Wu'er Kaixi - Chinese dissident HARDtalk

Now it's time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to a special edition of HARDtalk with me,

Stephen Sackur.

Today, the BBC is running a series of programmes about democracy,

the idea and the reality.

It's a theme our guest today has reason to consider in great depth.

Wu'erkaixi was one of the leaders of the Tiananmen Square student

protest in Beijing in 1989.

He became one of the Chinese government's most wanted men.

He escaped, and he now lives in exile in Taiwan.

And today, he joins me, and a HARDtalk audience

here in London.

APPLAUSE.

Wu'erkaixi, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you very much.

We could use more platforms like this to voice our idea.

Well, I want to talk to you all about your ideas.

And I want to begin by taking you back to 1989.

You made a stand as a student leader for freedom and for democracy.

And looking back at it now, it has cost you your life

as you knew it then in 1989.

On a personal level, do you have any regrets?

Well, I survived in a great movement and I'm proud to be

part of it.

But it ended up as a massacre.

Regret can sometimes be an understatement.

I don't thing I have done anything wrong,

and I'm actually very proud to be part of that historical event.

But if you ask me the question the other way, if you ask me,

do I want to do it again?

The answer would be very hesitant because of the outcome, the result.

It is nothing we have anticipated.

Yeah, that sort of what I was driving at.

If you had a crystal ball, and could have seen into the future,

and what happened to your futures and to your country,

post-1989, would you have made the decision to go on hunger strike,

to be one of the leaders going on to stages and demanding

of the ruling party that they change and they deliver

a democratic vision?

Or if you'd seen into the future, would you have thought,

"It's not worth it"?

Yeah, the logic of all mass movements throughout history has

always been like when people have a dissatisfaction,

they come together, they express their voice,

they try to apply pressure to the opponent, to the government,

to the ruling party.

And then hoping that they can take the better option,

knowing there could always be some worse options that they take.

And in China, that has often been the case.

But how bad it can be we did not anticipate,

massacre, bringing tanks, hundreds of thousands of troops,

under siege, the whole Beijing City under siege.

And in my personal account, I mean, yes, we paid a great price.

I have not been able to see my parents, my family,

for the last 25, 26 years.

It is a great price to pay, but my price doesn't even compare

with those who lost their life that night, hundreds if not

thousands of them.

Let's go back to those days of May and June,

1989, then we will look forward to where China is today

and where it's going.

But if we go to 1989, here is an interesting thought that

I had.

You were using this word "democracy" at the time,

and yet you were a child of a one-party state.

Yes.

You were brought up in the country created by Chairman Mao.

Yes.

How on Earth did you know what democracy was?

Well, first of all, the Communist Party never really

denied the term of democracy.

And in fact, the word democracy in Chinese translated back

into English is people rule.

So hey, people rule.

And the Communist Party keep saying it is democracy.

So, hey, that's a great idea, people rule.

Didn't Chairman Mao call it the people's democratic

dictatorship?

Yes!

To be totally honest, yes.

We do not know much about democracy, other than the face value

of the term.

Other than some gigs that we had in the last ten years before 1989,

ten years we looked at the West.

What the real driving force that brought us to the streets of Beijing

in 1989 was not so much our knowledge, deep knowledge

of democracy, it's our deep knowledge of lack of democracy.

We know what it is, and when we don't have democracy.

And you were from a relatively privileged background.

You were a guy that had the chance of a higher education in a Beijing

University.

In a way, I'm surprised that you were prepared to risk everything

back in 1989, because there must have been a lot of fear.

You knew the party was not going to easily accept

what you were saying.

Again, we wanted to apply pressure, so hopefully they can take

the better option.

Yes, we were privileged.

All university students in China in 1989 will be somehow considered

privileged, because the college examination entrance rate

is insanely low, something like 1%.

And then, those of us who made it, we are almost guaranteed a position

in society, but guaranteed by somebody else, never by ourselves.

We did not want our life to be managed, to be handled,

to be designed by someone else.

After Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1979, ten years,

he introduced the idea of reform and openness.

