Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A111-W50
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A111-W50
Release Date: February 12, 2005
发布日：2005年2月12日
Topic: Asia Weekly Report: Wei Jingsheng Talks about Zhao ZiYang and Democracy
标题：《亞洲週刊》紀碩鳴：魏京生談趙紫陽與民主
Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Asia Weekly Report: Wei Jingsheng Talks about Zhao ZiYang and Democracy
Wei Jingsheng, the Chinese democracy advocate who has been in exile for nearly eight years, thinks that the death of Zhao Ziyang will not cause a huge disturbance. The reason is that the populace suffers complete disillusionment. The people are very pragmatic. He views the Chinese Communist rulers as a power cartel motivated by their greed, in complete disregard of ideology. A younger ideology is emerging.
Wei was imprisoned for 18 years for his dissent. Since being released from Chinese jail for medical treatment in November 1997, Wei, the campaigner who has devoted his life for Chinese democracy, has insistently promoted the cause and never stopped. Wei posits that the 21st Century is the century of freedom, democracy and human rights; that freedom and democracy are an unmistakable trend of global civilization development. Meanwhile, the Chinese people's understanding of freedom and democracy has greatly improved. The most difficult time has passed.
Wei Jingsheng flew to Taipei from the United States as an honored guest of the World League for Freedom and Democracy. In an interview with Asia Weekly, Wei expressed optimism and faith in the Chinese freedom and democratic improvement.
On the Chinese Communist's low-key treatment of its former Secretary-General Zhao ZiYang's funeral, Wei thinks it was not in proper protocol and was disrespectful. However, this treatment reflects the regime's mentality. It contradicts the illusion that Hu-Wen are potential reformers. Wei posits that when Zhao Ziyang insistently disagreed with opening fire on the demonstrators, it was his ultimate contribution to Chinese freedom and democracy. So for the remaining years in house arrest, Zhao had great remorse. At that time many in the ruling clique considered removing Deng Xiaoping to thoroughly reform the political system. Doing so may have led to the complete collapse of the Chinese Communist Party, similar to what happened in the Soviet Union. That would cause the creation of a new political system. While Zhao had the power to cause that change, he did not do so. The result was that people were slaughtered; Chinese politics turned backward. That was his remorse.
This trip was not Wei's first to Taiwan. He has many friends there. In 2001 he met one-on-one with President Chen Shuibien for 30 minutes. Wei feels that Chen is a sensitive leader. Wei advises that the issue of Taiwan's independence has to be handled very carefully, otherwise it would be dangerous. Wei thinks that President Chen agreed with him then.
Wei admits that during the last more than a decade, there have been many changes in the overseas democracy movement - some went into business and some returned to China. He thinks that the essential base is still strong. The following is the excerpt of the interview with Asia Weekly.
Q Do you feel the funeral treatment of Zhao Ziyang was proper?
A: Zhao has been the premier of China and the Secretary-General of the Chinese Communist Party, both number one position in the country. His funeral treatment was not proper regardless of his 'mistakes'. For a highest leader of a country, his low-profile funeral treatment was improper etiquette.
Q: Why such treatment?
A: This treatment clearly indicates that the Hu-Wen clique is not what it initially pretended to be - a reform group. If the clique were a reform group, this funeral was the best opportunity for them to show their true colors. Apparently they did not express that intension. The reason is that this faction does not want any reform unless it is forced to. With that we can see the mindset of the clique.
Q: What is your evaluation of Zhao Ziyang?
A: The Communist regime's evaluation of Zhao is unfair. We applaud his refusal to open fire on demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Many want to reverse the Communist's verdict of Zhao. I think the reversal may have to wait for a long time. To me much overseas praise for Zhao is also overdone. His passing is a milestone - the passing of the old cadres of the Communist party who were ideologists yet mostly had bloody hands. We applaud Zhao as a man of conscience who did not do bad things at critical times.
Q: Zhao's passing is the conclusion of a generation?
A: Yes. I thoroughly understand this generation. My father was like that. They caused unspeakable suffering among the people: this movement, that campaign, etc. in addition to the devastation of the economy, starvation and killings. Their initial motivation was not bad. They thought that ideology would build a strong China for people to have good lives. But the results made them greatly disappointed, including Zhao. However, their thought was confined to that box. So it leaves us to clean up the mess.
