From @UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Thu Jun 2 15:01:17 1994 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 15:00:20 -0400 Reply-To: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Sender: China-Net From: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9429) 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 ==+==+==+=== Thursday, June 2, 1994 (No. 9429) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= 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: End or Beginning? -*- 1. A New Experiment Begins ............................... Anzhi Lai 59 2. MFN and IFCSS ......................................... Yuhe Liu 93 3. Set the Record Straight First, Then Argue ............. Chenjian Li 50 4. Reshape IFCSS' Working Priorities ..................... Yinrong Huang 48 5. A Human Rights Case: Intriguing and Enlightening ...... Daniel Qiu 37 6. Root Canal, etc. ...................................... Min Yang 32 7. Tree And Fish ......................................... Houpao Ma 62 Letters to the Editor ................................. Diwei Liu, Ty Hu 39 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- Aren't we all just glad that it's over? Or is it? As a by-product of a tragedy, we have witnessed the mainland Chinese students and scholars (CSS) in the US coming to an unprecedented unity following the 6/4 massacre in 1989, only to see the community deeply divided a few short years afterwards as never before, over the issue of US Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China. Temper roared high, and heated words filled the air, especially during the "merry, merry month of May," ever since the US Congress mandated the President to review China's MFN status by June every year. The debate became even more lively as President Clinton took office and the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS), arguably the most visible organization in the CSS community in US, continued lobbying for attaching human rights (HR) conditions to MFN renewal. As if acronyms were in grave shortage, special acronyms were swiftly created categorizing people's stands on this issue: CMFNers (conditional MFN) and UMFNers (unconditional MFN). The vast CSS community suddenly fell into a simple binary ensemble, with no middle ground in between. President Clinton's decision has eliminated the necessity for such debates, at least for the foreseeable future. Some cheer, some shrug, some sigh, while still others cry. Nothing surprising nor particularly interesting about that. However, we feel that there is much to be reflected upon, and learned from, our somewhat painful experience. Perhaps only after the outcome becomes certainty can we put aside our emotions and discuss the issue in a more civilized and open-minded manner. Or, in accordance with the Buddhist and the Confucius principles, we may feel a little easier to conduct some self- examination only when we no longer have to worry about the results. In addition, many think it is time to heal the bruises and consolidate instead of settle the score, to embrace each other rather than oneself. More important implications of such a reflection lye in the forward direction of time. Now that the US has abandoned the strategy of imposing public pressure on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in improving its human rights records, is there any hope for the human rights situation in China to improve in the near future? If so, what can the CSS community do to enhance the prospect? How should we go about such a formidable undertaking without unwarranted distractions such as "internal dissipation"? Apparently a sizable portion of CSS intend to stay in the US permanently. Where should/would their "loyalty" be placed if a direct conflict between the interests of US and China were ever to occur? It is perhaps sadly humorous, or humorously sad, realizing that we may have been fighting a windmill after all. How many CSS can honestly claim any credit whatsoever in influencing the US policy regarding the MFN issue either way? Yet all is not wasted. The CSS community has gone through a serious test. A test on our skills to operate as a community, on whether we can co-exist in peace and respect each other while remaining different, and on how much we truly understand the meaning of human rights and democracy, the heavenly goal for which many of our country fellows have paid the ultimate price. (CCF will present a special issue commemorating the fifth anniversary of the 6/4 massacre.) How did we fare in this test? No matter how one grades oneself, more tests are lurking beneath the horizon. The trial never ends. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. A New Experiment Begins.....................................Anzhi Lai 59 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Clinton's decision on renewing China's MFN and further de-linking human rights from the MFN issue dropped a curtain for the drama. Is it a good or bad decision? Let me use a Chinese phrase: Ren2 Zhe3 Jian4 Ren2, Zhi4 Zhe3 Jian4 Zhi4, although I myself have been a supporter of conditioning MFN. It appears to me that Clinton's decision was largely based on so-called "interest" consideration. In other words, the interest involved is too big a factor to be over-written by whatever "principle" he claimed he held. I really do not think that his decision is too much a surprise to me (or to anyone), especially taking into account the fact that he broke so many promises he had made before. No matter what his decision indicates, we are entering a new frame of Sino-US relation, and of the overseas Chinese' campaign in promoting human rights in China. No doubt that the five-year-long MFN debate has deeply divided the CSS community. It has confused many of us even on the very basic belief of "all human beings are born equal", which is the basis of the human rights concept. Now, some people are celebrating the victory of unconditional MFN; some are