Subject: CND Follow-up Report on IFCSS 3rd Congress, No.5, July 31, 1991

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 00:49:43 -0500

-+-+-+-+-+  C h i n a	N e w s   D i g e s t,	US Section (CND-US) +-+-+-+-+-

	       CND Follow-up Report on IFCSS 3rd Congress, No.5

			      July 31, 1991

Table of Contents					      No. of Lines

1. Debates in 3rd Congress: MFN Renewal, Conditional or Unconditional .100
2. A Letter from Delegate: MFN Is Not A Fundamental Issue to IFCSS . . .20
3. MFN Is Not the Only Leverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4. A Debate on Academic Exchanges with China in 3rd Congress . . . . . .38
5. Background Info about All Presidential Candidates in 3rd Congress . .50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note:  This is the last issue of the CND Follow-up Report on IFCSS
		3rd Congress.  If there are any future contributions on the
		subject, CND-US may carry them in the regular news packages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Debates in 3rd Congress: MFN Renewal, Conditional or Unconditional .100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) From: IFCSS HQ Special Report <[email-masked]>  Sun Jul 14 1991
   By CHEN Shi-zhong (2nd term IFCSS vice president)

      Although the debate on China's Most Favored Nation trade status with the
US has been going on for quite a few month among the Chinese students, it is
still one of the hottest topic of the IFCSS Third Congress. In anticipate of
that, the IFCSS Third Congress arranged a panel discussion on MFN. But even
before the panel discussion, delegates started the debate already.

      It started with Dr. WANG Yang's challenge to Dr. CHEN Xingyu's testmony
in front of the Senate Financial Committee. Dr. Wang said Dr. Chen's testmony
did nothing but try to revoke the MFN. However, this charge was denied by
Dr. Chen who showed that the testmony strictly followed the IFCSS Council's
decision of supporting "conditional renewal". During the free speech session,
Dr. HU Sen of the Northwestern University contended that MFN is the most
important thing for China and should be renewed wothout any conditions. This
was met with opposition from a number of speakers. One of the most
interesting one was offered by Mr. HE Baoping who pointed out the
conditionality tacitcs the Chinese consulate uses against the IFCSS. He said,
when the Chinese consulte dispatch money to local Chinese student association,
one condition is "to withdraw from the IFCSS."

       Compare to the panel discussion in the afternoon, however, the debate
in the free speech was just a warnup. The panel discussion featured Dr. ZHAO
Haiqing and Mr. GE Xun as panelists and Dr. CHEN Xingyu as moderator. Xingyu
led into the discussion with a brief introduction, both to the panelists and
to the subject, and with two questions to Haiqing:   1. Does conditional
renewal equal to revocation? 2. Will Chinese government meet the human rights
conditions? Haiqing started with a brief report to the floor about the whole
process of lobbying the "condtional renewal" legislation, then he went into
some detailed analysis and concluded that conditional renewal is not the same
as revocation and the Chinese government should meet with some very basic
human rights conditions. In his speech, Xun got across the following important
point. When he went back to China, he discuss with a lot of people about what
should and could the IFCSS do to help to improve the human rights situation
in China. The conclusion is attach human rights conditions to MFN. People in
China say: IFCSS can do services to its member, can help academic exchange, or
can even help with some economic development, however, none of those will help
human rights. Only MFN will! After the speech, the panelists answered some
general question regarding the MFN. Then the panel went into debate and it
seemed that the mood in general was for "conditional renewal." After observing
this, Dr. HU Sen contended that if we do agree on "conditional renewal" then
the conditions should be carefully designed to make sure the Chinese gov't
will be able to accept. In respond to this, Mr. CHEN Shizhong pointed out that
kind "conditional renewal" is really "renewal with conditional conditions" and
in essence "unconditonal renewal." He then went on to point out that the most
unaccptable condition to the Chinese government is human rights, for Chinese
government already made consession on almost every other conditions, including
missile sales, interlectual properties, trade issue and others. He ended his
speech with a question: When we are talking about the Chinese government
refusing the human rights conditions, we are talking about more and more human
rights violations by the Chinese government. In that case what should we do?
The whole session ended with a remark by Xingyu. Xingyu share some hard data
with the floor. He said that the net lost for China without MFN is around 3
billion US dollars per year. For a country with a population of 1 billion, it
is not that a significant a lost to the whole economy. However, it will be a
tremendous lost to the Central govenrment, for China has to pay back 5 billion
US dollars each year for the next 5 years. And that hard currency has to be
gain through trade. He concluded that China has to export $60 billion to keep
with that and MFN is just too important for CG to refuse very reasonable
human rights conditions.

       After the panel discussion, a letter to the Senate is circulated for
signatures to support "conditional renewal".

- - - - - - - - - -
2) From: Yang WANG <[email-masked]> Mon, 15 Jul 1991
Subject: A Clarification;   (WANG Yang, elected 3rd term IFCSS Council Member)

     This morning, after barely getting back from the IFCSS 3rd Congress, I
was surprised to find an "IFCSS Special Report -- Part II" in which my
challenging of the 2nd term IFCSS president CHEN Xingyu's testimony before
the US Senate was described.

