HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:      The COMMOM lobbying strategy of HQ and CCSA
Reply-To: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:17:39 GMT
Comments: cc: css-l%ubvm.BITNET@acsu.buffalo.edu

Dear netters:

	There have been confusions here on this net about what should
be our current lobby strategy toward White House, and there are concerns
about whether or not IFCSS HQ and IFCSS CCSA are again polling toward
different directions.  I would like to offer my two-cents on the
reading of the messages from HQ and CCSA, and on what we should do now.

	In short, there are indeed some difference between the
calls from HQ and from CCSA.  However, the difference is not
very big.  Moreover, from the operational point of view, we have enough
work-load for today and tomorrow, and by then, the message for the
next step should become clear.

	Here are the common messages from HQ and CCSA:

(1) Send thank-you card/letter to Senators.  In the card/letter to
REPUBLICAN Senators, ADD the sentence asking for they help in
asking President Bush to sign the bill.
(2) Ask American friends to call or write to Senators AND White House
to convey the same message as in (1).
(3) Contact local media and explain the situation to them and ask for help.

(4) Write letters to White House and ask President Bush to sign the bill.

This last point was in HQ's message but not in CCSA's.
However, it will take a couple of days for the postal mails to reach
DC from most areas of US anyway, so we can send the letters right way.
(I may add that in any message to White House, we should acknowledge and
thank President Bush for his Executive Order of 4/11/90, for that is
the starting point of S1216.)

	The only difference between the messages from HQ and from CCSA
is whether or not we should send phone call/FAX by ourselves to WH.
Since I don't know what's going on in DC from afar, I'd take the common
denominator of the two messages:  Let's prepared for that but not
send out right way.  According to our local experience, it would take
at least one day to mobilize CSS for "phone/FAX flooding".  The organizers
of the lobby have to prepare the message for CSS to call or FAX (where to
call, what to say, how to say, etc.), to inform CSS about the current
situation, and to reinforce the local network so that, once the call
is issued, the whole network can be activated within a few hours.

	It is quite normal that we encounter different opinions
about what to do with respect to such an issue involving so many
complex factors.   I bet even the most experienced Senators would
not be able to guarantee what is the sure way.  I thought by now,
after several months of coordinated campaign, we ought to have a bit
of nerve to stand the uncertainties, risks and different opinions,
oughtn't we?

	Fortunately, this time we have enough things to do in these
two days.  So, let's stop worrying and get to work!

Luo Ning
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      re: Chenjian Li, posted by Ding jian
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:33:00 GMT

Dear Mr. Li, trust the bright eyes of CSS majority, the majority of Ph.Ds and
future Ph.Ds know what exactly they need to do and what they should to do. Do
not worry the majority of CSS will call anyone as a "Savior", the majority of
CSS probably does not like any attempt to try to divide the unity at this
special moment. like you said, no one can blackmail IFCSS, because IFCSS belong
to the majority of CSS. Neither any individual, nor any group elected IFCSS
officials can blackmail the IFCSS. Because IFCSS belong to the majority of CSS!
   This moment CCSA/IFCSS and HQ/IFCSS are united to work together for the final
push for the bill S1216, therefore, in my opinion, you posted a article at a
wrong time! I really do not want discuss with you about this matter any futher
at this wrong time! can you be a little patient after the final push for S1216.
                             Dawei Zhou, florida
From: yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Help needed?
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:29:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvGH45.Cs4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ZHOU@MSG.UCSF.EDU writes:
>Hi,
>
>	I am drafting a letter to Chancellor of UCSF.  I need the information
>as the formal name for 'President's Order" and the Pelosi Bill's number HR(?).
>If you have it, please send me ASSP.  I have to finish the letter and give
>to him.  I hope I have the chance to see him.
>
>that we shouldn't use the media too hot.  We don't want awake too many
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>americans.  What we'll do:
^^^^^^^^^^^^

What?
From those Americans whom I talked to, as far as I know, majority of
American support CSS. It's not a good idea to always emphasize
"low-profile" and forget the momentum and the power that the public
has at the election year. It's nice to have "low-profile" and give
the president enough time, enough freedom to voluntarily decide
whether or not he should sign the bill. It is another story when you
have major public opinion that does not support it. Rightly, I
can not see this is the case. The situation strongly suggests
me that once we ask the American decide, most people will support it.
Due to so-called "low-profile" stratege, public will not aware of the
existence of S1216, I wonder what will be the loose/gain he will ever have if
he sign/veto it? So, if I were the president, I would not care it, hence
just pocket veto it.

>
>1). Meeting Chancellor
>2) Meeting Senator Seymour and Congressman Riggs (we are not sure we can
>at this monent, but we'll try)

Good idea.

