Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 17:59:10 -0500 Reply-To: NLUO@msvax.mssm.edu Sender: China-Net From: NLUO@msvax.mssm.edu Subject: CCF: 9/15/93 (A): "IFCSS: Today and Tomorrow (I)" 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, September 15, 1993 (A) (Issue No. 93.03A) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is a journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion and debate on the issues related to our community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions on new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Table of Contents # of Lines ========================================================================== 1. Theme of Issue: IFCSS: Today and Tomorrow (I) a. Editorial ............................................... Luo Ning 33 b. A History Making Conference My Account of the Council's First Teleconference ..... Yungui Ding 200 2. Windows to China: a. History Notes: II. Who Destroyed Western-Route Army (1936-1937) ...... Xiaowen Li 88 3. Tidbits from netland: a. Wei Jingsheng Was Released Today! .................... Yanpei Deng 13 b. Ancient Games And Modern Politics ............... SUSAN V. LAWRENCE 64 c. Discussion of Olympic 2000 in S.F. Community Forum... Ignatius Ding 94 ========================================================================== In This Issue ========================================================================== This issue carries a reflection by a member of the IFCSS Council on its first conference this year. Because of the size limitation on each e-mail package, this issue is split into two parts A and B. An analysis by a community member on the changing environment of IFCSS after CSPA, as well as the background history, several proposals, and some commentaries on the IFCSS Newsletters publication, one of the hotly debated subjects in IFCSS at this moment, are presented in part B. A note on the history of Chinese Red Army continues our series on rethinking the CCP history. A news commentary on recent releasing of Wei Jingsheng from prison by Chinese Government and two messages following up on the Olympic bidding are included in "Tidbits from netland". ==========***==========***==========**==========***==========***========== 1a. Editorial ............................................... Luo Ning 33 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- IFCSS is the first nation-wide independent organizations for Chinese students and scholars (CSS) in the US established after "June 4th" of 1989. Although many CSS organizations have emerged since then, IFCSS is still the most influential one. IFCSS has accomplished several tasks which are beyond the capacity of an ordinary national student organization. Amid these conspicuous achievements, IFCSS has also been facing continuous criticisms from all directions on its platforms and operations. What is IFCSS doing right now? The article by Ding Yungui, an IFCSS Council member, has provided us a good window on the operations of the central branches of IFCSS --- the Council, the Headquarters (HQ), the Working Committees (WC), etc.. The active roles played by many newly elected Council members in the decision making of IFCSS have demonstrated a feature of IFCSS which is still quite unique among all CSS national or regional organizations, namely, there are channels in IFCSS open for direct grassroots participation in the most important decision making processes. Because of its length, only the first part of the article is included in this issue. The subsequent parts will be published in later issues. Where would IFCSS go from now on? This depends not only on its internal operations, but also on its external "ecology". The article by Bai Yan has analyzed the changing situation due to the implementation of CSPA and raised many challenging questions to IFCSS on how to respond to its own successes, which may confuse its paths leading to tomorrow. As a case study to one of the most hotly debated issues now in IFCSS, the publication of IFCSS Newsletters (NL), we have presented an article by Lai Anzhi, the Editor-in-Chief of IFCSS NL in the Third Term (91-92), on the background history of the NL. The excerpts of a memo from the Council to the HQ of IFCSS and some proposals from IFCSS activists are included to give the multi-facets of the debate. Whether or not one agrees with the stance of IFCSS, the impact of IFCSS on the Chinese community far exceeds its own activities. To certain extent, the success or failure of IFCSS is a good indicator on whether our community has matured enough to stand on its own feet. This issue opens up the series of discussions on the various issues of IFCSS. We welcome all readers to participate in this ongoing discussion by contributing commentaries, analysis, or other forms of articles to CCF. [net-cord@lab.ultra.nyu.edu, 9/15/93] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1b. A History Making Conference My Account of the Council's First Teleconference ..... Yungui Ding 200 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planned topics: -------------- 1) budget issues. 2) Financial regulations. 