2026年9月2日 — 香港民主活動人士黃之鋒今日在其第二宗國家安全案件中，就串謀勾結外國勢力／實體的控罪認罪。路透社和美聯社報道了此次認罪；判刑仍待決定。
黃之鋒目前已因「香港47人案」另案服刑。因此，新案件可能進一步延長其累計監禁時間。
此案檢驗香港國家安全制度如何對待非暴力政治倡議和國際參與。由於黃之鋒已在獄中，新的判刑決定可能顯著延長其被監禁時間。
自由中國運動認為，和平民主倡議不應成為無限疊加刑事懲罰的來源。香港《基本法》第27條保障言論、新聞、結社、集會、遊行和示威自由；第28條保障人身自由；第35條保障法律意見和司法救濟；第39條維持《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》在香港的適用。
自由中國運動的正式聲明指出，本案中被背棄的承諾屬於北京，並呼籲國際社會持續關注判刑、比例原則、正當程序及國安案件的累積影響。
立即发布
2026年9月2日
华盛顿 — 自由中国运动谴责对香港民主活动人士黄之锋的持续起诉。黄之锋今日在其第二宗国家安全案件中，就串谋勾结外国势力的控罪认罪；他目前已因另案服刑，新案判刑仍待决定。
问题远大于一名被告或一次认罪。大陆中共政权曾承诺香港在1997年主权移交后保持高度自治和基本自由。这些承诺具体写入香港《基本法》。
《基本法》第27条保障言论、新闻出版、结社、集会、游行和示威自由；第28条保障人身自由并禁止任意或非法逮捕、拘留或监禁；第35条保障法律咨询、诉诸法院和司法救济；第39条规定《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》等在香港继续有效。
连胜德表示：“黄之锋没有背叛香港的宪制秩序。背弃对香港承诺的是大陆中共政权。把和平民主倡议刑事化，不是国家安全，而是政治压制。”
“法庭上的被告可能是黄之锋，但被背弃的承诺属于北京。”
在国家安全法律下认罪，并不能自动回答该法律及其适用是否符合香港居民曾获承诺的自由。国际社会应继续审视相关行为性质、刑罚比例、正当程序，以及重复起诉对和平政治参与造成的累积影响。
自由中国运动呼吁民主国家、议会、国际人权机构及公民社会密切监督黄之锋即将到来的判刑，持续提出香港政治犯案件，捍卫言论、结社和和平政治参与自由，并记录香港的宪制权利承诺是否在实践中得到履行。
媒体联系
自由中国运动
contact@freechina.live
+1 (571) 895-7066
黄之锋于9月2日在第二宗香港国家安全案件中，就串谋勾结外国势力/实体认罪。路透社和美联社报道，判刑仍待决定。
自由中国运动认为，和平民主倡议不应成为无限追加刑事惩罚的来源。任何判刑都应接受合法性、比例原则、正当程序以及香港所承诺的言论与结社自由标准的检验。
自由中国运动将继续关注判刑决定及后续法律发展。阅读新闻与评论。
2026年9月2日 — 香港民主活动人士黄之锋今日在其第二宗国家安全案件中，就串谋勾结外国势力/实体的控罪认罪。路透社和美联社报道了此次认罪；判刑仍待决定。
黄之锋目前已因“香港47人案”另案服刑。因此，新案件可能进一步延长其累计监禁时间。
此案检验香港国家安全制度如何对待非暴力政治倡议和国际参与。由于黄之锋已经在狱中，新的判刑决定可能显著延长其被监禁的时间。
自由中国运动认为，和平民主倡议不应成为无限叠加刑事惩罚的来源。香港《基本法》第27条保障言论、新闻、结社、集会、游行和示威自由；第28条保障人身自由并禁止任意或非法逮捕、拘留或监禁；第35条保障获得法律意见、诉诸法院及司法救济；第39条维持《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》在香港的适用。
自由中国运动的正式声明指出，本案中被背弃的承诺属于北京，并呼吁国际社会持续关注判刑、比例原则、正当程序及国家安全案件的累积影响。
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.
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.
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.
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
Other editions: English · 简体中文 · 繁體中文 · Français · Deutsch · Español
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 2, 2026
WASHINGTON — The reported death of Luo Chuanmei in a Xinjiang prison, followed by reports that her family was informed only after her remains had been cremated, raises questions that cannot be answered by silence from prison authorities.
Public reporting based on Falun Gong and Xinjiang-victim documentation says Luo Chuanmei, an Urumqi resident and Falun Gong practitioner, died on October 3, 2025 while imprisoned in Xinjiang. Those sources report that her family was not notified until after prison authorities had cremated her body. No public official prison medical or death record has been located by FCM. These circumstances therefore require independent scrutiny rather than unqualified assumptions about cause of death.
