From @UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Thu May 19 01:34:25 1994 Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 01:34:11 -0400 Reply-To: YANG Chang-Qing Sender: China-Net From: YANG Chang-Qing Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9424) Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Wednesday, May 18, 1994 (No. 9424) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= 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 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -*- MFN: It Is about Time -*- 1. MFN --- A CSS Perspective Luo Ning and Liu Cheng 230 2. Time for IFCSS to Do Something to Save MFN Lu Ren 26 -*- Impression of Singapore -*- 3. Minding My Manners in Singapore David Molyneaux 61 -*- Between Reader and Writer -*- 4. Human Rights and "Interference with Internal Affairs" Lai Anzhi 146 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- Is MFN a moral, political, ethical, besides being an economic issue? Where does one draw the line as to where one issue ends and another starts? Moreover, what kind of decision/resolution can one make to appease all sides that have equal claims to being heard and respected, to say nothing about appeasing one's own conscience? In a larger sense, MFN concerns not just China and the US, but every country in the world both aided, strengthened and constrained by international relations. MFN epitomizes many of the dilemma in world politics today whose solution has never been quick, easy and clean. If the revoking of China's MFN status would not put a stop to all its human rights problems, and may on the contrary drive both countries either into a cul-de-sac, or another confrontation not unlike the recent memory of the Cold War, then its renewal, though a compromise on principle, may open up avenues and possibilities for negotiation, which is an indispensible step in maintaining any kind of bilateral relation. This is the moderate Chinese tactic, the way perhaps of the consummate diplomat and statesman. The authors of the first article, Luo Ning and Liu Cheng, while admiring the basic decency and moral integrity of the US government in adhering to and trying to preserve the human rights principle, remind us of the imminent possibility that revoking MFN may misfire and jeopardies the Chinese people's chances for prosperity, while compelling the Chinese government to again resort to nationalism to divert attention from its internal problems. Lu Ren, the author of the second article, however, who bluntly refers to Clinton's need for some "face-saving measures," seems skeptical about what motivated his Administration to impose conditional MFN on China. On the lighter side, we have an article that originally appeared on the Travel page of The Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest newspaper, on Sunday, May 15. David Molyneaux, the travel editor of the newspaper, expresses his misgivings about and dubious impressions of Singapore, which he pejoratively calls "a police state" because it prohibits graffiti, spitting, chewing gum, among other things, which greatly handicapped and offended the Yankee's love of freedom. In addition, we carry Lai Anzhi's quizzical but thoughtful response to Kan Liao's polemic article (CCF No.9422). In our special weekend edition to come out on Sunday morning, we will treat you with Phillip Saunders' detailed analysis of the economic consequences, on both sides, of discontinuing China's MFN status. As one written from an economic point of view, this article is highly readable, informative and surprisingly jargon-free. Scope and substance wise, it is the most comprehensive treatment of MFN available to us to date. With unparallel lucidity, it introduces you to the most basic facts about MFN, takes you through a historical overview of the roles MFN has played in Sino-US relation, and gives you a quantitive study of the losses both countries would have to sustain at the worst scenario. The sheer staggering amount of research and statistics cited by the author is both valuable and impressive. We recommend it to anyone who wishes to get to the bottom of things on MFN. Recently we received some comments, suggestions and criticisms from our readers on the editorship of CCF and the management of China-Nt. As usual we sincerely appreciate all these precious feedbacks as well as our readers' initiatives. We consider good communication between readers and editors essential in maintaining the quality and expanding the scope of our publication. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MFN --- A CSS Perspective Luo Ning and Liu Cheng 230 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Introduction The debate around the renewal of China's MFN status has almost become an annual ritual before June. However, the situation this year is very different from that in the last few years: this is the first year after the US Government (USG) decided to impose conditions other than those already existing in US laws on the renewal of the MFN status to China due to the Executive Order (EO) of the Clinton Administration last year; on the other hand the Chinese Government (CG) has clearly indicated since the beginning of this year that it will not bend to the threat of losing MFN. Therefore, while the USG has more economic and strategic reasons for renewing China's MFN status then ever, it also faces a real choice of whether or not to revoke China's MFN in case the responses of the CG cannot be interpreted as meeting the basic requirements in the EO. While there are many debates about