3) Working Committees and contracted project 4) Where's IFCSS' way for tomorrow? student service foundation New comers issue The Council's first teleconference was finally adjourned on August 24, 1993, after two consecutive Saturday night sessions with each lasting 5 and 1/2 hours. While it is said that the length of the conference has set a new record in the Council's history, I also think that what we have accomplished in this teleconference will also bear its historical significance. The first Council teleconference each year is no doubt a very important meeting to the operation of IFCSS since it would discuss the the IFCSS President's work plan, budget proposal, and personnel nominations for the following year. For the Council's consideration were also several important resolutions which, after being adopted, would profoundly affect the way IFCSS will be functioning in the future. Here I would like to review a few important subjects. (For details of the official agenda and minutes of the conference, please refer to Council's Newsrelease CN500*, which could be obtained by anonymous ftp from ifcss.org:ifcss/council/5th_council.) 1. Budget Proposal Five days before the meeting, upon request from a memo signed by Dong Liqun and me, the HQ sent the president's proposal package to the Council. The package contained a one and half page outline of the work the President plans to do in the coming year, a one-page budget proposal, and a half-page Working Committee and HQ staff nominations. I have to say that the President has proposed a very impressive work plan. Besides continuing human rights activities and expanding/improving student service, proposed are a wide range of activities aimed at China, from organizing various training seminars, organizing business conferences, helping China's education, to building returned student stations and overseas student villages. Of course, to substantiate the activities, a lot more of concrete work still needs to be done. On the other hand, I, as other Council members were, was so surprised by the crudeness of the proposed budget. Let's just cite a few items: (2) HQ: Travel/Transportation $15,000 (5) Working Committees $10,000 (6) Newsletter $18,000 (7) Project Assistants $36,000 (8) Round-Table Meeting $12,000 (9) The 6th Congress $60,000 These are word by word quotation. Such big amount of money as "Newsletter" and "Project Assistants" without any itemized explanations seemed to be for no one to examine but to approve blindly. I had to file a 10 page application with the student council in my school to get a $1,000 budget for Chinese student association. Now the HQ has a 1-page budget with an annual revenue of $319,000! Too much paper work may be unnecessary redtape, but the Council at least needs some basic details to make the sound decision on whether to approve or disapprove each proposed items. Furthermore, it is necessary to have a record for the Council to check later how truthful the HQ spends the money as budgeted. Such crudeness shown in the President's proposal was either because of lack of the basie knowledge of organizational operation or due to lack of respect of IFCSS Council's legitimate authority specified in the IFCSS constitution to supervise the IFCSS activities. Either would be a very sad fact to IFCSS. It is probably not any individuals, but the immaturity of the organization that should be blamed for that. In the first session of the Conference, most Council members were pretty shy and modest in raising questions since for many of us, it was the first time to be in such a meeting. Although many of us had expressed unsatisfaction/objection to the budget/items, we were still reluctant to voice out/insist on our opinions. As a result, most items in the budget proposal which was discussed in the first session got passed. For example, the drastic salary increase for the HQ staff members from last year's $1,800/month to $2,000 is much higher than the inflation rate. Although a question was raised about it and no explanation was given, it was still passed. Same to the four full time HQ staff members. Although question was raised several times whether we really need so many people in the HQ and spend about 50% of the IFCSS' financial resource on HQ operation cost, we still left it untouched. I think most of us were just unwilling to say which position should be abolished. Another example is the item Project Assistants ($36,000). The effort to freeze this item until more details are supplied failed with one vote short. Instead, it was passed with a condition that the HQ is required to provide the details later. To many of us, to say "no" to the HQ's proposal, we have to overcome the psych guilty feeling that we might be hindering the HQ's work by doing so. In reality, we really ARE blamed so for the few items that was not passed, although it IS the Council's duty to faithfully examine any proposal that would affect IFCSS. Let's look at what were not passed: -- The HQ travel/transportation ($15,000) was frozen. Last year the cost was about several thousands. This year it was proposed to be $18,000. The President's explanation that more is needed to cover the relocation cost of HQ staff members and travel cost of trips to local schools by the presidents did not satisfy the Council members. We know that NOT all companies provide relocation benefit to its new employees, let