In addition to the seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee, one was addressed to Yang Shangkun, and another to Wan Li, because they had been involved. The letters were sent through the General Office Service Bureau. I learned afterward that at least two of the nine people never received my letter: Yang Shangkun and Comrade Wan Li. As for the members of the Standing Committeee, I speculate that they might have received it. I had asked them to forward copies to the entire Congress, but this was blocked.
Now I will relate the contents of the letter, since there has been hearsay in public about the content, some of which has been inaccurate. The original letter is as follows:
To the Presidium of the 15th Party Congress and All Representative Comrades:
The 15th Party Congress is our Party’s last Congress of the twentieth century. In just over two years, time will march into the twenty-first century. At the critical moment of reflecting on the past and marching toward the future, I sincerely wish the Congress full success. Please allow me to propose the issue of reevaluating the June Fourth incident, which I hope will be discussed.
The events of June Fourth, which shocked the world, are now eight years past. In hindsight, there are two questions that should be answered with an attitude of honoring the facts.
First, no matter what extreme, wrong, or disagreeable things occurred in the midst of the student demonstrations, there was never any evidence to support the designation of “counterrevolutionary rebellion.” If it was not a “counterrevolutionary rebellion,” then the means of a military suppression should never have been used to resolve it.
Even though the military suppression quickly quelled the situation, we have no alternative but to admit that the people, the army, the Party, and the government, indeed our entire country, have paid dearly for that decision and action. The negative impact continues to exist in the relationship between our Party and the masses, the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan strait, and our country’s foreign relations.
Because of the impact of the incident, the political reform initiated by the 13th Party Congress died young and in midstream, leaving the reform of the political system lagging seriously behind. As a result of this serious situation, while our country’s economic reform has made substantial progress, all sorts of social defects have emerged and developed and are rapidly spreading. Social conflicts have worsened, and corruption within and outside of the Party is proliferating and has become unstoppable.
Second, could a better method have been found to respond to the student demonstrations so that bloodshed could have been avoided while still making the situation s
ubside? Back then I proposed “resolving the issue according to democracy and law” and indeed strived for such an outcome. Today, I still believe that by adopting such measures, the situation could have ended peacefully without bloodshed. At least the serious and bloody confrontation could have been avoided.
As everyone knows, most of the students were demanding the punishment of corruption and the promotion of political reform, and were not advocating the overthrow of the Communist Party or the subversion of the republic. The situation would have subsided if we had not interpreted the students’ actions as being anti-Party and anti-socialist, but had accepted their reasonable demands and had adopted measures of patient negotiation, dialogue, and reducing tensions.
If so, not only would all the negative impacts of the bloody confrontation have been avoided, but a new kind of communication and interactive pattern would have been established among political parties, the government, and the people; and there would have been a boost to the reform of the political system, so we could have not only made substantial progress on economic reform, but brought about new prospects to reforming the political system of our country.
Sooner or later, the issue of reevaluating June Fourth must be resolved. Even if it’s delayed for a long time, people will not forget. It is better to resolve it earlier rather than later, proactively rather than passively, and in stable rather than in troubled times.
With the national situation now stable, the consensus of many people is a desire for stability and an aversion to chaos. The heightened emotions of the past have subsided. If our Party could take it upon itself to initiate a proposal to reevaluate the June Fourth incident in these conditions, and take the lead in the process, it is fully possible not to be affected by extreme emotions from various sources, and to move the process of resolving a difficult historical issue along the correct tracks of reason and tolerance. The principles of resolving historical problems could be followed, such as “not nitpicking over details” and “focusing on the lessons to be learned rather than individual blame.”
If this was done, not only could a difficult historical situation be resolved, the stability of the situation could be maintained while simultaneously creating a better international environment for our country’s reform and openness.
I hope that we can examine the situation and make a decision soon. The above suggestions are offered for the consideration of the Congress.
Zhao Ziyang
September 12, 1997
I did not disseminate this letter, nor did I go through anyone to make it public. However, overseas media quickly learned about this letter, and commotion ensued.
Meng Xianzhong soon came to see me. He pointed out that conditions nationwide were excellent at the time and asked me not to undermine the great situation and to obey Party discipline. He implied that I had not observed this discipline. I replied immediately that I was a member of the Communist Party, and that the Party Charter clearly gave Party members the right to offer suggestions to the Party Congress. He said that there had already been a conclusion made about June Fourth. I said that the Party Congress, being the highest authority of the Party, had the right to decide whether or not to reevaluate June Fourth. Even if there had already been a resolution, it could still be reevaluated. Certainly, it could choose to reaffirm its past decision, but this was within the authority of the Congress. Any decision of the Party could be discussed by the Congress.
He also said that I shouldn’t have disseminated the letter. I replied that I had only sent it to nine people, all via the Service Bureau. In fact, I wanted to know, to whom did they forward my letter? Naturally, the conversation was very unpleasant.
Around the same time, Comrade Yong Wentao passed away. We were old colleagues and had worked together in Guangdong. I asked to attend his funeral. Previously, I had been permitted to attend funerals for people at the minister level, though not those for members of the central leadership. However, this time they told me that because I had disobeyed Party discipline, I was not allowed to go out.