He didn't really open China in 1989, he didn't opene the door,

he opened the window, and gave just a glimpse of.

Through that, we saw an idea of controlling one's life

by himself, by herself.

And that is very attractive.

And that's something we don't have.

So that attraction overcame your fear?

I would say so, yes.

That attraction is simply called hope.

That is something that would overcome anything.

Let me ask you something specific, the Chinese nation, I think,

will always associate you with one particular moment,

you and if you are the student leaders were invited to the great

Hall of the people for a televised meeting with one of the party chiefs

of the time, Li Peng.

It was supposed to be a sign that the party

hierarchy was listening.

But when you got there, you didn't just sort of obediently

accept and pay respects to Li Peng, you interrupted him.

You said, "Sir, with all due respect, this meeting has come

a month too late."

And you said, "We should be setting the agenda, not you."

That was extraordinarily confrontational.

It was the 30th, 40th day of the student movement.

Yes, we were on hunger strike, of course it was confrontational.

With all due respect, I think we invited them

for that location.

You said they invited us over, that is not what we had in mind.

We asked for Li Peng to come out and have dialogue.

That has always been the keyword of 1989,

we wanted that dialogue.

Eventually, we were asked to go to the place, to sit with them,

so we thought, maybe this is the dialogue.

But no, it wasn't a dialogue.

It was a monologue.

It was a lecturing.

It was condescending, it's showing a message

to the Chinese people that we students went too far.

The hierarchies there were giving us some lecturing,

like some lesson.

But that cannot be televised to the Chinese people,

because that would be a wrong message.

What happened, really, is, after 20, 30, 40 days,

with the pressure, something is happening.

And this happened, and then this cannot be interpreted

into something is.

into something else.

Do you think it made any difference, that image of you sort of treating

Li Peng as an equal, not as some superior

being on the top of the party, but as an equal.

Do you think, whatever happened after 4th of June,

1989, in China, that image and that moment still matters?

In two aspects, number one, it made an influence

for the decision the Communist Party made when we are talking

about massacre.

About tanks moving in?

Yes, I don't think so.

The meeting, the set for the occasion was basically part

of the whole plan.

Before that day, they had no plan.

They didn't know how to deal with this.

They did not know when the world, the troops of world journalists

coming to China to cover the summit between China and the Soviets,

walking to a revolution, then they broadcast the image

to the world.

Then the pressure was enormous.

Then the whole societies stood up to support the students.

They had no anticipation of this.

So they had no movement until that day.

When that happened, when Li Peng agreed to meet with us,

the whole plan, the decision was made already.

That is how Communists operate.

And you have used this word, massacre.

Of course.

A word, which the Chinese government refuses to accept,

but I want you to tell me what...

even 25-years on, recollect your feelings when you realised

that it was happening, the tanks were rolling

into Tiananmen Square, the light and edition was used,

and hundreds, some say thousands, of your peers, students,

protesters, some onlookers as well, were being killed.

The term massacre, of course, has been attached to who I am

in the last 20 something years, so there were a few occasions

I looked into the dictionary for this word.

Excuse me.

It is like killing indiscriminately, every dictionary you look in,

you will find the same answer for that.

That is what it is.

Troops roll in, they have agenda, they need to clear Tiananmen Square,

and whoever is in their way, they were given a green light

to use real ammunition.

And they did.

Did you escape early?

I was in the square.

Can amend square it self was not really the killing field.

It was the avenues leading into it?

Yes.

When the troops came to Tiananmen Square,

Liu Xiaobo negotiated a term with the troops to avoid massacre

at the square.

For him to get the Nobel Peace Prize, this is definitely one

of the most important conditions, I believe.

Did you try to speak to any of the soldiers yourself?

No.

I was, earlier, I went to one of the front line on the east side,

trying to see what's happening there, but it was way too chaotic,

there was no way to speak to anybody at the time.

The shooting has already begun.

I've seen people shot down.

And the voice of bullets travelling in the air is something that I can

still remember vividly.

People's blood, the smell of the people's blood also,

that is a bona fides massacre, so.