Q: So the idealism of Communism passed away with Zhao?
A: Currently in the Chinese Communist Party structure whether you believe in Communism or not isn't important. What is important is to use the Communist trademark to satisfy your greed. It is purely a cartel of greed. There is neither ideology nor conscience. This is the ultimate transformation of the Chinese Communist Party.
Q: In this logic, there is no idealism, only pragmatism?
A: That is the essential reality in China. When we discuss China, we must stand on this reality. The Hu-Wen clique will not make any changes unless they see their own benefit in the change. Now the Communist Party had no ideology, only greed.
Q: There is no hope for China?
A: Now the younger generation and generations have a new ideology. It is the ideology of freedom and democracy. This movement is coming on very strongly. In it China still has hope. The Chinese are not a backward people.
Q: Is there similarity between now and June 4, 1989? Would there be a repeat of that?
A: There is a great difference between now and June 4. The June 4 and April 5 movements were volatile, petition movements. A petition movement has one assumption: that there is hope in the Party - that the Party can be persuaded. However, especially after the Tiananmen Massacre, the people's disillusionment is complete. So why bother with petition? Please note that in the past one and a half decades, whether in protest or "challenging" movement, confrontations have become increasingly more violent. The people lost their hope for gain by petitioning. So I think there will not be a likelihood of any large scale petitioning movement.
Q: So there are no more idealistic students and workers?
A: There are idealistic students, workers and farmers. But they are not talking about idealism anymore. That is a waste of time. They realize that it is useless to talk idealism with the Communists. They have no common ground. The Communists are only interested in their own benefit, not yours.
A: Will there be a transformation? In the beginning, the student movement was not that large in scale. Later there was an expansion.
Q: Yes. An expansion is what worries the Communists. The Communists only care about the stability of their control. That is normal for all rulers. Now the Chinese social conflicts have progressed to such a stage that the only reality is benefit. The benefit conflict has been sharpening. In the economic progress of the last 20 or so years, a huge portion of the populace has not enjoyed any benefit. There is a huge dissatisfaction when people do not feel they are getting a fair share even one claims that they had food to eat.
Q: So is there any crisis?
A: When the people still have a residue illusion, they use a low-key idealistic approach. These approaches were used in June 4, 1989 and April 5, 1976, which even the Communists can't refute. An idealist approach can rapidly expand the mobilization into a large-scale protest movement. That is still a petition movement driven by the benefit motive. Zhao's death did not have too much effect on the benefit motive. Therefore it can't mobilize a large number of people.
Q: How would you memorialize Zhao?
A: Because of your questioning, I share with you my evaluation of him. Here is a very realistic approach. I'm sure Zhao would also want it this way. The older generation of communists certainly does not want material wealth. What they want is an honest evaluation, a legacy. He endured great pressure against the order of firing on the demonstration. His refusal was his taking responsibility to the people and their lives very seriously. The people's honest evaluation is the greatest memorial to him.
Q: In the years you have been in the U.S. what have you been doing to fulfill your own idealism?
A: There are two elements:
1. By taking advantage of the more comprehensive information and observations, I am supplying the Chinese people with better suggestions and proposals to enhance the building of a better political system. I can help the Chinese mature gradually, and establish a good foundation for the future democratic system.
2. I have continued to advocate criticism of the totalitarian system and thus generate pressure against it.
This pressure has two purposes:
1. Increasing international pressure directly affects their own benefit thus they truly care about and will response to it;
2. Supporting the democratic struggle of the people in China. To them it is a form of protection, enabling the writers in China to be a bit bolder in their opinions, and such. Where does the improvement in rights come from? Without pressure the Communists would not give up anything. So we have to push and give pressure to help our Chinese fellows for more rights and space.
Q: Do you think that is effective?
A: International pressure can do a great deal. South Africa is a good example. The whole Soviet Union collapsed. One can hardly see the effects of long-term constant international pressure day by day. But in the end it will be a great result of achievement. The international pressure protects the opposition voices in China, causing gradual social and political structural changes.
Q: Overseas Chinese democrats give the impression of disunity. Is that correct?