alone IFCSS is still a student organization. Without any itemized estimate, we had no idea how much was intended for what. I understand that professionalization of IFCSS is in the agenda. However, I think it should mean more in the aspect of IFCSS' operation, but NOT just mean to raise the salary and to provide big company like benefit to HQ staff. -- The newsletter(NL) project ($18,000), not passed. Upon inquiry about how this big amount would be used, it turned out that $12,000 of it was for a half-time editor's salary. This surprised most of us in the conference. The NL editor was listed clearly as a part time paid HQ staff in the personnel proposal, and all of us had thought that it was counted in the 4 full time HQ staff members (other 3 1/a were specified). However, it was explained in the meeting by the HQ that there was an unfilled half-time position in the HQ reserved for another unlisted secretary, and the NL editor's money was not included in the HQ budget. Such an ambiguous request made the package quite messy, which I think partly contributed to the rejection of this item. Council members also raised questions about the quality of the newsletter in the past. With such an amount of money, people would expect a better publication. In fact, a deeper problem resides in this NL issue. In the personnel proposal, the NL editor was put under the HQ staff as a part time member, and it was also entered under the category of Working Committee (WC). So one can see the same position and its nomination had two entries in the proposal, therefore Council had to vote twice on the same item (both failed to pass, see the official record). That was not a casual problem at all. It touched a new challenge that IFCSS is facing. The NL is a project with a relatively big budget ($18k) and IFCSS did not have any rule to guide such a case. The HQ tried to treat it as a WC so that the editor-in-chief (WC chair) could be nominated by the President. But the HQ could not treated it as a WC completely, since all other WC's (outside HQ) consist of volunteers and do not have any paid chairperson. This is a dilemma. This could not be solved without having some new rules. I will come to this subject later when introducing the Council's resolutions. The Council did pass a resolution to guide the newly emerged contracting project practice. 2. IFCSS' Finance Regulations To improve the financial management of IFCSS, the Council's Finance Committee proposed 3 resolutions, 2 of which touched hot debates. They were turned down in the first session of the meeting, and were passed the second time they were opened for reconsideration. One is a resolution that the Council shall send an inspection team to the HQ to examine IFCSS accounting record and create a property record for IFCSS. This is not a new idea at all. This year, the idea stemmed from the discrepancy in the carry-over balance found between the 4th term's financial report and the 5th term budget. Still it was almost a routine check-up, and in fact many Council members outside the Finance Committee were not so keen to it because of their unfamiliarity to the issue. The bill was rejected in the first time due to a fact that most members abstained. It was the strong pressure from the HQ against the bill that made the issue appearing more serious and helped the bill reopened and passed with an overwhelming majority. The Council is currently in preparation for sending a team to the HQ. A similar case is another resolution proposed by the Finance Committee that is on the compensation of HQ staff members in the transition month, the one period after the election of the new HQ team in the IFCSS annual convention. It was rejected in the first session and passed the second time with some major amendment. The resolution requires the HQ to pay the transition team according to HQ work record. The current record supplied by the HQ was not approved by the Council. If we say that the Council members were totally new towards IFCSS' affairs even when they came to the first teleconference, I am happy to see that all of them have warmed up after the conference. In the financial regard, many members have expressed their sincere concern about the current management. They are determined to push it towards a normal regulatory procedure. That actually should be the real meaning of professionalism. Besides making the Council's inspection a routine internal audit, it has also been suggested to set up a routine CPA (certified public accountant) auditing system. While the internal audit will assure the IFCSS financial management is in the track of the IFCSS' financial regulations, the external CPA audit will avoid any unintentional mal-practice in terms of state and federal laws. On the internal side, a step further towards professionalism is to separate the accounts receivable and accounts payable and put the accounts receivable under the direct supervision of the Council. The HQ will be only authorized to spend the amount of money allocated to budgeted items by the Council. I would call this "constitutionalization" since by doing so we would really able to put the Council in a supervising position and the HQ executive, which I believe is the true mechanism the IFCSS constitution intends