From @UGA.CC.UGA.EDU:owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Thu Jun 30 00:04:34 1994 Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 21:01:42 EDT Reply-To: Bo Peng Sender: China-Net From: Bo Peng Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9435) 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, June 29, 1994 (No. 9435) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= 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 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- IFCSS: The Heat Is On! -- 1. IFCSS -- Agenda for Renewal (Part A)....................Jienan Chen 176 2. IFCSS Should Not Be A Political Organization................X. Fang 82 3. Keep Negative Campaign Out...........................Kangcong Zhang 95 -- CBS: It Ain't Over Till It's Over. -- 4. Don't Mix Up CBS' Spy Issue with Monitor Issue............Yulin Cao 45 5. Who Is Interested in What?............................Newton X. Liu 112 6. Comments on Newton X. Liu's Article......................Dave Sheng 30 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From the Editor -- The IFCSS 6th Convention is approaching and two pairs of presidential candidates announced the candidacy in the last issue of CCF. Most CSS seem to agree that it is time for change -- arguably one of the precious few things most CSS could ever agree on nowadays. Jienan Chen offered a well thought-out proposal regarding the future orientation of IFCSS, based on a reflection on the past strength and weakness of the organization. X. Fang pondered on the old question of "to politicize or not to politicize," which has been under hot debate ever since the inception of IFCSS. We believe grassroots participation is still THE life source for IFCSS, the existence of which should, as well as could, CONTINUE having significant implications to our community. Last but not the least, Kangcong Zhang was quick in spotting a sign of negative campaigning and issued an early warning ticket. In the meantime, some of us seem determined to carry the protest against CBS' spy report to the end. Yulin Cao advised on distinguishing the two types of "spies": one being recruited to spy on the US and the other being told to keep an eye on their fellow CSS. Presumably, the latter is much more common relative to the former and this might be one of the more important places where the CBS report failed to clarify. On the other hand, Newton X. Liu was provoked by a few articles carried in previous issues of CCF. He then proceeded to give us a down-to-the-earth, peel-to-the-core view of the so- called "American interests in US diplomacy." However, Dave Sheng views the role of national interests in international politics from a dialectic perspective and emphasizes the importance of mutual understanding. Many of us are finally dragged to the end of the safe and familiar womb of schooling. Out in the real world is the cold, harsh reality of a shrinking job market (especially for PhD's). While there are many sources of information and help on employment, some problems are unique to the CSS community. Few of us have any family heritage to fall back to on this side of the Pacific. The cultural difference often hinders us from netting a web of personal connections that is often vital to establishing a successful carrier. What are the pitfalls one should try everything to avoid in job hunting? What are the feasible alternatives we CSS have? For that matter, should we look across the Pacific instead of struggling for a piece of the (non-expanding at best) pie among ourselves? What are the implications of this brain-drift to the economic, social, and political development of China as well as America? If you have any tricks, success stories, nightmares, or advice, please tell us about it. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. IFCSS -- Agenda for Renewal (Part A)....................Jienan Chen 176 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is of no coincidence that IFCSS is soon to celebrate her fifth birthday at the upcoming annual convention, just after we have commemorated the fifth anniversary of "6.4," for it was "6.4" that prompted the inception of IFCSS. As we reflect upon the past experience of IFCSS and ponder over the road to the future, we ask: can IFCSS again rise to the occasion and meet some of the greatest challenges yet to come, while holding true to her solemn ideals? The short answer is yes, she must and she can! But why and how? On the eve of IFCSS' 6th congress, as some IFCSS activists (veteran or new) are poised to run for offices, and still many more are getting ready for the annual occasion whereat the future direction of IFCSS will be determined, I as an early activist and supporter of IFCSS am inspired to present the "Agenda for Renewal" in warm anticipation of "throwing a brick to attract jades." Like many, I am not running for any office, but wish to have my voice heard, because IFCSS has arrived at a turning point. We, the constituents, each can make a positive impact on IFCSS' future via the democratic process to ensure that IFCSS does choose a winning road in the right direction. Let us join in the crusade for IFCSS renewal! Part A. SEEKING A NEW MANDATE THE PERSPECTIVE Historically, IFCSS has pursued