What followed was the prohibition of all visitors from my house. The severity of the prohibition was even harsher than it had been during the investigation. An old lady from Guangdong who had once been a helper in my house, and was now quite elderly, traveled thousands of kilometers to see me, but was kept waiting outside my house for several hours. Even when my wife returned home from shopping, her purse would be searched by the guards at the gate. Obviously the stationed soldiers were not responsible for this; the order had to have come from at least as high as the General Office of the Central Committee. Hence, I wrote a letter to the General Office as follows:
Leaders of the General Office of the Central Committee:
Greetings!
Recently, the Security Bureau of the General Office has instructed the guards at my home to prohibit me from receiving visitors, going out, and playing golf.
Attending a comrade’s funeral was also prohibited. Even relatives visiting from afar have been stopped at the gate. However, all of these things were allowed even under the six rules limiting my freedom imposed after the 14th Party Congress. This would mean that after five and a half years of semi–house arrest, I am now to be subjected to full house arrest. This is in serious violation of the law. Obviously, the Security Bureau or the troops standing guard could not have taken it upon themselves to make such a decision. What is the real reason for this? Have the original rules been abolished and are there new rules in place? In any case, I have not been informed.
There is no alternative but to regard this kind of undeclared house arrest as a crude trampling of the socialist legal system. As a member of the Party, if I have violated Party discipline (which in fact is not the case), the Party’s administration is within its rights to take disciplinary action, including expelling me from the Party; but it has no right to limit my personal freedoms or deprive me of my rights as a citizen. The Party Charter strictly prohibits the use of tactics that violate the Party Charter or the laws of the state in its treatment of members. Those organizations or individuals who violate these rules must be punished through Party disciplinary action and the laws of the state.
As a citizen, even if I had violated the law (which is absolutely not the case), limits on my freedom of movement must follow legal procedures and only law enforcement agencies of the state have the power to administer them. These are stated clearly in the laws of the state. Though the General Office is an extremely important organization of the Central Committee, it is not a law enforcement agency of the state and has no right to carry out the authority belonging to the law enforcement agency of the state.
In the past, during those years when we “acknowledged neither laws nor heavenly constraints,” similar incidents to those described above often occurred, which formed a certain mentality and pattern of behavior among some people. Nevertheless, that era has long since passed.
Since the Reform and Open-Door Policy, our Party and the state have always emphasized the establishment of the rule of law. Especially after the recent 15th Party Congress, incidents such as these should not be allowed to happen.
Comrade Jiang Zemin, in his 15th Party Congress Political Report, solemnly pledged to the world to perfect the socialist legal system, including upholding the principle of rule of law, guaranteeing that all matters of state would be conducted according to the law, declaring that all laws would be observed, that violators would be punished, and that no individual or organization would have special authority outside the boundaries of the law; that all government organizations would conduct their affairs in accordance with the law, and that the rights of citizens would be safeguarded in concrete terms. I trust General Secretary Jiang Zemin was serious about this and was intent on carrying it out and was not just paying lip service.
Allow me to ask, as a citizen who is being prevented from going out and receiving visitors and deprived of other rights: Does this accord with the principle of doing things according to the law? Is it tr
ue that you have placed yourself in the position of having special authority outside the boundaries of law? The General Office is an organization of the Party that is right under the noses of the central leadership. How is it that you have not checked your own behavior with all the principles of establishing the rule of law that were announced at the 15th Party Congress?
Of course, this letter yielded no results.
Since I did not receive any replies, after a while I wrote again to the Politburo Standing Committee, that is, to each of the seven members of the Standing Committee newly elected at the 15th Party Congress. In the past, whenever I had sent letters to the Standing Committee, only one or two people received them. Therefore, this time I sent each one of them a copy. The letter was as follows:
Comrade Jiang Zemin:
Greetings!
On September 12, I wrote a letter to the 15th Party Congress, suggesting a reevaluation of the June Fourth incident. I trust that you have all seen it. Since I sent the letter, I have been prohibited from receiving visitors or going outside my house. My personal freedoms have been completely restricted. The former conditions of my semi–house arrest have turned into full house arrest.
With regard to this serious violation of the law, I have written to the General Office of the Central Committee demanding to have this matter resolved. However, my house arrest continues to this day. For this reason, I have no choice but to bring this issue to your attention.
As a Party member, making a suggestion to the Party’s congress is a normal exercise of Party membership rights. This is clearly stated in the Party Charter. Regardless of whether my suggestion was correct or wrong, and regardless of whether the Party Congress discusses it or not, I could not have violated the Party Charter or the laws of the state. However, house arrest and the deprivation of my personal freedoms as a citizen suggest that I am receiving the treatment of a criminal. I do not even know what specific laws I have violated, nor do I know which state law enforcement agency and what procedure of law have been used to authorize my house arrest. How can subjecting a person to this kind of undeclared house arrest and depriving his rights as a citizen not constitute a crude trampling of the socialist legal system?