whether, what or how conditions should be linked with the MFN status every year, it boils down now to the final decision of "to revoke or to renew" as the last moment is drawing near. In view of the critical role of the matter in the US-China relation, it is important to examine comprehensively all the potential impacts and risks associated with either decision. II. To revoke? It has been widely recognized that revoking the MFN status of China will lead to a serious consequences far beyond the issues of human rights and bilateral trade directly addressed in the EO: (1) The human rights principle of the USG is an integral part of this nation's foundation and has been highly respected by Chinese people. The foreign pressure after 1989 has indeed been instrumental in some small yet notable progresses in China's human rights condition, such as the release of a number of dissidents and the permission for international inspection of China's prison camps. In light of this major trend, we should not pay too much attention to some recent disturbances, but regard them as temporary setbacks in a long process. In view of the fundamental disagreements present between the two governments, it is unrealistic to expect that the condition should have changed drastically within such a short period of 12 months. In addition to the aforementioned direct impact, the profound restructuring of Chinese economy after 1989 which led to the high growth rate is in part resulted from Chinese government's effort to open up more economic opportunities to Chinese people in order to quiet down political unrest and to break up the economic sanctions of Western countries. The economic reform and development in the last few years have induced equally profound changes in fabrics of social life in China, which will contribute to the fundamental improvement of human rights condition in China in a long term to a degree much beyond what we have witnessed. Nothing would be more counterproductive to the cause of human rights by disrupting such a process in the name of human rights itself. (2) The concept of "conditional MFN" has evolved over the years. It has been suggested that if the US is to adopt measures to revoke China's MFN, they should be targeted at the state-sector economy only. This idea may provide some comfort as the punitive measures would not, as it is argued, damage the nascent private economy in China which is vital to the further reform of China's economic structure. However, the simplistic pattern of such a thinking may turn out to be self-deceiving. First, the current economic structure of China is not a simple dichotomy of "state vs. private". There is a large portion of the economy is under the name of "communal business", which is essentially privately run economy under the umbrella of state or collective owner-ship. In addition, almost all state enterprises have nowadays been allowed to have their employees run "sidekick" business in order to compensate their income. The entire Chinese economy is a conglomerate of various types business at all levels. It is therefore impossible to target "state sector" without spilling fires into all other sectors, not to mention the technical difficulty in identifying which importing goods are the products of the "state sector". Secondly, significant as it is, the bilateral trade with US is not the only driving force of the fast growth of Chinese economy. In addition to the growing trade with other developed countries, the domestic market of such a huge country as well as the trade with the fast growing East Asia economy and the newly opened trading routes to Russia and Central Asia countries have also played important role. The punitive measures targeted at those state enterprises doing business with US will drive them away from US and toward other trading partners, or to hurt them more relative to those backward parts of the state economy which have not engaged fully in the market forces of the international trade and are the ones needed change the most. (3) The humiliating experiences of China in the 100 years or so after 1840 have planted xenophobia deeply into the collective psyche of Chinese people. The nationalistic sentiment has been the single most powerful driving force in the modern history of China which all main political camps have tried to use. This powerful and often irrational force has brought several major disasters to Chinese as well as American people. It was the force for Chinese government to rally the support of its people in the Korean War, less than a decade after WWII in which US and China were allies, and in the Vietnam War, which lasted for more than a decade and dominated a large part of the Cold War Era, caused hundreds of thousands deaths of the people in the countries they were fought and in US and China. It was also the real force drove China into extreme craze of xenophobia and total isolation in the "Cultural Revolution" during which China proclaimed itself as "the center of world revolution" and zealously supported all violent revolutionary forces around the globe. Thanks to the reaction of Chinese people toward the legacy of decades of revolutionary fervor --- extreme poverty and an economy on the verge of total collapse, and the pragmatic vision of the leaders in US and China, the relation between the two great nations had took a dramatic turn in 1972 and has since been on an upward road. In fact, the US-China relation has played a pivotal role in the ending of the Cold War and in the inception of the new world order in the Post-Cold War