From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: The Future
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:00:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.132442.829@sunspot.noao.edu> library@sunspot.noao.edu (John Cornett) writes:
>
>"The U.S. will always trash China until it becomes a puppet of the West".
>
>This is a statement which appeared in SCC lately, and it is where I wish 
>to begin, because this is exactly what many U.S. people believe the Party
>may be telling Chinese people about us.

Well, as much as one can not equal what Chinese feel with what "the
Party" try to tell, one can not equal the behavior or feeling of a
government and a people.  Believe it or not, the politics between 
different countries do not evolve around friendship or idealism, but
Realpolitik.

As many "the Party supporters" may feel "the U.S." trash China, so may
do "the Party criticisers".  Sometimes it does not take a teaching to
know/feel what is going on.  In fact, "the U.S." did not stop trash
Russia *after* it became a puppet of the West.
 
>If this is the view the Party wishes to convey to the people about us,
>I am very sorry; because I believe it serves to erect a barrier between
>our peoples, it pulls us apart, and it does not accurately describe the
>vast majority of U.S. people.

The hope is that the relation between peoples is seperated from that
between governments.
 
>In order to further understanding, I would like to spell out one American's
>hopes about China, and our relationship together. I strongly believe these
>views would be found in agreement with a great many U.S. people.

But not necessarily in agreement with "the U.S.", i.e. the governement.

>(1) To us, the open society, the ability to hear and discuss views on all
>sides, the ability to take part in the selection of leadership, are very
>important, and are like freedom from colonialism (the British King for us),
>or freedom from slavery. We have no background of American King or Emperor,
>our revolt against "taxation without representation" attacked both the
>Colonialists and Autocracy, at the same time. This is why we may view
>the two concepts-- Autocracy and Colonialism-- as similar.

U.S. government has a long record in supporting autocracy and colonialist
governements throughout the world, not mentioning its own share of them
put upon other weaker nations.

>I hope Party supporters, even if they cannot agree with our views, can
>understand where we come from, and realize that there is sincerity.

But why do you have to address to "Party supporters"?  Should we regard
you as "Government supporters" or "Government criticisers"?

>(2) Regarding "Emperor of the World", and U.S. hegemony over others; there is
>a great feeling among many U.S. people that such concepts are not fair, and
>they will not work. If 5% of the earth's people are allowed to control the
>other 95%, that is anti-democratic. China has a powerful argument to present
>to U.S. people, on the basis of democratic values, regarding World Emperor.
>I believe many U.S. people, including myself, will struggle alongside you
>on that issue, if you will let us. 

Don't understand what you mean by "if you will let us".  There is no way
the world politics can be democratic unless all countries involved are
equally powerful economically (and militarily).  If "the U.S." would like
to try something new, there are many good places to start, such as Russia,
Iraq, Panama, Cuba, Vietnam, Israeli and Arabian countries...

>Rather than World Emperor, or "Only Remaining Superpower", why not strive for
>the universal rule of law, implemented by all humanity on earth, and based on 
>democratic principles? If this is achieved, then a person in Africa or Asia is 
>equal to one in America, and if the United Nations asked a strong nation to 
>"sit down", that nation will sit; and if told to stand up, it stands.

No, that strong country will just stop paying its due to UN.

>(3) Let us begin a great competition among nations, including U.S. and China. 
>The competition can be like the Olympics. Each trains hard, often together with
>his competition; he eats well, sleeps well. Each runs hard, with all his heart.
>Whoever wins, they congratulate each other. They both learn, train, and ready 
>themselves to try again.

Ever heard the term "economic sanctions"?

>There should be more cooperation in the law enforcement, anti-drug programs, 
>rehabilitation programs, and other areas. Let us hear suggestions from China,
>please involve yourselves with us, we need all help we can get. At the same
>time, please don't resent our people's interest in helping the open society, 
>the individual freedoms, in China. The interest of the vast majority here is
>genuine, people do want to help.
>
>The concept "Non-interference in Internal Affairs" can be turned inside out;
>and rather than not touching one another, like Aparteid, the two sides can
>instead become constructively engaged, as equal friends. My apologies for 
>great length of this article.

The problem is that you are trying to mix up the relation between peoples
with that between the nations.  They are different and seperated, no 
matter what politicians like to say, be it the U.S. government or 
"the Party".



	 Eddie
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china