==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Wednesday, April 20, 1994 (Issue No. 9418) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is an e-journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= # of Table of Contents Author | Lines ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Culture Is Destiny -- A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew (Part III)...........................Fareed Zakaria 165 2. My Opinion on China's MFN Issue.............................Amy Zhang 45 3. Better to Leave China Alone -- A Thought on MFN.............Lao Jiang 148 4. China's MFN Issue Should Be Delinked with Human Rights......Zeyuan Wu 21 5. Americans' Understanding of Outside.....................C. A. Laughlin 61 6. Opening the China-Net..........................................Qing Lu 8 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- In this issue, we continue the series of the conversation between Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's former Prime Minister, and Fareed Zakaria, the Managing Editor of Foreign Affair magazine (cf: CCF #9416 and #9417). This series will be completed on this weekend's special edition. The debate on China's MFN heats up. In this issue, we carry three articles discussing China's MFN. All three contributors express their opinions on the (un)conditinal renewal of China's MFN, both from political and economic standpoints. We hope more people join in the discussions on this issue as it is vital to China's reform and development. Also in this issue, Mr. Laughlin provides his understanding of the issues raised by Messrs Daniel Qiu and Joe Want about the cultural understanding of American people. We welcome readers to share their opinions on the articles published by CCF. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Culture Is Destiny -- A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew (Part III).........................Fareed Zakaria 165 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE CULTURE OF SUCCESS FZ: A key ingredient of national economic success in the past has been a culture of innovation and experimentation. During their rise to great wealth and power the centers of growth---Venice, Holland, Britain, the United States- --all had an atmosphere of intellectual freedom in which new ideas, technologies, methods and products could emerge. In East Asian countries, however, the government frowns upon an open and free wheeling intellectual climate. Leaving aside any kind of human rights questions this raises, does it create a productivity problem? LKY: Intellectually that sounds like a reasonable conclusion, but I'm not sure things will work out this way. The Japanese, for instance, have not been all that disadvantaged in creating new products. I think that if governments are aware of your thesis and of the need to test out new areas, to break out of existing formats, they can counter the trend. East Asians, who all share a tradition of strict discipline, respect for the teacher, no talking back to the teacher and rote learning, must make sure that there is this random intellectual search for new technologies and products. In any case, in a world where electronic communications are instantaneous, I do not see anyone lagging behind. Anything new that happens spreads quickly, whether it's superconductivity or some new life-style. FZ: Would you agree with the World Bank report on East Asian economic success, which I interpret to have concluded that all the governments that succeeded got fundamentals right---encouraging savings and investment, keeping inflation low, providing high-quality education. The tinkering of industrial policies here and targeting sectors there was not as crucial an element in explaining these countries' extraordinary economic growth as were these basic factors. LKY: I think the World Bank had a very difficult job. It had to write up these very, very complex series of situations. But there are cultural factors which have been lightly touched over, which deserved more weightage. This would have made it a more complex study and of less universal application, but it would have been more accurate, explaining the differences, for example, between the Philippines and Taiwan. FZ: If culture is so important, then countries with very different cultures may not, in fact, succeed in the way that East Asia did by getting economic fundamentals right. Are you not hopeful for the countries around the world that are liberalizing their economies? LKY: Getting the fundamentals right would help, but these societies will not succeed in the same way as East Asia did because certain driving forces will be absent. If you have a culture that doesn't place much value in learning and scholarship and hard work and thrift and deferment of present enjoyment for future gain, the going will be much slower. But, you know, the World Bank report's conclusions are part of the culture of America and, by extension, of international institutions. It had to present its findings in a bland and universalizable way, which I find unsatisfying because it doesn't grapple with the real problems. It makes the hopeful assumption that all men are equal, that people all over the world are the same. They are not. Groups of people develop different characteristics when they have evolved for thousands of years separately. Genetics and history interact. The Native American Indian is genetically of the same stock as the Mongoloids of East Asia---the Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese. But one group got cut off after the Bering Straits melted away. Without that land bridge they were totally isolated in America for thousands of years. The other, in East Asia, met successive invading forces from Central Asia and interacted with waves of people moving back and forth. The two groups may share certain characteristics, for instance if you measure the shape of their skulls and so on, but if you start testing them you find that they are different, most particularly in their neurological development, and their cultural values. Now if you gloss over these kinds of issues because it is politically incorrect to study them, then you have laid a land mine for yourself. This is what leads to the disappointments with social policies, embarked upon in America with great enthusiasm and