her goals and performed her functions under the assumed mandate of carrying on the ideals of the "6.4" movement. In the initial years, when the memories of "6.4" were fresh and emotions attached to it were high, IFCSS claimed her rightful place in history by rallying grassroots support and garnering public sympathy for the aspirations of the movement and the victims of its aftermath. It would have been inconceivable if she had not. Those who criticize IFCSS for doing so lack a basic sense of history. Now, the question is not whether, but how, IFCSS will pursue her ideals (goals) and achieve the best results possible under the new circumstances. In recent years, IFCSS has made some strides in the direction of advocating increasing contacts and exchanges with China as well as providing needed protection and services to the CSS community. But much more could be done and done better. Let us not argue over what should be done, which I believe there is consensus among all schools of thought; let us instead focus on what can be done and how. THE LEGACY As imperfect and controversial as it may be, the IFCSS legacy built over the past five years is undeniably voluminous. Today, IFCSS has become an indispensable variable in the ever evolving political equation in relevance to the transformation process of China, China-US relations, and our community development. We can say with pride that IFCSS is still the only organization able to claim to represent all of CSS in the US. (even though some may be hesitant to admit so) and has achieved such visibility, influence, and status unparalleled by any other organization in the history of the overseas CSS community. Specifically, IFCSS has 1. Withstood the test of many great challenges to become a symbol of the CSS community as the only democratically organized, grassroots based, and independently operated national CSS umbrella organization. 2. Carried the banner of human rights in China with great effort and determination by raising public awareness of and community interest in this issue and providing moral support and financial assistance to the victims and/or their families of the "6.4" movement. 3. Demonstrated both organizational strength and political wisdom in the relatively unknown territory of American politics by mobilizing grassroots participation and public support for certain community goals (such as immigration benefits). 4. Built considerable survival resources and growth potential through the development of some sound services programs (such as health insurance) along with other fund-raising capabilities. 5. Inspired and trained a whole generation of CSS leaders and activists that can be a great asset to our community and potentially to our nation. WHY A NEW MANDATE While the historical contributions of IFCSS are too great to be ignored, they were accomplished under a combination of circumstances that have either changed or become nonexistent. Primarily, the composition of IFCSS has been undergoing significant changes (especially with the influx of "new blood" -- newcomers who are the future of IFCSS); some of the rallying issues (such as CSPA and MFN) are gone at least for now; and inevitably, there are new concerns and expectations, especially at the grassroots level. If the IFCSS legacy may teach us something, it is first and foremost her readiness to rise to the occasion and thrive on the challenges. Currently, IFCSS is faced with the dilemma of either surviving on the legacy of her past or advancing on the promise of her future. To build, we do not need to destroy; to unite, we may differ; but to renew, we must change. To understand why, let's take a moment to also reflect upon the "dark" side of the IFCSS legacy. Let us start with the mandate, which is based not on her supposed functions but rather on her assumed ideals. Although ideals are the ultimate (spiritual) validation of an organization like IFCSS, they are not the foundation on which to build the organization. The foundation is grassroots support and participation, which have been the weak point of IFCSS in recent years. The existing mandate is both unbalanced and inadequate and has failed to address the problems of declining representation and lagging participation, because 1. Philosophically, it emphasizes ideological concepts and perceptual seems over concrete actions and tangible results, thus lacking realistic attitude and down-to-the-earth style (being seen as big in slogans, but small in deeds). 2. Strategically, it rides on the fluctuating waves of political tides and sentimental winds rather than on a clear vision and a coherent framework, thus lacking consistency and balance. 3. Functionally, it mis-connects the essential parts (HQ, Council, SVC) in decision-making, with endless debate and power struggle consuming most of the energy, thus lacking coordination and efficiency. 4. Operationally, it invites bureaucratic tendencies and manipulative practices in disfavor of mechanisms and processes, sometimes ignoring established principles and rules, thus lacking "checks-and-balances" and accountability. 