Where are the medical records? What was the cause of death? When did her condition become life-threatening? Was adequate medical treatment provided? Why was her family reportedly denied an opportunity for independent examination before cremation?
The Free China Movement calls for international attention to these questions and for the Mainland Chinese Communist Government to disclose the complete circumstances surrounding Luo Chuanmei’s reported death, preserve all relevant medical and prison records, permit her family access to those records, and allow credible independent scrutiny.
But the international community must understand that this case raises a larger issue: the danger does not stop at China’s borders.
More than two decades ago, the world was given a warning in the case of Dr. Wang Bingzhang, one of the pioneers of the overseas Chinese democracy movement.
In June 2002, Dr. Wang Bingzhang disappeared while in Vietnam with Zhang Qi and Yue Wu. The official Chinese account later maintained that the three had been kidnapped for ransom and subsequently rescued by Chinese police. After Zhang Qi and Yue Wu were released, however, they alleged that Chinese agents had abducted the three in Vietnam and forcibly taken them into China. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China subsequently recorded those allegations and reported that Wang was missing for approximately six months before Chinese authorities acknowledged holding him.
Wang was tried behind closed doors in January 2003 and sentenced on February 10, 2003 to life imprisonment after conviction on espionage and terrorism-related charges. Amnesty International documented the conviction, and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention later declared Wang’s detention arbitrary and requested that the government remedy the situation.
The source presented to the UN Working Group alleged that Wang, Yue and Zhang were seized in Mong Cai, Vietnam, transferred across the border and ultimately placed in Chinese custody. The Chinese government presented a different account. This unresolved contradiction is precisely why the case warrants continuing international scrutiny.
For more than twenty years, the fundamental question has remained: how could a prominent overseas Chinese democracy activist disappear from another sovereign country, emerge in the custody of the Mainland Chinese Communist Government, receive a life sentence after a closed trial, and then largely disappear from sustained international attention?
The Wang Bingzhang case should have been treated as an international alarm.
When an authoritarian state can reach beyond its borders to seize, forcibly return, threaten or intimidate political opponents, the issue is no longer solely China’s internal human-rights situation. It becomes an issue of international security, national sovereignty and the protection of people living in free societies.
Overseas Chinese democracy activists are not the only people potentially vulnerable. Journalists investigating China, human-rights researchers, former political prisoners, religious-freedom advocates, Tibetan, Uyghur and Hong Kong activists, family members of dissidents, and people who work or have worked with human-rights organizations must be able to rely on democratic governments to protect them against foreign intimidation.
“The disappearance of Dr. Wang Bingzhang from Vietnam should have been a warning to every democratic government. When an authoritarian regime is credibly accused of reaching across another country’s border for a political opponent, the victim is not only one dissident. The sovereignty and security of every free country are being tested.”
A reported prison death in Xinjiang and the alleged cross-border abduction of a democracy activist from Vietnam are separated by geography, time and circumstances. But they raise a common question: what happens when state power operates without meaningful independent accountability?
Inside China, that danger can take the form of secretive detention, politically driven prosecutions, denial of meaningful access to counsel, opaque prison conditions or unanswered questions surrounding deaths in custody.
Outside China, it can take the form of surveillance, threats against relatives, coercion, harassment, pressure on diaspora communities and other forms of transnational repression. In the most extreme cases, credible allegations of cross-border abduction demand investigation.
“Repression does not become acceptable simply because it crosses a border. A government that attempts to export fear into another country is attacking not only its critics but the freedom and sovereignty of the country in which those critics live.”
The Free China Movement calls upon the United Nations, the United States, European democracies, Canada, Australia, Japan and other democratic governments to take coordinated action.
For decades, democratic governments have too often responded to individual cases after the victim has already disappeared, been imprisoned or been threatened. Prevention must become part of human-rights policy.
When credible evidence suggests that an authoritarian government is attempting to intimidate or reach political opponents outside its territory, governments should treat the matter simultaneously as a human-rights issue, a law-enforcement issue and a sovereignty issue.
Dr. Wang Bingzhang has already lost more than two decades of freedom. His case must not become merely another entry in an archive. And Luo Chuanmei must not become merely another name on a list of people reported to have died behind prison walls.
“The world should not wait for another dissident to disappear across a border before taking this threat seriously. Protecting those who speak for democracy and human rights is not charity toward Chinese dissidents. It is part of defending the sovereignty and freedom of democratic societies themselves.”
The Free China Movement calls for renewed international attention to Dr. Wang Bingzhang, full transparency and independent scrutiny concerning the reported death of Luo Chuanmei, and coordinated democratic action against transnational repression directed at Chinese dissidents and human-rights defenders worldwide.
