HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: YAO@AE.AGECON.WISC.EDU
Subject:      MFN under Clinton's administration
Reply-To: YAO@AE.AGECON.WISC.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:32:13 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

  The election of Clinton raises the question that if the CMFN would
be implemented. This reminds me of the situation when Regan was first
elected. In his campeign, Regan had strongly criticised Cater's
policy toward China. He even said that the United Stated should
not have established diplomatic relation with mainland China, and
that Taiwan should have been recognized as the only representive of
China. However, his policies toward China had turned out not so
unpleased to China after he went to the White House. He even
visited China during his administration. The Sino- American
relation was going fairly well in most the 1980's.
  Now, it is Clinton's turn to do the same thing. There are several
related things that decide that Clinton will not turn too bad toward
China. First, Clinton's criticism to Bush's China policy might
rather be a campeign strategy. Even he really believes personally
that the human right situation in China is very bad and deserves
punishments, he wouldn't do so after he goes into the White House.
The reson is simple, he has to evaluate the gain that the United
States can get from such  punishments. What the States can gain from
such a punishment?  Nothing. What we have learned from the history is
that there is just one factor which can determine the relationships
among countries: the interest of each country. Why Bush vetoed CMFN?
That was just because he believed that it was with America's
interest. Now that the trade agreement between Chian and America has
been signed, meaning that billions of American exports can go into
China in the future five years, it is less possible for Clinton to
approve CMFN to China.
  Some CSS have optimistic hope that American would do things
fovarite to the Chinese people. Such an opinion is naive. What we
have seen from the decisions made by the U.S. government toward
China is balance. Bush approved arm sales to Taiwan, but also lifted
the limitation of hi-tech export to Chian; the Chinese Student
Protection Bill was signed, but also CMFN was vetoed; the trade
agreement was signed, and the States promised to promote China's
status in GATT, and so on. I believe that we will see more such
balances in Clinton's administration.

























Yang Yao
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: & Wang <joe@ASTRO.AS.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:      MFN under Clinton Administration
Reply-To: & Wang <joe@ASTRO.AS.UTEXAS.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:35:52 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

This is an slightly revised version on an article I posted to
talk.politics.china



I think the bottom line is that some sort of CMFN bill will pass
Congress next June and will be signed by the new President.  Clinton
made too much of an issue of Bush's China policy for this not to
happen.

Given that a CMFN will pass, I think our goal should be to try and
influence the content of the bill.  This can be divided into two parts
(1) the conditions under which sanctions are to be revoked, and (2)
the precise nature of the sanctions.

Most of the discussion last year was focused on exactly what the
conditions are for sanctions to be invoked.  In light of the new
political circumstance, I think it's not a good idea to focus on this
part of the bill.  I consider it highly unlikely that Congress will
pass any sort of bill which contain conditions which the Chinese
government will accept (for example any likely bill will probably
demand the release of *ALL* political prisoners and an end to arm
shipments to the Mid East).  This being the case, I think the prudent
thing to do is to assume that the Chinese government will not accept
the conditions and that sanctions will be imposed.

Given that sanctions are likely to be imposed, I think that our task
is to minimize the possible damage to the Chinese economy from the
sanctions.  Ways of doing this including, including a waiting period
before sanctions are imposed, and exempting private and cooperative
companies from the higher tariff rates (the MFN bill last year
exempted private industries as defined by the Treasury Department).

In doing so, we can use Clinton's campaign slogans to support our
cause.  Clinton stated that he was on the side of "democracy and free
markets," and we can point out that revoking MFN on all Chinese
companies would hardly be beneficial to "free markets."  Since Clinton
has visited Taipei, we can point out how trade with the United States
was important in bringing about the "democratic transition" in Taiwan.