Did you believe you would get out alive?

No, I did not believe this.

After the massacre, there were rumours after June

the 4th day, we were hiding in cities.

For me, the idea is for me to turn myself in.

But there were rumours in Beijing to say, Wang Dan,

OK, number one most wanted.

They want him alive.

That is the order given to the soldiers and police.

Wu'erkaixi, they don't want me alive.

The rumour, of course, there is no way to verify that,

but that sounds like the Communist Party.

So I don't even see a chance to turn myself in.

So I decided to leave Beijing City.

Maybe outside of Beijing, I can manage to be arrested

by police, instead of soldiers.

And then maybe by doing that, I can maintain some dignity

at a personal level.

You escape, and made it to the west, and eventually to Taiwan,

and we are going to pick up your story back in Taiwan.

But now, I want to reflect a little bit on the meaning of 1989

and Tiananmen for today's China.

Today's leaders in China still believe the chaos,

what they see as the chaos, and the mob rule in Beijing in June

1989 is one of the best justifications for them

maintaining their 1-party rule on the country today,

because they are the guarantors of stability and security

for the great mass of Chinese people.

And they say nobody, nobody wants to go back

to the crazy, awful days of Tiananmen.

What is your response to that?

Didn't we hear that from time to time from leaders

around the world?

They have to remain in power to provide safety and stability.

They are the source of China's chaos.

And not only in Tiananmen, not only in 1989, but in the last

60 some years.

But does not a pattern of events that we've seen,

for example, in the middle east since 2011 support their case,

their case being that in the end you need a strong,

central government that is capable of imposing its will on the country,

to deliver security?

Because when you lose that, you can point to Egypt,

you can point to Syria, or to Yemen, or a host of other Arab countries

after the popular uprisings, when you lose that, you introduce

chaos, and then ethnic tensions, and then internal violence

on a scale that in China could only be imagined.

Yet 750 years ago, you decide to adopt democracy.

I am quite sure that in the early days of the beginning

era of democracy, it was quite chaotic in this country, too.

And then you manage to prevail.

Democracy prevailed here in the last 750 years.

Give them time.

They need time, they need support.

And then they need patting on the shoulders, say

"You're doing good.

You're doing better than yesterday."

But not to accuse, like the price they had to pay for democratisation.

I suppose the argument would be, far from paying a price over

the last 30 years, the Chinese people have reaped

the reward of stability.

We have seen the most extraordinary improvement in material living

standards known in human history, 600 million people or more lifted

out of poverty by the 1-party Communist rule inside China.

Today's president says this, in China, Xi Jinping,

he says this, he says, "China cannot copy the political

system or development model of other countries,

it would not fit us.

It would lead to catastrophic consequences."

His message with us, you get prosperity.

In the early 20, in 30 years of the last century,

Hitler was saying just about the same thing.

The centralised Nazi ruling, the Germany after the war,

the first war, now we come together, gained the power, provide the people

with more jobs, stability is, poverties, we get rid of poverties.

Now the world needs to give in to what we want.

But you're not...are you seriously comparing today's Chinese government

with the Nazis in the 1930s?

No, I'm not.

I'm comparing the British.

I'm comparing the British in the 1920s with British people

today in the world, and then that's called appeasement.

We had democracy in the last 800 years, always had enemies.

The enemies come in different forms, different shapes,

forming different ideas.

Some Nazi Communist, they were fighting against each

other, but they were both the enemy of democracy.

And then, when we are facing the enemy of democracy,

sometimes we make major mistakes.

And this country remembers that mistake vividly.

But I'm seeing it forgotten now.

I guess it depends what you think democracy is for.

Kishore Mahbubani, who's quite an influential diplomat,

he was an ambassador in Singapore, he has written lots of books

about what he calls the particular Asian model of development.

He says, "In the West, we are far too hung up

on the process and mechanism of democracy."

What he says really matters is delivery,

and if you have a system of government that effectively

delivers for the people, then it doesn't need to be

democratic in the Western individualistic sense,

because it is delivering for the mass of the people,

and you have your say that on those terms,

the Chinese government is delivering for its people.