expectations, but which yield such meager results. There isn't a willingness to see things in their stark reality. But then I am not being politically correct. FZ: Culture may be important, but it does change. The Asian "model" may prove to be a transitional phenomenon. After all, Western countries also went through a period in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when they were capitalist and had limited participatory democracy. Elites then worried-- -as you do today---that "too much" democracy and "too many" individual rights would destabilize social order. But as these societies modernized and as economic growth spread to all sections of society, things changed. Isn't East Asia changing because of a growing middle class that demands a say in its own future? LKY: There is acute change in East Asia. We are agricultural societies that have industrialized within one or two generations. What happened in the West over 200 years or more is happening here in about 50 years or less. It is all crammed and crushed into a very tight time frame, so there are bound to be dislocations and malfunctions. If you look at the fast-growing countries--- Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, and Singapore---there's been one remarkable phenomenon: the rise of religion. Koreans have taken to Christianity in large numbers, I think some 25 percent. This is a country that was never colonized by a Christian nation. The old customs and religions---ancestor worship, shamanism---no longer completely satisfy. There is a quest for some higher explanations about man's purpose, about why we are here. This is associated with periods of great stress in society. You will find in Japan that every time it goes through a period of stress new sects crop up and new religions proliferate. In Taiwan---and also in Hong Kong and Singapore---you see a rise in the number of new temples; Confucianist temples, Taoist temples and many Christian sects. We are all in the midst of very rapid change and at the same time we are all groping towards a destination which we hope will be identifiable with our past. We have left the past behind and there is an underlying unease that there will be nothing left of us which is part of the old. The Japanese have solved this problem to some extent. Japan has become an industrial society, while remaining essentially Japanese in its human relations. They have industrialized and shed some of their feudal values. The Taiwanese and the Koreans are trying to do the same. But whether these societies can preserve their core values and make this transition is a problem which they alone can solve. It is not something Americans can solve for them. Therefore, you will find people unreceptive to the idea that they be Westernized. Modernized, yes, in the sense that they have accepted the inevitability of science and technology and the change in the lifestyles they bring. FZ: But won't these economic and technological changes produce changes in the mind-sets of people? LKY: It is not just mind-sets that would have to change but value systems. Let me give anecdotal evidence of this. Many Chinese families in Malaysia migrated in periods of stress, when there were race riots in Malaysia in the 1960s, and they settled in Australia and Canada. They did this for the sake of their children so that they would get a better education in the English language because then Malaysia was switching to Malay as its primary language. The children grew up, reached their late teens and left home. And suddenly the parents discovered the emptiness of the whole exercise. They had given their children a modern education in the English language and in the process lost their children altogether. That was a very sobering experience. Something less dramatic is happening in Singapore now because we are not bringing up our children in the same circumstances in which we grew up. FZ: But these children are absorbing influences different from your generation. You say that knowledge, life-styles, culture all spread rapidly in this world. Will not the idea of democracy and individual rights also spread? LKY: Let's not get into a debate on semantics. The system of government in China will change. It will change in Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam. It is changing in Singapore. But it will not end up like the American or British or French or German systems. What are we all seeking? A form of government that will be comfortable, because it meets our needs, is not oppressive, and maximizes our opportunities. And whether you have one-man, one-vote or some-men, one vote or other men, two votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I'm not intellectually convinced that one-man, one-vote is the best. We practice it because that's what the British bequeathed us and we haven't really found a need to challenge that. But I'm convinced, personally, that we would have a better system if we gave every man over the age of 40 who has a family two votes because he's likely to be more careful, voting also for his children. He is more likely to vote in a serious way than a capricious young man under 30. But we haven't found it necessary yet. If it became necessary we should do it. At the same time, once a person gets beyond 65, then it is a problem. Between the ages of 40 and 60 is ideal, and at 60 they should go back to one vote, but that will be difficult to arrange. (To Be Continued) [Fareed Zakaria is Managing Editor of Foreign Affair] ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 2. My Opinion on China's MFN Issue.............................Amy Zhang 45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the New York Times of April 7, Fang, Lizhi and Zhao, Haiqing continue appealing Clinton Administration to "punish the state"--China--by revoking MFN "for products made or sold by Government-controlled enterprises". While I have no objection to Fang, Lizhi or Zhao, Haiqing to express their own opinion on MFN issue, I must say that I feel outraged that they keep claiming that they are the representatives of Chinese community in U.S. I feel especially annoyed that IFCSS keeps silent in response to query and criticism from Chinese community on its action on MFN issue. I can not but point out that their behavior and speech have nothing to do with democratic spirit. Rather, I