HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Sue Stoyanoff <stoyanof@NICCO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The logic of "New World Order"
Reply-To: Sue Stoyanoff <stoyanof@NICCO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 10:52:23 GMT

Yes, It is important for IFCSS to retain its independence on the MFN and
other issues. Being called as a pawn is very ugly in Chinese culture.

President Bush, as one of the biggest politicians on the current
American political stage, vetoed more than once on the MFN issue. Of
course, he has been doing this for certain group's interest. I am not
familiar with American politics, but I am sure he's doing it for
companies with large financial interests on this issue, not for the
working class of the United States, not mention for the 6.4 victims or
those still suffering like liu Gang and Wang Junntao.

Also Bush is a big politician in the world. And he is the very leader
who first boasts the "New World Order", of which the evil logic has been
revealed by the author of the attached posting.

Can IFCSS afford to be such bad American politican's pawn? Definitely
no. IFCSS should be clear-minded and not be confused by his or his
pawns' words on this issue, that is, an unconditional MFN is of the best
interest of both nations' people.

P.S. It seems that, Chinese students are easily used as "pawns" by bad
people. Three years ago thousands of students were used by black hands
in the 6.4 reactionary riot. Here we recently had another example: a
student called Shen Tong was used by some American Scholars and Franch
TV reporters. So, the elected IFCSS leaders should be very careful not
to step too far on that dangerous road. And when someone well informed
on America and world politics gives tips, listen or you'll get what you'd
deserve as those previous "pawns".


 > From:         jzhang@SDCC3.UCSD.EDU
 > Subject:      The logic of "New World Order"
 >
 > ......
 >
 > I hope that on the MFN issue, IFCSS will retain its "independence",
 > and refrain from being used as a pawn by American politicians in
 > their so-called "New World Order".
 >
 > Zhenqin Li
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)
Subject: Re: China? What China?
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:31:13 GMT

In article <zhu.715989502@menaik> zhu@cs.UAlberta.CA (Eric Y. Zhu) writes:
>
>China is a country that it is simply too big to be ignored by 
>the rest of the world. 
>
......
>
>Another possibility, of cource, is that in Bush's mind (and Clinton's),
>China has moved away from Maxism far enough in its market-oriented
>economic reform that is no longer considered to be an authentic 
>Communist country in following Marxism doctrine.
>
Although China is not a global super power to America, yet it is a
rivary if not an enemy to America nowadays. But to an American president
he must be careful to handle China. Facing an opponent there are several
options: 1) Battleship and carriers. This is an effective and fast
method. (history proves that). 2) Economic pressure, which is painful to
both sides and the result is dubious in most of the time. And finally
the 3) Diplomatic manuever. Its sucess mainly depends on the result of
previous 2 methods.

Going back to Bush and Deng, both have a handful of cards to play. Bush
undestands well the first option should be avoid as much as possible as
you know why. He has quite a few choices in second option, MNF, 301,
Gatt and etc. To Deng who wants to protect his own purpose he has
several counter attack methods too. Exporting weapons, UN veto power,
the envolving in keeping the stablization in Asia and so on. Finally
they all come to a diplomatic way to balance their benifit. That's why
Bush is reluctant to use MNF, which is most powerful yet the trouble
with it is that he can use it only once. Just like the grenade in a
military chess, it kills anything but only once. After that he can do
anything to stop China do what ever it likes. It won't be a pleasant
future for an American president. To Deng, he can use his options any
time he likes and again and again, not to mention the ending of MNF will
hurt Americans too. I believe even Clinton will think again if he is the
president of America before let the Congress to pass the bill.

Now on the balance table of Bush and Deng, Bush owes Deng a favor, that
is selling the F-16 to Taiwan. It has nothing to do of stopping the
commies, but a pure economic decision. So if China lets Sheng Tong go
right now, then it means Bush owes Deng two, and if China keeps Sheng
for a while then they are even. Although I said that China might let
Sheng go now I hope I am right as China can use the case of Shung Tong
as bargain chip. (sounds strange but it is the case) As the protection
bill, I don't think CG cares about it very much as it considers it is a
lost course already.

>I am just wondering how many of you still believe that China is strong
>enough to have a say in the world.
>--
>Zhu Yuchen, Edmonton

Tingli Pan
From: pshen@weber.ucsd.edu (Pu Shen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Shen Tong's Arrest Confirmed
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:38:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Sep1.235553.5544@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
These "Chunde Shi" and "William Deng" and "T Bao" reminds me of some sentences 
Lun(3) Xun(4) said long time ago:   "These little mean things use their own 
dirty little hearts to assume the good honest guys' hearts (yi xiao ren zhi xing
du jun zi zhi fu) and then pretend that they themselves are good guys and 
denounce the so assumed bad hearts of the other people.   What they don't 
realise is that all they did is to show the world what a dirty low heart 
they themselves have."