5. Organizationally, it encourages elitism, allows factional infighting, and hinders grassroots participation and consensus building, thus lacking internal cohesiveness and external appeal. In summary, the existing mandate fails to provide legitimacy for IFCSS to represent the full spectrum of base composition and causes unnecessary division within the CSS community. There is widespread discontent even among the most ardent IFCSS activists and supporters. If IFCSS does not recognize the new realities and make some adjustments accordingly, there is a real danger of institutional decline or even disintegration. THE NEW MANDATE To avoid the afore-stated deficiencies and ambiguities of the existing mandate, the new mandate must be community oriented, as follows: ********************************************************* * A democratically organized, grassroots based, and * * professionally run organization representing the * * interests and will, protecting the rights and freedom,* * and advancing the ideals and welfare of the Chinese * * students and scholars (CSS) community in the US. * ********************************************************* The new mandate redefines or reaffirms the supposed functions of IFCSS, as follows: 1. A strong advocate to promote and protect the interests of the CSS community in the US.. 2. A positive force in fostering constructive China-US relations and international exchange and cooperation beneficial to the progress of China. 3. A collective voice on issues of great concern to the overseas Chinese community. 4. An inclusive vehicle for active participation in the development of our homeland. Under the new mandate, IFCSS shall not shy away from her responsibility as the community representative; rather, she will be the recognized source of leadership, inspiration, and pride for all CSS with unquestionable legitimacy. She shall not dwindle from her role as the spokesman for the CSS community; rather, she will speak out forcefully on major issues concerning the development of China or the well-being of the CSS community with the resounding echo of the entire CSS population. She shall not retreat from her commitment to the ideals of human rights and democracy; rather, she will pursue those ideals with vision and determination through a process wherein all CSS can participate and contribute in various ways. In essence, the new mandate, if adopted and implemented, should make IFCSS behave (speak and act) like the true representative of the CSS community, thus greatly strengthening the very foundation on which IFCSS is built. (To be continued...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. IFCSS Should Not Be A Political Organization................X. Fang 82 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should IFCSS be a political or a nonpolitical organization? This is a hot topic for years. As the IFCSS 6da is approaching, the debate on this matter rises again. Here from an ordinary Chinese student point of view, I would like to share my idea as why IFCSS should not be a political organization. IFCSS should not be a political organization. There is no conflict for a nonpolitical IFCSS to do political things. Nowadays, political influence has profound impact on our daily life; however, it doesn't mean all the existing organizations should be closely related to politics. Today in this society there are tons of organizations, most of which belong to various interest groups. That doesn't mean that these kind of interest-group organizations can not participate in any political campaign. In fact, any organization which is of little or no political implication still can drive a political campaign. No contradiction at all! People who argue that IFCSS should be a political organization are just afraid that the nonpolitical nature of IFCSS may preclude it from doing any kind of political things. Wrong!! They really don't know this: A nonpolitical IFCSS can still drive any political campaign (WHO SAYS NO !!); a nonpolitical IFCSS will only serve the organization and all of its goals much better; and finally a nonpolitical IFCSS will avoid most of its troubles which are/were directly related to sensitive issues and which have/had raised concerns on the credibility of the IFCSS representing the CSS here. IFCSS should not be a political organization. If IFCSS really wants to represent CSS here in this continent, it has to realize that people who are solely interested in a political IFCSS are just a handful. The majority of the CSS here are just indifferent in most of the political matters. To drive the IFCSS into a political alley will definitely doom this organization. See how you and me and everybody treated the political issues, ask ourselves, how many of us were really interested in those political junks when we were back in China? If IFCSS raises the political flag again and again, I believe the majority of the CSS will be scared away. Political or not is really a vague /abstract word, at the same time, it is actually tangible. I won't go any further at this regard, except merely pointing out that, if IFCSS is not a political organization, it doesn't necessarily send its President to go to China to shake hand with NPC's secretary; if IFCSS is not a political organization, it doesn't necessarily send its President to wage a hunger strike at the wake of MFN renewal moment; if IFCSS is not a political organization, it doesn't necessarily