From: kzest+@pitt.edu (Ke Zeng)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: What do I think about the "Protection Bill" ?
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:38:06 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Crystallography

In article <1992Oct12.113514.3396@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>In article <7494@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> kzest+@pitt.edu (Ke Zeng) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct11.155334.26286@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>>>In article <Bvy4Cs.6I8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xiong@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Bo Xiong) writes:
>>>>
>>....
>>>
>>... 
>
...
>
>But the good will of the U.S. is a limited commodity. Instead of using the
>massacre to pressure the U.S. to put pressure on the CCP for human rights
>improvements within China, almost all the attention was focussed on granting
>freedom for the Chinese in the U.S. (who I believe are really in no more
>difficulty than any other Chinese in China--except for a limited few). So
>now the U.S. has done its part. All the capital available was used up 
>fighting for this bill.

	Your "instead" is obviously wrong and I guess you at least now,
after reading your own lines carefully, would realize this. I don't
understand "all the capital available was used up fighting for this
bill". This statement apparently serves as basis for your wrong anology.
Since the whole "capital" (the bus) should have belonged to those fighting
for democracy inside China, and now this non-dividable "bus" is totally
"stolen" by those outside China. Protection bill is just part of the
pressures (as you called it) that have been used to put on the CCP. From
your statement it seems this bill has been the only thing CSS and US
have done in this issue. Of course it's not true.

>
>The CSS in the U.S. should have said, "We don't want protection! We want 
>the human rights situation improved in China so that we can return to China."
>Such a move would have put the pressure on Bush to veto MFN, or to make some
						   ^^^^^^
						do you mean "sign" here?
>other significant move concerning human rights in China. 

	Very good!! This "so that" is based human rights situation and
of course safety. But "we don't want protection" is much too idealized.
No one, including you, would reject protection if one thinks he/she is
not safe. Why do you push others to take risk? Besides, don't you think
students in US have been pushing US goverment to pressure China to
improve human rights condition?

>
>So the bus was stolen from the people who really need the help of foreign
>countries like the U.S.: those who are fighting for democracy in China.
>
	Your logic is: if bill were not signed, the sources would have
been used for those fighting for democracy in China. And you know how
wrong this logic is, right?

>To go from one analogy to another, in English we say, "you stole their 
>thunder". You took all the good will they generated through their sacrifice 
>on 6/4 and used it for your own good.

	There exist many stealings in this world but they are not used
for any anology. You admitted there are "sacrifices" and you don't try
slightly to blame those who caused them but rather to attack those who
do not want continouly to sacrifise for no thing at momnent.
-- 
  K. Zeng University of Pittsburgh (412)624-3219 bitnet: kzest@pittvms
  internet: kzest@unix.cis.pitt.edu  or  kzest@vms.cis.pitt.edu