>3). Ask your american friends to call White House.
>4) Collect Signature of CSS.

Should be the other way around, in my opinion.
To me, it's easy to win American's support, but not easy to ask
them make the phone calles. Even if many Americans are willing to
call, most of them will have tough time to get through, with
limited time frame, only countable phone calles can be received
by White House no matter how many people try to call.

We have different approach.
We first tried to get more CSS involved. Now we are trying to
collect signatures from Americans. I hope that the number of signature
we collect will be more than the number CSS in here.

Y.Duan
>
>UCSF lobby group


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Two important points
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:46:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

Very important points! Statistically speaking, the safe-return-ration that
is said being collected by the U.S. State Department is based on a highly
biased sample. We can argue against it if the Administration raises this
ratio as an evidence to prove that it is not necessary to carry out the
S1216 in the future, that is, at the middle of 1993.

Kevin

------------------------------TEXT-OF-YOUR-MAIL--------------------------------
> Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:42:22 -0500
> From:         ICNO301@INDYVAX.BITNET
> Subject:      Two important points
>
>         We think its our obligation to post this message immediately to point
> out strongly the importance of the continuance of our lobby activity,
> especially in the comming 6 days.  Because we do find some CSS is already
> stoped their activities, we feel that it is urgent to post it.
>         ......
>         Second, we think one important fact we must remember when we talk to
> anyone about the statistics on safety return rate of CSS who have visited
> China after 04/11/90. The fact is: only very few CSS who vigorously
> participated the pro-democracy movement, including Shen Tong, had their home
> visit after 04/11/90, the bias statistics logically and simply just can't
> and never be able to count in many of those who had vigorously participated
> movement, really have the fear and need protection, and never visited
> China since then.  Based on our personal knowledge and local statistics,
> we know that almost all of those who vigorously participated the pro-democracy
> movement haven't had a home visit to China, even though most of these CSS
> have been in US for more than 4 years and almost all of these CSS have direct
> family members who are still living in China.  But these CSS can in any way
> be counted in the statistics made by the Department of States.
>          ......
>
> IUPUI lobby group
> 09/26/92
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 12:57:43 EDT
From: <SXS30@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: If I were the President


 If I were President, I will drink 4 more beer(Close to 4 more year)
 before next President pose the tax on saling beer.
 If I ever become the president, I will kill the protection bill for
 Chinese student at 10th days it reached me. Because it is not fair
 to the CCP to lose so many Classic Enemy.
 If I were President, I will cut any relationship with PRC so no one
 from China can make money from USA. If Chinese is poor, CG will not
 be able to hold so many prisoners.
 If I ever become a President, I will deport all Chinese until one day
 they can  finish Civil war between Group A and Group B, Or Group C
 and group K.

============================== ========****=============================
SXS30@PSUVM.PSU.EDU(INTERNET) |      *      *     My soul will never rest
410, ACADEMIC ACTIVETY BLDG.  |   |\* (0)(0) */|  no matter where I am
PENN-STATE UNIV.. PA16802     |   |/*   /\   *\|  tomorrow.  --------
TEL:814-867-0247              |      *.\__/.*
============================== ========****============================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(George Zhu)" <zhu@RISKY.ECS.UMASS.EDU>
Subject:      Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Reply-To: "(George Zhu)" <zhu@RISKY.ECS.UMASS.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:17:01 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

The Chinese Student Protection Act has been passed by the Congress and
sent to the President for signature.  Nobody knows for sure if Mr. Bush
will sign it or (pocket) veto it.

President Bush will probably sign the bill, because at a time when
the incumbent Presient is almost 20% behind his opponent in poll in
an election season, he cannot risk losing more by vetoing the legislation.