Related coverage
News + Editorial: Luo Chuanmei Reportedly Dies in Xinjiang Prison; Family Says It Learned Only After Cremation
Media Contact
Free China Movement
Email: contact@freechina.live
Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 2, 2026
WASHINGTON — The Free China Movement today welcomed peaceful actions by Chinese democracy activists in New York who brought the words of Hong Kong democracy advocate Chow Hang-tung and the cases of Hong Kong political prisoners into public spaces thousands of miles from the courtroom where those voices are increasingly constrained.
On August 29, participants associated with the China Democracy Party gathered in Times Square and publicly read portions of Chow Hang-tung’s mitigation statement in the Hong Kong Alliance national-security case, according to reporting based in part on information and images supplied by participants.
A separate action in Flushing organized by members of the China New Democratic Party expressed support for defendants in the Hong Kong Alliance case and other political prisoners.
The Free China Movement emphasizes that these were separate actions by separate organizations. FCM does not claim an organizational relationship with either group.
What connects them is more important: people enjoying freedom outside Hong Kong used that freedom to keep the words and experiences of people facing imprisonment inside Hong Kong from disappearing.
A demonstration does not become historically important simply because thousands of people attend it, nor does a small demonstration become insignificant because only a handful participate.
The more important question is: What does an action preserve, transmit and make possible?
In Hong Kong, the political environment that once allowed enormous June Fourth candlelight vigils in Victoria Park has been dismantled. The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China was forced to dissolve amid national-security pressure. Its former leaders have faced years of imprisonment and prosecution.
Chow Hang-tung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho have now faced prosecution arising from the Alliance’s activities.
Under those circumstances, reading Chow’s words publicly in New York takes on meaning beyond an ordinary demonstration.
“The importance of these New York actions is not the size of the crowd. It is that words the authorities would rather contain were carried from a Hong Kong courtroom into a free public square.”
That is something authoritarian governments have historically found difficult to control.
They can restrict a courtroom. They can close an organization. They can prohibit a vigil. They can imprison an organizer. But once testimony, memory and political ideas cross borders, they become much harder to erase.
The Hong Kong Alliance was inseparable from Hong Kong’s extraordinary role in preserving the memory of the June Fourth massacre.
For decades, Hong Kong citizens gathered publicly to remember those killed in Beijing in 1989 and to demand accountability and democratic reform in China.
Suppressing the Alliance therefore does not merely eliminate another political organization. It attacks an institution that helped transmit historical memory from one generation to another.
This is why the responsibility of overseas Chinese communities and democracy organizations has grown. When a vigil cannot be held in Hong Kong, it can be held elsewhere. When a political prisoner cannot address the public freely, that person’s words can be read elsewhere. When archives, testimony or historical records are endangered, copies can be preserved elsewhere. And when authorities attempt to make a political movement disappear from public memory, people living in free societies can refuse to participate in that forgetting.
“Beijing can close a courtroom door, but it should not be allowed to close the historical record. A prison sentence can restrict a person’s freedom. It must not be allowed to erase that person’s words from history.”
These New York actions also point toward an important question for the overseas Chinese democracy movement itself.
Organizations do not have to become one organization to work toward common democratic objectives. They do not have to conceal their disagreements. They do not have to exaggerate their numbers or claim relationships that do not exist.
A mature democratic movement should be capable of something more difficult: cooperation while preserving institutional independence.
Different organizations can preserve political-prisoner records, commemorate June Fourth, defend freedom of religion and expression, support democratic prisoners, document repression and respond to urgent events while remaining organizationally distinct.
That is not weakness. It is democratic pluralism in practice.
The Free China Movement believes the future strength of the Chinese democracy movement will depend not simply on individual leaders or organizations, but on whether democratic forces can develop durable institutions, trustworthy historical records and practical mechanisms for cooperation across generations, cities and countries.
The Mainland Chinese Communist Government has succeeded in drastically narrowing the space for organized democratic activity in Hong Kong.
But repression inside one jurisdiction does not have to determine what the rest of the world remembers. Indeed, repression can create the opposite obligation.
“When democratic voices are silenced in Hong Kong, people living in freedom have a responsibility to carry those voices farther. Freedom should not end at the border where repression begins.”
The principle applies beyond Chow Hang-tung or the Hong Kong Alliance. It applies to political prisoners throughout China. It applies to independent journalists whose reporting is removed. It applies to religious believers whose communities are dismantled. It applies to lawyers whose ability to speak publicly is restricted. And it applies to the historical record of the 1989 democracy movement itself.
Every dictatorship depends, to some degree, not merely upon controlling what people can do today but upon controlling what future generations remember about yesterday.
Preserving memory is therefore not separate from democratic action. It is democratic action.
The Free China Movement calls on overseas Chinese democracy organizations, human-rights groups, universities, libraries, archives, journalists and democratic governments to systematically preserve court statements and testimony from Hong Kong political prisoners; maintain verified records of prisoners of conscience; preserve endangered publications and organizational archives; continue public June Fourth commemorations wherever peaceful assembly remains possible; translate important testimony so that it can cross linguistic and national boundaries; and cooperate across organizations without erasing institutional independence or manufacturing political unity.
