From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Political Prostitutes or Democractic Activitists  ?
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:06:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.132257.20627@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>
>I used the word "imagine" because I wanted to bring up a hypothetical
>situation. I stressed that point because I *don't* know of a specific
>example of such a thing happening. BUT, I do know that the corruption
>of government officials in China is a serious problem, and that it will
>continue to be a problem in the new market system.

	True.  But it is not necessarily bad at this moment.  Corruption
diverts the attention of the officials from politics to money.  Once
they made money themselves, they have to seek way to protect them
and adopt the concept of private property.  Of course, this sounds
academic, but that is what is actually happening.

	It is unfair that officials or their offsprings can get rich
faster than others, but we seldomly see fairness in an economic
development anyway.  It is the price to pay.

>Furthermore, I predict that such corruption will be one of the more
>serious problems China's booming economy will have to face once the
>initial "gold rush" comes to an end.

	It would be easier to deal with at *that* time than now, since
by then, most officials would have left their posts to seek big
money in private sectors.  Corruption works when you can make money
as official but no other better way.  If the private sector grows
and shows bigger attraction, why stay as an official and bear the
risk of being caught in corruption?  (This, incidentally, is the
situation in U.S.).

>Come on, hypothetical situations are not out of bounds in civilized and
>polite discussions. If you don't think such a situation is likely to
>occur, feel free to say so. (I think you are incredibly naive, but that's
>just my opinion.) 

	Yes, I said so.  I may be naive, but that is not the point.

>No, I can't, as I stated above. But (given time) I could compile a list
>of "counterrevolutionaries" who were engaged in just about any other
>activity. I would include Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi on this list
>for attempting to implement capitalist reforms prior to the CR. And if you
>think "China has changed", think again. Weren't the citizens in TAM on 6/4
>"counterrevolutionaries"? Don't you think there will be more counter-
>revolutionaries is the future? Anyone who threatens the power of the CCP
>(or some CCP official) can be brought down most easily with this label. And
>who in the near future is going to become powerful? Successful business
>people, that's who.

	I don't think there will be more counterrevolutionaries in the 
future if the society's attention is more focused on money instead of
politics, including the slogans of democracy.  It is hard to bring
down CCP by street demonstrations, but it is easier to do that by
corruption and economic development, like what happened in Taiwan
(KMT was not so much different from CCP).

	The point is that you will be labeled as counterrevolutionary 
if you make efforts in politics.  But it is *extremely* unlikely if
you are a successful business person.  Five or six years ago, the
situation was not as good as now.  But even then, when hardliners
purgues a big patch of successful business people, they were all
brought down by tax-evations, personal scandals, etc..  Nobody
was brought down by counterrevolutionary charges.

>The point I'm trying to make is that economic opportunity is not the end
>all. Human rights must play a role in China development as well.

	Certainly it will.  But society does have different priorities
at different stage.  Human rights ideal can not be enforced from
outside.  It has to wait till the majority of society accept and
work on it itself.  A good place to start is the right of private
property, which is being developed now.

	Incidentally, I don't believe the right of "freedom of speech"
should necessarily surpass the right of private property when 
people talk about human rights.

>Many people like me want CMFN to go thru. That is, we want China to have MFN
>status, but we want human rights in China, too. Do those sentiments make
>one a "political prostitute"?  It seems the implicit assumption of many is 
>that if CMFN is granted, China will not make human rights concessions, and 
>MFN status will be dropped. I don't agree.

	The point is that MFN is a trade relation, it is NOT a good tool
promoting human rights.  Trade itself is a good tool promoting human
rights, since it brings economic development and gradual education
to people of the concepts of human rights.

	In case you insist MFN should be used to promote human rights,
try to attach same conditions to *all* the countries that have same
or worse human rights conditions.  (Then you would realize how bad
this would lead to, I hope.)



    Eddie