feeling betrayed or lost. In my personal point of view, neither is wise or necessary. There are still many questions to be answered. The end of the linkage of MFN with human rights actually provides us with a chance to address those questions more deeply and more rationally, provided that we, the so-called well-educated Chinese, are sincere about our own country instead of just being interested in "I am on the right/wrong side". If we say that the practice in the past five years was an experiment, which people have to stop for whatever reason, a new experiment begins now. This new experiment will eventually answer (I hope) this question: will the worry-free trade between China and the United States advance China's political reform (including the human rights situation), which has been at least CLAIMED by all as of concern? This experiment will also impose challenges to many of us. It also imposes challenges to the US politicians, but it is another issue, which really does not have much to do with us. For those who believe that de-lingking human rights from MFN will stimulate China's economic development, and that such development will not only make Chinese people better-off economically but also automatically bring about political reform, this new experiment will put their belief on the line. I very much hope that will turn out to be the case. Some years down the road, they, along with the rest of the CSS community, will see the outcome. For those (I as one of them) who believe that no political reform is possible under the CCP rule unless outside pressure, such as MFN, is applied, it is imperative to find the role that they can play in this new experiment. Do they have the wisdom and courage to find the right tool to promote human rights in China? Or can they only rely on some foreign country's support, which is proven to be very uncertain? Time can not be reversed. However, this MFN drama is, in some sense, a reversal of time in terms of conducting a new experiment in sharp contrast to the stopped one. After this experiment, we all will be much more clear- minded in knowing China and the Chinese system, and we all will be much more mature about what to do. Let me finish this short essay by congratulating those who have advocated for unconditional MFN over the past five years, and by hoping that this new experiment/frame of the Sino-US relation will help bring about a China of prosperity and dignity for Chinese people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. MFN and IFCSS ......................................... Yuhe Liu 93 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The MFN issue was finally over. For the past 5 years, IFCSS, as the driving force for promoting the MFN with the HR conditions, has made tremendous efforts on this issue. Also because of this issue, IFCSS herself has became controversial. By looking back in time, we may learn something. Since IFCSS started her lobbying activities, she has made her stand clearly and firmly that the US should renew MFN to China, with the condition that Chinese Government improves the human rights of Chinese people. This strategy was based on the threat that, if the Chinese government failed to improve the human rights in China, it would lose MFN, which was crucial for China's economic development. This strategy had been quite effective and productive for years after the June 4th event. The Chinese government was forced to stop, or at least soften the massive, nationwide political persecutions in China, and release hundreds of prisoners whose arrests were associated with the movement in 1989. The reason for the success was because of the combination of the international "global climate" and China's "local-climate". The June 4th massacre attracted the worldwide attention and caused international political and economic sanctions. Meanwhile, inside China, the government was facing tremendous resentment from the Chinese people and China's economy was in deep recession. Therefore, the government had to adopt the strategy of retreat. On the other hand, in the US, the angered Democrats in the Congress tried very hard to assert more pressure on the Chinese government. The MFN issue was one of their means. The Chinese government was not the only target of the MFN strategy. The Republican President, Mr. Bush, was the other one. It was the balance from the Republican President that the MFN survived and the US Congress, as well as IFCSS, had no hesitation in pushing the issue. And it was the hard pushing that made revoking MFN appearing to be a real possibility. For anything that can be used as a threat, there must be a basic assumption that the threatened consequences would materialize if certain conditions are not met. That was the case in the first few years. But things were changing. When the Democrats won the White House, the balancing mechanism was gone. On the other hand, the Chinese government has gotten out of the economic recession and successfully drawn the Chinese people's attention to money. The issue had only two outcomes: to revoke MFN as the last resort, or to de-link MFN from human rights and preparing for "long term engagement," as Mr. Clinton said in his announcement. Actually revoking MFN would not only involve money, but also close China's already opened door, destroy China's emerging market economy, increase the risk of social instability, and cause further setbacks in the human rights situation. If the US government were a dictatorship, we wouldn't be able to predict what would happen. As a democratic government, most likely the US would have to avoid the aforementioned risks. Therefore, even though Mr. Clinton issued an executive order to formally link MFN to certain human rights conditions, yet we didn't actually see any substantial improvement in human rights in China, he had to de-link the two issues. This didn't mean the victory of the Chinese government, since MFN was only used as a tool and it indeed resulted in certain