do not see much difference between their way of behaving and that of CCP. Both of them claim to be authorized by deceiving the public. Although I have considered myself a firm supporter for the democracy in China for 18 years, I do not see a logic behind the assumption that economic punishment to state-owned enterprises (not to mention Chinese business in general) will do good to a political improvement in China, considering the current situation there. A weakened central power will lead to an aggravation of government control and then a shrink of economic development, not to a political relaxation as somebody wishes. Furthermore, as long as the Chinese government is on a right track in terms of caring about people's life and catching up world's tendency, it shall be encouraged, not punished. This should be a principle. Political hatred or ideological difference should not be weighed over the interest of majority people. To this degree, it is not the ideal of democracy or human rights but the narrow-minded and short-sighted political view cherished by Fang, Zhao, IFCSS and the like that pushes me to abandon this bunch of people and this organization. I am firmly behind the action taken by some to express our concern on MFN issue to President Clinton. My past silence on IFCSS, Fang and Zhao's action is due to a consideration of keeping the unity of Chinese community by having a single voice. However, this consideration can no longer be afforded at the price of the interest of Chinese people at home. As long as Fang and Zhao continue to usurp your and my names and IFCSS keeps ignoring our opinions, nobody else but ourselves have to take a stand and raise our voice to the public. Therefore, I appeal that our letter on MFN issue should be addressed to not only President Clinton, but also all kinds of media such as newspapers, radios or news conferences. We have to let the public know WHAT WE ORDINARY CHINESE THINK ABOUT IT. If a new Chinese organization is born out of this action, it will be welcome. After all, this is all what the democracy is about. If IFCSS, Fang, and Zhao do not know how to act in a democratic manner, let us educate them! If we Chinese do not know how to handle a democratic system, let us learn it! My question to you is: Are you ready? (Received: 10-APR-1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Better to Leave China Alone -- A Thought on MFN.............Lao Jiang 148 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The annual renewal of China's MFN status has been focus of heated debates lately. Many discussions are centered upon whether U.S. Government should use the MFN preference as a leverage or not. Except for some extremist d-fighters, the consensus seems to be that evoking China's MFN status will not only result in economic disaster to China but also setback any potential political reform in the long run. Now the question comes to whether U.S. government should attach the human rights conditions on MFN, or more generally, to what extent foreign political pressure can affect China's human rights. Can economic sanction or political pressure bring about the change as wished? Let me answer this question in the context of the recent Chinese history. In the past four more decades, China has been under the ruling of the Communist Party. During the decade long Cultural Revolution, Mao's regime has brought disaster to Chinese people. 1979 was regarded as a turning point in the modern Chinese history---Deng Xiaoping reopened China to the world. In the past 15 years, we have eye-witnessed tremendous progress in many aspects of China. The changes have been mainly economical, but politically we have also seen some significant progress too. During this period, China underwent a transformation on going from a close-door kingdom into an open China. Many things happened today were totally unimaginable 20 years ago, such as the changes in people's life style, in the way of thinking (money is everything now!), and even in the ideology, despite the fact that the government still nominally controls the realm of the superstructure. One notable change is the loosed control on media (as long as no objection to the government). Many publications in China, such as Bible and numerous foreign entertainment and scholastic magazines and books, could well be counter-revolutionary or bourgeois before 1980's. It was also inconceivable for anyone to tone in foreign radios and TV's 20 years ago. These are possible today thanks to the economic reform and the open door policy. It shows that China is indeed making progress in political arena, albeit slowly. Anyone with slight experience of life in China knows that to overhaul such an established system is no easy work. Without the extensive economic reform, without the trade with the outside world, without the extensive contact and exchange with the world (I couldn't be here to write for sure), China would be still one under the proletarian dictatorship or maybe under the extended culture revolution. Therefore encouraging the reform and the open door policy is vital to further reform, economically or politically, and to future democracy. Sure the human rights condition in China is far from being satisfactory, if measured up to the West standard. The government is still authoritarian in every sense. No opposition to the government is tolerated. With the progress made in the last ten years, however, I am sure China will be in line with the most democratic countries in future, as long as the current reform keeps going, although this change does not come as easily as painting a house. It requires both fundamental social, ideological, as well as educational upgrades in the whole society. History already proves that no democracy comes over-night. The latest counter-example is chaotic Russia. At such a critical moment when China undergoes many societal reform and accompanying subtle political change, it is crucially important not to isolate China, not to corner those die-hard communists, and to give those hardliners an impression that there is no need for class struggle any more. To ensure the further economic reform, they have to abandon the old ideology and system, as they did in 1979-80 to Maoism. In this moment, the worst thing to do is to constantly rack those hardliners' serves with threat of sanction and