     This report was biased. I hereby make the following clarification:

     During the free speech session on Friday, July 12, I pointed out that the
official position of the IFCSS is to support the renewal of the MFN and to
support attaching human rights conditions to the granting of the MFN, while
in president Chen's testimony before the US Senate there are 3 chapters which
I fail to see how they will support such a position:

     *  The chapter on "Hong Kong interest";
	(Down playing the impact of MFN on Hong Kong)
     *  The chapter on "Impact on Southern Economic Regions Exaggerated";
	(Saying that the impact of MFN on those regions is not as great as
	 claimed.)
     *  The chapter on "US Interests".
	(Down playing the impact of MFN on US interests)

     It seems to me the logical argument for the IFCSS's position is that the
MFN means a great deal to the CCP regime and the regime will yield to the
pressure.  (This is also the argument by Haiqing and Xingyu later in a special
session and I think they did a good job).  The three chapters only convey ONE
message, that is MFN IS REALLY NO BIG DEAL, and the message fails to support
the stand of the IFCSS.

     To my question, president Chen gave me an answer which contains only one
sentence, shorter than the sentence in the report. The answer was: "I believe
my testimony supports the conditional renewal stand of the IFCSS."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. A Letter from Delegate: MFN Is Not A Fundamental Issue to IFCSS . . .20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Ming Cheng <[email-masked]>   Thu, 18 Jul 91
 (A candidate for the vice president running with HU Sen in 3rd Congress)

Many people wonder why HU Sen did not stand firmly on his ground of
Unconditional-MFN in his campaign for the president of IFCSS, and Hu himself
also expressed the regret. In fact, I should make myself responsible for his
performance. When Hu Sen went to me to ask my support at last minite, I told
him I support him stand out and his most points but U-MFN, he agreed to make
the  compromise with me at this point (he did not have anytime to find
another partner). That may be why he did not make clear statement on the MFN.

I agreed to the opinion that MFN is not a fundamental issue to IFCSS, the
IFCSS's structure may be a one to itself.  People always have different
opinions on some concret issues (otherwise why should we need  democracy?),
but as a non-issue-driven organization, IFCSS should not be divided into
groups according that.	The Flood in China also tell us the issues may chang
their importance anytime.  Now in the Flood region, the survival and
fighting the flood are more important than any politicle issue.
......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. MFN Is Not the Only Leverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Eugene Zhang (A delegate's pen name)   July 18, 1991

	In IFCSS 3rd Congress, some proponents of attaching conditions to
MFN argued that MFN is the ONLY leverage the IFCSS has to press the Chinese
government on human rights. In a recent official IFCSS report (prepared by
former IFCSS vice president CHEN Shizhong), it is stated that "IFCSS can do
services to its member, can help academic exchange, or can even help with
some economic development, however, none of those will help human rights.
Only MFN will!"  I have strong reservation about such a statement.

	While MFN debate has proven to be an effective leverage in one aspect
of human rights, namely the release of some political prisoners, it will not
and cannot address many other important aspects of human rights.  Those
include the freedom of speech, free press, the freedom to form opposition
parties, equality, and others such as the rights to better living conditions
and better education.

	I strongly disagree with the view that helping economic development
and academic exchanges do not help human rights. As a direct consequence of
economic development, the living conditions of many will be improved.
Promoting academic exchanges between China and the West will have direct and
positive effect on China's higher education. But more importantly, as many
people have eloquently pointed out, economic development will have a profound
positive impact on the Chinese society in the future.  Although economic
development and better education will not alway lead to a democracy as we see
with Singapore, they are virtually, however, pre-requisites for a more
humane, and truly just society.  Events in democracies in Eastern Europe,
Panama, El Salvadore and most recently in India should indicate how fragile
democracy and human rights are without economic prosperity and a well
educated people.

	By saying that helping economic development and academic exchanges
do not help human rights, the IFCSS would have been indifferent to the long
term struggle for human rights. While the IFCSS should continue to use MFN as
an effective short term leverage, there are indeed other short term leverages
which have been overlooked by the IFCSS. For instance, instead of having the
Congress to press the State Department, the IFCSS could also directly deal
with the State Department to address the human rights issue. The IFCSS could
even directly put some pressure on the Chinese government itself if
strategies are carefully planned out.

	In fact, the continued pursuance by the IFCSS to gain recognition
from the Chinese government itself could be viewed as a struggle for human
rights. If the IFCSS indeed succeeds in doing so, it could become the first
independent organization recognized by the Chinese government, and it may
very well lead to the forming of other independent organizations or even
political parties abroad or in China.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A Debate on Academic Exchanges with China in 3rd Congress . . . . . .38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: [email-masked] (Guyang Huang) Tue, 23 Jul 91

   Academic Exchange Not Feasible? --- My Impression on IFCSS 3rd Convention
					      Guyang Huang   U.Mass. Amherst

After the opening ceremony on July 12 morning, there was a session for people
in charge of "3 branches" to answer questions regarding their work in the
past year. One representative raised a question to the HQ, "Has anything been
done on the academic exchange work?"  The 2nd term president Chen Xinyu
replied that HQ didn't push work on this aspect, since "such a work is not
feasible under current situation in China."