era. However, it must be recognized that the full scale open-door policy of the Chinese government and the open-mindedness of Chinese people toward Western ideas in the last 15 years are not the norm in the modern history of China. The memory of the last 150 years is still in the back of mind of Chinese people and has not been totally replaced with more recent experiences. As the original motivations for US and China to go together in 1970's have disappeared together with the Cold War, as the two countries are still in search of their proper roles in the emerging new world order, the come-back of nationalistic sentiment is a natural phenomenon in the soul-searching process. Our personal experiences and knowledge about China tell us that there has been indeed a surge of new wave of nationalism in the public sentiment of China in recent couple of years. The future trend of Chinese political development is prone to nationalistic pressure due to many factors, including the social unrest in China resulted from fast changing economic and social orders; the vulnerability of the political system during the imminent power transition at the top level; the failure of "Shock Therapy", an American scenario, for economic reform and the rise of Slavophilism in Russia; the fast economic growth of China and East Asia relative to developed West which leads to an increasing confidence and strength of these fast-growing economies and their urge to seek a more equal partnership in the world affairs; the general rise of protectionism in the West, and of the "anti-West" sentiment in the developing world. Adding to this delicate situation is the unfortunate fact that, although it may be designed to help the people in China and has indeed generated some positive results, the EO has already been perceived by many Chinese people as a hostile gesture toward China as a nation. Several recent surveys among overseas Chinese students, scholars and people in other professions indicate that such a feeling is shared by many of them, and therefore cannot be simply labeled as a result of "communist propaganda" in China. The factors leading to such a perception are complicated, but it signals the need for improved communications between the two nations if the policy is to achieve its intended goals. III. To renew? It has been argued that, if the USG decides to renew the MFN status for China this year in view of the recent mixed reactions of the CG, it may paralyze any future effort by the US or other foreign governments to help improve human rights conditions in China, or even reverse the trend of the gradual liberalization of Chinese society if a wrong message is sent to the CG by the renewal. However, important as it is, foreign pressure is neither the only nor the major force which drives China's social and political evolution forward. It is more essential to develop and nurture the basic mutual understanding and positive interactions between the peoples in order that both nations could be benefitted from the mutual relations, rather than to focus all attention on the interplays between the two governments. IV. Conclusion At the moment, the ball is in the hands of the Clinton Administration. Facing criticisms from all sides, the decision is not easy. It is a critical test on the capability of this first post-WWII generation president in handling such a foreign relation crisis with visions beyond the domestic conflicts of interests. The stake in risking revocation of China's MFN status is too high to be tempted with. A miscommunication may send a wrong message to the people of China. Without the popular support of Chinese people, the effort to improve human rights condition fundamentally will be impossible to succeed. A miscalculation may damage the bilateral and global trade far beyond the degree and scope intended and may even trigger to an irreversible trend leading to the break down of the emerging Pacific Rim economic cooperation. A misjudgment may tip the delicate balance of forces in Post-Cold War era and push the world into an vicious "East vs. West" confrontation. On the other hand, by virtue of moderation, US government could avoid turning its efforts in promoting human rights into an inflexible "sacred war"; by believing in its own ideals, it should be confident that the idea of liberty will prevail in time; by grasping the reality in this critical moment in history, it can take the leadership in building the new world order with a more equal, communicative and cooperative role in dealing with other countries, and by strengthening rather than weakening the relation between US and China, it will establish a major highway linking US with the fastest growing economies in East Asia, which will be a vital element in the formation of Pacific Rim economic cooperative zone as a cornerstone for a peaceful and prosperous global order in the twenty-first century. Although there are means to inform US policy makers about our concerns, it is more difficult to reach China's policy makers. As a group of people having the unique experiences of the two countries, we owe the two nations the duty to promote their mutual understanding. One thing that we overseas Chinese can and should do is to communicate with the people in China, share with them our concerns. In particular, it has to be recognized that it would suicidal to stir up xenophobia among Chinese people again. A mature nation should not use its frustrations to excuse itself for irrational behaviors. In the long run, the CG has to take the initiative to resolve its fixation on the total