Lun Xu is great.  What he said more than half a century ago still applies
perfectly today.

PS.   Of course this is not my name and account.    I might go back to
      China some day and I don't want to be in a "hotel" room where no
      one knows.    I admire heroes who dare to be "famous".
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: GARMARHARD <pi@BUAST7.BU.EDU>
Subject:      Clean Up CHINA-NT
Reply-To: GARMARHARD <pi@BUAST7.BU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:16:47 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

It is time for CHINA-NT administrative people to show up and do something
about this network.

CHINA-NT was historically built up for GLOBAL Chinese students and scholars
COORDINATION. There were very strict rules about what netters should post in
the net. Only allowed were about two people in each school and orgnization
to join the network. Now CHINA-NT has been changed and more people are
allowed to join the network as "observers", but CHINA-NT is still a network
for IFCSS COORDINATION (please read header lines in each Email you get from
CHINA-NT), not another talk.politics.china, nor another soc.culture.china!!!
This is understood by most netters. The new netters might not know this. If
that's the case, you should know this now.

Recent development in CHINA-NT is really getting frustrated. It is very
hard to understand that the situation is ALLOWED to be worse and worse.
Some people claim that they have rights of freedom of expression and
speech. But this does not equal to that you can freely put your shit into
other people's mouth and you can freely use CHINA-NT spread your
speculations even rumors, or dump your brilliant thoughts.

I think if CHINA-NT is no longer a COORDINATION network, nor mainly for
INFORMATION EXCHANGE, but for politics talk and evrybody can dump evrything
into the network, the administration people should stand up and make
a clear announcement. If that is the case, please do not use a name such
as COORDINATION NETWORK, and do not use CHINA-NT as the name either.
Some other names could sound better, such as GCU (The Garbage Center of USA).

If that is not the case, the rules of the network should be tightened up.
Anybody who tries to trigger debates in this network should be DEFINITELY
purged from the network. Some people may think they have brilliant
thoughts and they are smarter than the other people, then they should be
asked to go to talk.politics.china and soc.culture.china. Please do not
make this network as a Garbage Center of USA.


		       		Your Comrade: X. Pi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xpeng@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bo Xiong
Reply-To: xpeng@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:58:27 GMT
Comments: cc: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Oops, W(G).Deng knows the word "ugly".  You may want to save it to the person
who wrote "It is very strang that so many CSS enjoy bashing China".  I guess
you must have some names of the "so many CSS" in mind.  You are smart. You
attacked so many CSS without taking the risk of being sued in the court.

Game is over.  Your name could not be more clean ever.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: HE@NIEHS.BITNET
Subject:      S1216 Bill
Reply-To: HE@NIEHS.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:35:00 GMT

Dear my Chinese Fellows:

The Chinese government is still very angery about Bush's dicision to sell F-16
fighter jets to Taiwan eventhough Bush tried to calm down the Chinese
gorvenment's anger by sending his Assistant Secretory of State to Beijing last
Monday.  I am very afraid that Bush may trade the 80,000 CSS here to comfort
the Chinese Government.  Every CSS, expecially HQ and the lobby team in D.C
should watch closely and do our best to prevent it.


C. He
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: jjs@iedv7.acd.com ( James J. Song       )
Subject: Re: Re. "Bo Xiong" & "Suggestions"
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:05:38 GMT

In article <Bu848L.6Hx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Gu yeming <yeming@SCLERA.PHYSICS.ARIZONA.EDU> writes:
>
>There are people who is desperate to become "famous", to
>become the "center of attention" (or more appropriate, the
>center of controversy), so desperate that he dares to take
>credit for almost anything he did and did (could) not do.
>

I don't know what the above message implies, so my post is not 
directly related to the above message. But I have read several 
posts suggesting that Shen Tong was pursuing fame by going to 
China. But from what I have noticed in the last two years, 
Shen Tong seemed to be already famous. He appeared in many famous 
talk shows when promoting his book: Johnny Carson, Larry King, 
NPR, etc. So I would think that the above mentioned suggestion is 
just a smearing campaign to discredit his brave endeavor.
___


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ NR-4016: URGENT! Protection Campaign Needs Help
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:29:54 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

**************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters News Release No. 4016     September 9, 1992
        URGENT! PROTECTION CAMPAIGN NEEDS HELP
**************************************************************
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

        Urgent! Protection Campaign Needs Help
        ======================================

     This afternoon, the HQ was contacted by Senator Gordon's
office, (Senator Gordon was the major sponsor of the '92
Protection Bill). We were told that the Senate will likely
consider the House version of the Protection Bill in a week
or so and that Senator Gordon is preparing a speech in
support of the bill.