Nevertheless he may as well veto the bill, if he sees little help from
signing it for his presidential race.  In fact the Chinese government
has been unusually quiet in last few days since the passage of the bill.
Why?  Nobody knows.  But isn't it possible that some secret deal has
been made after bush's decision to sell F-16s to Taiwan and senior
State Department official visiting Beijing to "explain" the sale?
Maybe, maybe not.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: math1pf@rosie.uh.edu (Zheng, Ping)
Subject: Re: PRC nationals from Aust. need your help
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:19:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.213237.11077@msdhsv.ingr.com>, usenet@msdhsv.ingr.com (USENET) writes...
>In article <9228101.11372@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>|> 89P2820@CSDVAX.CSD.UNSW.EDU.AU writes:
>|> 
>|> 
>|> C'mon, there will be no human right abuses towards Chinese students when
>|> they get back.  China needs the students to help build the bombing economy,
>|> the government will not do anything to harm the students.
>|> 
>|> Most of the students in Australia just want to stay in Australia because
>|> Australia is an easy country, easy life, you can get tons of social
>|> welfare if you don't work, etc, etc... rather than worried about the
>|> non-existence "human right abuses".  Don't lie to me, I live here, I
>|> know!
>|> 
>|> If you think Australia is such a good (easy) country, you should apply
>|> like other immigrants, rather than lie to the Aus Gov about human
>|> rights abuses in China which 1) does not apply to you 2) creates a even
>|> worse image of China in the eyes of always-very-racist Australians.
>|> 
>|> Go and find a million dollars and apply as a business migrant, or go
>|> and obtain a skill that Australia needs... rather than lie to the Aus
>|> Gov at the expense of the face and image of all Chinese in the world.
>|> 
>|> Don't be selfish!!!
> 
>	Good points! They should be also applied to the CSSs in the U.S. who are
>"begging" for the approval of the protection bill. And I want to ask them the 
>following question:
>	If you go back to China for a home visit in the near future, do you 
>want to be arrested and thrown into jail by the CCP (so that you can prove
>to the whole world that you are currently not lying, you do need protection)? 
> 
First of all,I don't understand this question (maybe due to my poor English
or your olcult logic).Well,I'll just try my best: you asked if we want to
go to jail when we go back home someday,so that we can show to the world 
that we were right.

WE DON'T.

By the way,let me give you some questions: How do you interpret the difference
between "beg", "argue" and "apply"? Did you get your visa by applying or
begging ? 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yunson@lpf.umd.edu (Yunson Du)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Action-9201.appendix
Keywords: the general CSS, those CSS, misunderstood
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:31:22 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <2AD21004.22944@news.service.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr 
Shannon Yeh) writes:

>However, the situation is a little bit "confusing" this time: the US government
>is quiet on this blood card bill; and the Chinese government is quiet, too,
>on this blood card bill.  The only party who is angry toward this blood card
>bill is the Chinese people such as Shannon Yeh.  The reason for the White
>House to be quiet is so that they cannot see any direct benefit from granting
>this bill; the reason for the Chinese government to be quiet is so that they
>feel "losing-face" if they over-react to this "Chinese-sell-Chinese" case.
>The reason for the Chinese people to be angry is so that they feel the justice
>has been raped by those CSS, and the facts has been twisted by those CSS.
>
>Regardless this bill will be passed or not, most of the CSS, including those
>CSS, will go home someday.  By then, the Chinese PEOPLE will hate the blood
>carders.  If the regular CSS do not distinct themselves from those CSS, they
>will suffer when they return to China someday: who knows you did not work on 
>the blood card in 1992?
>
>So, if you did not directly support the blood card petition, I strongly 
>recommend you to sign up at "blood-card@netix.com".  If you do not speak out 
>your standing, you may be misunderstood in the future.
>
>Obviuosly, upon your own discretion.
>
>shannon
>-------

Geez! A lot of threatening words. 

Once upon a time, there was a landlord who killed all the tenants
who spoke against him. Fortunately, one tenant who also spoke
against him temperorily visited another place (which could be
rich). The owner of that place was quite sympathetic to the tenant
and thus permitted the tenant to stay. 

Should the tenant stay?
Should the tenant be accused of blood-carder if he chooses to stay?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.021103.14076@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>The whole Canada was taken over by force, because the first group of
>whitemen arrived Canada by warships (the sailers of the ship had
>weapons).

Canada is trying to make amends by including minorities in the recent 
constitutional negotiations.  They have participated whole-heartedly. 
What is China doing?


-- 
Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      Where may IFCSS get self support money?
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:53:00 GMT

1) IFCSS helps CSS find jobs, IFCSS charge CSS for registration and fee from
companies. 2) group insurence for CSS who has graduated 3) group low rate China
calls as low as $.48/Min. 4)membership benifit, car rental, motel,... Dawei Zhou
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Shen Tong's case getting worse, final push for S1216!
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:01:20 GMT

In article <BvG3Hn.Kyp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:
>In article <BvFt0q.D70@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU writes:
>>
>>	Whenever you talk to the public about S1216, MAKE SURE YOU
>>MENTION SHEN TONG'S CASE, ASK THEIR SUPPORT FOR SHEN"S RELEASE!
>>
>I don't thinks this a wise action for Shen Tong's earlier release. This
>might help S1216, but not the other way around. You should've know CCP
>better.


	Well, isn't it exactly the purpose of this outcry?  Who really care
about Shen Tong when there is an S1216 around?

>>	May God beless Chinese Students and the United States of America!


	This slogon has been repeated many times now.  Who cares about
China?