to set, and that will push IFCSS into really professional functioning. (To be continued) [TWP66@ISUVAX.IASTATE.EDU, 9/13/93] ==========***==========***==========**==========***==========***========== 2a. History Notes: II. Who Destroyed Western-Route Army (1936-1937) ...... Xiaowen Li 88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes on Some Interesting Points of New Version of CCP History After reading our history textbooks, we usually believe the following: Zhang Guotao's Fourth Front Army suffered a heavy loss after he departed from Mao on the Long March so that finally he had to give up his plan of establishing a base in Tibetan-Resident Area and followed Mao's instruction to March northward to be united with Mao's First Front Army. And Zhang Guotao was also responsible for the final failure of the Western-Route Army (WRA). The related history facts used to be described very vaguely in old versions of textbooks. The "70 years" basically kept this tradition, with only two exceptions: 1. Zhang Hao's role is briefly mentioned: "Zhang Hao, by the name of CCP delegation to the IntCom*, also sent a telegram to ZGT, required him to drop his '2nd Central', to set up a South-West Bureau." 2. No mention ZGT's role in WRA and its tragic failure. Interesting enough, "CCP History" mentioned the above 1) even more briefly than "70 years": "Zhang Hao, by the name of CCP delegation to the IntCom, also gave some advices to Zhang GuoTao (Dui ZGT JingXing BangZu)." But it spent 5 full pages to describe the set-up and the failure of WRA. In the description, instead of blaming ZGT for the fate of WRA, it only implies that ZGT's responsibility, however, the key facts agree with "70 years": ZGT played very little role in ordering the elite (3 Corps) of the 4th Front Army to cross the Yellow River, later to be named WRA and to march west. About Zhang Hao's role, People's Daily had a mourning article in late 80's. It said: "Taking the advantage that he just returned from the IntCom, Zhang Hao successfully convinced ZGT to drop his '2nd Central'." According to ZGT himself, he was cheated by Zhang Hao who claimed it was IntCom's instruction which asked him to drop his '2nd Central' and he found the truth only after he arrived in ShanBei (ZGT: "My Memoir"). None knows whether ZGT lied or not, but it is interesting to watch how official CCP history described Zhang Hao's contribution which was never mentioned to public before Mao died. Nevertheless, after ZGT dropped his '2nd Central' and his demand that Mao's Central changed name to 'the North Bureau', he had lost a major political battle to Mao. But the 4th Front Army was still one of the strongest, if not the strongest, faction in the Red Army at that time. Now let's list the time sequence presented in "CCP History": June 6, 1936: ZGT dropped his '2nd Central'. Oct. 9: The 1st and 4th Front Armies joined force. Oct. 24: The 4th Front Army started to cross Yellow River to west by the order of Central Rev. Mil. Com. End Oct-Early Nov: KMT the first Corps cut off along the Yellow River. Nov. 9: WRA marched to west by the order of Mao and Zhou on Nov. 8. Nov. 21: Victory of ShanChengBao (east bank of Y.R.), KMT army defeated. Dec. 12-25: XiAn Incident. Late Feb. 1937: "Army for helping WRA" (Yuan Xi Jun) was organized. March 14: WRA's final failure. Cheng ChangHao, Xu XiangQian left troops. Late March to Apr. 6: Zhang GuoTao was criticized, struggled and kicked out from power. On page 421 of the "CCP History", it is concluded: "CCP Central and the Central Rev. Mil. Com. extremely concerned the danger faced by WRA, ..." This sounds a redundant statement. WRA was about third of total Red Army at that time!!! Neither of these two books explained why the Yuan Xi Jun was organized too late to help WRA. Nor they explained why the ceasefire between CCP and KMT armies after XiAn Incident failed to be realized for WRA. It seems obvious that "CCP History" is trying very hard to keep the spirit of old versions which blames ZGT for the tragedy of WRA, and to prevent possible suspicions on Mao's responsibility or intention on the tragedy. In this regards, Hu Sheng's "70 Years" is much smarter: only 4 lines are used to describe this tragedy as a natural consequence of "Gu Jun Sheng Ru, Di Zhong Wo Gua". No responsibility is even hinted. Notes: IntCom stands for the 3rd Communist International, which supervised CCP since 1922 when CCP formally joined it and became a branch of it, till it was abandoned after Nazi invasion to ex-USSR. [lix@crsa.bu.edu, 9/13/93] ==========***==========***==========**==========***==========***========== 3a. Wei Jingsheng Was Released Today! .................... Yanpei Deng 13 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the CBS Radio morning news, the long time political dissent, Wei Jingsheng, was released today, six months before completing his fifteen years prison term. The purpose to release Wei by the Chinese government, the report said, is to improve the image on human rights issues for bidding the 2000 Olympic Game in Beijing. ************** It seems the Chinese government plays the timing game very skillfully. Wei has served 97% of his prison term, and was released just few days before the voting by the Olympic committee. The