control over the basic freedom of the Chinese people. This does not necessarily mean that Chinese people have no choice but to accept the interpretation of the United Nations' Declaration on Human Rights identical to that of the USG, after all there are variations about the interpretation among nations, or even within American people. The CG has acknowledged that there are human rights problems in China, and human rights is a universal problem of importance. It is therefore imperative for China to take initiatives in the human rights issues in the world. For example, the CG has criticized the human rights condition in the US. If this is not just an excuse to fence off "foreign interventions", what could China do to help US to improve its human rights condition? What are the human rights abuses in other countries and what should China do about them? Only by taking an active role in the effort of improving human rights around world, rather than staying passive and being pushed around whenever the MFN renewal comes around, could China be recognized by the global community as an equal partner in the human rights affairs, a vital area in the international relationship since WWII and beyond the 20th century, and be accepted as a true responsible world power. Only by engaging in a dialogue and collaboration among equal partners, could all the people in different nations go beyond their own respective point of views and reach basic understanding of those with different cultural background, and could our home planet shed off the dark prophecy of "clash of civilizations". China, with almost a quarter of the people in the world and with a culture rich in tradition and distinctively different from the Western culture, should contribute its due share to a bright future for the global village and by doing so China will also carry forward its ancient heritage and become truly modern. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Time for IFCSS to Do Something to Save MFN Lu Ren 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The final decision of MFN is coming. President Clinton mostly probably will decide to grant the MFN to China. But he needs some face-saving measures. So, for the benefit of the Chinese people, we, the oversea chinese and our representatives, IFCSS, should push for the renewal of MFN and at the same time keep the pressure on human right issue. To this end, IFCSS should go to the Congress and the administration to tell them that the consensus in the Chinese community seems to be that the MFN is a clumsy weapon for human right issue. As the revoke of MFN will cause tremendous problems for a vast number of Chinese people, it may not lend much help to the human rights issue. What we want to see is the continuing prosperity of the Chinese economy in conjunction with bilateral trade and the improvement of human right condition in China. We can ask the Clinton administration to grant China MFN while attach human right issue to some other forms of sanction such as withholding some loans or aids or increase tariff for state-runed business. This will minimize the impact of the punishment and also give some incentives for China to improve human rights and switch the economy to private market economy. I hope IFCSS will listen to the voices from the Chinese Community and do the right thing. We all understand that we should keep the pressure on human right issue, but MFN is a big cannon for this, and a lot of innocent people will be hurt. The reputation and effectiveness of IFCSS will also suffer if the few officers continue to ignore the opinions of the vast majority of oversea chinese students and scholars. We only have one month left. We should act now. In this way, we will also gain some support from the business community both in the U.S. and in China. We will continue to work on human right issue to change the adverse political climate in China now. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 3. Minding My Manners in Singapore David Molyneaux 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I returned to Cleveland from Singapore uncaned. But, then, I didn't add any graffiti to the landscape, either. Nor did I spit on the sidewalk, feed the birds or chew gum, though I worried a little about needing a haircut. All of these offenses are taken seriously by the Singapore government and may eventually earn this Asian enclave the unflattering description often associated with New York City: Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Ironically, while New York's crime, dirt and unapologetic rudeness merit its negative reputation as a place to call home, Singapore's is just the opposite. But who wants to live in a police state? Still, at times, tough governments are enticing. Surely, you'll never have a nicer ride into a major city from the airport. Roadway is lined with luch greenery and flowers. In fact, the whole of Singapore, a city-state on the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, is as well landscaped as it's policed. Singapore residents have places to live and are well mannered. You want to feel accepted? Get a haircut. Shine your shoes. Speak respectfully. And don't jaywalk. Yes, Singapore is clean, green and -- as we know after the caning of Dayton teenager Michael Fay -- mean. But unless your activities go against the norm, you won't notice the meanness in Singapore. For tourists, one of Singapore's primary selling points is its safety and cleanliness. On this trip, I assure you, I behaved myself. In two days, I ate well, slept well, enjoyed a