HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Daili <daili@ENG.UFL.EDU>
Subject: (none)
Reply-To: Daili <daili@ENG.UFL.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:27:49 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

	Lobby Update: University of Florida (9/29)
	==========================================

Chinese Students and Scholars at University of Florida had a meeting tonight.
We discussed the situation and our strategy for the final push. And Also another
drive for donations. We are starting a wide range collection for signatures
from American voters. We will send out several express packages Tomorrow, which
will be signed by many American citizens. We all agree that the massive American
signed letter to Bush will be more effective than any other measure.

We agreeed with that we don't bother our local news media by now as we analyzed
the situation and according to the instructions from CCSA.

We also suggest that every University should do the same thing - to collect
as many American signatures as you can, it will help!


UF Lobby Group
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: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:51:08 GMT

In article <1a7bg0INN4ml@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao) writes:
>
>If Tibet does become an independent country, who will guarantee its soverenty?
>I guess it will end up being annexed by India, the chief rival of China in
>that region.

Why should that be the case?  Nepal and Bhutan are sovereign states?

 
-- 
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: Shusheng Luan <luan@OCE.ORST.EDU>
Subject:      Please Don't Bash but Respect Group B
Reply-To: Shusheng Luan <luan@OCE.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:23:57 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Dear Friends,

As a member of Group A, I surely appreciate greatly the kind "silence" of
Group B. I remember that about 10 months ago there were talks about the
possibilities of including Group B in the protection bill on this net as
well as among the IFCSS leadership. The consensus was that such campaign
may jeopadize the overall success of Group A getting the protection from
the US. And Group B have beared with it since, quietly, and kindly.

It is true that without the P Bill Group A will have advantage over Group B.
That's true in general. However, there are some in Group A who may have
long-term difficulties finding jobs in their fields; on the other hand,
some in Group B may have easier time getting jobs in their fields upon
their graduations. I don't have the capacity to evaluate the consequences
from here.

While many in Group A are still in their climax of happiness (and not
complete relieves yet), it is advisable that we should thank Group B
a great deal when sending numerous "Thank You" letters to numerous other
supporters. Most important, when and after members of Group A get their
dear Greens, don't forget your brothers and sisters of Group B still
facing risks of various kinds. Will you help, will you donate to their
well-being!

Best regards to all.

Luan Shusheng at Oregon State University
From: wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:43:44 GMT

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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: dnmao@mich.cern.ch
Subject:      Some thought about someone's thought....
Reply-To: dnmao@mich.cern.ch
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:39:32 GMT

Mr. Hou's message once more convinced me that he likes to complicate things
which should be simple and easy. We all remember his analysis on protection
bill. It turns out that things were much easier that he
predicted (I have to say, his and Mr.Zhao's message were successful in the
sense that all readers would felt that out money was worth sending for the
great bill)

We all know about thousands letters were sent to senators. Who did this?,
by Mr.Zhao HQ only? I believe more than 99.99% of them must have been
sent by local chinese students. All these are done following the instruction of
IFCSS and in this sense, as a organizer and coordinator, IFCSS has done
its great job. To my mind, Mr.Zhao HQ should express his appreciation to
all CSSs who have sent so much money to him. Till now, what has made the bill
passed  is still not clear but one thing is certain, i.e. if Mr Zhao had not
got so much money, he would not have done anything. From the history of
IFCSS, we know that without money, Mr.Zhao was not easy to move around. (This
has nothing wrong since people need money to live, but do not be great hero)
Therefore, before we thank any 'leader', we should thank first our money and
every individual's work. With money, we can hire Li HQ, Wang HQ, ZHang HQ...

I always see people defending CCSA against an 'injustice' of IFCSS HQ but
never heard any complain from IFCSS. I think the attitude of IFCSS HQ is
right: This is not the time to fight to each other, this is time to unite to
do more important thing. I am hoping that if CCSA has any problem, it should
talk to IFCSS HQ to find a solution, instead of spreading around. It anyway
uses the name IFCSS/CCSA. As I know, many people sent money to CCSA just
because there is a IFCSS before its name. I bet we all know the story of
'The fox borrows the tiger's terror'. When others shows their respect to you,
accept it, enjoy it, that's all. But do not try to kill the tiger. You might
succed, howere, you would find you lose evrey thing you have as well.

BTW, Mr.Hou took the example of DC match in 1989 to show that IFCSS is no
longer wonderful. This is not IFCSS's fault at all. No one could repeat that
event if no one repeated TAM event -- no matter who will be the IFCSS leaders.
This is what so called history. I think Mr.Hou must have been aware of this
but just wanted to ignore it when he tried to mislead people.

Dongning Mao
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ioguo@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (OA Guo)
Subject: Re: Do you vote for KMT or CCP ?
Followup-To: talk.politics.china
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 30 Sep 1992 10:55 EDT  

In article <80695@ut-emx.uucp>, joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes...
> 
>The CCP also pretends to have real democratic procedures.  Every year
>it holds a meeting of the National People's Congress which approves
>the laws of the PRC.  The interesting thing is that with each passing
>year, NPC delegates have gotten a little bolder in questioning the

	Just a reminder, these NPC delegates are hand picked by CCP.
	How much do you expect from them?