send a huge delegation to Taiwan to attend a beauty contest, which is of highly political nature; finally, if IFCSS is not a political organization, it doesn't necessarily have to issue any statements at any sensitive political events. A nonpolitical organization can do any of the above issues, or just doesn't do any of them. So what kind of organization IFCSS should be? IFCSS should be an organization which represent the common interests of the majority of CSS in the United States. That is to say, if the majority of the CSS here want to do political things, just do it. If the majority of the CSS here just don't want to do it, stop. Since IFCSS is an organization that groups the common interests of CSS here, it can do everything/anything as long as endorsed by the majority of CSS here. Being an organization of nonpolitical nature and representing the common interests of CSS here, IFCSS can do the CBS thing, the MFN thing, the Georgia Driver License thing, Beijing Olympic Bid thing, visiting the NPC's secretary things or even go on hunger strike AS LONG AS THE MAJORITY OF CSS HERE ENDORSE THE ACTIONS. At the same time, IFCSS can promote business in the CSS community, it still can promote SPRINT/MCI/AT&T/IGS insurance group, Wisconsin Ginseng, anything/everything as long as it REALLY serves the interest of the majority of CSS here. Being an organization following the common interests of the majority of CSS here, IFCSS will root its very base firmly on the solid foundation and will definitely win the support from its constituents. Being a nonpolitical IFCSS, it will focus its attention more intensively on the interest of majority of the CSS here. It will help consolidating the relationship between the IFCSS and the ordinary CSS. It will help IFCSS to avoid those stupid actions which were spit by the majority of the CSS. It will definitely boost its image in the CSS community and make this organization much stronger and influential than it is now. People who argue that IFCSS was stemmed from a political event(6.4) and that its very nature is highly political just intentionally/unintentionally ignore the following facts: they didn't see the things behind the political event that turned IFCSS into reality. To be sure, short and clear, at the moment of 6.4, the driving force that led to the formation of IFCSS is not political. The DRIVING FORCE WAS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WANTED TO FORM AN ORGANIZATION OF THEIR OWN TO DEAL WITH THE 6.4 THINGS. That was the common interest of the majority of CSS here at that moment. Please notice that although the 6.4 event was/is highly of political nature, the common interests of the majority of the CSS here are NOT ALWAYS of political nature. That is why IFCSS should uphold the common interests of the majority of CSS here and discard the paranoid idea of a political IFCSS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Keep Negative Campaign Out...........................Kangcong Zhang 95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we calculate the duration of the IFCSS presidential campaign from the day the candidates announced their candidacy onward, we are barely one week into the campaign, yet we the electorate are already being bombarded with barrages of negative campaign shots. Although so far the negative campaign has mostly been coming from one of two rivaling camps, namely, the Luo Ning-Liu Chengyan camp, we will be doing ourselves a service if we can make sure that the negative campaign does not get reciprocated by the Xing Zheng-Liu Yuhe camp, and thereby spiral into a melee. IFCSS has come too long a way to have its reputation and credibility further damaged at a critical time like this. As both camps correctly recognize, IFCSS is facing some very serious challenges, of which arguably the most demanding yet intriguing one being how to generate more grassroots participation in IFCSS' activities without compromising its founding political ideals. These challenges themselves are enough for us to concentrate on seeking effective solutions. Any negative campaign will only distract our attention from the real issues. But since the negative campaign has already started, we cannot wish it would just go away without our active intervention. After all, complaints have been formally filed with the IFCSS Supervisory Committee (SVC) against Qingsong Zhang, a member on the Xing-Liu camp, for allegedly using IFCSS 6th Congress registration information to the advantage of the Xing-Liu campaign. Should IFCSS organs charged with the responsibility to handle exactly this kind of complaints fail to take necessary actions to resolve the complaints one way or another, without a doubt, not only a respected former IFCSS headquarters executive director's personal reputation will be unfairly adversely affected, but the Xing-Liu campaign will also be cast in an unfavorable light. And, yes, that the complaints were filed by none other than the Luo-Liu camp's vice-presidential candidate makes it all the more necessary that the complaints be resolved as soon as possible, so that the campaign can move on. Not to be mistaken, though: the fact that the complaints were filed with the IFCSS SVC does not in and of itself constitute negative campaign