radio said Mr. Wei is a free man now. One may wonder who could be a free man under this communist regime. [YD2%ORNLSTC.BITNET@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU, 9/15/93] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3b. Ancient Games And Modern Politics ............... SUSAN V. LAWRENCE 64 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ancient Games And Modern Politics--Will a Beijing Olympics push China toward democracy or simply encourage repression? Source: U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 20, 1993 The billboards along Beijing's Avenue of Eternal Peace proclaim, "A more open China awaits 2000 Olympics," and stickers on every taxicab in the city shout, "Beijing 2000." With such slogans, a casual visitor might be forgiven for concluding that the Chinese capital had won its ambitious bid to host the 2000 Summer Olympic Games. In fact, five cities are still vying for the millennial games--Beijing, Berlin, Istanbul, Manchester, England, and Sydney, Australia--and the International Olympic Committee won't select the victor until September 23. If the comfort of the athletes were all that mattered, Sydney would have the competition sewn up. The IOC has praised the city for its safety, excellent hotels and transportation, and existing sports facilities. The same report termed Beijing's bid "realistic and solid" but criticized the city for its inadequate telecommunications, pollution and paucity of foreign-language speakers. From China's point of view, Beijing deserves the Olympics in spite of these drawbacks simply because of the size of China's population--1.17 billion--and because China is both an Asian and a developing nation. The summer games have been held only twice in Asia (Tokyo and Seoul) and only twice in the developing world (Mexico City and again Seoul). "No matter how you look at it, it is our turn this time," says Chen Xitong, president of Beijing's Bid Committee. China and its Western supporters see the games as an enormous opportunity to remake the nation's tarnished global image. The last time China had the world's full attention was in 1989 when TV viewers witnessed the suppression of thousands of Chinese protesters in Tiananmen Square. Beijing's foreign boosters suggest that Chinese leaders, at the very least, would have to avoid Tiananmen-style crackdowns and honor the broad outlines of their pledges to Hong Kong, which returns to Chinese rule in 1997. China would also have to welcome floods of foreign visitors and media. The model is Seoul, where, IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch has boasted, the 1988 games helped foster economic growth and democratization. Opponents of Beijing's bid argue that bestowing the games on China would confer international legitimacy on a regime that routinely restricts its citizens' most basic liberties. Richard Dicker, staff attorney for Human Rights Watch in New York, notes that in China, "The practice is not to loosen things up to make a good impression with foreign visitors and foreign journalists but to tighten down so no discordant voices emerge." Dicker sees a parallel not to Korea but to Moscow in 1980, where the games "had no appreciable positive effect on human rights in the country." If China loses its bid, expect Beijing to heap blame on the American Congress. This summer, the House passed a non-binding resolution urging the U.S. IOC delegate to vote against China's bid, and 60 senators signed a letter to the IOC arguing against holding the games in Beijing. Combined with U.S. sanctions against China for selling M-11 missile technology to Pakistan and the apparently false accusation that a Chinese ship en route to Iran was carrying chemicals for weapons, Washington's role in opposing China's Olympics bid will keep bilateral relations strained. If China is chosen as host, Chen has promised to engrave the names of all IOC members and gold medalists on the Great Wall. And what if Sydney wins? An Australian academic suggests that China might ever so slightly alter the Chinese character for Olympic to make the character for Australian, so the billboards would read. "A more open China awaits the Australian games." [Forwarded by Yang Chang-Qing, cqyang@chemistry.umass.edu, 9/14/93] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3c. Discussion of Olympic 2000 in S.F. Community Forum... Ignatius Ding 94 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESS RELEASE September 15, 1993 Representatives from Silicon Valley for Democracy in China (SVDC), The Alliance of Hong Kong Chinese in the U.S. (AHKCUS), Laogai Research Foundation, and the congressional district office of House Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) participated in a panel discussion on September 14, 1993. The one-hour program was taped in front of a live audience on the subject of whether Beijing should host the Olympic Summer Games in the year 2000. Moderator Benjamin Chan from Chinese cable TV, Jade Channel, facilitated the sometimes heated discussion. Proponents supporting Beijing's bid were Wellington Cheng (Editor in Chief of the Northern California office of the Sing Tao Daily), Joseph Wong (General Manager of S.F. Chinese News), and Peter Chi (President of Chinese-American