>government.  Last year, for example, the bill authorizing the Three
>Gorges Project was heavily debated, and one third of the delegates
>either abstained or voted against the bill.  There was loud opposition

	Yes, one of the Taiwanese deligate, Huang Shun-Sin, was among
	the the opposition leaders.  He was also one of the leaders
	in Taiwan's "old Dang-wai".

>to the Law Concerning PRC Territories by some delegates from
>Heilongjiang because it assigned to Russia some disputed territory.
> 
>Also the government has on at least one occasion been forced to
>withdraw and revise a bill on enterprises because of NPC objections.
> 
>So far, the NPC has not challenged the government on a basic policy
>issue, but the potential is there, and with each year NPC delegates
>are becoming louder and louder.  My guess is that we are about a
>decade or so from a "dangwai" movement and fistfights in the Great

    Only when Dangwai can challenge the "election" of NPC delegates and
    rewrites the Constitution of PRC.

   .......
> 
>Also, you neglect to mention that CCP lost control of the PRC from
>about 1965 to 1969.

     Oops.  But you forgot to mention the 10+ years of terrible disaster 
     followed the Liu's failure to bring China in order.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OA Guo                        |My statement does not reflect NASA's point of
NASA - Lewis Research Center  |view.  Nor should NASA's statements reflect
Cleveland, Ohio               |my point of view.
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:29:39 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <BvEG76.FKt@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>>Do you think it is also an invasion that the Union's force 
>>marched to Gorgia? If it is so, than invasions don't mean bad.

>Absolutely.  And if the US South wants independence then the question 
>should be addressed, peaceably by referenda.

What is your opinion of a man called Abraham Lincoln?  He disagreed
with you on this issue.  

>Do you think the Tibetan people are capable enough to decide for themselves 
>in a referendum?

Referendums remove the possibility for compromise and negotiation.  

>I don't expect to teach you anything; I am merely expressing views 
>which Tibetans and many others hold on the political situation in
>Tibet.  

All Tibetans?  I'm sure that some of the Tibetans in the Central Cadre
School in Beijing may have different opinions.

>Again, what does economics have to do with this.  We are talking about 
>the rights of people to govern themselves.  Tibetans want to govern 
>themselves.  They do not want Chinese controlling their country.  

No one I've spoken to is against Tibetan autonomy.  I don't think any
one here has much objection to a constitutional solution in which 
all internal affairs in the Tibetan Autonomous Region are handled by a
government which consists mostly of ethnic Tibetans.

The objection here is to "independence."  The difference is that an
"independent Tibet" could take actions which seriously endanger the
security and well-being of the rest of China.  (Allying with India is
one such action.) 

That's the difference with Canada.  If Quebec secedes, there's very
little it would or could do to harm the rest of Canada, and Canada has
never had a Civil War.  Memories are different.  

>We shall see what happens with Quebec; but why can't the Chinese 
>government give Tibetans the chance to decide for themselves?

Because it has been the historical experience of the Chinese people
that a "right to secession" is bad for China.  Again, China has nearly
been torn into pieces several times in recent history, by the British,
French, Germans, Japanese as well as by internal warlords.  Would it
make sense at all that after (barely) surviving all of this, that
Chinese would make it easy to split up China?

If you really want to help the Tibetans, talk less about Tibetan
independence and talk more about Tibetan autonomy.  Talk less about a
Tibetan nation-state and more about how respecting the Tibetan culture
and increasing Tibetan autonomy will make it a more integral and
valuable part of China.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: cshi@CS.ULOWELL.EDU (Chunde Shi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: (none)
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:45:15 GMT
Reply-To: Chunde Shi <cshi@CS.ULOWELL.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

From ulowell!news.bbn.com!olivea!sgigate!odin!mips!suntory.mips.com!mpolen Sun
 Sep  6 14:18:37 EDT 1992
Article: 90066 of talk.politics.misc
Xref: ulowell alt.politics.elections:12469 talk.politics.misc:90066
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:20:25 GMT
 <pgf.715630578@srl07.cacs.usl.edu>
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|>
|>
|> >In a previous article, jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) wrote:
|> >>Los Angeles (UPI) - This morning, in a speech to Southern California
|> >>aircraft workers, President George Bush announced the sale of 50
|> >>ultra-tech F-15E fighter planes to Iraq. The fleet will replace Iraq's
|> >>air force which was stolen by Iran during the Gulf War. Each plane
|> >>will be delivered with a complimentary, specially-tooled version of
|> >>The Club anti-theft device. "I want to be the Jobs President," said Bush
|> >>to the cheering throng.
|> >>
|> >Each plane will display a yellow Gulf War ribbon, hand-painted by Dan
 Quayle.
|>
|> >I saw part of Bush's speech to a similar crowd about sales of fighter
|> >planes to Taiwan (I think).
|>
|> >As we know, nobody in this election has a monopoly on pandering...
|>
|> >-
|>
|> Yah, god forbid we should sell fighters to a country which will
|> use them to maintain their national security and identity separate
|> from such a paragon of virtue like Communist China.
|>
|> Let's not forget that this is the first time Bush has risked
|> pissing off the Communist Chinese. And what happens but all
|> the retarded liberals start attacking him for it...
|>
Let's not forget that Texas airplane building employees vote.  Let's
not forget that Bush promised not to do this.  Let's not forget...
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ NR-4040:  S1216:  Report on National Coordination
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:30:28 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

