Free China

Free China Movement Editorial / Policy Statement

Miles Yu’s recent critique of what he calls the dangerous mythology of “closed-door diplomacy” with the Mainland Chinese Communist Government raises a question Washington should have confronted long ago: how many broken assurances are required before policy stops treating an authoritarian regime’s promises as a substitute for verifiable conduct?

The Free China Movement welcomes the fact that increasingly prominent American policy voices are challenging assumptions that dominated United States policy toward Beijing for decades.

But this debate did not begin today.

As early as the period surrounding the 1997 Hong Kong handover, Free China activists warned that democratic governments should not assume that promises made by the Chinese Communist Party would protect freedom once political control had passed to Beijing. Contemporary media records document Shengde Lian and other democracy activists publicly opposing Hong Kong’s transfer to Communist rule.

Those concerns became even more urgent as Washington embraced a strategy based on economic integration.

In 2000, during the congressional battle over Permanent Normal Trade Relations, Free China Movement leaders were among democracy activists publicly urging Congress not to grant Beijing permanent trade treatment without meaningful political and human-rights accountability. On May 18, 2000, Shengde Lian addressed a Capitol Hill demonstration calling on Congress to reject PNTR.

Economic engagement without enforceable political conditions could strengthen the Communist system much faster than it would liberalize it.

Similar concerns were raised by Chinese democracy advocates around China’s accession to the World Trade Organization and the decision to award Beijing the Olympic Games. FCM’s exact archival record on those two episodes is still being re-verified, so this statement does not rely on an unverified claim about a specific FCM document or event.

Those questions deserve renewed examination today.

The historical argument for engagement was not irrational. Many American leaders sincerely believed that international commerce, information flows, a growing middle class and participation in global institutions would create incentives for political moderation. Others argued that engagement offered greater leverage than isolation.

History nevertheless requires policymakers to judge policies by results rather than intentions.

The Mainland Chinese Communist Government received access to global markets, investment, technology and international institutions on an unprecedented scale. Yet political liberalization did not follow the trajectory many advocates predicted. Hong Kong’s promised autonomy was progressively curtailed; repression of dissidents, religious believers and civil-society organizations continued; and the Communist Party developed far greater economic, technological and international power.

That history gives Miles Yu’s argument significance beyond one article.

The fundamental problem is not whether diplomacy with Beijing should occur. Diplomacy between governments is necessary. The problem is diplomacy based upon unverifiable assurances, secrecy and the repeated hope that the Communist Party will eventually become something fundamentally different from what its institutions and conduct demonstrate it to be.

A different standard

• Trust must be replaced by verification. Commitments involving human rights, trade, security or international agreements should have measurable benchmarks and transparent reporting.
• Engagement must carry consequences. Repeated violations cannot simply produce another round of private assurances.
• Chinese citizens must not be confused with the Communist regime that rules them. America and other democracies should deepen engagement with independent Chinese thinkers, democracy advocates, human-rights defenders, religious communities and civil society.
• Policy must look beyond managing the Communist regime and begin thinking seriously about China’s democratic future. A peaceful transition toward a free, constitutional and democratic China should be regarded as a legitimate long-term international interest rather than an unspeakable subject.
• Free China should become part of the mainstream policy conversation. Supporting the Chinese people’s right to constitutional government, political pluralism, freedom of expression and peaceful democratic change is not hostility toward China. It is confidence in the Chinese people.

FCM does not ask American policymakers to accept every conclusion offered by Chinese democracy activists.

We ask something more basic: listen to the evidence.

When people who had experienced Communist rule warned Washington in the 1990s that Beijing’s political promises should not be accepted without safeguards, their concerns were frequently treated as secondary to the optimism of the engagement era.

When democracy activists warned during the PNTR debate, and more broadly around WTO entry and the Beijing Olympics, that economic integration alone would not democratize the Communist Party, those arguments often remained outside the political mainstream. FCM’s verified public record is strongest at present for the 1997 Hong Kong and 2000 PNTR episodes; additional FCM archival verification for WTO/Olympics remains underway.

A quarter-century later, many of the assumptions behind that policy are being reconsidered across the American political spectrum.

That reconsideration is overdue.

Free China Movement therefore welcomes serious voices—including Miles Yu and others—who are willing to examine the record critically. We encourage scholars, former officials, members of Congress, administrations of either party, journalists and policy institutions to go further: study the warnings that Chinese democracy advocates made at the time, compare them with what subsequently happened, and bring the democratic future of China into mainstream policy discussion.

The strategic choice should not be reduced to accommodation with Beijing or conflict with China.

There is another possibility: a free China

A China governed by constitutional institutions rather than one-party dictatorship.

A China in which political power belongs ultimately to its citizens.

A China capable of peaceful relations with Taiwan and its neighbors because its government derives legitimacy from its own people rather than nationalism and coercion.

A China that contributes to international institutions while accepting the same rules expected of other nations.

For decades, many Western policymakers asked how to change the behavior of the Communist Party.

It is time also to ask a larger question: how can the democratic world help create the conditions in which the Chinese people themselves can peacefully determine China’s future?

That is the Free China question.

And after thirty years of misplaced confidence in authoritarian promises, it deserves a place at the center—not the margins—of the international policy debate.

---

Original sources

Miles Yu, The Washington Times: “The dangerous delusion of quiet diplomacy with China”, August 31, 2026.

Miles Yu on X: Chinese-language post and framing of the article.

Source note: Miles Yu’s article and social-media post are cited as the current policy-discussion trigger. Their inclusion does not imply that every claim or formulation in the source is adopted by Free China Movement.

---

Free China Movement
Email: contact@freechina.live
Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066