per se. What makes it negative campaign is this circumstantial factor: the document with which the complaints were filed was sent to more than a half dozen public email networks. Publicizing the document that way was hardly justified for two reasons: firstly, the complaints lacked details about the alleged wrongdoing for the concerned readers to form an informed opinion; secondly, some of the networks the document was publicized on, such as the F-CBS net, have nothing to do with the IFCSS presidential campaign. Did the people running the Luo-Liu campaign know that sending the unsubstantiated document to irrelevant networks was unjustified? Of course they did. Then why did they still do it? The answer is public opinion management. In this mass-media age, opinion management is very much part of the fair game all sorts of candidates are playing. But in this particular incident, the Luo-Liu campaign clearly crossed the line of campaign ethics. Now, just what can we do to stop the negative campaign that has already raised its ominous head, and further, to prevent it from coming back to tarnish an IFCSS presidential campaign that has up to this point been billed as the best we have ever had? First, of course, it has to start with the candidates. They are the ones who have showed themselves to be superior to their fellow compatriots in our community by rising to the occasion and promising to lead IFCSS to a higher level of glory and success. They have to realize that, to deliver their promises, they have to rise above and beyond negativism. IFCSS can thrive only on positive, constructive ideas; negative, destructive attacks bordering on slights and insults should not be associated with the traits of prospective leaders of our organization. Then, the IFCSS SVC, the organ specifically set up to handle complaints about faulty operations of IFCSS working groups and questionable conduct of IFCSS officials, has an important role to play. In the past, the SVC has been reluctant to take prompt and decisive actions when complaints were brought before it, and therefore failed to live up to the high expectations placed with it by IFCSS' constituency. This has to change if IFCSS is ever to grow to be an organization whose officials can be held accountable for their decisions and actions. In the present case, let there be no misunderstanding that with the SVC rests the authority to halt the negative campaign. And, finally, the general public of our community shares a responsibility to right the wrong perpetrated by leaders of our organization. Sure, the general public is often perceived as a passive existence, and indeed, it seldom springs into action without some pushing and dragging. But it does not always need to be so. This is especially true if activists of our organization can bring the wrongdoing to the public's attention. Truth of the matter is, we can never overestimate the force of the public if and when it is motivated to demand for change. And believe or not, the public has a finer taste for campaign decency than almost anyone more deeply involved in a partisan campaign. The campaign is only one week old. With a full four weeks to go before the rivaling camps fold their flags, much is still to be unfolded. But one thing we can be sure of: We all wish we have already seen the worst of negative campaign. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 4. Don't Mix Up CBS' Spy Issue with Monitor Issue............Yulin Cao 45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have read two articles from CCF in which two authors claimed that some friends of theirs were asked by National Security Bureau or Public Security Bureau for "working for China" (see #9426 and #9433). Although some readers expressed their doubts if these things are true, what I want to say to the authors and others is: Do Not Mix Up CBS's Spy Issue With Monitor Issue!!! To me, even if someone was asked by these bureaus for "working for China", it does not support the spy report by CBS. It does not necessarily mean this person was asked to steal military and economic secrets of the US! As Mr. Nicholas Eftimiades (Defense Information Agency) said in his book, perspective spies are trained, paid and sent by CIS. Every one knows well what will happen to someone who does not have DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY when he or she is caught for stealing military and economic secrets. Now, what do the National Security Bureau and Public Security Bureau ask for? One possibility is that they want some students to monitor their fellow Chinese students in the US or other countries. Back at the time before "6.4", the Chinese government believed most students would go back after finishing their studies. At that time, they might think "China Spring" was their #1 enemy in the world, because it was rooted in students and gained some popularity then. It was not surprising that the Chinese government monitored the activities of "China Spring" on campus then. (Are they still doing some similar monitoring now?) But do not mix up this monitoring issue with CBS' spy issue, please! They are two totally different issues! Let me MAKE UP a story. Suppose a person enters the US as a journalist for People's Daily (Overseas Edition) to