     Senator Gordon's office requested help from the
IFCSS HQ. To make the speech more persuasive and more
appealling, the office needs "examples of Chinese
students being in disadvantaged situation in terms of
employment, promotion, study, etc. without the bill."
They want cases, stories, personal experiences which
can be used as typical examples in the speech.

     If you can share your experience with us, please
contact the HQ as soon as possible. This should be
done within two days.

     Thanks for your attention.

***************************************************************
         IFCSS Headquarters Office    Signature
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: To W. Deng
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:34:58 GMT

In article <Bu1Dvv.L6o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU writes:
>
>But ST's action is well prepared and ST is fully aware of the consequence.
>He knew that his action would further jeopardize China's MFN, make China
>more difficult to stop Bush from selling 150 F-16 to Taiwan, attack Bush's
>China policy, help Democractic to win the election, etc. But he decided to
>go ahead, because he knew that he would get good rewards and low risk. I
>have plenty evidence in my economics and political science research and
>other sources related to ST's action to support my arguments.

I think China would have much better situation if the current Chinese
leaders resign. I am really worried about the future of China. China
is now the focus of the world. It is a focus as a traget of bad things.
Why, first communist government, second TAM Massacre, third human
right abuses, fourth ...

I think China really needs changes to keep abreast with the world.
Else China is walking the same path of late Qing dynasty. It is no
problem for Chinese people to be friendly with the world, but the
government. The arrogance of the Chinese government that resist
the world trend. It makes Chinese people suffer. It will kill China.

>
>I think it is time to stop talking about ST. You will find what a guy he
>really is soon. I am only a independent critic and I am not living on
>democracy movement or Chinese government. I just tell what I believe is
>ture, no matter you like it or not.

I think you are OK. I never suspect you as a CCPer (even you were, so what?).
But I also think Shen Tong is not a criminal either. He may not be
a great guy, but I will still cry for a not-great-guy being arrested
for no violent action. It is against the principle of human right.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Nobel Peace Prize and Shen Tong
Reply-To: xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:39:50 GMT

Can Shen Tong win Nobel Peace Prize? I wish him luck.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Jianhua Liu <liu@ENOS2.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:      also serve as a test for posting
Reply-To: Jianhua Liu <liu@ENOS2.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:28:17 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

If you do have a very good set of rules but no one can execute them, what can
one do according to the rules?  This is exactly the case if Philip Zhou's
suggestions would result.

There are some sort of network management rules out there.  These are the rules
everybody should obey to.  Other than this, it is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Liu,
UC Davis
From: zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: My two cents about SHEN TONG
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:34:52 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep4.213005.17631@acd4.acd.com>, jjs@iedv7.acd.com ( James J. Song       ) writes:
|> 
|> Another thing in China is different from US and Japan: the government
|> does not have to spell out what law you have violated if you are arrested.
|> There is always an equation: arrested = violating the law.

1st, in Japan , "the government does not have to spell out what law you have
violated if you are arrested. ". The same as in China.

2nd, the difference between China and US doesn't tell anything---you can
never say which one is right and which one is wrong.

3rd. Arrested =/= violating the law, in China & US.  That means your alleged
of sth illegal conduction.  You may still be freed late on without any trouble.
Where did you find that equation then? :)

|> >Dose China PB has the right to "grab" him(detain him) ?  
|> >Yes, if PB has evidence to suspect him engaging in anti-government
|> >actions, it does have the right to detain him for questioning.
|> 
|> Chinese government certainly has right to arrest anyone it wants because
|> it has the power and more importantly guns.

The same as US.  Certainly they have done such kind of things.  Now they even
have the "legal" rights to arrest any "suspects" in any foreign countries. :)
Don't you know that? :) :) :)  :)  Protection?  :) Where is that? :) :) :)


But not this time on ST case. :)  China's government has the rights BY LAW
not just BY POWER. :) :)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: eleea4f@rosie.uh.edu (Zhuang, Wei)
Subject: Economy and Democracy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:22:00 GMT

Deng Gang:
  Now you talk to the point. 
  You expressed a view used to be somehow commenly held, ambigiously
  Now let's talk about economy and democracy.

First nobody, including Shen Tong, want to stop economy development.   
But, do you think democracy will fall from heaven if only we work
on economy?
We need both people working on economy and people working on
democracy. Why not cooperate? 