As I remember, on the IFCSS 2nd Convention in July, 1990 in Columbus, OH, a
bill was passed with highest co-sponsors and highest votes to conduct domestic
exchange (including academic exchanges) affairs.  That was the bill to
establish the later-controversial Domestic Affairs Committee. Also on the 2nd
Convention, an amendment to the General Programme of IFCSS Charter was passed
that IFCSS pushes forward for Chinese "freedom, democracy, huamn rights and
rules of law" and "Science, technology, economy and culture".

On the second day afternoon in the 3rd Congress, it was the session of
debating motions/bills in the assembly. U. Maryland introduced a bill to set
up an information center to coordinate academic exchange --- for people here
to give seminar, workshops, panel discussion or technical consutations during
their home visit.  This bill became the focus of hot debate immediately.
There was a long stretch of representatives including Chen Shizhong (former
vice President), Zhang Xiaochuan (former HQ secretary), Li Ping (former and
re-elected SVC member) and He Baoping (former SVC member and Council member
elected) lining up at the right side of the lectern on the stage to state
their arguement against the bill. Various reasons were presented. Some said
"it would send a wrong message that everything is all right", someone went
"it's the task for other professional associations, but not for IFCSS'."
At the left side of the lectern, among a few people standing to wait for
speech for the bill, I only saw one former IFCSS personnel --- former
Council member Chen Jienan.  But he didn't get his turn to speak due to the
time limit.

At that night, voting results showed that bill (#001) was passed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Background Info about All Presidential Candidates in 3rd Congress . .50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note taken by GUAN Weihe, WU Fang   8:30PM July 13, 1991
Summarized and translated by Bo Xiong <[email-masked]>

The following are biographical notes for each of the candidates for the
IFCSS president and vice-president in the 3rd Congress, based on the
incomplete note by CND reporters. We apologize for any possible inaccuracy.

1) ZHAO Hai-qing:   (Elected 3rd term IFCSS president)
   Lived in Chinese countryside for eight years during the Cultural
   Revolution, and having been living in the US for ten years.	A Beijing
   University graduate and Ph.D. in biology from University of Connecticut,
   post-doctor research fellow in Harvard University since 1989.
   The Chairman of IFCSS Student Affairs Committee in charge of visa lobby
   for CSS and CMFN lobby in the US Congress since 1989.  A presidential
   candidate in IFCSS 2nd Congress.

2) GENG Xiao:	(The running mate of ZHAO Hai-qing)
   Graduate of the Math Dept. of the University of Science and Technology of
   China (UTSC, 78er), will soon complete his Ph.D. in Mathematics in Univ.
   of Arizona.
   A long term local CSS leader, good at soliciting donations.

3) HU Sen:
   Graduate of the Math Dept. of the University of Science and Technology of
   China (UTSC, 78er), graduate student in the Mathematics Institue of the
   Academia Sinica of China until 1986.  Came to the US in 1986 to attend
   Princeton University, earned Ph.D. in Math. in 1990.  Now an assistant
   professor in Northwestern University.
   Was Princeton CSSA Chairman, 1st term IFCSS council coordinator, 2nd term
   IFCSS Newsletter editor.

4) CHENG Ming:	(HU Sen's running mate)
   Was a production team leader in Chinese countryside, now a post-doctor in
   Russell Park Institue (SUNY Bufflo).
   Swam ten miles in 1989 to solicit donations.

5) HOU Zhong-yu:
   Studied in Beijing Istitue of Aeronautical and Space Technology from 1984
   thru 1988, then worked in CAAC. Now a graduate student in San Jose State
   University, California.
   Joined Beijing TAM student movement in 1989, escaped from China after
   June 4th Massacre. A member of both Front for Democratic China and Chinese
   Alliance for Democracy.  The chairman of FDC branch in Bay area.

6) HE Ming:  (HOU Zhong-yu's running mate)
   Graduated from Math Dept. of He-nan University (77er), attended Sichuan
   University Graduate School in 1982, came to US in 1986, now in University
   of Utah.
   Joined democracy movement since early 1989, a CAD member.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  The Editor of This Issue: Bo Xiong  [email-masked]  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|               Global Subscribe/Drop CND General News                |
| send "SUB/SIGNOFF CHINA-NN <Your Name>" to [email-masked]  |
|               US Readers: (Regional News)                           |
| send "SUB/SIGNOFF  CHINA-ND <Your Name>" to [email-masked]  |
|               Canadian Readers: (Regional News)                     |
| send "SUB/SIGNOFF CND <Your Name>" to [email-masked]          |
|               Europe & Pacific Readers: (Regional News)             |
| send "SUB/SIGNOFF CND-EP <Your Name>" to [email-masked]      |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For technical assistance, contact: Haosheng <[email-masked]>  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+