interview a Chinese student at a university. (You never know who these journalists and diplomatists really are.) The journalist wants to know his fellow students' study, daily life and "other activities". Now, this student may tell the journalist that they had a Chinese film last Friday and had a "6.4" memorial meeting last Saturday. Intentionally or otherwise, he may also tell the journalist who attended the meeting. Now, could anyone point out anything they did that was against the US law? You may call the student CCP's ass-kisser or what-so-ever, or you may accuse the student's moral; on the contrary, you may admire the student. But it is a totally different issue from the spy report by CBS! DISCLAIMER: The above article only reflects my thought at the moment. I do not intend to make any implication within the article. Unless explicitly cited, I do not have any solid information or solid facts to support my article. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Who Is Interested in What?............................Newton X. Liu 112 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once I decided to stop being a reactionary and to let others speak their minds; once I wrote to advocate constructive criticism and tried to steer away from being negative to other CC members. No, I haven't had a brain surgery yet. But I'd very much like to beg for an opportunity so that I can say something about some of the writings which CCF dutifully brings to our home or office computer screens. I'm utterly baffled to see that some of us are still taking pleasure in circulating rumors. It's got to be too much to read that he or she knew so and so who was once summoned to the State Security Bureau, etc., etc. It has reached a point that I really want to know what the point is here. Why do some of us think it's so important that we would like to spend, say, a whole day to write something like that. Sure, I can see that there is a lingering hatred towards the communists because they once treated the people we love badly. But isn't it also true that people like CBS are simply saying that because we are from China, some of us are working for the government. China is our "family background" in America, so they say. It is so confusing. Even if there are fifty spies among us, we can't let people like Connie Chung go around telling every body that all of us, eighty thousand strong, are potential spies, can we? I only wish that some of us give up our passion for rumor. At least temporarily, please. Having some rumors in our pockets doesn't necessarily make us look smarter. We are too old for that already. Ah, there was somebody trying to calm us down in the aftermath of the CBS incident by teaching us about American interests. I was amazed because I had thought that most of us already knew what American interests are. I for one see nothing but red whenever I hear that phrase so the nuclear bomb really went off inside me when I saw this commercial in CCF, written by one of us - - that really boggles my mind. I was once in the audience when Winston Lord, former ambassador to China under the Bush Administration and currently Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Asian Affairs, was giving a speech to push a blueprint, a policy study in the wake of the end of the Cold War sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation, at the World Affairs Center in San Francisco. Being an old Cold- war Warrior and a top-notch student of the old school of American foreign policy and diplomacy, Mr. Lord reassured his fellow Americans that the gravity of the US foreign policy would continue to emphasize American interests. That was news to me; I was shocked. Sure, I am no professional diplomat and know close to nil about foreign relations, but my instinct seemed to tell me that when time changes, the old way must be adjusted. Simple enough, right? Yet, for some, time seemed to stand still. To make the story short, it was a small consolation to see a recent article in the Far Eastern Economic Review which documents the soon-to-be face-change of Winston Lord's foreign policy towards Asia. American interests is out of date and it's time for Americans to put themselves in others' shoes. It's time for America to realize that the world is much, much larger than its territory. Once upon a time, there were a small group of white boys who took their time to grow up. They were ruthless, for they ripped the most fertile piece of land from the native "salvages." That was the beginning of their good life, the vastness of the land also nurtured their ambition so they thought that they were the center of the universe and the world their toy. They thought it was their birth right to possess all the oil, vegetables, minerals, and women the world could offer. They revolted against their ancestors and won; they ate a lot, got fat and became strong; they manufactured weapons and made a fortune from the wars fought on other peoples' backyards; life had become so easy that they don't feel the necessity to grow up any more. It's time to party and let's party everyday. BBQ, anyone? They don't like to raise children so they hire cheap maids, people of color, of course. But wait a minute, how come there are so many black, yellow and