Believe it or not, Shen Tong is doing a difficult job. Democracy
is still difficult to fight for in China, even millions of people
failed in 1989. What he is doing needs more courage, and it is 
as important as economy development.

If you really study political science, you will understand that
economic development is not only economical, but also POLITICAL.
it is basically a reallocation of benefits and resources, 
including social status, political status in addition to 
material wealth. It is critical who gets the benefits of the
development.

Don't compare China with Taiwan and Korea. Time is changing.
Democrate politics and free economy is now a global trend.
You may lose MFN is you deprive human rights. (If MFN is lost,
it's not Shen Tong's fault. Even if he didn't return, MFN is
also dangerous enough. Why? Poor human rights condition.)

Taiwan is small, China is big. One thing works in a small 
area may not work in a big country. 

Without corresponding changes in political structure, China's
economy development will meet its dead end. Who knows what will
happen after Deng? The current political structure is a big
threat to China's stability, not democracy movement.

Remember: it's the improvement of human rights condition that
resulted China's economic booming, not anything else. Chinese
people were just "given" a part of their human rights--the right
to be rich, to be successful. The booming is because people
are surpressed for too long. Given the proper enviroment, 
Chinese people will boom the economy. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: dnmao%mich.hepnet@LBL.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Proposal and Suggestions -- follow up
Reply-To: dnmao%mich.hepnet@LBL.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:23:07 GMT

Phillip Zhou is trying to make a constitution for this net. As I said, I
personally think this neither is impposible nor necessary and have following
different views:

1) I do not think we should copy the rule of the congress into this net.
First of all, we are just a gathering of crowds. Any one can sign on or sign
off at any time, I do not think congressman can do this, at least s/he can not
sign in as s/he likes.
Secondly, we do not have very specific  topic or motion to debate, no one
can handle this, say today, we are talking about this, tomorrow we are going
to talk about that.

2) Phillip Zhou wants to sep up a refree or censor system on this net. But
all these conditions such as 'positive', 'telorable', 'responsible', 'majority'

and 'no personal attack' are all extremly vague. For example, is saying ST
wants to be famous a personal attack or not? If one openly lied to others
about his history and the other people pointed out his trick, does this belong
to personal attack? Besides, what is the majority concern? who comes to define
this? I do not see now the major topic must be setting up a censor system on
this net, for example. Again, I have to say, in terms of freedom of speech,
majority concern does not mkae sense. It only helps collectivism and then
totalitarianism.

3) It is hard to distinguish public or private message sometime. If some one
put a message on this net which is thought wrong by others, then the others
may think it is necessary to send mail on the net to let all netters know
their different view even the reply mail may be adrressed to one person.
And therefore, any one can put his mail on this net talking about any mail
previously appearing on this net. Or more reasonablly, one can put anything
on this net as long as he does not try to jam other people's mail by using
computer techniques.

I do not know how the other people explain the fact that the 'freedom of speech'

is also 'guranteed' by china's constitution. In my understanding, this freedom
of speech is substrained to a condition, i.e. people can only speak out what the

CCP allows to say. This is not real freedom of speech. Freedom of speech must
allow people to say whatever they want to say. If any one feels the other's
speech infringing upon his rihgt, he can sue the speaker at court (like Mr.Deng
Gang will do to Mr.Xiong Bo). In all, we do not need censor, do not need
refree, do not need big brother on this net. Otherwise I will expect the
suggestion number 10 from someone:
10) His personal record must be investigated if one wants to join this net.

Dongning Mao
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:      Russia: Chaos or back to dictatorship?
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:58:14 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <92Sep11.154244edt.129@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>I doubt the Russian economy was worse than the Chinese economy in 
>1976.  

In 1986 the Russian economy was probably no worse than the Chinese
economy in 1976.  By 1991, however, the Russian economy was on the
verge of total collapse.  The problem was that Gorbachev tried to
dismantle the old system without a new system in its place.  Deng Xiao
Ping on the other hand, built a new economic structure beside the old
one.

Marshall Goldman's book _What Went Wrong With Perestroika?_ gives a
good analysis of what went wrong with Gorbachev's plans.

>Not if everybody in their solidarity tradition and go on strike to demand
>more pay, and start a new round of deficit spending - inflation - striking
>cycle.  

Yeah.  That's a problem.

>There [Chinese leader's] work on the economy is being completely ignored 
>by the rest of the world.  

Not completely ignored.  The U.S. Congress is afraid enough of the
Chinese economy to want to pass protective tariffs in the guise of
human rights.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china