The biggest question that will determine what happens in June is that
of Clinton's own views.  Unfortunately, Clinton has no foreign policy
record so that it is impossible to see what he actually thinks on the
matter.  It is possible that he brought up the issue of MFN only to
challenge Bush's foreign record, and that he will propose mild
sanctions.  After all, Reagan criticized Carter's recognition of the
PRC in the 1980 elections.  On the other hand, it's also possible that
he is interested in "punishing" China and will try to impose very
harsh sanctions.

Right now, I'm trying to remain optimistic, but I also am quite
worried.
From: yu@bilbo.gra.vtt.fi (Xiaohan Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Dai Qing's cheap talk
Date: 9 Nov 1992 13:55:48 GMT
Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland
NNTP-Posting-Host: bilbo.gra.vtt.fi

In article <92313.133642LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu> LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I suppport Dai Qing on MFN issue. I care the vast majority ordinary people
>more than Wei Jingsheng and other fighters.  Notice that the government
>owned enterprises hire most "ordinary workers". Cheap democratic fighter!

You are right! absolutely right!
From: yangchen@iris.usc.edu (Yang Chen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: talk.politics.china
Date: 13 Nov 1992 01:23:42 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: iris.usc.edu
Keywords: TEST

exuwng@exu.ericsson.se (Wade (Wei) Wang,xt-do,x7886) writes:


> Wish some goodies, no dirties here.

But, where in the world do you find CLEAN politics? :-)

Yang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Zhenqin Li)" <zli@IRIS116.BIOSYM.COM>
Subject:      Re: MFN under Clinton Administration?
Reply-To: "(Zhenqin Li)" <zli@IRIS116.BIOSYM.COM>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:06:16 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

I agree that the issue is not to show off the righteousness of any
particular nation or individuals as arbitrators of human rights
and economic well-beings of other people in the world; the issue
is how best to improve the human conditions in China, in terms of
both economic and institutional developments. Putting aside all
rhetoric of good intentions, the bottom-line question is: do you
think it is a good idea to lobby Uncle Sam to impose trade restrictions
on China?

Zhenqin Li
San Diego
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: MFN under Clinton Administration?
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:52:53 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

I think the bottom line is that some sort of CMFN bill will pass
Congress next June and will be signed by the new President.  Clinton
made too much of an issue of Bush's China policy for this not to
happen.  

Given that a CMFN will pass, I think our goal should be to try and
influence the content of the bill.  This can be divided into two parts
(1) the conditions under which sanctions are to be revoked, and (2)
the precise nature of the sanctions.

Most of the discussion last year was focused on exactly what the
conditions are for sanctions to be invoked.  In light of the new
political circumstance, I think it's not a good idea to focus on this
part of the bill.  I consider it highly unlikely that Congress will
pass any sort of bill which contain conditions which the Chinese
government will accept (for example any likely bill will probably
demand the release of *ALL* political prisoners and an end to arm
shipments to the Mid East).  This being the case, I think the prudent
thing to do is to assume that the Chinese government will not accept
the conditions and that sanctions will be imposed.

Given that sanctions are likely to be imposed, I think that our task
is to minimize the possible damage to the Chinese economy from the
sanctions.  Ways of doing this including, including a waiting period
before sanctions are imposed, and exempting private and cooperative
companies from the higher tariff rates.

In doing so, we can use Clinton's campaign slogans to support our
cause.  Clinton stated that he was on the side of "democracy and free
markets," and we can point out that revoking MFN on all Chinese
companies would hardly be beneficial to "free markets."  Since Clinton
has visited Taipei, we can point out how trade with the United States
was important in bringing about the "democratic transition" in Taiwan.

The biggest question that will determine what happens in June is that
of Clinton's own views.  Unfortunately, Clinton has no foreign policy
record so that it is impossible to see what he actually thinks on the
matter.  It is possible that he brought up the issue of MFN only to
challenge Bush's foreign record, and that he will propose mild
sanctions.  After all, Reagan criticized Carter's recognition of the
PRC in the 1980 elections.  On the other hand, it's also possible that
he is interested in "punishing" China and will try to impose very
harsh sanctions.