Association of Commerce). Opponents were Ignatius Ding (Chairman of SVDC Communications Committee), Charles Mok (Vice Chairperson of AHKCUS), Harry Hongda Wu (Chairman of Laogai Research Foundation), and Michael Yaki (Chief of Staff of Rep. Pelosi). The panel discussion is part of a weekly program co-sponsored by the TV station and S.F. Chinatown Resource Center. This week's topic was chosen because it is keenly interested by the vast Chinese-American and overseas Chinese community in San Francisco Bay area and Jade Channel's audience in other U.S. cities. It was also because the International Olympic Committee will vote on its final decision to choose hosting city for the Olympic 2000 in Monte Carlo, Monaco in less than a week. Proponents, as expected, voiced their support based on their sense of nationalism, and argued that it would be a small price to pay for the opportunity and honor to show the world the greatness of the ancient capital city of Beijing, its elegant surroundings and sports facilities, and the world-class Chinese athletes. They said that the sports arenas and other facilities have been well designed for Asian Games and the National Games with the intent to hold Olympic there one day. An international sports event would help accelerate the improvements to the infrastructure in Beijing. Many of the new buildings would benefit the city residents afterward. One of the proponents also insisted that China is financially ready and capable to invest in the opportunity as a business venture. All of them and many in the audience believe that hosting Olympic Games will further push China to become more open. Opponents pointed out that China's continuing persecution of political and religious dissidents and its terrible human rights records, in the past and at the present, disqualify it as a contender for hosting Olympic Games. The communist regime still insists its killing of peaceful students and Beijing residents in 1989 a justified act. Tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience are held in forced labor camp merely for exercising their constitutional rights of expression, religion, press, assembly, and association. Beijing government obviously wants to use hosting Olympic to legitimize its authority of absolute control and makes its way back into the international community which harshly condemned China's collective dictatorship for the bloody crack down on unarmed civilians. On the economic end, the opponents provided data and analysis demonstrating the heavy financial burden which the entire nation of 1.2 billion people would have to bear for supporting a two-week sports event. The cost to every citizen in China, including the newborns in the next seven years, will be about six U.S. dollar per person because the Chinese government will spend 7.5 billion dollars to build a new international airport and a four-lane highway around the city, to improve or build sports facilities, telecommunication facilities, gas lines, water treatment and distribution system for meeting international standards prior to the Games. While some of the constructions will benefit Beijing residents, the entire population in China would have to foot the bill. With an income estimated by Beijing's competitor, Sydney of Australia, at $1.234 billion, China would lose a whooping $6,306 billion for the perceived prestige. That would literally take away 2.2 month worth of expense for food and clothing from every average Chinese. In addition, the cost to give Beijing a facelift would only be a small part of the expenditure. China also announced that it plans to borrow more $40 billion to build or improve airports around the country to accommodate the would-be-tourists. All of construction might benefit urban residents. The debt would haunt China for years because the principle and interests would excess $100 billion for a low interest long-term loan. More than 80% of the Chinese living in sub-standard conditions in rural areas would be hurt financially as the result. The lively dialogue among the panelists and between them and the audience led to a conclusion: all participants sincerely care for the well-being of China and the Chinese people; they disagreed on how to influence or bring about changes to China, but definitely agreed China needs to be more open and its system must be changed; they agreed that the human rights conditions in China are unacceptable and must be improved; they further agreed that politics and sports shouldn't mix, and Beijing's bid for hosting Olympic, like many other nations' attempt, is politically motivated. Many among them expressed either suspicion, hope or aspiration that China will no longer be ruled by the communist authoritarians by the year of 2000. Please call Ignatius Y. Ding at (408) 447-5486 or Charles Mok at (415) 336-3183 if you have any questions. [ding@hpsdxs7.cup.hp.com, 9/15/93] +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + Executive Editor: Ning Luo 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 back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to cnd.org[132.249.229.100]:pub/community/CCF + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to net-cord@lab.ultra.nyu.edu + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+