A: Disunity has always existed. It was not noticed in earlier times because all were focused on the big items - criticizing the Chinese Communists. This effort still goes on albeit apparently more unified and noticed by the international community through those who continue our effort and receive recognition. However, people have habits. Situations change. One who was a famous person decades ago does not necessarily maintain the same status. People change. Many democrats changed. Some of them are no longer democrats even by their own admission. Another's impression of these people may not change, leading to false identification and assumptions. In reality, democracy appears to be fuzzy and hard to define while it has a firm and stable foundation. Totalitarianism is just the opposite - it looks firm and stable but is actually chaotic.
Q: How are you connected with the overseas democrats?
A: Frequent contacts are with those who are still working for democracy. Not many of them are well known. I also connect with Yan Jiaqi, Liu Bingyan, etc. They are up in age and can't work too hard on details. Some people went into business, some even returned to China. I respect their free choice. Naturally I don't want to cause them trouble so there is no more contact with them.
Q: How much effect do you have on the movement?
A: I frequently participate in the Call-In programs of radio stations. There are many calls from China. The staff of Voice of America was greatly surprised. The level of sophistication of people inside China exceeds some of us. I think that is the result of our persistently and consistently talking every day, year in and year out. The Internet discussions now are greatly different from those during June 4, 1989. I constantly tell our people not to be discouraged. The most important point is our sacrifice overseas during the most difficult times. It is important to be willing to pay a great personal price without the expectation of any personal return. It is a sacrificial offering. However, many rather to give up all these in order to make money. In the early times, there were people working for the Chinese democracy movement in expectation of getting a higher position in the government on returning to China. They even fought over this or that position, and naturally have become disappointed after all these years.
Q: Besides promoting Chinese democracy, do you work on other tasks to subsidize yourself?
