S T A T E M E N T Mr. Timothy Cooper Ambassador-at-large for the China Democracy Party Appreciations to Olivier Dupuis, Secretary General of the Transnational Radical Party, MEP; Enver Can, President of the East Turkestan National Congress; Erkin Alptekin, Chairman of the Unrepresented Nations and People's Organisation (UNPO); members of the East Turkestan Congress, delegates of the European Parliament, and distinguished guests. I come before you today in two capacities. One in my capacity as the Ambassador-at-large for the China Democracy Party, and the other in my capacity as an international human rights and peace activist. As the Ambassador-at-large for the China Democracy Party, I believe that the forging of a partnership with the Uyghurs and the rest of the overseas Chinese democracy movement, including the Tibetans and the Taiwanese, is a strategic imperative essential to eventually winning democracy and human rights in China. A movement united is a movement with power and credibility. Presently the movement has little power and insufficient credibility to win. This need not be the case. Each hour that we delay joining resources, identifying common objectives, and ending dismaying and counterproductive internal dissent delays the hour of our victory. In other words, by our lack of co-ordination, our lack of solidarity, we serve not ourselves, but Beijing. Perversely, we perpetuate its power. In my opinion, we are neither exercising good strategy, nor good politics as things now stand. It is manifestly certain that we are not exercising good future peacemaking when we delay or avoid or ignore the difficult dialogue that must-- and I repeat-- must take place among us in order to create a grander coalition of like-minded democracy dissidents the world over. Coalition building must be our strategic vision if we ever hope to exert maximum moral and political pressure on China to adopt significant political change. Without the forging of a master coalition, our mutual dream of winning political pluralism, human rights, tolerance, diversity and peace is a laudable but unattainable dream?a vision obscured by night. To avoid recognizing this immutable fact is to shun the real work that we must do to build a new century of freedom for the people of China. I believe that those of us in this room and those of us working around the globe to promote a free China must be bound by a code of responsibility and conduct, an ethic of activism, if you like, that promotes trust, that ends the perennial squabbles over ephemeral titles, leadership turf and media status. While people of honorable intent can certainly disagree?and should?the subtle undermining of various components of the movement and the spurious attribution of ill-motives to others within the movement clearly does a disservice to the movement in total, lessening the credibility and effectiveness of the movement and deepening the crisis of confidence that always exists in a campaign to change politics. A movement is a movement is a movement. It is not an individual or a series of individuals. It is the whole thing?a wheel of energy that rolls across all political barriers. Every slight from within that movement wounds that movement. This is the crisis the Chinese pro-democracy forces lives with today. A movement does not have to speak in unison but it must be unified and possess vision, if it is to win the hearts and minds of the people inside and outside the country. Today the Chinese democracy movement is neither unified nor capable of articulating a coherent vision. Yes, it stands for freedom. Yes, it stands for human rights. And yes, it stands for democratic governance. But is the movement itself led by democratic principles? Does it strive to promote racial and religious tolerance and mutual understanding? Does it promote the right of self-determination for all peoples? Does it stand fast for peace?the peaceful autonomy or independence for its minorities through a good faith process of dialogue and negotiation? Maybe yes, and maybe no. I believe that the true character of a nation is revealed by how it treats its minorities. This issue is one of the major tests of the movement and on which, in my opinion, its credibility and effectiveness hinges, for below the surface of the Chinese culture is a culture of racism that scars the complexion of a great culture and hampers the progress of a great movement. Only by first openly facing questions of racism within the China democracy movement itself can we hope to bridge the gulf between the various assets of the movement and together chart a path to victory. Like the air we breathe, freedom from racism is every bit as liberating as free speech and freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Ending racism means this: that we resolve to treat each other as equals: equal before the law, regardless of the will of the majority. Endeavoring to end racism in any society is the mark of a great society. That ending racism in China today is not pursued as policy is testimony to the current regime?s culture of intolerance. But the same should not be true of the pro-democracy movement. The movement needs to examine this issue and elevate it to a high priority because the movement cannot stand united and be the force that it needs to be until this process is well underway. Ending racism is a process that may take years to make progress on, even decades, whether within the movement or within China. But the pro-democracy movement does not have decades or longer. Oppression will stand no longer than the forces of liberation permit. Today, President Jiang is