Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 22:35:24 PDT Reply-To: ebccf@oce.orst.edu Sender: China-Net From: ebccf@oce.orst.edu Subject: Chinese Community Forum (Issue No. 9308) 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, October 13, 1993 (Issue No. 9308) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= 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 of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Table of Contents Author | # of Lines ============================================================================ 1. Theme of the Issue: IFCSS and Local CSSA a. A Candid Talk of the IFCSS's Accountability ................ Bai Yan 136 b. CSSA at University of Notre Dame ........................... Yong Xia 42 2. The Changing World: Russia Revolution a. Another October Revolution in Russia ...................... Anzhi Lai 70 b. China in Russia Crisis ----- An analysis based on national interests (A) ... Jian Chen 72 3. Reader's Response on CCF (9/24/93) Issue No.93.05 ....... Xiaohan Wang 41 ============================================================================ ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== From The Editor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, the IFCSS is the main topic of this issue of CCF. Bai Yan gives an in-depth analysis to the nature and operation of the IFCSS, while Yong Xia described his local CSSA and the interests and reality of the majority CSS. When dealing with the relation of the IFCSS and local CSSA, we will face this dilemma: the IFCSS will ontinue to proclaim that it represents the majority of CSS in US, while most of CSS are only interested in the benefits possibly from the IFCSS but refuse the contribution. We are expecting our reader to explore more on this topic from the standpoint of Chinese culture and human nature. Xiaohan Wang has a comment on the previous CCF crying for the ugly nature of the Chinese escaped from communist land and highly praising the function of the IFCSS in the Chinese community in US. During the crisis in Russia last week, most of us were anxious watching on TV and newspaper to look at Russia with careness and worries. Two articles were contributed here to analyze the event from the point of view of an oversea Chinese student. Some thoughtful explorations to the spirit and reality of democracy is sought by Anzhi Lai and Jian Chen. This will help us to think more about the future of a democratic China. In the next issue, we will continue the focus on the theme of the IFCSS and local CSSA. We expect that there will be more readers comment on the participation of common CSS in building the CSS community. Contribution to other topics are welcome: building our own community, professional life after school, relation of China and USA after the cold war and the IFCSS, ... ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1a. A Candid Talk of the IFCSS's Accountability ................ Bai Yan 136 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If IFCSS wants to represent the Chinese students and scholars (CSS) in the U.S.A., it ought to be accountable to them all or the majority of them in the case of lack of unanimity. Accountability refers to attentiveness and responsiveness to the people's desires and performance guided by their demands. For this discussion, accountability implies as well openness and visibility of decisions and actions that allows people to appraise how well the elected officials are handling their responsibilities. While in practice it is always difficult to match up with this ideal type of accountability, in theory this difficulty could not be excused for not trying hard to live up with the standards. In a strict sense, of course, the headquarter of IFCSS or the IFCSS's management, if we use business language, is more or less deviant from the definition of accountability, as examplified in its poorly prepared budget, insulation, and less or even no reaction to the public opinion. As a result, some concerned people are stymied and frustrated by the headquarter (HQ)'s low accountability that do not recognize their worth as the participating community members. These people may simply leave us and look elsewhere to make their mark. In some part, argueably, the HQ's less accountability is the function of the nature of the post-CSPA era during which the apparently clear lines of responsibility typified in the heyday of CSPA has become blurred, thus severely limiting the opportunities that the HQ can avail of itself for representation and leadership. This also renderred itself vulnerable to the challenges from within, since people diverted their attention from Congress, INS, and CSPA to IFCSS's internal affairs. In large part, however, the reasons of the HQ's less accountability are inherent in the institutional structure, which does not provide the HQ with incentives to behave accountably. Here I would like to offer three plausible explanations, though they may sound cynical. (1) IFCSS's large part of revenues are donated by some organizations as patronage, not generated from CSS membership fees. This can be found from the first drafted budget where 60% is donations and grants, 40% is service charges, and none is from membership fees. Logically, IFCSS doesn't owe accountability to the CSSs because there is no contractual relationship between them. Unlike taxpayers who have some say in government's spending, the general population of the CSS community virtually has no way to invoke a sense of liability from IFCSS; they can only hope for the best. Using street language, IFCSS doesn't give you a damn, if you don't pay it a dime. Well, exceptions do occur. The entire process of CSPA proved the possibility of incurring obligations without the weight of money. But these exceptions fall in the realm of public ethics and civil conscience rather than the institutional structure. (2) The occupants of the HQ are elected by the representatives, not by the populace directly. Therefore, theoretically, they don't have to be attuned to the popular sentiments or majority desires. In fact, even those representatives are not elected in most of cases. (3) They are elected for only a short time span of one year. Consequently, they tend to concern themselves with the immediate problems or spend as