You are using the word of the Singaporean Ambassador that

made you escape one of my remarks.

If you are saying that is the understanding of a Western

democracy world, that delivering is most important,

I would definitely go back again to the 20s

and 30s, to Hitler...

Maybe not Hitler, every time when I say Hitler,

I see people, like, "No, you cannot say that."

How about how about Mussolini?

Let's use Mussolini, he's not as bad, not as evil.

But, at the same time, he was providing, and he was called

the one leader who is almost a modern time Caesar,

Italian people still remember him as the one who makes the train

go on time.

I was in Italy recently.

When they ask me, "Do we need to learn from China today,"

because Italy is in trouble economically.

And then I say, "You learn from China, why don't

you learn from Mussolini?

You had your own model."

Then they understood.

Maybe you are exaggerating...

Am I?

Let me discuss this with you.

In China today, you see protest movements.

If you read the Internet, you see that people have the space

to criticise local officials.

You see that Xi Jinping and his senior colleagues...

Do they?

Hang on.

..have responded to the frustration with corruption in China

by launching a massive anti-corruption drive with people

like Bo Xilai and other senior officials being brought down

because, partly, the public is demanding a cleaner government.

So something is happening in China.

Something is always happening in that massive country.

LAUGHTER

Excuse me, but when the Western world thinks

of the term 'corruption', the idea comes to your mind

because you have corruption in democracies, too.

That's bribery.

That's money exchange of profit from the government.

That's your understanding of corruption.

It is like nothing compared with the corruption

happening in China.

And let me tell you, Xi Jinping hasn't the least interest

in getting rid of what I call systemic corruption.

The government is corruption.

You know China before the opening reform, it was so called a socialist

country, how did they become a socialist country?

They looted the former KMT's ruling Republic of China,

got all the capitalists' property into the government,

and when Deng Xiao Ping introduced the term reform,

and privatise it, who gets benefit from that?

The Communist Party ruling group.

That is the corruption.

Will Xi Jinping get rid of that?

He cannot.

He is getting rid of a couple of overly done corruptions.

We have seen protests in Hong Kong, thousands of people on the street.

They called it their umbrella revolution, but it didn't

really get anywhere.

It is an ongoing movement, sir.

Let's go look into the future, then.

Yeah.

What do you see happening now in China in terms of developing

a mass demand for real political reform?

Communist Party is not used to facing people's demands,

they don't know how to do that.

They don't want to do it.

Come to think about it, I can almost understand it we wanted

dialogue in 1989, and then the dialogue has been the central

phrase for the last 20 something years.

Tibetans want dialogue.

We would want dialogue.

And this time, Hong Kong students want dialogue,

they even decide to buy their own air ticket,

and fly to Beijing, to have that dialogue.

The Chinese government said no, no dialogue.

And you have personally tried to return to your homeland.

Yes.

I know several times.

Four times.

And in a sense, you've said, "Arrest me."

Yes.

But then, take me back to my homeland, partly then

because maybe then I can see my parents.

And then I can continue the dialogue in the courtroom of China,

even in the form of indictment and plea.

I want to have that dialogue.

Are you serious about that?

Very much.

Despite a comfortable life in Taiwan, and believing Taiwan

is a working democracy, you would rather go back

to your homeland, to China, to face a court and make your

case for democracy?

And then I can at least see my parents.

Even if it is in the form of prison visits.

And to fulfil and continue unfinished business we started

25 years ago.

I remember one of the letters of one of our prospective teachers back

in 1989, who was in the street supporting us.

And nowadays, he's a known dissident in China.

She says, nowadays today, if you are not in prison,

there is something morally wrong there.

I'm moved.

We're out of time, but one word, can there be democracy in China

in your lifetime?

Absolutely.

I have to be optimistic.

Before I came to the show today, I watched one of the early BBC shows

of interviewing Gandhi.

He was optimistic even back then.

We have to end there.

But Wu'erkaixi, thank you for coming on HARDtalk.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

Good morning.

London may not have been the sunniest place