From: yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: A forwarded reference from USC
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:20:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bw5rqK.Lyy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU writes:
> From:	IN%"lic@PHYSICS.USC.EDU" 14-OCT-1992 01:26:51.69
> To:	IN%"cssa@POLLUX.USC.EDU"
> CC:
> Subj:	suggestions on donation to IFCSS
>
> Return-path: <lic@PHYSICS.USC.EDU>
> Received: from pollux.usc.edu by ramoth.usc.edu (PMDF #12519) id
>  <01GPX5H0JI4W8WW7K3@ramoth.usc.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:10 PST
> Received: from physics.usc.edu by pollux.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-ucs+1.1) id
>  AA02978; Wed, 14 Oct 92 01:09:57 PDT
> Received: by physics.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-ucs+1.1) id AA02842; Wed,
>  14 Oct 92 01:09:56 PDT
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 01:09:56 PDT
> From: lic@PHYSICS.USC.EDU (Li Chen)
> Subject: suggestions on donation to IFCSS
> To: cssa@POLLUX.USC.EDU
> Message-id: <9210140809.AA02842@physics.usc.edu>
>
> To those who is going to get your Green Card, congradulations!
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Thank you!

>
> Apparently, the Chinese Protection Bill wouldn't have passed without IFCSS.
> So if you benefit from it, you should pay for it.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good point!

>
> However, I would like to remind you that while IFCSS was actively lobbying and
> seeking support among CSS for lobbying the Chinese Protection Bill, which is a
> very popular bill among CSS, they also semi-secretely lobbied for the
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really? It's not a secret to me at all.

> Conditional MFN bill, which is not so popular among CSS. In fact, the poll
> conduct by Li, Leping on USC campus last year showed that rhere are more
> people against the CMFN bill than those who pro it.

This is probably true.
Question: How many raised their voice, contacted IFCSS to express their
concern?

>
> Based on this situation, I would like to suggest on the following things:
>
> 1) If you are not sure whether you wanted to donate before, then you should
> wait. Because the Chinese Protection Bill has just passed, any new money
> will fuel the CMFN bill lobbying. You should wait till ~ June of next year
> to decide whether you want to donate.
>
> 2) If you have already decide to donate, then you should have the check
> payable to: IFCSS CSS-protection account. IFCSS has different accounts for
> different purposes. In this way, you have obliged (but not necessary ensure)
> them to use the money for CSS protection bill.

Are you saying that people should not donate? Make it straight next
time!

>
> Finally, I would like to make another comment on CMFN bill.

The comment that you made is wonderful. Simply amazing!
But did you consider MFN to be the bussiness of American or that of
Chinese?
MFN is the gift to those nations that have good relationship with America.
It's American internal affair.
If CCP behaves well it should not be that difficult to get it.

>
> 1) The CMFN bill was the idea of Democratic Federation which also have a
> strong hand in IFCSS. They have adopted an idea to have western country to
> give China economic sanction and to cause economic caos in China so people
> will uprise to overthrow the Chinese government.(See Fang, Lizhi's speech)

Is CG so wonderful that you fully surpport it?

> 2) The CMFN bill starts by holding Chinese worker as hostage. Thus it is
> inconsiderate and immoral. CMFN make the bussiness enviroment in China
> unpredictable, causing foreign capitals to leave China and people, who just
> need career opportunities like us, to lose their opportunity.

The one who suffers most is the CG, simply because it owns most of the
enterprises. To me, this is "no pain no gain". If you want better
government you have to  sacrifize.

> 3) The CMFN campaign unnecessarily creates conflicts between US and China
> which no body benefits from it. IFCSS has created numerous excuse for US to
> "punish" Chinese government and lot of excuses actually have nothing to
> do with himan right issue. (See Zhao, Haiqing's speech at Democratic hearing)
> The CMFN bill also hurts the feeling between peopleof both country. The
> IFCSS's constant asking of a foreign country to interfere Chinese affair
> also hurts the image of Chinese national as a whole.

If you decide to punish, you probably don't have to ask excuse.
If you ask somebody else to punish, you need to gether whatever the
excuse you can find. Look at what happened in Mao's year and in TAM square.
It's pitty to notice, that the excuse was "clean the square".
Don't be silly, my friend. CCP had no reason to kill those people,
but they did. We could do nothing but cry and anger. Now, we can do
something to let it feel pain. Do we really need reason?

> 4) The CMFN policy has been out-of-dated. In fact, two out of three
> presidential candidate (Bush and Perot) favors a strong tie with China
> (if you followed their debate). Clinton, who had previously attackeed Bush's
> China policy, also started with the statement that he will not cut tie with
> China. It signals that he will also follow the pragmatism rather than
> idealism in the congress.

Because CCP holds the whole nation, 1,100,000,000 people as hostage.
American consider this number to be HUGE and VERY IMPORTANT.
American still remember those who dead in TAM while some of us already
try to forget. 6.4 made most of us angry and fear. I only 60% support
the CMFN just to punish CG for its brutul crackdown. I do not fully
support it just because the price is high.
CG did it. CG is responsible for it. CG should face the consequence.
On the other hand, if Chinese people surpport the crackdown, Chinese
people face the consequence.
BTW, what is wrong to ask CG release political prisoners?

Are you saying that whoever favors "strong tie" with China regardless of
the brutul crackdown is your friend? Make it straight next time, my
friend. If so, Japanese has been the best friend, regardless its
position concerning WWII, Vietnam is also the best friend. Who else?

Let me make it clear to you my friend. It's a shame to be a friend of
the government that killed so many inocent people. It's also a shame to
say that many of us still surppot it. Chinese government is the only
government in modern history that uses Tank and machine gun to kill its
own people. For those shameless rulers, those people are just simply number.
They can always make and correct their "mistake". I believe 6.4 will be
recognized as "mistake" someday by CCP. But those who dead will never
be alive. CCP is fooling all of us.

Just curiors: Do you believe what was told by CG regarding 6.4?

>
> As a summary, IFCSS is losing political fortune for their standing on
> the CMFN issue. Recently, the drastic reduction of financial support from
> American and Taiwanese source is one of such signal (See the IFCSS request
> for CSS financial support). I wish you all adjust to
> the ever changing world based on a pragmatic approach and speak for youself.
>
> Thank you for your attention.

First of all, let me point out to you, IFCSS is the only organization
I've ever seen so far in Chinese history that worked for students.

IFCSS is the organization for students and scholars. It's neither a branch
or local representative of CCP nor KMT.

IFCSS's position on CMFN is not a secret, nor semi-secret.
If you have oppinion and you consider yourself to be the member of IFCSS
you should raise it. This applies to everybody.
Yes, there were a lot of "debates" regarding this issue in net. But,
how many people contacted IFCSS, expressed their oppinions?
If people just remain silent, what can IFCSS do?

IFCSS worked for those who came earlier. It will work for those who came
later. IFCSS will alive as long as we have students and scholars.

Last words: When you have to choose, weight both benefits and sacrifice,
not simply counts, make sure that the most important factor is one of
the benefits upon your decision. This applies to your daily life too.
To me, punishing shameless government that killed so many inocent people
is the most important thing in this issue.

Hope someday that CCP agrees that lying is shameful.

Y.Duan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china