much as possible with less regard to long-term development or any problems beyond the current term. The aforementioned institutional factors suggest a built-in hinderance for the fulfillment of direct democracy. Organizations, like governments, are usually run by the elites. As such, indirect democracy (in this case the inner institutional check and balance by the legislature) should be brought into full paly to compensate for what direct democracy is unable to achieve. Somehow, the Chinese people have a tradition of neglecting legislative assemblies. This tradition has at least been nurtured and exacerbated by the impact of the strong party rule in China's political system. People seem to value a symbolic direct connection between the ruler and the general will. This direct connection asks the public to accept a policy that has already been adopted by the elites by bypassing the legislature that is empowered to provide viable alternatives of policy. The Council of IFCSS, or the Board of Directors, is much better equipped to exercise meaningful control over a remote and powerful HQ than is the atomized CSS individuals. It also has access to information unavailable to the rank and file CSSs. Actually, the Council has already taken its first step in budgetary oversight and planned an accounting on-site inspection at the HQ, which is expected to bring the HQ's performance in line with the legislative intent, code of ethics, professionalism, and the notion of responsiveness. True, it is about time to move forward, rather than continuously preserve the status quo. In this connection, I'd like to take liberty to offer a few of precautions. (1) Regardless of what is in store for this inspection, be it an openning of treasure box or Pandora's box, it shall be strictly a mission of goodwill conducive to an strengthened unity and cooperation. Ultimately, the purpose of inspection is to figure out the amount of resources available for this year's budget and to establish a set of professional or near-professional accounting, auditing, and budgeting procedures. (2) We work for the future, not the past. Therefore, too much attention to the history will not only sidetrack the mission into unending entaglement but also damage the prospect of IFCSS's continuation as a whole. (3) Putting a cap on some items of the budget such as travel allowance and the newsletter is not the whole but part of legislative responsibilities. Up to now the Council has not yet come out with a set of options for the items that were frozen. In some sense, a sheer and prolonged holding of money is as undesirable as spending them unproperly in that it entails a deprivation of services that could have brought about to the CSSs if money had been put in usage. This is what opportunity cost is all about. Under the pressure of time, both the HQ and the Council need to break the stalemated stagnation as soon as possible irrespectively by resubmitting budget (the HQ's part) and working out a policy package (the Council's part). Certainly, the Council also has the problem of incentives. So far the Council members work on the basis of voluntarism and some of them could not help but have put forth a request for compensations. Undeniably, legislative responsibility requires a great deal of giveaways of time, energy, and so on. Too often we ignore these people who carry out essential activities for IFCSS in the Council, various committees, regions, and local branches but in a less visible and dramatic way. As far as this request is concerned, I think that the Council members deserve compensations for their work. There might be, however, a problem of legality, if you will: Can the Council vote compensations for its own members and take it into effect before the next election? If that doesn't constitute the problem, the Council may set its expense account perhaps based on per diem basis for regular and special sessions. Some pay cannot guarantee responsible Council members, but it will motivate conscentious members to perform their duties with more enthusiasm. This essay evolves around the institutional structure--revenues, indirect election, and short-term vision--as an exploration to explain the HQ's less accountability, which, as seen, is not intent to deal with other aspects of accountability. There are rooms for further discussion, if we care. To this end, I leave myself open for corrections and critical comments. The spirit of Olympic applies here: What is important is participation. (From: 13-OCT-1993) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1b. CSSA at University of Notre Dame ........................... Yong Xia 42 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CSSA at Notre Dame, the largest foreign student group on campus, has about 100 students and visiting scholars. These students are studying in most of the major Departments from Sociology to Economics, from Law school to MBA, and from Chemical Engineering to Computer Science and Engineering. The CSSA is operated by its committee. The committee members are elected anonymously by all its members once a year. Normally, there are 5-6 persons served in the committee. The President and Vice President are selected during the first meeting of new committee members. The current election rules prohibit any person seeking second term. Each year the CSSA organizes two major parties, one on Chinese New Year Eve and one near the Mid Moon Festival. These parties have similar programs each time. Party Begins with dinner reception. Each family is required to prepare a main dish as entries and the organizer provides the large part of the food and drinks. After the dinner, some Chinese music and dance are performed by the students and their families. Then the dancing party kicks off the final program of the parties. Guests are not encouraged to bring by students except for the special guests invited by the President. Also, the CSSA committee election is held during the middle of the New Year Eve party. Besides these two parties, the CSSA also holds a couple of Chinese movie parties each year and has some Chinese movie video tapes for free rent year around. Both movies and video tapes are from Chinese General Consulate in Chicago. The financial source of the CSSA is from two sectors. The Chinese General Consulate in