consolidating power, not losing it. WTO, the Olympic Games?these are victories that prop up a regime and give it vitality, power and prestige. Things are going in the wrong direction. This must stop. So the great question begs itself: How do we counter it? How does the movement vitalize moral and political power, build momentum and global prestige? I believe that the source of the movement?s future strength can be found?will be found?must be found?only in its solidarity. An axis of power must be forged among all of the vital parties. I know that some will disagree. But consider this: A movement born of pro-democracy dissidents from Tiananmen Square, the Democracy Wall era, of human rights activists from Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan, and bound together on principle and by the establishment of a democratically constructed ?shadow? government, or government in exile, would elevate the credibility and prestige of the movement like nothing that has ever come before. To continue the course of the movement as it is presently constituted? a movement fueled on yesterday?s gas fumes and run by strong-willed tribalistic factions that do little to reinforce each other and oftentimes purposefully undermine each other is destined not to win, but to tread political water. For how long? Who knows. All we know is that it is too long. And all the while the people of China suffer. All the while innocent men and women languish in prison for ?endangering state security?. All the while the hard work of democracy is not being done. All the while history is stalled and a culture is stifled. The question is: How can a movement create worldwide credibility in order to earn the support of the world if it cannot even galvanize the forces within and concretize a vision for how it is going to provide a credible alternative to the governing regime? Right now there exists a dream of democracy in China. Right now there exists a fractured movement. Right now that movement cannot become whole because racism will not allow it to become so. I might add that the practice of racism can be a two-way street. It can be a double-edged sword brandished by everyone. I put these questions to the pro-democracy forces: Do we really want to win? Are we willing to do what is necessary to win?I mean whatever is necessary to win? Are we really committed to the principles of freedom? Do we really believe that human rights apply to everyone? Are we committed to ending racism? Do we even know what racism means? Chief among the concerns of those gathered here today is the question of self-determination, the fundamental human right of all people to determine their own political and economic status, under international law acknowledged to apply to nations. The right of self-determination is recognized by President Jiang Zemin himself?at least as it applies to the nation of China?because he signed the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998. It has yet to be ratified. The Chinese democracy movement also recognizes the right of self-determination for all peoples as does the China Democracy Party. How could they not? It is a universal human right acknowledged by nearly 140 nations around the world. But the question is: How does the right of self-determination relate to the legitimate aspirations of the Uighers, of the Tibetans, of the Inner Mongolians, and of the Taiwanese as well? This is a paradoxical question. In the present context, it is only natural for peoples who live under oppression to seek relief from that oppression in every conceivable way. I know that I would if I lived under that kind of unbearable force. To support political separation from the oppressor is the right thing to do. On the other hand, in a future context, when the forces of Chinese governmental oppression have been vanquished, when a democratic regime rises to power and human rights are effectively enforced for both minorities and majorities, the compelling interest of separation for the purpose of safeguarding and protecting these universal rights may be considerably less of an imperative. At that future point in time, the question will be one of trust: Can the minorities trust the majorities to protect and defend their human rights? The burden therefore will be squarely on the shoulders of the majorities to demonstrate their commitment to enforcing these protections, even at the risk of political peril. What is understandable from the point of view of the minorities is that they have to know that they can trust the new captains of democracy that will be leading the country on a new, future day. Without the development of this trust, and in light of previous broken promises given to minorities by the Chinese government about the right to self-government, the right to ancestral cultures, the right to freedom of religion, a bridge cannot be built, and chaos and even civil war may erupt between minorities and majorities over the issues of self-determination and self-autonomy. To openly trumpet a call for the right to self-determination for minorities?which means nationhood?does objectively put factions of the pro-democracy movement in political peril. Why? Because the Chinese government will vigorously attempt to use this call against the Chinese movement, labeling its leaders as those who would splinter the Motherland. An absurd label, of course, but also an effective one, especially in light of the fact that the Chinese people as a whole live within a vacuum which tolerates racism, tolerates oppression, tolerates the absence of human rights. The fact of the matter is this kind of charge does, in