delightful tour of the city, and kept my saliva to myself. These days, lots of international travelers find themselves in Singapore as a jumping off place for cruises or as part of trip to Bangkok, Hong Kong or Tokyo. Singapore Airlines is one of the world's best. The city is usually a stop of two of three days, during which Singapore's charms will keep you occupied: shopping on Orchard Rd., eating in the Middle Eastern and Asian ethnic neighborhoods, doing a bit of sightseeing and perhaps taking a cable car to Sentosa Island for the popular Maritime Museum. Even if you're here only a matter of hours, Singapore offers free tours of the city from the high-tech Changi Airport. Singapore is serious about its image. Its tourist office provides a batch of helpful brochures and guides, including my favorite, A Guide to Honest, Reliable and Courteous Shops. How Singaporean. For information, contact the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, 590 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y. 10036; phone (212)-302-4861. Despite all the talk during the past few months about the government's caning of Fay because of his vandalism, traveling in Singapore usually is a casual and relaxing affair. It's nothing like venturing through the old Soviet Union where the military's presence and dour rigidity were constant reminders that the law was looking over your shoulder, tapping your phone and listening to who knows what. In Singapore, I barely noticed the long arm of the law -- that is, until I made a horrible error at the airport. I had caught a head cold -- they're legal here -- and I wanted to make certain that all my passageway would be clear during the takeoffs and landings on the way back to the United States. After buying pills and tissues, I asked a clerk in the airport drugstore for chewing gum. Dumb-di-dum-dumb. At the mention of chewing gum, all conversation in the little airport shop came to halt. Customers stared. A woman gasped. The clerk shook her head. And flogging by a wet cane no doubt crossed somebody's mind. But at least I had my wits about me. Quickly, I changed my order from gum to gummy bears, grabbed my belongings and hurried out of Singapore, my buttocks intact. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 4. Human Rights and "Interference with Internal Affairs" Lai Anzhi 146 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- After reading Mr. Kan Liao's long (206 lines) article "On Real Politics and Human Rights" on CCF #9422, I can't help writing something. Mr. Liao started from the case of Michael Fay, which served as a prelude to what he, sometimes rather emotionally, spent most of his effort on. Generally speaking, I hold rather different point of view from what he does regarding the human rights issue, especially the human rights that we Chinese people enjoy. I have no dispute on the Michael Fay case: he violated the law in Singapore, then he should be dealt with according to the laws there. I agree that any others' comments regarding whether the sentence he got is a violation of human rights were merely their own value judgements. Then Mr. Liao continued by asking the question, "is that the value judgement over the law?" Of course not. He implied that if someone tries to do that, then he will "lift the stone to hammer one's own feet." All true. The puzzle to me is: who is trying to do that? Who is trying to overwrite the laws in Singapore? I do not see anybody. Probably based on this assumption that someone (some groups) is trying to overwrite the laws of Singapore, Mr. Liao went on to his key point with very emotional words: the West (represented by Uncle Sam) interferes with the East (represented by China?) under the name of Human Rights, and especially, he claimed "Universal human rights, how many innocent people lost their life under that holy phrase!". I do not know if his this latter statement was based on one of his another statements "if we did not kill you, you will still be killed by your dictator. All we did is to improve your human rights, and we have that moral authority thing too." I am afraid that I can not agree to these statements. No only that, I feel that these were very unfair, or at least fell short of material to support, or mixed up with different issues. For very long, I have observed this kind of mentality: you can not criticise me, otherwise, you are interfering with my internal affairs. This is not something unique to the CCP, but rather popular among us -- the so-called "well-educated, intelligent, ethical and having seen one thing or two" Chinese. Every country, including the USA and Singapore, has human rights problems in a broad sense; therefore, every country is subjected to criticism in this regard. Facing this kind of problem, all countries can have different approach to make effort to shorten the distance between each other. But, if a country (or its well-educated elite) blankly denies its problem, be it the USA or China or Singapore, by stonewalling the criticism using "interfering with my internal affairs" as an excuse, and if this mentality is applied to all international affairs, there won't be at all an international community, from which most are trying to gain and are gaining benefit. The interactions among all nations require every involved party to adjust its own standards and behaviour (unless it does not want to be a member of the international community). In these interactions, every nation has its own value. On the other hand, every country has to give up its own value to some extent so that a common