progress. The game is not over. As this issue has gone to its end, others will be found. It was just a strategy change. In this game, IFCSS didn't achieve her goal of promoting human rights in China. (Could you expect the Chinese Government to improve human rights substantially in China so easily?) But the experience of being involved in the US democratic political system, the relations established to the Congress, the government, and the American society, the growing up of IFCSS herself as a nationwide organization in the CSS community, all these were the gains to the IFCSS. They will help IFCSS a lot in the future. On the other hand, with the weak leadership and the poor communication to the ordinary CSS grassroots, IFCSS has shown its insensibility and inflexibility to the changing world, and failed to adjust her strategy and policy accordingly. When the Democrats won the presidency, as a Council member I have openly called for IFCSS to drop the issue and change her strategy. Well, changing was not easy. During the 5th IFCSS Congress, a bill seeking to re-evaluate the stand on the MFN issue was laid on the table. Although this didn't change the policy, it did reflect the delegates' concerns. On the other hand, the issue was so complicated that it almost caused a split in our community. IFCSS didn't pay enough attention to communicating with our CSS to explain her strategy well. Even more unfortunately, some leaders disregarded the IFCSS policy and substituted it with personal emotions in their actions. They did not focus their attention to the long term strategy and often tried radical action. The hunger strike in front of the White House advocating revocation of MFN was a very telling example. If you read the statement issued by the IFCSS HQ, you would feel how disappointed some IFCSS leaders felt about Clinton's decision. But I was not disappointed by Clinton's decision. In contrary I was disappointed by the hunger strike and the HQ's statement. The HQ's statement made the decision sounded like the end of the world. It was so pale and passive, lacking understanding and confidence. It again showed the IFCSS leadership's political immaturity. The leadership's mistakes would have made IFCSS divorced from her grassroots. The IFCSS will have to make a lot of extra efforts to gain it back. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Set the Record Straight First, Then Argue.................Chenjian Li 50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friends, this mail is not intended to argue, but to clarify an important and yet always confusing fact: IFCSS 5th congress' resolution on the MFN renewal issue. At the 5th IFCSS congress, a resolution was proposed and brought to floor for debate. It proposed to continue lobbying the US Congress to attach human rights condition to MFN. The IFCSS representatives from all school were very serious about it, and the debate was rational but heated. The result was that neither side could convince the other, and a motion was passed to lay the resolution on the table, because "since this is such a sensitive matter, and we don't have enough information, nor thorough thinking and discussion." So the 5th congress didn't have a clear resolution. That is the bottom line. What does it mean? It means people at that time were very concerned but couldn't decide. I have seen 3 mis-interpretations among CSS, veterans, and IFCSS officers. Mis-interpretation #1: The 5th congress passed the resolution to lobby the US Congress -- this is a false statement. We didn't have that resolution. Mis-interpretation #2: Since we didn't have any decision on the 5th congress, then NATURALLY we should use the 4th term resolution as a guideline -- Wrong. The fact that, after debate, the 5th congress couldn't pass it, means there was a serious doubt against the lobby strategy. This failure of passage itself reflected the 5th congress reps, at least not the majority, were not supportive to the lobby idea. Mis-interpretation #3: Since the 5th congress didn't pass the resolution, it means we should favor unconditional MFN -- Wrong. We didn't pass that either; there wasn't even a proposal to favor unconditional MFN. The failure of passing the above mentioned bill DOESN'T automatically validate unconditional MFN. In addition to the above 3 misconceptions, there is another wrong idea: Since the poll (not by IFCSS) showed majority support for unconditional MFN, IFCSS HQ should pursue along this direction -- Wrong. A public poll can serve as a reference for us to make decision, but it is not a decision itself! WHAT CAN WE DO? The only way out, if we want to have a clear management of the situation and to define HQ's duty, is to pass a resolution from the Council, providing clear, non-misinterpretable rules, be it pro- or con- conditional MFN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Reshape IFCSS' Working Priorities........................Yinrong Huang 48 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just received a wide-spread email message from the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS) Headquarter. In the message, they expressed those so-called democratic fighters' feelings about the renewal of the most-favored nation (also most misunderstood) trading status for China and about the de-linking of MFN and human rights in China. Unfortunately, they felt very sad about the decision and felt being betrayed by the President. I think I understand their feelings, even though I am very happy and excited to see that ordinary Chinese people in the mainland of China, not those so- called "elite" Chinese in USA and not those Chinese Americans, will benefit the most from this decision both economically in the near future and politically in the long run. I believe that economical structure determines the political structure of one society. Without economical development and educational advancement, the political situation in China won't change too much. I was too young