From: Yuhe Liu <liu@ATMOS.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      MFN and IFCSS
Reply-To: Yuhe Liu <liu@ATMOS.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:10:01 GMT
Comments: cc: cgsa@fuzzy.umd.edu, council@venus.physics.emory.edu,
              ifcss@cscwam.umd.edu, peng@wam.umd.edu

Dear Chinese Fellows:


     In the past three years after The June 4th massacre, IFCSS  have  paid
great   attention  to  lobbying  the US congress for CMFN. For quite a long
time period after 6.4, the Chinese government had  tried  to  hit  hard  at
"anti-revolution"   and   to   weaken   the   economic influence of private
enterprises. Obviously, when used  as  a  political  means  the  CMFN   was
indeed  very  effective  for  pressing  the  Chinese government to stop, or
at least soften the nationwide political persecution in   China   and   for
pushing  the  government  to  loosen  the  economic control for the private
economic system. We all know that  American  democrats   have   focused  on
CMFN   for  the  last three years and that the republican president, George
Bush, has vetoed every CMFN bill passed by the congress. So far, therefore,
the   pressure  by   CMFN   has  been  exerted  on  the Chinese government,
although CMFN has not really been implemented.  This is why  we  can  lobby
the congress for  CMFN  without any hesitations.

     But now, the situation is changing. China is going on  to  build   its
market   economic   system. Undoubtedly, building the market system will be
accompanied by raising the real forces of freedom and democracy. It is  the
way that will bring China not only a developed economy, but also democracy,
freedom, and human rights,  no  matter whether the  Party wants it or  not.
On  the other hand, a democrat president, Bill Clinton will be in the White
House. It is obvious that any CMFN  bills  passed by the  democrat-majority
congress will be signed into law by the democratic president. In that case,
the people in China, who are going to  transfer the command economic system
into a free market system, would have to suffer from the sanctions of CMFN.
Someone may  argue  that  the  CMFN sanctions  would  apply   only  to  the
state-run  enterprises  so that the private and joint enterprises would not
be influenced. I  think,  this argument ignores two problems:

     1). Although China's economy has been taken over largely  by  the com-
ponents   of   private  and  joint  enterprises, the state-run component is
still strong enough to control the entire economy. To hit state-run  enter-
prises would have to hit the entire economy.

     2). The state-run enterprises are going   to   get   into   the   free
market  system. To hit the state-run enterprises would have to ruin the new
free market system.

     Another argument for CMFN is that we do not want  China  to  lose  its
MFN   status,  but just use CMFN to force the Chinese government to release
all political prisoners, or at least  most  of  them.  If   the  government
did  so, China could hold MFN status. This argument is based on the ASSUMP-
TION that the government would like to lose its power  of ruler to  protect
the  Chinese people from its suffering.  I say this is a day-dream. It can-
not be trusted. Don't forget what  happened  in  June   of   1989.  We  had
trusted  the government but got blood and death in return.  For the govern-
ment there is only one bottom line: ruling power, nothing else. To  release
all political prisoners equals to allow dissenters to exist. Do you believe
CMFN is so powerful to force the government to do so? I do not. But,  while
CMFN becomes law, it will hove to enforce. What will happen? God knows.

     Of course, we still need to keep  strong  pressure  on   the   Chinese
government   to   improve   human  rights  in China. But, I don't agree the
strategy that uses economic sanctions as political  means  *AT  THIS  TIME*
when   the  economic   reform  becomes  the  real  force  for China's demo-
cracy. We should have other ways to press  the  government  while  we  help
China   to develop  its  market  economic  system. MFN is indeed contribut-
ing to that system.  Therefore, in my opinion, IFCSS should  stop  lobbying
the  congress for CMFN. I think we should lobby the White House to increase
more pressure on the Chinese government to improve human rights  in  China.
As  an  administration,  the White House should be more useful in practical
operation than a CMFN bill.

     Thank you for your attention. Your comments are welcome.

Yuhe Liu
University of Maryland
at College Park

===========================================================================
  From:  Yuhe Liu
  IFCSS Council Member, Mid-Atlantic
  Department of Meteorology                Telephone: (301) 405-8045 (O)
  University of Maryland                              (301) 779-0350 (H)
  College Park, MD 20742                   Email:     liu@atmos.umd.edu
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china