ground can be reached for these interactions to happen; as simple as that. How do these nations know what to hold and what to give up? Through negotiations, arguments, criticisms, and sometimes even some tough political/diplomatic deals. Only through this way, could the world be going forward; only through this way, could a country gain more than it loses. Really, it is just like doing business in a partnership, you can't have this mentality: I only want to gain something from the partnership but I never want to give up anything, or, if you, as my partner, want me to change something, then you are interfering with my internal affairs. It is absolutely amazing to know "Universal human rights, how many innocent people lost their life under that holy phrase!". A simple fact: more than 40 million died in China from 1959 to 1962 (how many died during the 8-year-long anti-Japanese war?), and we do not know how many died during the Cultural Revolution. I am not sure whether this was a consequence of "universal human rights" or a "universal humiliation". It is true "After some 150 years of humiliation, we Chinese people now start to enjoy some human rights as real human being not someone's hand-offs as animals.", which should probably be credited largely to the CCP who made China an independent nation and thus prevented it from external (foreign) violation of Chinese people's human rights. However, what about the INTERNAL (domestic) violation of the same people's human rights? I would suggest Mr. Liao take a look at this front. Forget about what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, here is a very simple question: Could Mr Liao (or would Mr Liao dare to) speak out in China like what he did here in his article with the languages as they were, if the target was not Uncle Sam but the Red Sun of China on the issue of, for example, Qian1 Dao3 Hu2 event? Yes, Chinese people are protected from human rights violation by foreign "devils", but I am not sure that we are protected from human rights violation by domestic "devils", if I am allowed to use languages like this. Just take a look at numerous reports in the recent couple of years, if we should forget about anything more than three years ago. Note that I am not even talking about the fancy freedom of speech that sort of thing, I am only talking about the right of a decent life, especially that of those poor peasants in remote countryside. It is no use to deny the fact that we have serious human rights problems back home in China by accusing the others of interfering our internal affairs. As the so-called well-educated Chinese, as Mr Liao and I myself are supposed to be, we should have enough courage to do whatever we can to make our country a land of prosperity as well as decency for human life, rather than to blind our eyes, self-enjoy the "human rights" we have got (are we enjoying "some human rights" here or there?), and treat the international criticism as "being offered a second-hand Hyundai at the price of a brand-new Mercedes". To finish up, let me quote some of what Mr Liao said in his article with some of my "second-hand" questions below. "In a better world, we shall not fear being harassed by authority, and equally important we shall not fear being victimized by crimes." How do you avoid being harassed by authority for speaking out on the other side of the globe, and how can you not fear Qian1 Dao3 Hu2 type of crime, which the authority tried very hard to cover up? "In a better world, the criminals like Michael Fay will get their deserved punishments, not like Rodney King is exalted by NAACP as civil rights fighter and is awarded $3.8 million tax dollars without being punished for his part." What do you think of the corruption on the other side of the earth that are so often not punished? What do you think of those many girls raped in Guangdong villages and the rapists often get away than not? "In a better world, people shall act responsibly not capriciously to their fellow human beings. In a better world, the music which inspires us shall be those of Beethevon's not those of Kurt Cobain's." How do you think of those capricious party policies that often overwrite the however superficial laws, and how do you think of the song of Dong1 Fang1 Hong2, which we used to hear and sing every day in China? "In a better world, weak ones shall not that often be wronged by the strong ones." How do you evaluate those Yuan1 Jia3 Cuo4 An4 falling on our innocent country fellows (even including Mr Deng Xiaoping, who is said to be a strong man) these many years in China? "In a better world, the democratic forms of government shall include all the forms of representative government not just the popular contested form." Do we have a democratic form of government? Do we have a representative in the Chinese government? "In a better world, human rights shall be defined by all the people on the earth not just less than 10% of the people in those powerful nations." How about the definition that human rights are basically equal to the rights of survival defined by the less than 0.0001% people in the center of the Red Sun of China? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Yingyin Xu Executive Moderator: Changqing 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 unsubscription: mail "UNSUB CHINA-NT" to the above e-address + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to: cnd.org[132.249.229.100]: pub/community/CCF + + gopher to cnd.org: 2. English Menu --> 13. Community --> 1. ccf + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++