A: I have my work being a commentator to support myself. It has not been easy depending on donations that are becoming less. There are always conditions attached in grants. This conundrum is universally true. So a hotly debated issue for Chinese democracy advocates is how to maintain our independence without sacrificing our stand and yet receive this money. It is not easy to escape the expectations and requirements, especially for money from the other governments. Some of us argued to take that money. What do you expect after all? You are expected to pay back in another form if you receive the funds. That is the "fair game". In fact the conditions attached are usually the price we pay - our independence. Ultimately our fellows end up agreeing to my stand -- we would rather face more hardship than accept money that requires compromising our principles. Our stand is to preserve independence for the Chinese democratic movement, as well as for the independence of a democratic China.
(Translation credit: Robert T. Huang. The Wei Jingsheng Foundation is responsible for the accuracy of this version of the English translation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org
The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help in any means. We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet.
You are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org
Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well. You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.
For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org
To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:
www.WeiJingSheng.org and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.
You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or
1-202-270-6980 for emergency or
Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-543-1538 Fax: 1-202-543-1539
Wei Jingsheng Foundation's address is:
415 East Capitol Street, SE, Suite 2, Washington, DC 20003-3810, USA
Its postal address is:
Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process your request.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A111-W50
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A111-W50
Release Date: February 12, 2005
发布日：2005年2月12日
Topic: Asia Weekly Report: Wei Jingsheng Talks about Zhao ZiYang and Democracy
标题：《亞洲週刊》紀碩鳴：魏京生談趙紫陽與民主
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
若有阅读中文的困难，请直接访问我们的网站：www.weijingsheng.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
《亞洲週刊》紀碩鳴：魏京生談趙紫陽與民主