brown ones around? Those pigs must have caused an overpopulation problem. Fat boys consume five times as much energy as each of the starving ones does in other countries. This is called living standards, you see. Fat boys will wage a grand war for their living standards and privileges. Over the cocktail glasses, words were being exchanged: have ya heard that women in Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Korea, are docile, easy to screw (all it takes is a buck) ... so let's send our boys there, on war vessels, to have a whale of a time. What? the Viet-Com pigs try to be in our way, let's beat the hell out of them. They are commies, ain't they? Let's bomb them. Lucky them, we don't use A-Bombs anymore ... Golly, I am so thrilled, we have spread our seeds around, those kids look strange but the more you look at those funny faces the more they resemble our boys. How amazing? What? Who said that? Of course we are intellectuals. We have the tallest building in the world, the largest city, the most fearsome nuclear bombs. Have you heard our starwar strategy? It will blow your mind off. Hmm? We were talking about anti-intellectualism? No way, we protect intellectual property rights. For what? For money of course, you idiot. It's like you can't produce your own Cocoa Cola, you can't duplicate that rock'n roll CD, either. ... Did you say ideology? Of course we have one, the world's best. It's called democracy. Tell you what? If you promise to take democracy home, we'll pay you a handsome sum. Money is no object, man. If you have to kill your old men at home for this, be our guest. By the way, don't forget the most sophisticated weapons are made in the USA. Free, well, the hell, FREE. Do I have to say more? The essence of American interests is "us against them." And most of the time, "us" means a very limited few, the elite and often the most arrogant. "Us" excludes America's own women and minority and neighbors. "Us" to a certain extent does not even include Planet Earth. Earth is being devoured like a melon and raped like a helpless beauty. That we are here does not mean that we are included. I accept that. I have to. "American interests" is such a 20th century phenomenon that millions upon millions have lost their lives, and millions and millions have suffered and are still suffering. American interests made certain dogs and cats and even rats live better than many humans around the globe. I hope this is not what the writer wanted us to understand and to embrace with open arms? America is a wonderful land, and the American experience no doubt offers us some valuable lessons. The American desire and appetite for newness and modernity are so youthful that a country like China looks definitely pale with too many wrinkles in comparison. However, we must also remember that America is energetic yet willful. Not everything here is great, worthy of our attention, let alone our respect. This is so fundamental that I'd feel like to kill myself if I have to explain this again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Comments on Newton X. Liu's Article......................Dave Sheng 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The concept of "national interests" has its dark and narrow-minded side, as illustrated by Newton in his article, "Who is interested in what?". This is true for not only America, but also other countries, including China, although, by being the most powerful country in the world, America certainly draws more attention than any other countries do. But to get a more balanced view on this issue, there are also examples in which the consideration of national interests brought about positive results. One example is the Marshal Plan, at the end of WWII, in which Americans contributed generously to the rebuilding of western Europe, and played a vital role for the stabilization of that part of the world. The plan was indeed conceived out of American interests in fighting the communists, and it did help those countries a great deal. More recently the EC countries, based on their far-sighted consideration of national interests, are trying hard to overcome the narrow-minded side of nationalism and to integrate their economy. It's still too early to predict whether such integration will be successful or not, but it does give us hope that there is an alternative to wars and bloodshed. The consideration of "national interests" is and will always be the foundation of the diplomatic policy for any country. The diversification is usually on the judgment question "what is in our best interest?" The MFN debates within the U.S. administration and Congress reflect different evaluation of "what is the best for U.S. interests, in terms of MFN for China?" In light of that, the way to avoid conflicts in this world relies more on the acknowledgment and understanding of each country's national interests, and on the realization that a more harmonic world is in the interest of everyone. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Bo Peng + + Executive Associate Editor: Ming Cheng + + Executive Moderator: Weihe Guan + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + 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 + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++