From: yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:      Re: MFN under Clinton's administration
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:16:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Nov7.004024.3559@usl.edu> kxd5425@usl.edu (Du Kaisheng) writes:
>In article <Bx9yBr.As@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "(Jinghong Li)" <jli@AMSC01.ENGR.UDAYTON.EDU> writes:
>>>From: YAO@AE.AGECON.WISC.EDU
>>>  ........
>>
>>........
>What is the definition of human right?
I think somebody out there should be able to answer this. I am sure
that I am not the one.
>                                       Do you think you should propogate
>in the U.S the idea that there exist severe poverty in China and their 
>human right should also be respected? 

 I am sorry, I still can not catch your point even after read this
 sentence more than three times.

>                                      So the U.S should give more human
>aid to those peole.

They should. But not based on "human rights". Because they also have
"human rights" not to provide aid.

>                    And do you know many children can not finish elementary
>school because of poverity? Should their basic human right - to have the
>elementary education - be respected? 

I don't know exactly what is the definition of "human rights".
But I do know "to have the elementary education" is not part of it.
"poverty" or not is not the part of "human rights" either.

>
>When the "fighters" cried for democracy in China their slogan were just too
>far away from the mainstream of common people, even though those slogans are
> popular in the West.

I first want to claim that I've never been a "fighter" (probably will
never be in my lifetime).
The mainstream of common people (in China), back ten more years ago was
"political fight". CCP and everybody else should respect this
"mainstream", thus keep it. Right?

>                      So they can get some support from some Western
>countries but not the chinese people. Too abstract to understand.  

Anything really wrong in "get some support from some Western countries"?
Yes, I admit, currently the maintream of Chinese people does not support
it (more accurately, does not care).
I want to recall some history in the natural sciences that you probably
already knew, the famous relativity and many others. Based on your
arguement, Einsten and dozen of others apperantly made huge mistake.
On the other hand, if the mainstream of Chinese people still relactunt
to the idea "democracy" as defined by Westerners after they know
what is all that about, I agree with you that nobody should try to push
it. Is it the case here? Of course, it is perfectly fine for me (I
believe to many other individuals) that you oppose the idea of "human
rights" even before you know what is it.

>                                                               If they
>really care about China, do something sounds less great.

They can also try something sounds more great.

>                                                         China will not
>change overnight, it needs patience to work out.

I don't believe anybody think that China will change dramatically overnight.
I also don't believe that those (or these) "fighters" are trying to
establish "democracy" in China, or "human rights" are respected in China
overnight. You are not trying to say that if the idea will not work
overnight it is not worth to try, are you?

>                                                 The president of America
>can't do that.

Nobody can. You are indeed very right.

>               It will take the effort of several generations. 

Start from which generation? Always next?

>
>Talking about opportunities, for me today China is having a good opportinity
>to catch up at least with the "second world"  . We did not have the 
>opportunity in the recent 100 years.

History told us, we indeed had opportunities in recent 40 some years, as
a matter of fact, a few. I also hope that opportunaities can stay there
for long enough.

>                                    If you do not want to contribute to
>this course, that is fine. But don't try to blow it.  Good intention may
>not result in good consequence!

You probably did not mean that "try to blow it" is good intention.
After all, will blow it or not can not be judged by the points you
raised. At least, I am still not convinced yet (though may not be
important anyway). And I believe many hold same feeling as I do.

>                                At least when you enjoy life here in U.S
>do not forget about those peers of us who are still living in poverty.

At least when you enjoy democracy here in U.S. do not forget about those
peers of us who are still living in "not-so-democracy".

>
>These people may not understant what democracy is. But for them $100 is
>more attrctive than some empty promose. Whatever noise you make in the
>name of them in here should make them benifit not suffer more.
>
>Du

So you believe democracy will "make them suffer more", don't you. I am
curious to know how?
I believe (though many people may disagree) that part of "democracy" is
to let people understand what is "democracy".
"democracy" is empty promise to you. Why do you enjoy (or participate) it?

Y.Duan
PS: sorry to make the post so long. Not my intention.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china