We also urge journalists not to measure the significance of overseas Chinese democratic activity only by attendance numbers.
Sometimes the historically important question is not how many people stood in a square. It is whether someone carried forward the words that another government was trying to silence.
The August 29 actions in New York did exactly that.
The Free China Movement will continue documenting those voices, preserving the historical record, and supporting peaceful efforts to ensure that China’s unfinished struggle for democracy cannot be erased by imprisonment, censorship or time.
Related coverage
News + Editorial: New York Democracy Activists Read Chow Hang-tung’s Court Statement and Rally for Hong Kong Political Prisoners
Rapid Response: New York Actions Carry Chow Hang-tung’s Words Beyond Hong Kong
Media Contact
Free China Movement
Email: contact@freechina.live
Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066
Chinese-language reporting describes two separate August 29 actions in New York. In Times Square, five Chinese Democracy Party participants publicly read portions of Chow Hang-tung’s mitigation statement from the Hong Kong Alliance national-security case. In Flushing, members of the China New Democratic Party held a separate gathering supporting Hong Kong Alliance defendants and political prisoners. Free China Movement does not infer affiliation, partnership or endorsement between these organizations or with FCM.
Independent reporting from AP and VOA confirms the underlying August 28 Hong Kong mitigation hearing involving Chow Hang-tung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho.
When civic space contracts, repression is not limited to preventing meetings or demonstrations. It can also narrow the space in which defendants, prisoners and democratic movements are heard and remembered. The danger is that testimony, political argument and historical memory disappear from public view even when the individuals themselves continue resisting peacefully.
The significance of these New York actions is not the size of the crowd. It is that words the authorities would rather contain were carried from a Hong Kong courtroom into a free public square.
Free China Movement supports peaceful efforts to preserve public testimony, political-prisoner records and June Fourth memory. Overseas democracy organizations can cooperate around shared democratic principles while remaining institutionally independent and accurately identified.
FCM will continue monitoring sentencing in the Hong Kong Alliance case and any material change affecting Chow Hang-tung, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho or the ability of Hong Kong citizens to preserve June Fourth memory.
Related coverage
News + Editorial: New York Democracy Activists Read Chow Hang-tung’s Court Statement and Rally for Hong Kong Political Prisoners
Formal Statement: When Hong Kong Silences Democratic Voices, Free Societies Must Carry Their Words Further
Media Contact
Free China Movement
Email: contact@freechina.live
Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066
Radio Free Asia reported on August 28 that staff at Shanghai’s Baoxing Funeral Home told an RFA reporter that Christian and Catholic funeral rites were no longer permitted there and that families would be discouraged from arranging such ceremonies. RFA separately contacted Longhua Funeral Home, where staff said a Catholic priest could still lead memorial prayers provided the activity was completed within one hour.
RFA said it found no relevant public notice on the Shanghai Civil Affairs Bureau or Shanghai funeral-service websites. A broader claim of a citywide ban therefore remains unverified.
Religious freedom includes the ability of families and clergy to conduct peaceful rites surrounding death and mourning. Conflicting rules at public funeral facilities also make transparency itself part of the story.
The Mainland Chinese Communist Government should not force bereaved families to choose between public funeral services and peaceful religious observance. If Shanghai authorities have adopted restrictions, they should publish the rule, identify its legal basis and allow meaningful review. If no citywide rule exists, public facilities should not invent opaque local prohibitions that discriminate against religious families.
Related Rapid Response: Shanghai funeral rites — written public basis and rights-respecting rules
Public religious-freedom reports say Yueyang police detained Pastor Huang Lei, preacher Hu Hongtao and elder Yang Jianjun after a July 11 raid on Panshi Bible Church. The three were initially given 15 days of administrative detention. When that period expired on July 26, they were reportedly transferred into criminal detention on suspicion of “illegal use of information networks” instead of being released. Later reports say they remained in Yueyang First Detention Center. Accounts of lawyer access are mixed and time-specific: one source says Huang later met a lawyer, while other reporting describes repeated obstacles or lack of confirmed access for the other detainees.
Converting short administrative detention into criminal detention at the moment release is expected raises basic questions about legal basis, notice, access to counsel and whether peaceful church communications are being treated as criminal conduct.
Peaceful worship and internal church communication should not become a route from administrative punishment into open-ended criminal detention. The Mainland Chinese Communist Government should disclose the specific conduct alleged, guarantee effective access to independent counsel and families, and ensure humane medical treatment. Vague information-network offenses should not be used to criminalize ordinary religious association.
Related Rapid Response: Yueyang Panshi Church — due process and access to counsel