流亡美國近八年的中國民運人士魏京生說，趙紫陽去世不會引發大規模群眾運動，因為群眾對執政者已經不抱希望，百姓要爭取現實利益；他認為中共已變成利益集團，只講利益驅動，不談主義，但年輕一代的新理想主義已出現．
作為嘉賓，魏京生專程從美國飛到台北，出席世界自由民主聯盟的論壇，這個一生為著中國民主運動的鬥士，即使在上世紀九七年十一月從繫獄十八年的中國赴美治病後，這些年在海外也沒有停止過為中國的自由民主吶喊。魏京生認為，二十一世紀是自由民主人權發展的新世紀，自由民主是社會文明發展的趨勢，而現在爭取自由民主的國際環境要比過去好很多，而中國的老百姓對自由民主的認識也大為提高，最困難的時候已經過去。接受亞洲週刊訪問時，魏京生表示，他對改善中國的自由民主環境依然充滿信心。
對於中共前總書記趙紫陽的去世，魏京生認為，當局低調處理趙紫陽去世，是降低規格，不合禮，但「這種不合禮，正反映出現今中共意識形態傾向，胡溫集團不象人們原來想像的那樣是改革派。」魏京生認為，趙紫陽在關鍵時刻堅持不能開槍，這就是對中國民主自由人權的最大貢獻，「中共對他的評價顯然是不公平的。」魏京生說，趙紫陽十幾年一直在一種悔恨的心態之中，因為，當時中央的很多人覺得應該把鄧小平轟下台的，徹底推行政治改，「後果可能也和蘇聯一樣，共產黨垮台了，但一個新的制度產生了。他完全有能力這做，但他不願意做，不願意做的代價就是老百姓被屠殺，整個中國的體制走了一個回頭路．十多年來他悔恨是有他的理由的。」
魏京生已經不是第一次到台灣，這裡有他不少朋友，二零零一年，總統陳水篇還專門會見了他．魏京生說，陳水篇是個很敏銳的領導者，那次見陳水篇談了半個小時，講到台獨黨的問題，魏京生認為對台獨黨要謹慎，不能允許其坐大，否則很危險，但也不能忽略，這是基本教義派．魏京生說，陳水篇當時就贊同他的看法。
魏京生承認，十多年來，海外的民運人士也在分化，有些下海做生意了，有的回國內了，但基本力量還在．以下是訪問的主要內容：
你覺得北京政府對趙紫陽逝世後的處理方式妥當嗎？趙紫陽當過總理，當過總書記，都是一號人物。你不管他是否犯過錯誤，就從規矩上談也不合規矩，畢竟他曾經是這個國家的最高領導人，你那麼低的規格處理他，就是顯得有點不合禮。
依你分柝，這是為什麼？這種不合禮反映出現在的胡溫集團，就是那種意識形態傾向。不象人們原來想像的那樣的改革集團．假設他是個想改革的集團，那麼現在正是好機會，借題發揮，但顯然他不想說話，不想說話的前提就是：第一，他並不想真正的改掉現在的這個政治體制，不想動大手術，沒有必要說話。第二，不說也不合適，所以乾脆整個低調處理。所以我們從中可看出胡溫體制的政治動向。
你對趙紫陽作何評價？中共對趙紫陽的評價是不公平的，不管怎麼樣，他拒絕發命令對天安門廣場內的百姓下毒手，他的立場大家非常讚揚。很多人要求給他平反，但我估計一時半回平反不了，因為這跟咱們剛才講的中共的政治傾向有很大關係。但另一方面，海外的很多吹捧趙紫陽的也說的過分了一點．趙的去世也是一個標誌，老一代的共產黨人，那種帶有理想主義色彩的、但也做了不少壞事的這種共產黨人的那個時代結束了。我們只能說這個人是個好人，在關鍵時刻不願意去做壞事，是一個值得稱讚的人．
趙紫陽離世是一代人的結束？過去我父親也是，我很理解這一代人，他們做的很多壞事恨的老百姓咬牙切齒，餓死人呀、文革、政治運動啊，整來整去，幾十年就沒有停過，給中國人民帶來很多災難，包括把經濟搞的一塌糊塗，但是平心而論呢，這批人的主觀動機並不壞，他們是想把中國搞好．他們有一個理想，他們認為這個理想是正確的，如果實行了，中國人民會過上好日子。最後他們都很失望，包括趙紫陽本身也是這樣，這個制度的後果並不是他們原來想的那樣，當然他們自己也走不出他們理想的這個圈子，事情只能是留給我們後邊的人來做了。
共產黨人的理想主義隨著趙紫陽的離去也瓦解了？現在的共產黨從上到下結構全新，信不信共產主義不重要了，是扛著共產黨這面旗子，掌握了這個政權，然後，大家分享帶來的好處，就是一個純粹的利益集團．現在的這批利益集團，已經可以說是無所謂理想，也沒有什麼良心。跟良心沒有關係，他們執政的基礎就是我掌握權力，然後我們分享這個利益。這是共產黨的一個根本性的徹底的轉變。
依造這樣的邏輯，中國只有現實而沒有理想了？這是中國很重要的現實，我們思考中國問題的時候，都要站在這個基礎上．對於現在這批共產黨人，胡溫這樣的利益集團來說，除非他的利益需要，他不會去改革的，他不會為了一個道理去做什麼事，他一定是利益驅動。現在的共產黨只講利益，不談主義．
這麼說，中國沒有希望了？現在的年輕一代或者年輕的幾代人又有新的理想主義出來了，就是追求民主自由的新理想主義已經出台了，而且鬧的轟轟烈烈，我覺得從這個角度看，咱們中國人還是有希望的。中國人並不是這個世界上比較落後的民族。
現在和八九年「六四」的時候有無相似之處？會不會再出現類似六四的情況？首先講會不會出現這個情況，現在的情況和六四的時候已經不一樣了，六四也好，四五運動也好，都是搞的轟轟烈烈的群眾運動，但都是請願型的，請願型的運動有個前提就是，大家對這個黨還覺得有希望，我才跟你講理。現在老百姓特別是六四鎮壓以後，你還請什麼願呢？你要注意啊，最近的這十幾年以來，這種群眾的抗議也好，反抗活動也好，逐漸的向比較激烈的對抗化的形式發展，原因就是老百姓已經失去了希望，就是不指望能從和他們講理當中討到什麼東西。所以在這個前提下，大規模的請願型的抗議活動，我想不太可能發生了。
有政治理想的學生、工人沒有了？你說的很對，就是這麼個現象．你以為這些工人農民他們沒有理想嗎？不是，是他們不想跟你談什麼理想，也是我剛才說的那個原因，那個時候我還拿出理想來跟你談，好象咱們的理想是一樣的，應該可以討論，最後大家明白了，共產黨其實根本和你就不是一個理想，所以現在大家不跟你討論了，我也只講利益，我就要這個東西，你得給我．