Right now, I'm trying to remain optimistic, but I also am quite
worried.







Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yjj@ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang)
Subject: Dai Qing's cheap talk
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:51:46 GMT

Words from Dai Qing are to cheap.

>3. Dai Qing: China's Most-Favored-Nation Trade Status Necessary ......... 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By: George Zhu
>Source: CND, 11/3/92

>CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Dai Qing, a leading Chinese journalist and writer, said
>in an interview on Oct. 28 that the United States should continue its
>most-favored-nation trade status to China "for the sake of ordinary Chinese

The conditional granting MFN bill will only remove the tariff benefit from
the government owned companies.  It will not hurt the private enterprise
and business.  it will promote private enterprise in China.

>"Since I did what I did, I should bear its consequences," Dai emphasized.

What kind of jail did she go?  Of course she could bear the consequences.
What a cheap talk.  Can she bear the kind of jail Wei Jinsheng, Liu Qing
and many otehrs have been?
From: micky.wong@canrem.com (micky wong)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: support hongkong democrac
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:47:55 GMT
Reply-To: "micky wong" <micky.wong@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In article:<1992Nov10.040526.5302@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
   Subject: Support Democracy in Hong Kong
      From: wing@pegasus.com (Wing Ng) writes:

3WN> We appeal to the Hong Kong Legislative Council to shoulder their
3WN> responsibility and speedily pass the package of constitutional
3WN> revisions proposed by Governor Patten and urge all people of good will
3WN> to support the further democratization of Hong Kong.

Latest news from Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Legislative Council voted
30-21 (?) to support the further democratization of HongKong.

Congratulations to HongKong's Democracy Fighters!!!

   Faced with CCP's recent bombarding threats and constant sneers, Hong
Kong people have once again, demonstrated their strong resolve to
protect their own rights.

   CCP's hard liners need to repeatedly remind themselves:
"He2 ren2 min2 zuo2 dui4 de1 ren2, shi2 bu2 hui4 you3 hao3 xia4 chang3
de5"
   (For those who are against people's will, will not enjoy good
outcomes.)

   What is so bad to let people have more freedom? To exercise their
rights, of voicing their concerns regarding their own affairs?

   Today's CCP had repeatedly exposed their true ugly face to the whole
world, that the CCP's leadership are unable and unwilling to learn: "How
to serve the people!".

   The sad irony is: Before CCP cheated their way to power, "To serve
the people" or "To serve the mass" were the motto in CCP's preaching!

   Look at recent inflammatory remarks from Beijing and from their hired
voices in HongKong, CCP's current propagandists can find no better
arguments other than reminding people of those sins of the old
colonists. (which would be a strong argument 50 years ago, but
ludicrously outdated and totally unconvincing today.)

   But for a rapidly shrinking global society of today, facing a well
educated mass in today's HongKong, CCP can no longer fool the majority!
Their propagandists are running out of trickeries.

   Watching the recent development in HongKong, we would like to remind
those brain dead hard liners of the CCP, whose petrified brain made them
constantly living in the time warp of a past era; It is time to wake up
from your nightmares! Your old tricks are only the laughing stocks of
today's Hong Kong people!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: kxd5425@usl.edu (Du Kaisheng)
Subject: Re: Dai Qing's cheap talk
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:37:46 GMT

In article <92313.133642LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu> <LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I suppport Dai Qing on MFN issue. I care the vast majority ordinary people
>more than Wei Jingsheng and other fighters.  Notice that the government
>owned enterprises hire most "ordinary workers". Cheap democratic fighter!

I agree.