pressure, thus reminding them of the fading ideology of class struggle. Thus the pressure on China is counter-productive in the long run. Especially at this time when the economy is booming, the government obviously wins the popular support in gaining MFN. By such reasoning, why push for the conditioned MFN or evoking MFN? A common argument, as put forward lately by an IFCSS GaoGan, is that MFN is the only leverage against the Chinese government. The implication of saying this is that if the foreign powers exert political pressure or economic sanctions against China, some political miracle will happen as a result. If we look back on the last five years, we can easily find that the effect of the political pressure from foreign powers has been contrary to some people's expectation. In 1980's before 1989, the West had been relatively easy on China, because the Cold War still lingered on. In China, it's becoming politically more relaxed during that time. The foreign media has since "invaded" into every corner of China. Unfortunately it went downhill since the Western powers exerted political pressure and economical sanction against China, due to 6.4 tragedy. The sanction was meant to force China to change. What has happened since then? Under such pressure, in fear of the power turnover, the suppression on the oppositions has been stepped up; The control on media has been reinforced (for example, VOA and BBC have been jammed). The foreign pressure has been viewed as an interference, reminding the hardliners of the past hundred year's foreign submission. Naturally the annual renewal of MFN has been used to pressure to improve human rights. How did it work for improving China's human rights? Besides occasionally helping to release a few political prisoners, these actions were virtually futile, or in other words, they were a macroscopical failure---meaning they did not help in any means to improve China's human rights. The in-face humiliation of Warren Christopher in his Beijing trip demonstrates that the West has grossly underestimated the Chinese counterpart. Therefore the political actions taken by the West has been either failure or counterproductive in any sense. Especially since the Yinhe incident and the knock-out in Beijing's Olympic bid, there are growing public sentiment toward foreign interference. At this time, doing nothing to China is better than making counter-productive actions, if the West really care about China's situation, not just wanting to gain trade leverage out of politics. By the way, most political actions have been vigorously pursued by some dissidents and IFCSS. It is understandable that many of them were once persecuted by the communist government with whom they are fighting whole- hearted. But when come to the MFN issue, I personally think it is inappropriate, to say it mildly, to fight for whatever personal belief at the cost of the millions of home-town people. All being said, some might argue that what they are provoking is merely to attach the human rights as conditions for the annual renewal. What does this mean? When attaching conditions, one thing in mind is certain that if the conditions are not met, the privilege will be evoked (unless there is other way out as a political game). Naively, evoking MFN means to punish Chinese government for their wrong doings. I don't know if IFCSS etc ever asked themselves one simple question: whom suffer from this punishment? Sadly the victims are the very driving force of China's democratic hope--- the business community and the rising middle class. Some also blame American business circle for being greedy in ignoring the human rights in China. But what's wrong with business trade? Isn't that what we want to bring economic development to China? Isn't that the very cause driving Korea etc to democracy? What are these guys fighting for? For canning Li Peng et al in public? IMHO, what they are doing reflects, more often than not, their personal hatred, vested interests, and political stupidity (despite their scientific/career accomplishments). Then just as some IFCSS leaders questioned that besides using MFN, what can we do with Chinese human rights? Yes, we need to fight for the human rights improvement. But guys, you are choosing a wrong target. You can't fight for human rights, using MFN, while make others to lose jobs! It is a common practice among some d-fighters: fight the government by all means regardless the consequences. This is probably why by doing so, these d-fighters alienated themselves from the people, because they do not know or refuse to know what is the best interest of the people. Without democracy, China's human rights will never live up to the West's measure. Evoking or conditioning MFN does not help at all, as I have said. The attitude of "what must, must be now" is not a therapy for China's problem. The best way to bring about meaningful political change is through a peaceful evolution, which is what the hardliners fear but can't help to stop. To do so is simple: just leave China alone. Unconditionally renew China's MFN. Encourage the open door and reform. Do not isolate China. In the way as such, don't worry the government is immune to the outside influence. And this influence will result in the desired improvement eventually, without cornering China back to the old one. As China's economy becomes well-developed, as new generations of leaders replace the senile, as middle class dominates the nation, as our people become more well-educated, self-determined, willing to compromise, tolerant to different opinions---the day will come when we can proclaim China as democratic. Yet this goal can not be achieved from outside---but rather from within. (Received: 15-APR-1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. China's MFN Issue Should Be Delinked with Human Rights.......Zeyuan Wu 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MFN is a mutual benefit of economic trading. It shouldn't be mixed with human right to push another country for political change. China has her own history. Human rights need to be improved gradually due to decades' long of Mao Zedong's 'democratic dictatorship', otherwise the society will most likely go into chaos. And be ware that there are always some power hungry people, they are certainly not for ordinary Chinese people's human