to experience the "Great Cultural Revolution". When are people freer to speak their minds: now or during Mao's rule? The answer is on the table, unless you are determined to tell lies with your beautiful eyes widely open (zheng1 da4 yan3 shuo1 jia3 hua2). This message is only to remind everyone of the functions performed by this IFCSS. Does it only serve as a channel for those democracy (more accurately put, green-card) fighters? Or does it serve as a real association which will fight for those honest Chinese students, scholars, and businessmen, whether they are temporarily or permanently in the United States of America? As a Chinese student, I hope that the leadership of IFCSS will serve the interests of mainland Chinese students, scholars, and businessmen in the AMERICANsociety. Of course, we should express our deepest concerns about, and fight for, human rights in China. However, this organization should pay more attention to the human rights of those innocent students, scholars and businessmen in this free and democratic society. Otherwise, even though our human rights are violated, we still don't do anything but cry out for those people's rights which may not be violated in China. Stop paying too much attention to THEN, THERE events, it is the right time to begin to pay more attention to NOW, HERE events. Let's fight for our own human rights in this country, not uselessly cry out for their human rights in that country. Let's fight for our own human dignity in this country. Don't let CBS or other news media accuse us as potential spies for the Chinese Government without any ground. If you read the CBS news scripts and really understand them, you will get an impression that every mainland student, scientist, and businessperson is questioned before they depart China for USA. This is simply untrue. Not everyone is recruited as a spy by the Chinese Government. I hope this organization really does something useful to the majority of Chinese community, not just to a few "elite" clan. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. A Human Rights Case: Intriguing and Enlightening...........Daniel Qiu 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the end of 1989 or early 1990, the General Assembly of the United Nation passed the International Convention for Child's Protection. Most countries in the world have ratified the Convention, except a handful. Singapore and Iraq are among the few. And, guess what, the United States of America is one of them. Yes, after four and half years, the Congress of the United States still refuses to ratify the International Convention for Child's Protection. Among the reasons: they do not want "the international bureaucrats to tell us what to do and not to do". Isn't it amazing, intriguing and enlightening? I always thought that the US Congress, among all, have been strongly campaigning for universal human rights. Why, all the sudden, it becomes intolerable having others tell "us" what to do and not to do? Sure, I guess "we" shall have no problem to tell others what to do and not to do since "we" have the highest moral authority given by God, but not vise versa. Was it Confucius who said that you should not impose what you don't like to others? I am confused. Or may be not, since Confucius has no moral authority in this "land of freedom and human rights" at all. I am wondering where the "human rights community" stands on this matter. Have not heard a word on this from Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, during the past four and half years, have we? Well, I overheard that it might be possible that by the end of this year (!), the US Congress may possibly ratify the Convention. Just a maybe. And it is a "maybe possible". Sigh. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Root Canal, etc............................................. Min Yang 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- President Clinton's decision on the MFN, i.e. the Most Frustrating Nag on trading with China, ended an annual root canal, as a former State Department official put it. Cute. I mean this former official. Inside China's skull, (the mouth is part of a skull, I assume) there are some damn rotten teeth. What else do you expect from octogenarian? When the skull's got some rotten teeth, the entire body aches, which makes the face twist in a funny fattened shape, red as lovely peach blossom. Oddly enough, somebody else suffers the pain, too, even to the extent that he (I mean this somebody else) has to prepare for an annual root canal himself and to endure this pain in order to treat the patient. When the octogenarian in Zhongnanhai got teeth that are hopelessly rotten, the entire body of China feels the pain, especially when the teeth turn out to be damn sharp and nasty in biting its own flesh. Solution? Pulling off the teeth, or conducting root canal. Inside the dragon's skull? No way. So, root canal thyself -- that's what Clinton was advised to do. And so he did. And NO MORE, he screamed, gentlemanly. Now he is OK. When Dr. Clinton stops this root canal on himself, supposedly treating the stubborn patient's tooth and pains, "WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THIS PATIENT?" some people are crying. "Well...," Dr. Clinton shrugged. Do you have answers to those crying people? