From: yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh)
Subject: the 9201 letter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Organization: Netix Communications, Inc.
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:43:18 GMT


Please sign this letter and FAX it to: 202-456-2461.  You can also get your
9201 opinion recorded on the phone at: 202-456-1111.  Thank you.

shannon
-------

--------------------------------[cut here]------------------------------

May 10, 1992

To: The Chinese Public,
    The American Public

What happened three years ago at Tian'anmen Square remains vivid in the minds 
of people all over the world.  Regretfully, this event has been used by some 
Chinese students and scholars (CSS) in the United States for personal gain 
despite the damage it does to the Sino-US relationship and to the overwhelming 
majority of the people of China.  This letter, namely Action 9201, attempts to
clarify an important issue and to make the greater truth known to the Chinese 
and to the American public.  
 
As many CSS may remember, one of the consequences of the 1989 "Bush Protection
Order" was de facto to make more difficult and to reduce the extent of Sino-US
cultural and educational exchange.  Because of this order, many CSS in China 
who wanted and would otherwise have been able to receive an overseas education
have been deprived of the opportunity.  But this is the past and the past can 
not be changed.  What can we expect of the future?

Unfortunately, the activities of a relatively small, self-interested group of
CSS already in the US are bound to bring still more harm to Sino-US 
relationship, and regrettably, more harm to the Chinese people, especially 
the CSS still in China.  This activity is the advocacy of and lobbying for the 
so-called "Protection Bill"--really an immigration bill--which is intended to 
permit the CSS who came before April 11 of 1990 to apply for permanent 
residency (PR) in the United States.  They cite the political pressure and 
human rights status quo in China as reasons and use the June 4 event as a 
direct pretense. Scrutiny of their reasoning, specious as it is, makes clear 
that they in fact have ulterior motives and they are in fact conspiring to 
deceive. 

First, the bill pertains only to those CSS currently in the US and who
came before April 11, 1990.  The advocates in the US say that they fear 
political persecution because they supported the democracy movement in China.
But what about the majority CSS currently in China who participated in the 
1989 democracy movement?  Why were many of the 89 movement participants still 
able to come to the US to study (after overcoming barriers put into effect in 
response to the "Bush Order")?  If human rights conditions are so bad in 
China, why doesn't the bill protect those who came after April 11, 1990?  The 
fact is: we Action 9201 supporters, as listed in the support list of this 
letter,  neither need nor want any "protection" although many of us--if we
had no conscience-could benefit under provisions of the bill.

Second, the Chinese government would very likely respond, as it has to similar
actions in the past, by exerting more control and adverse pressure on the 
CSS in China, many of whom may lose their opportunity to have an overseas 
education.  If depriving CSS in China an overseas education is an act of 
persecution, then this immigration bill likely will bring about persecution 
of the CSS in China.  Perhaps the bill would more aptly be called the "Chinese 
student persecution bill".  In this sense, in the interest of a small 
minority, these "immigration bill" advocates without hesitation or remorse 
sacrifice the best interests of the vast majority of CSS as well as risk harm 
to the Sino-US relationship in general.

Third, the economic development, progress towards democracy and improvement
of human rights in China requires well-educated people, especially those with 
overseas education. Some CSS say that they need permanent residence status 
because then they can better fight for democracy in China. The cruel truth is 
that many of those CSS most actively using the June 4 event as an excuse to 
seek immigration hardly care about democracy in China.  Those who are truly 
devoted to the democracy movement already will meet the criteria for political
asylum in the US.  It is interesting to note that when it came to lobbying for
the "protection bill"--which provided direct personal benefit to these 
people--the US Congress received an overwhelming number of calls and letters 
of support from these people; but when it came to showing support for bill(s) 
concerned with the human rights records in China--bills which had no direct 
benefit to these CSS, who had already decided to try to become American 
Permanent Residents--the number of calls and letters from CSS became much, 
much smaller.  Why?  Isn't the reason more than obvious?

Fourth, China provided these CSS with years of public education, using 
resources which are in very short supply in China, a developing third-world 
country.  This investment of precious resources was done with the expectation 
and understanding that these CSS would make use of their education to do good 
to China.  This is similar to the U.S. Public Health Service's program in 
which USPHS pays for a student's medical school education, in exchange for 
working as a physician in rural areas for a certain number of years after 
graduation.  But some of these CSS have bluntly denied that they owe anything 
to China, the country that nurtured them.  We may have good reason to doubt 
whether such people will make worthwhile contributions anywhere, regardless 
of the country in which they reside.  Some of these CSS have even claimed, 
"Those who died in the June 4 movement are dead forever and cannot be brought 
back to life.  So what's wrong with taking advantage of their blood?"  Can 
this be the reason to seek protection?  What a brazen and barefaced 
declaration!  Their selfishness is revealed.  

This practice of taking advantage of the June 4 event in such a selfish way, 
thoughtlessly risking harm to the Sino-US relationship and sacrificing
the interests of the vast majority of the Chinese people is very unsettling.
Some react with great anger: The green card obtained in this way is really
a "red card" or a "blood card".

Generally, we do not oppose people choosing a new living place and
immigrating to the US.  But we think that this should be done through normal
procedures, instead of through seeking personal benefits at the expense of and
detriment to the majority of the Chinese people.     

Regretfully, the actions of a small minority are tarnishing the image of
the CSS and the Chinese people as a whole.  Some American people 
say, " These people make Americans think of Chinese as beggars."  As one 
Chinese student put it, "Their behavior is destroying my confidence in our 
nation, China."  

Citizens of China as well as of the United States who have a mind and a 
conscience, who wish well for the Sino-US relationship, for the people of
Chinese and of the world must not tolerate deception.  Human-rights abusers
and persecuters are the ones practiced in that art; real democracy fighters
love truth.  The world of tomorrow can be a better world, if the people who 
can reason make themselves heard.  Please, decent, honest reasoning people, 
show your support.  You can either directly contact the US legislators or 
contact us at:
             
	Action 9201 Committee
	PO Box 3544
	Beverly Hills, CA 90212-0544

Committee Members

[Institutions listed below are for identification purpose only.]

Yeh, Shannon	 Netix Communications, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA.
Zhang, Shuren 	 Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Xie, Jinya	 Stuttgart University, Germany.
Zuo, Zhiqi	 Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Chen, Jian	 University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Horne, Scott	 Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Zhou, Shenxue	 University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Ge, Zening	 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.


I, _____________________, support this letter.  And upon my own discretion,
   (Type your name here)
I publish this letter, at my own costs, with the respect to the copyright 
note shown below.

Signature:_________________________________  Date:______________________
	           (sign here)

Copyright (c) by Action 9201 Committee, 1992.  All rights reserved.  
Deletion/addition of one letter from/to this letter is NOT allowed without 
the pre-approval from the Action 9201 Committee.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china