Chicago provides about 50% of the budget and the Notre Dame Student Program supports the rest of it. The money is mainly used to sponsor the events mentioned above and to purchase some entertainment equipments. Once there was an IFCSS local chapter called Notre Dame IFCSS. Students were free to join Notre Dame IFCSS, CSSA, or both. With the leaving of its first two term leaders, Notre Dame IFCSS had lost its energy and was inactive ever since. Today, almost all the later-commers are not aware of its existence. During the critical time for the battle of CSPA last year, only about 30% of CSPA beneficials were involded in the labby activities and only one later- commer expressed his support. It is hard to imiage that Notre Dame IFCSS could revive its course for the sake of democracy and the unification of Chinese nations in U.S. (From: SEPT-1993) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 2a. Another October Revolution in Russia ...................... Anzhi Lai 70 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76 years ago, the October Revolution in Russia changed very profoundly the geopolitics of the world. 76 years later today, we have seen another October "Revolution" in Lenin's homeland. It is interesting for most of us, native Chinese before and overseas Chinese now, to hear mostly compliments to both Revolutions (imagine if we were overseas Chinese before and native Chinese now, we might just hear completely opposite remarks on both). The first revolution may have been given a fair conclusion by now. What about the second one that was unfolded just a few days ago? I can probably understand why Yeltsin did what he did based on the knowledge that I have about Russia's reality. I can probably understand also why the world (mostly industrial nations) have more admiration than criticism to this just-happened revolution considering the interests of those nations in the world. But, I fail to see how Yeltsin's action can be justified from the point of view of building a civil society and democracy; especially, I fail to see the justification of suppressing opposite voices by killing people and closing opponent newspapers such as Pravda (The Truth). Yeltsin may be committed to Russia's reform and democratization, which might have encountered opposition from the "hard line" Parliament that was basically composed of the old "people's representatives" appointed by the Communist Party before Yeltsin came to power. The question is this: did all these entitle Yeltsin the right to dissolve the Parliament, which was actually the spark that ignited the subsequently brutal killing of more than 100 lives. A politician might say "Yes, what else can you do?", which has been the "main" stream sentiment around us after so many political spinners spinning around to influence our thinking. However, if we compare what Yeltsin did with what the CCP had done, we can see many many parallel similarities. These similar actions adopted by both the CCP and Yeltsin are nothing but brutal suppression of different voices, both were under the name of reform and national stability (or restoring order). Some may argue that Yeltsin is on a "more" decent track than the CCP, and Yeltsin's opponents are more "dangerous" than the CCP's. Then, who can guarantee that Yeltsin's (or CCP's) next move won't be more "decent" but still encounter opposition? Further, is the "more" decent more entitled to strip the right of the "less" decent or even to kill? From the human rights and democracy point of view, opposition is inevitable and NECESSARY in a broader sense, which for sure is not liked by those who have power. The sad fact is just like what we Chinese often say: Yu4 Jia1 Zhi1 Zui4, He4 Huan4 Wu2 Ci2. The one who is in power can make all kinds of excuses to blame those who are not and purge them. This time, Yeltsin might have "correctly" got rid of the "bad" guys by means of revolution. But, is it safe for the world to count on him to do all things "correctly" in the future by supporting what he is doing today? Isn't it better for the world to stick with the principles of human rights and democracy rather than to support one who is seemingly on "right" track? Should the world forget that Deng Xiaoping had actually done a large number of good things for his people and even for the whole world, but still came to the killing in Tian An Men square? The world is getting more and more complicated. We may be fooled by the rapid changing world if we forget about the very fundamental principles upon which the human civilization should be based. Isn't clear that this second October Revolution in Russia abused human rights and violated the principles of democracy ironically under the name of human rights and democracy? Isn't is clear that this Revolution and the aftermath effort of beautifying it are shedding a shadow on the track of human's strive towards a more civilized world? Any government's killing of its own people for the purpose of suppressing opposite voice should be condemned, especially if the suppression is triggered by the government itself. At the moment, I only wish Russian people, or all peoples in the world, a more civilized and democratic future free of this kind of October Revolutions. Also, I hope that we will see a world sticking more with fundamental principles of human rights rather than political interests. (From: 6-OCT-1993) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2b. China in Russia Crisis ----- An analysis based on national interests (A) ... Jian Chen 72 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************************** It is naive to believe other nations will act on your national interests. It is equally stupid to make enemies because other nations acting on their national interests. ****************************************** In my previous series "The Nature of Democracy", I analyzed the nature of democracy and proclaimed the national interest as the global driving force for the international politics. Democracy and Human Rights are only tools to serve for the national interest in the international politics. As crisis in Russia develops, a common understanding has been established in the net that United States does not really care about democracy in Russia, instead, United States in more interested in