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Tree And Fish...............................................Houpao Ma 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calvin and Hobbes decided to go fishing. The natural place to try their luck at first is, of course, the tree in the backyard bearing their tree house. It wasn't their day. They couldn't catch anything there. So Hobbes said:"Argh! Let's try the little pond over there, just for the heck of it." Calvin felt enormously betrayed, and expressed his feelings with his typical modesty: "Are you saying you're gonna just walk away and forget about fishing, YOU FAITHLESS LITTLE LIAR???!!!" Yup, de-linking human rights and trade does not necessarily mean abandoning the former. It was a mistake to link the two at the first place. Many HR activists are worried that, without the real beef, the US will lose any leverage in influencing the Chinese government to improve the HR situation there. Some people cited the powerful example of South Africa. In my opinion, they are mistaking CG as just another government. General assessment aside, most Chinese seem to approve of one thing CCP has done since Mao, i.e., standing up against most of the pressure and attempts to humiliate from powerful foreign, especially western, countries. This sentiment is apparently due to the long history of glamourous culture and indisputable power, followed by the painful experience of constant humiliation and invasion from foreign powers over the last two centuries. Like it or not, I believe everyone who has a passing knowledge on the recent history (meaning since the beginning of time, in terms of US history) of China would agree that it is a fact. Consequently, "face" is one of the utmost concerns for CCP in international politics. In public, CCP could appear to be stubborn and unreasonable, even to the extent of being insane, on a particular issue. Close the door and put up with a friendly tone, you would often find it suddenly much more flexible and cooperative. Unlike the US government, CCP doesn't have the burden of worrying about consistency or public scrutiny in policy. Then there was this "Milky Way" incident. "What's to be said about such a trivial no nothin'?" Americans would say. Well, it may be news to some that more than 100 PLA generals immediately wrote to the central government, demanding tough reaction to the US in response to this "humiliation to our nation and people." (This is hearsay of mine, though.) During a recent trip to China, I found almost all ordinary Chinese (*BEEP* ESPIONAGE ALERT!) whom I asked about their thoughts on the incident tended to agree with that assessment. No wonder CCP has shown an extra-stiff neck lately. Yelling out in public your demands to CCP simply will not work, unless the whole outside world joins the chorus, in which case it may or may not be effective. Judging from Clinton's decision on MFN, I think he has learnt the trick. I believe the Administration will be able to influence CCP on the human rights issue much more effectively from now on. One HR activist moaned on hearing the decision: "Don't tell me the human rights of 1 billion people are more important than those of one. They're the same." Such is the true spirit of individualism, indeed, which has been buried too deep due to the traditional emphasis on collectivism in China. But then, wouldn't the following question be more appropriate? Would it be fair to ask 1 billion people to suffer for the possibility of improving the human rights condition for one? Yet the possibility is only potential, as used by Connie Chung, and whimsical, as Connie Chung's deep thoughts (or as in Saturday Night Live)? ===========***==========***Letters to the Editors***==========***=========== i) From Diwei Liu ...................................................... 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the Ad Hoc Committee on MFN for China. I had not learnt about this campaign until Clinton announced his renewal of China's MFN. If I had, I would have signed on it. I am sure that if more people had heard of this campaign, they would have signed on that letter, too. I've never met anybody from IFCSS, nor has any of my friends. Sometimes, when several friends got together, we exchanged our concerns over China's MFN. We all wondered how IFCSS made their policy decision and what their policy base is. Are they really Chinese? It looks like that it does not care what will be happening to the ordinary Chinese people and to China's economic development, should China really lose her MFN. It seems that those IFCSS people always follow American policies and act against the Chinese government no matter what the government has done. IFCSS claims that it represents Chinese students and scholars in the US and is "independent." But that is cheating because IFCSS has never adopted a policy, at least regarding the MFN issue, that could reflect the opinion of most Chinese students and scholars and was independent of the influence of American politics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii) From Ty Hu ......................................................... 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to bring your attention to the statement by the IFCSS HQ regarding Clinton's decision on China's MFN status carried on the issue of CND-Global on May 28, 1994. The IFCSS HQ expressed such a strong regret over the unconditional renewal of MFN, even though majority of CSS support the decision. In essence, IFCSS has become an organization with the sole function as a human rights fighter. Yet, IFCSS should have been a CSS community organization that supposedly concerns all aspects affecting the lives of CSS in the US and the people in China. Thus, it is vitally important for CSS to get involved in the process of decision-making in IFCSS. I would say it's time for IFCSS to change. Yes, we want IFCSS to exist; Yes, we want IFCSS to represent the majority of CSS. In a month or so, IFCSS will hold it's annual meeting in North Carolina. Policies and guidelines for IFCSS will be discussed and voted on. Concerned CSS ought to voice their opinion NOW. I would like to suggest CCF and CND to creat a section for public debate on the future of IFCSS, and how CSS community should work together in IFCSS. A few delegates from a few schools may not well represent the majority CSS. And public opinions do help shape the policy. Thank you, T. Hu +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Bo Peng + + Assistant Editor: Ming Cheng + + 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 + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++