rights. Taking the example of what happened in Soviet Union, it is reasonable that human rights and democracy should be achieved gradually based on economic development and the stability of a society. On the other hand, China is a developing country and has many unsolved problems. It can't afford to loss MFN, unlike USA. If MFN revoked, economically China may stop further reform or even goes backwards, though China can still trade with other countries. In the meantime, USA will get big damage on economy too. Politically it's possible that the society of China would go into chaos due to unemployment, and this will in turn delay China's human rights improvement. For the interests of both USA and China, China's MFN issue should delink with human rights, and China should be granted MFN trading status unconditionally. (Received: 9-APR-1994) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 5. Americans' Understanding of Outside.....................C. A. Laughlin 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The examples Mr. Qiu brings up to illustrate the point that Americans are basically ignorant of the outside world, I think, are a little unusual (probably if anyone calls MCI and asks for the country code of Germany right now, the operator will get it right), but not unbelievable. Americans' knowledge of the outside world is abysmal, but so are many other aspects of our "knowledge," and this is as much a result of our declining educational system as it is of xenophobic attitudes. On the other hand, Qiu's conclusions are based only on isolated incidents in his personal experience, and he seems to have had little and only superficial contact with Americans; this seems like a feeble basis for generalizations about what Americans in general know or do not know. For example, there is no mention of the growing importance of Area Studies and cultural studies in American universities, or the thousands of American students in China learning Chinese or doing advanced research on China. In Columbia University's East Asian Languages and Cultures Department alone, there are something like 15 or 16 of us doing Ph.D research on modern Chinese literature, and far more in Chinese history and traditional culture (not all of us are American, but most of us are). On the subject of the "melting pot," Mr. Qiu's conclusions again are apparently based only on his experiences riding New York subways. I am from Minneapolis, but have lived in New York for the past six years (except for last year, which I spent doing research in Beijing), and I think I can say with some authority that New York is far from being typical of the U.S in terms of race relations. Besides, it's misleading to talk about Little Italy or Chinatown as if all Italians and Chinese live there. The Chinese in New York have until recent years been relatively insular, but people of Italian descent are spread throughout all levels of society. Rather than using anecdotal or incidental information like the New York subways (by the way, the fact that nobody talks to each other doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the "melting pot" failing; even if all the riders were White Anglo-Saxon Protestants they probably still wouldn't interact), if you want to make generalizations about America, look at our places of business, office environments, schools, television programming, plays, music industry, etc. At first glance, everything may seem to be dominated by a hegemonic white culture, and to a certain degree this is true. But anyone who has observed the above aspects of society (the music industry in particular) over the past ten years cannot help but notice a strong trend toward cultural diversification and the retreat of a hegemonic, mainstream culture. Finally a related comment on Joe Want's letter: he also offers a valid critique of the homogeoneity and xenophobia prevalent in American culture, especially in the past. But when he claims that "White people expect everyone who does not have white skin to step aside so that they may pass as if they have the only right to use the sidewalk" I must admit to feeling a bit upset. Formally, this is obviously a racist statement, because it associates a certain behavior with people who have a certain color of skin. Even if it were true that most white people act this way or have this attitude, it is not primarily because of the color of their skin. I am white and have never behaved like this; in fact, being a little on the submissive side, I find myself usually getting out of other people's way when it's a question of "you or me," and am rarely cognizant of their skin color. You might say that I am not typical, but I _am_ white, so the racist argument doesn't hold up. From the point of view of experience, Mr. Want's claim is extraordinary to say the least, and perhaps limited to where he lives and a few other isolated places. White racism of the kind Want describes may have been prevalent before the civil rights movement of the late 60s, but I'd like to see a white person try to walk down 125th street in Harlem, or in any other Black, American Indian, or Hispanic neighborhood in North America without getting out of anybody's way and see if he doesn't get beat up. (Received: 16-APR-1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Opening the China-Net..........................................Qing Lu 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I urge to open China-NT as an unmoderated free forum for CSS discussion. It will give a wake-up call for IFCSS and exchange information and oppinions among CSS. The current president of IFCSS has done nothing but touring around the world with the excusing to cooperate with CSS around the world. You have done nothing but close down the CHINA-NT and obstruct free expression of CSS. You are no more democratic than Communist. The Vice president has done nothing but misrepresent CSS on MFN issue in the front of Congress. If you are on leave, please do not come back. Good luck guys. (Received: 8-Apr-1994) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Huang Tang Executive Moderator: Will Yang + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to: cnd.org[132.249.229.100]:pub/community/CCF + + gopher cnd.org: 2. English Menu --> 13. Community --> 1. ccf + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++