Also I respected Wei Jingsheng and other fighter who are still in jail. But
I do think that a real fighter is for the national interest of China not
for personal interest.  Otherwise they are nobody.


du
From: ziniuwei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Ziniu Wei)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: china-nt: Homeworks
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:32:46 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci

In article <BxGw7E.AoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Ying Tang <Ying.Tang.2@ND.EDU> writes:
>Dear Netters:
>As a matter of fact, we did some homework about MFN. My husband went
>back to China Feb. 92, he went to 4 cities: Beijing, Tianjin, Nanjing
>and Xi an. He visited five factories several companies and some acadmic
>institutions and met different level of people: workers, teachers,
>professors etc., asked them about the opinons towards the MFN and what
>CSS in US did for MFN.  Only 2% of them said that they didn't care,
>other 98% said they didn't want CMFN to be passed, they HATED what some
>of CSS did in US.
>
>One worker told my husband that if China lost MFN,
>he could only get 55% of the salaries, also did other 3000 people in
>his factory. He said human right is a good thing, but if it would affect
>people's living, they don't need it, and they don't care. He said "you
>guys in America, you don't need worry about the eating, living..., if
>you want to stay there, stay, don't bother people here, I gusse you
>guys have nothing to do because of eat to much (Chi1 bao3 le cheng1 de).
>
>Democracy means you should do what majoraty wants, there is no doubt
>that if we let the people in China (not here) chose either they want
>CMFN or MFN, majority will chose MFN because that's the best
>interest for them right now. I know it's pity that they don't care
>much about the human right like the guys in U.S. do, democracy or
>human right is their second need after they satisfy their first
>need which is eating, living, and improving their living standard.
>This is the reality.
>
>The Chinese in America CANNOT represent the Chinese people.
>
>Ying Tang

Someone in the IFCSS should WASH THEIR EARS FOR A THOUSAND TIMES to hear the
voice from Chinese people in China.

            /|
           / |		
          /  |		Ziniu Wei
    _____/___|_____	Center of Excellence of Document Analysis (CEDAR)
   /    /    /    /	Department of Computer Science 
  /    /    /    /	State University of New York at Buffalo
 /____/____/____/	
      |   /
      |  /		Internet: ziniuwei@cs.buffalo.edu
      | /		
      |/

-- Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address. --
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: binhai zheng <BZHEN00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      help
Reply-To: binhai zheng <BZHEN00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:49:28 GMT
Comments: To: Hello <china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu>

I would like to know how to find my old fellow students through this network.
I would appreciate it greatly if you could send me some information about that.
I was a student of Dept. of Genetics and Genetic Engineering, Fudan Universi
ty, Shanghai.  At present I am in the School of Biological Sciences, University
 of Kentucky.  Thank you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Dai Qing's cheap talk
From: <LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:36:42 EST
Organization: Penn State University

I suppport Dai Qing on MFN issue. I care the vast majority ordinary people
more than Wei Jingsheng and other fighters.  Notice that the government
owned enterprises hire most "ordinary workers". Cheap democratic fighter!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <POSTMASTER@UGA.BITNET>
Subject:      Service Message
Reply-To: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <POSTMASTER@UGA.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:03:45 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

Report on your message to: /R=AM/U=YUNFENG/@mrgate.uwyo.edu
Reason: Failed to transfer; communications failure (0)
Arrival-date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:03:45 MST
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: CAWZ025@UBE.BITNET
Subject:      HongKongNet
Reply-To: CAWZ025@UBE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:09:16 GMT

Hi! Did anyone of you has heard of HongKongNet?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Carl__@nwu.edu 
Subject: Re: Extreme naivety and egocentricism among us
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:21:07 GMT

In article <PI.92Nov10122857@spica.bu.edu> pi@spica.bu.edu (GARMARHARD) writes:
> 
> * Green card issue very possibly involve political plot, though some
>   people may have been very naive about this. Do you believe that
>   Shannon Yeh himself stands for what he has been shouting? If most
>   of SCCers do not doubt Shannon Yeh's motive, they are not only
>   sick in morality, but also lack of intelligence.

Maybe I am naive. But I don't think there is any political plot behind Shannon  
Yeh's performance. IMHO, he first did it because of his jealousy. Then, since  
he was attacked by so many people, it would be a shame for him to stop his  
crusade. I saw such kind of people in China. To save their face, they would do  
whatever they can do, but end up losing face totally.