那麼會不會轉變，八九年開漿的時候學生運動也不那麼大規模，後來才轉化了。對，這是共產黨最擔心的，共產黨最關心的事情就是他們的統治是否穩固，所有的統治者可能都差不多吧。但是由於中國現在社會矛盾已經走到這個新的階段了，人們爭取的是現實利益，共產黨講的也是現實利益，這種利益衝突又非常的尖銳，中國最近這十幾二十年經濟發展所獲得的好處，相當多的老百姓或者說大部分老百姓並沒有享受到，人們感覺到沒有得到我應該得到的東西，就會不滿，並非要人吃不飽飯才不滿。
那還是有危機存在？人們對政府還抱有幻想，用一些很低調，很理想主義的要求，去迅速動員老百姓，在當時是這種形式，七六年的四五運動和八九六四，都是這樣一個過程，就是用一個很低調的口號，很理想主義而且共產黨也沒辦法反駁的口號，就可以很迅速的動員，變成一個大規模的抗議行動，但只能是一種請願型的活動．象那種對抗型的活動，它靠的是利益驅動的，它不太容易一下集結起很多人，特別是它不會因為趙紫陽的死就如何，趙的死已經跟我們的利益沒什麼大關係，所以不能藉趙的死動員很多人了。
當然我就是通過你們的訪問，表達一下我對趙人品的評價。我覺得這是最實際的，他希望得到的也就是這個，其他的都無所謂了。他一輩子圖個什麼，尤其是老一輩的共產黨，又不為自己積累財產，又沒有什麼其他的東西，他圖的就是蓋棺定論，將來有個好名聲，他之所以頂著那麼大的壓力，拒絕下令開槍，實際上他要做的也就是要對得起老百姓，反過來我們老百姓應該給他個公正的評價，這就是對他一個最好的紀念。
你這幾年在美國為爭取你多少年來的理想，主要是做些什麼？我在海外能做的最重要的工作，是兩種工作：一種，因為我們在海外有比較充分的資訊，觀察的也比較全面，我們可以給國內的朋友提供比較好的建議，想法。讓中國的老百姓逐漸成熟起來，將來的民主制度建立的時候，才有個基礎；第二個很重要的工作就是給專制的制度製造麻煩，施加壓力，施加壓力有兩個作用，第一，等於國際社會強迫他要進行政治改革，你不政治改革，國際社會都通不過，他們還是怕，因為這也影響他們的利益，另一個更重要的作用就是，當國內人民在進行爭取民主的活動的時候，我們這種壓力對他們就是一種保護，國內這批自由作家寫東西可以放開一點，你的權利從哪里來的？不是共產黨給你的，是我們逼出來的，我們如果不是每年在外面施壓，他會給你那麼多權利嗎？
你覺得有用嗎？國際社會的壓力能起相當大的作用，南非變了，整個蘇聯的體制變了，真正的作用就是這種長期的國際壓力，你看不見效果，最後出來是個大的效果。只有在這種壓力下，國內這種反對的聲音能夠受到保護，才能慢慢的形成氣候，才能造成這個國家，這個社會的體制上的變化。
海外民運給人的感覺是不夠團結，是嗎？不團結是一直存在的，只不過那時侯大家不注意，因為大家注意的是個大目標，抨擊和批評中國政府，現在呢，還在做民運這個工作的，至少是被國際社會所承認的，還是一樣，甚至比那時侯更團結。口徑更一致，但是人們有個習慣，就是十幾年前曾經是著名人士，大家以為現在好象還是，其實人是變化的，很多人已經變了，不再做這個工作了。甚至他自己都宣佈我不是民運人士了，可是人們還要把這個帽子戴在他頭上，就造成假像，好象變的四分五裂了。其實還差不多。其實永遠是亂糟糟的，民主就是看起來亂糟糟的，實際上很穩定，而專制正好相反，看起來鐵板一塊，其實真正才是亂糟糟。
你現在和海外的哪些民運精英聯繫的多點？經常聯繫的就是現在基本上還在工作的，沒有什麼特別有名的人，嚴家琪、劉賓雁這些還有聯繫，但是他們年紀大了，也做不了太具體的工作了。人各有志，有些人做生意了，甚至回國了，我們也不方便去妨礙人家。自然，這種接觸也就盡可能切斷了。
通過你這種方式，對中國民主化有多大程度上推動？我經常參加國外電台的「叩應」（CALL IN）節目，國內人直接打電話，連美國之音的編輯都發現，現在國內百姓真的不得了，那水平比我們還高了。我就說，這就是我們天天講，年年講的效果。看網上的百姓評論和六四時也大不一樣了。我經常也鼓勵我們自己人，不要灰心，就這麼做，就是有成績．當然，很重要的一點，因為海外處於很艱苦的狀況，都是大家在做奉獻，甚至要自己掏錢去做工作，我特別強調一點就是奉獻精神，不要老是很功利的，好象我們現在做了點什麼，將來回國就如何如何．早期的民運就有這種錯誤，總是開大會封官，將來回去你是什麼部部長，你只能當副部長了，為了這個還要吵架．
除了搞民運，你還做其他工作貼補自己嗎？沒有什麼時間做生意，我當然也有一份我的工作，做評論節目，有收入，維持生活。很艱苦，經費基本也靠自己人捐，外界的捐款越來越少了，政府要捐錢，一定要附帶條件，沒有白給的錢，將心比心，咱們要給別人錢，不是也想別人幫我們做事嗎？所以，中國的民主運動要保持獨立，這也是民運內部爭論的大問題，很多人覺得我們答應他，拿了錢就行了嘛，實際上這不可能，他給你錢往往就是以犧牲你的立場為代價，最後大多數人還是同意我的立場，就是我們為保持我們中國民主派的獨立性，我們不接受那些附帶條件的錢，寧可自己艱苦一點，給將來中國的民主化保留一份獨立的資格。
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱: HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生基金会地址:
415 East Capitol Street, SE, Suite 2, Washington, DC 20003-3810，USA
魏京生基金会通讯地址：
Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
电话: 1-202-543-1538 传真：1-202-543-1539
紧急联系：1-202-270-6980 (黄慈萍)
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国
民主运动。倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息，请回复本信并用 unsubscribe 作为主题(Subject)。