**************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters News Release No. 4040    September 28, 1992
          S1216: REPORT ON NATIONAL COORDINATION
**************************************************************
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
   733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
         Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
                Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu

         S1216: Report on National Coordination
         ======================================


      As we have promised in our last news release, (NR-4039,
Sunday, September 27), there will be a formal report coming
out today. Here it is:

      1.  We are working with the IFCSS Washington lawyers who
drafted the Student Protection Bill S.1216 and guided its
passage in Congress. Now we must avoid a veto by President
Bush, especially what is called a "pocket veto." That is when
the Congress adjourns before the deadline for the President
to sign the bill or veto it and return it to Congress for an
override vote. If the Congress has adjourned by this date,
the President can simply not sign the bill, ("put it in his
pocket") to kill it. Now we are coordinating the Chinese
students efforts to prevent such veto, with the help of our
legal advisers in Washington.

      2.  As of this morning, the bill has not been received
by the White House. It is waiting to be enrolled in the
Senate (to be signed by the four major sponsors). The HQ has
contacted White House officials to urge President Bush to
sign the bill. We have also contacted Chinese American leaders
and organizations in D.C. to ask for their help.

      3.  The general CSS communities can help the campaign
by sending faxes and petitions, by making telephone calls to
the White House and by contacting local news papers.

      4.  The HQ has specific instructions and plans for
some local groups. We will contact those groups directly,
through email/phone/fax. Please stay alert and ready to
take actions when you are contacted by the HQ.


***************************************************************
         IFCSS Headquarters Office    Signature
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Zixiang Tang <tang@IMAFS.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Going to Washington D.C.
Reply-To: Zixiang Tang <tang@IMAFS.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:03:26 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

     We, the lobby group at the University of Minnesota, have been closely
     monitoring the progress of the Protection Bill.  We are convinced
     that the best way we can contribute to the final push is to send
     people to Washington, D.C. to help lobby efforts there.  Tonight,
     two of our people are on the way to D.C..  We urge the CSS in every
     state to do the same.  We also urge IFCSS and IFCSS/CCSA to provide
     coordinations so that our trip to D.C. can be more productive.

			      University of Minnesota Lobby Group
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Do you vote for KMT or CCP ?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:45:08 GMT

In article <BvED5w.5Jp@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>In article <30SEP199210553916@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> ioguo@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (OA Guo) writes:
>>In article <80695@ut-emx.uucp>, joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes...
>>> 
>>>The CCP also pretends to have real democratic procedures.  Every year
>>>it holds a meeting of the National People's Congress which approves
>>>the laws of the PRC.  The interesting thing is that with each passing
>>>year, NPC delegates have gotten a little bolder in questioning the
>>
>>	Just a reminder, these NPC delegates are hand picked by CCP.
>>	How much do you expect from them?
>
>
>	Not necessarily true.  A more precise description is that the
>NPC delegates are indirectly elected.  I.e. delegates to lower (local)
>congresses elect national delegates amonge them.  The local level
>delegates are more or less directly elected by voters.  The openness
>of these elections (if there is a way to measure it) depends heavily
>on the constituents of the voters and how much they want to involve
>in.  Most cases they don't care since local government has only limited
>legislation power and the indirect election procedure ensures the
>"desired quality" of the national delegates.
>
>	But when voters do care, there are differences.  Many examples of
>people being elected or failed to be elected have been reported.  CCP
>has no way to hand pick everyone.  And in most cases, there is no 
>single CCP anyway, they have differences too.
>
>
>>    Only when Dangwai can challenge the "election" of NPC delegates and
>>    rewrites the Constitution of PRC.
>
>
>	They certainly *can* (ask Hu Ping, for example).  The problem is if 
>they *will* or if the voters care and then again, if there are enough of
>them.  You can't expect things to change too quickly.
>
>
>
>	 Eddie
According to "Radio of 'Free' China", next PRC's premier will be elected by People' Congress.
and China Daily in Taiwan and Wei2Hui4 Daily in ShangHai will joinly publish a news paper, distributed
both in mainland and Taiwan.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 08:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.014344.22843@news.Hawaii.Edu> 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.

Where did you get this conclusion?  Can you show me how people can
have the right to choose whatever government they want?  Show me the law
to quarantee people this right. 

>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.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china