the destruction of Russia. As claimed by President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major, they will support Yeltsin on the condition that Yeltsin continue his "political reform". In another word, they will support Yeltsin on the condition that Yeltsin continues to destroy Russia and bring Russia into pieces like former Soviet Union. After observing Russia destruction, We understand that the purpose for US government to promote democracy and human rights is to serve for the national interest of United States. Some netters feel cheated and become anti-America. However, I would like to point out here, although Russia is too naive to believe United States and western countries will act on their national interest, Chinese people should not be stupid to make United States and western countries as enemies because they are acting on their national interests. United States and China share a vast common interest. It is beneficial for both countries to cooperate each other. It is also the interest of Chinese students in United States to have a better relationship between United States and China. There is nothing wrong for United States to act on her national interest. In the time of cold war, thousands Soviet nuclear weapons were pointing on USA. It is the interest of United States to fight against the threat. Bring down Soviet Union from its inside is the only choice. Nuclear weapons are useless in the political struggles. Therefore, United States use democracy and human rights as tools to create the internal opponents in Russia and make them fight each other. The policy of United States was successful. The Soviet Union was dead. Russia is heading to the same direction now. The destruction of Russia can go two ways. One possibility is independence of each republics like what happened in former Soviet Union. Another one is civil war. The first option is the best for United States and the world because Russia still have a huge number of nuclear weapons which can destroy the whole world. The second possibility is second Russia civil war. If some Russian wake up and understand who is behind the destruction of their country, their life, they will turn the anger to United States and western countries. The Russian nationalists may control some nuclear weapons and initiate a nuclear war. This is not only a danger to United States and western countries, but also to the human race. In this sense, United States are playing with fire. Bush was excellent in international politics and smoothly brought Soviet Union down. But Clinton does not have much experience in the international politics. From what he did on Somali Crisis and Bosnia Crisis, I am deeply concern about his ability in handling Russia Crisis. As a scientist, I only can wish President Clinton do not risk United States and the world. The nuclear weapons in Russia present the greatest danger to the world in the human history. At the present time, it is the most urgent for United States to bring Russian nuclear weapons under control. One possible solution is that UN Security Council pass a solution and authorize the International Council for Atomic Energy to unload nuclear warhead from Russia missles. This will be extremely important in case Russia civil war breaks out. Certainly, this will need Yeltsin's cooperation. It seems to me that it is possible for United States to convince Yeltsin to do so. (From: 6-OCT-1993) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 3. Reader's Response on CCF (9/24/93) Issue No.93.05 ....... Xiaohan Wang 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- After post the IFCSS statement on Olympic Issue on the network, the author questioning the legitimate of IFCSS whether it truly represent the majority of Chinese Students and Scholars(CSS) in the U.S. or not ,and my answer to this question is YES, and the following are my reason/feelings. First, just after the 6.4 Event, among who support the most to protest to the Massacre? Students from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Chinese Americans,and the CSS: we set up booth on the campus to ask donations for the 6.4 victims and after that, held candle light ceremonies to pray for the ones who sacrifice for what we believes in. The question is: where are some of the CSS at that time? Except for the few future IFCSS leaders, most of them just keep mouth shut and do nothing but to look and see[observation](of course, when we pass our donations to them, they seems in high spirit and without shame to accept it). My point is: You cannot blame someone who bravely speak for you while you do nothing - as long as YOU are one of them. Second, for the CSPA issue, IFCSS lobbying hard for the CSS at that time and get the overwhelming support: I do not believe that MOST CSS interested in politics more than the greencard issue for pragmatic reasons. One of our drawback is: All we want to is Gain but not to Sacrifice. IFCSS is open to the U.S.CSS to participate and their officials are ELECTED by the U.S. CSS representatives to serve OUR own interest: therefore do not accusing them to speak for you if you afraid to speak out for yourself. Finally , IFCSS provide the student helath insurance plan which we really care, and not to mention the Sprint Long Distance discount, and the life insurance plan, etc. Becase WE elect the IFCSS officials, we have the right to seek help from them to serve our own good. Of course, a lot of us feel upset about the outcome of the Olympic Bid at Monte Carole, and the later IFCSS open statement: we should remember that though IFCSS becomes a more non-politically professional group, its root was based on the 6.4 TienAnMan Democracy Movement, and thus it cannot ignore the Human Right issue for what it stands for. For the MFN issue, people interested in it should pass a bill in the next IFCSS convention or write to the IFCSS Headquarter to advocate their ideas. I hope most of us can support the IFCSS to enhance our voice in this society: United We Stand, Divided We Fell. (From: 9-OCT-1993) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Zhendong Liu Executive Moderator: Shusheng Luan + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + 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 + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++