	 Eddie
From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:00:08 GMT
Organization: New York University

wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang) writes:

>Dear netters,

>    I am very happy about the huge quantity of articles on Tibet, Taiwan and
>Xinjiang. I sincerely respect all the authors, however, I just want to point
>out several things which you guys might negelet.
>    The fate of one particular group of people should be determined ONLY by
>THEMSELVES. Here, I want to distinguish the terms: Tibetan, Taiwanese and 
>Xijiangese from the commonly used term Chinese. Even if  these three peoples
>can be included in Chinese, however, they  are not equal to Chinese, just
>like you guys together still not equal to the Chinese people.
>    The CCP always confuse these terms, saying 'this is our own business'. 
>First we do not  know how many Chinese against the independence of these
>three 'provinces'. Second, even most Chinese want a unified country, they still
>can not force the peoples who live in those areas to accept their opinin.
>    Each society has to have a government to maintain its order. In a  demo-
>cratic society, people should have their own right to choose whatever government their want. It is not right to say that because the Chinese Central Goverments
>have been governing these areas for hundreds of years, they should be controlledforever. Especially now CCP controls the country. Just like you guys do not wantto be controlled by CCP, people in those areas should have the rights to reject
>CCP.
>    Division of a country is not that terrible, esp. when this huge country is 
>built on bloody arm. I sincerely wish our motherland would not be forced into 
>fire and war, just like the former Yugislovokia, when the God of Democracy finally comes to her after years of bloody-control of CCP.
>    Thank you for your patience.

Division increases hostality,
mideast, former Sovit Union and Yogslava are good examples. Division
do harm to ecnomic intercourse, while eroupean is unifying, I cann't
understand why Mr. Tang encourage independence movement here.

Mr. Tang says "the fate of a group of people should be ONLY
determined by THEMSELF", then why so many SCC are waiting for
Gorge Bush's decision instead of their owns. What's a country
for after all? 

CCP did nothing more wrong than establishing a utopia China and
educated a generation of utopian.

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Need White House's Phone and Fax Number
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:07:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

Attached are the info you requested.

Since there is only one FAX number so far known to our campaign, it's
likely we will easily jam it during the peak time. So if you cannot
get through this FAX line, an alternative way to send our message to the
President is EXPRESS MAIL - the fast delivary service.

There are 3 major express mail systems in the U.S.:

1. Federal Express, a private company offering worldwide express mail service.
   Its phone numbers and "drop off locations" are listed in the white page of
   most local phone book under the entry of "FEDERAL EXPRESS". It can also
   pick up your outgoing mail at your door by calling the service.

2. DHL express mail company, also a worldwide service. But I can't find its
   info from my local phone book.

3. Regular U.S. post offices also provide express mail service -- next day
   delivery. You can bring your mail to your local post office or call
   for a pickup at your dorr for $4 per pickup. Letters submitted as express
   mail are garanteed to reach the destination the next day.

Generally speaking Federal Express'es service is better than the Post Office,
of course, at a little high price.

Kevin

-------------------------TEXT-OF-ORIGINAL-MAIL--------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:56:52 EDT
From:         IO92112@MAINE.BITNET
Subject:      Need White House's Phone and Fax Number
Can someone there post the fax and telephone numbers of the White House?
There was a post two days ago, but I forget to save it.
Lobby Group at University of Maine

.--------------------------------------------------------------
                Focus on the White House
                ========================

Dear IFCSS Members:

     While sending out "thank you" letters to senators and
congressmen, we should also contact, by telephone, fax or
mail, the White House to ask the President to sign the bill.
It is also a good idea to solicit help from American friends.
Local CSS organizations should also contact local news media
to let the American public know the human rights conditions
in China, our need for continued protection and the reasons
for President Bush to sign the bill.

     The White House
     1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20500

     Telephone   (202)456-1111

     Fax:        (202)456-2461

     The mail format:

--------------------------------------------
The Honorable President George Bush
The White House
....

Dear President Bush:

    .......
--------------------------------------------

The message should be basically the same as we have posted earlier.
The difference is that we should change "please pass the bill"
into "please sign the bill as soon as possible."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "ZHAN,Qiming:ISAS,Uni. of Sask.,Saskatoon,S7N 0W0,              Canada (306)343-8398(home),              966-6452(office)" <ZHAN@SKISAS.USASK.CA>
Subject:      subscrib
Reply-To: "ZHAN,Qiming:ISAS,Uni. of Sask.,Saskatoon,S7N 0W0,              Canada (306)343-8398(home),              966-6452(office)" <ZHAN@SKISAS.USASK.CA>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:41:00 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

SUB CHINA-NT,  QIMING ZHAN,Univ. of Saskatchewan,Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china