fact, resonant with the Chinese people and is capable of discrediting the movement in the eyes of the Chinese people. Of course, the Chinese government often lobs this rhetorical artillery at the Dalai Lama, even though he has repeatedly stated that even under this repressive government he is simply calling for true autonomy. My own personal experiences have confirmed the desire of the Chinese government to tie the Chinese pro-democracy movement to the separatist movement in order to discredit it among the Chinese people. These kinds of tactics on the part of the government hinder the willingness of the Chinese movement to more openly engage in dialogue about the ultimate political status of these minority regions of the country. Yet it is understandable that leaders of minorities are hesitant to wholly align themselves with the majority movement until their right to self-determination is fully and unconditionally recognized. Hence, the dilemma. But this is not an insurmountable dilemma. What is necessary to overcome these barriers and impediments is the willingness among all parties concerned to engage in significant and candid dialogue about these issues of historical definition, of race and racism, of political participation in any future government, of rights to self-government and even independence. What is needed, however, is a process by which this can occur. The price for not engaging in this process is too high to avoid the extended conversation. What is that price? Possible civil war. Failure to win democracy and freedom for the people of China-- prices too steep to bear. The pro-democracy movement as a whole needs to examine in detail three levels of discussion. This list was created by an original working group of the Free Asia Conference Preparatory Committee, with the considerable assistance of Professor Ira Strauss, formerly of George Washington University in Washington, D.C.. We sought to outline critical areas of discussion thought essential to the progress of the movement and a peaceful transition to Chinese democracy. There are 3 major areas of discussion: Firstly, future political outcomes and goals in the territory of the PRC. In particular, we need to dialogue about the final status options in minority areas, and scenarios for getting there and forms of government for both China proper and for the minority areas; Secondly, post-communist constitution-forming processes for China as whole; specifically, the participation and special role of the minorities in this process; and for the minority areas, especially in dealing both with final status issues and internal constitutional issues; And finally, a process for reaching some agreement on post-communist constitution-forming and some degree of mutual understanding if not yet agreement on final status options in minority areas, and scenarios for getting there. The goal at this early but necessary stage is: To get all parties in the discussion to understand the range of options for final status; to develop the conversation about the range of final status solutions sought by the other parties and why; to see if we can take some of the rough edges off of the unilateral proclamations sometimes made by each party as to the preferred solution in their view; to get some realistic understanding of options lie that beyond their present bottom lines; and to develop some habits of and commitments to a process of mutual discussion and negotiation on these issues rather than a process of mutual excommunication. This is the beginning of the important work we have to do together. Let me close by saying this: To win democracy in China we also need to win the future peace in China. To win the future peace in China we need to start the dialogue for peace today. There exists a synergistic relationship between the two goals. The question of the final political status of East Turkestan must be determined by skillful negotiation, not with unilateral declarations by any of the parties concerned. If we are to be democrats, if we are to respect human rights for all peoples, if we are to show ourselves as shining examples to the world of enlightened, peaceful leadership that the world so desperately needs, we must proceed with openness, mutual respect and trust. We must not step into the pit of Byzantine civil war to achieve any of our ends. Above all else, we must be peacemakers and democrats. The events of September 11th in America testify to the emergence of this fact: The use of wanton violence in the name of political or religious agendas is beneath the dignity of civilization. Violence used as a tool for political change is the weapon of the weak. Violence should be abandoned as an instrument for change in the full evolution of democracy in China. Dialogue and good faith understanding must lead the way. But I know that there are limits to patience. I know that people ask how long is too long to wait for freedom? I know that revolutionary patience can be strained. Nevertheless, I council it. It should be recalled that in America, Martin Luther King, Jr. won civil rights for African Americans and changed history by using pacifistic means; Mahatma Gandhi liberated India nonviolently, opening up a whole new world of ideas for achieving political change peaceably and turning the force of oppression against the oppressor and away from the oppressed. In the case of Chinese democracy, I believe peace is the way. Together we need to work toward peace in order to unify. With unification we can change the course of history. We owe it to history to take up the challenge because peace and democracy equals true freedom. Thank you.