Since I finally lose interest in watching his monotonous performance, I have  
put a filter on his articles.

Carl
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: More on CMFN and Clinton
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:26:18 GMT

My point is not that Clinton will have enmity towards the PRC, but that
the post-Cold War Democrats come with a very different set of assumptions
about the PRC than the Republicans, whose relationship with the PRC government
and leaders dates back to Nixon's day.

Fortunately for the PRC, Clinton is a free-trader, and is likely to persue
his human-rights agenda on other fronts if he has one.  But the relatively
close relationship between Chinese leaders and American leaders which existed
under Republican Presidents has likely ended for good, and won't come back
even if the Republicans win in 1996, since the underlying geopolitical
rationale for the relationship no longer exists.  There are new geopolitical
rationales, specifically to check the growing power of Japan, but this is a
much harder political sell to the American people than the Cold War
relationship.

But some type of CMFN will have to come about.  The political price to be
paid by Clinton for abandoning this plank is too great.  Even if he doesn't
want to do this, he certainly can't veto a bill which comes to him from
a Congress controlled by his own party without a huge and clear reason.

This is why the "C" in CMFN has to be carefully determined in such a way that
the PRC can reasonably meet it.  A hard line against CMFN by the Chinese
government will only make the "C" worse and embolden the forces in the US who
wish to abandon a relationship with China altogether.  Now China itself has to
worry about supporting the "moderates" in the _American_ government in such a
way so that the "radicals" don't gain ascendency, at least on this issue...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kemnitz                        | "I ran out of the room - I
MultiMedia Information Systems Inc. | didn't want to be killed by a pile
kemnitz@netcom.com                  | of VMS manuals" :-)
                                    |
                                    | --A friend at DEC Palo Alto in the Quake
From: wjin@nmsu.edu (Wang Jin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: What CMFN can accomplish? (Re: MFN under Clinton Administration)
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:54:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Research Lab


Let's assume CMFN is passed and signed by Clinton. What reaction you
can expect from CG. A trade war!!! The possible American victims are
airplane, computer, auto, and machinery manufactures. Remember all these
are the industries Clinton vowed to protect. On the other hand, even
though America is the biggest custom of China, the total portion (25%
if i remember correctly) will hurt but *definitely not kill* the
growth of China's (or CG's, if you want) economy.  WSJ (last friday) has an
article about this topic. It is worth noting that IBM, Boeing are
among the biggest lobbyers aganist CMFN. You may want to say the
America is not afraid of trade war and look at the imminent one with
EC. But what the war with China can achieve for US? an empty principle? Did
Mr Clinton claim to be a new Demoratic? Did anyone notice he softed
his position in the second election debat? he did not even attack
Bush's veto of CMFN bill.

Another point: the idea that CMFN only hurts the government owned
business is totally no sense. The product of some factory is only the
end result of am endless provider-comsumer chain. how about the farmer,
contract worker, individaul carrier, etc.

I like my people. i like to see human rights improved in china. but we
need to be more pragmatic. are you CMFN supporters sincerely believe
that CMFN can improve the HR situation in China instead of worsening
it? have people learned some lessons form 6.4?

-wj
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: wshi@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Weiping Shi)
Subject: Re: MFN, Clinton and IFCSS
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:44:26 GMT

The whole thing on CMFN is so funny.
If China should be deprived of MFN,  it should not
have been granted at the first place.  At that time,
did China has a better human right record?
Were there any political prisoners?
Were China involved in middle-east arm sale at that time?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <POSTMASTER@UGA.BITNET>
Subject:      Service Message
Reply-To: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <POSTMASTER@UGA.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:20:37 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

Report on your message to: /R=AM/U=YUNFENG/@mrgate.uwyo.edu
Reason: Failed to transfer; communications failure (0)
Arrival-date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:20:37 MST
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china