Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:28:16 PDT Reply-To: ebccf@oce.orst.edu Sender: China-Net From: ebccf@oce.orst.edu Subject: C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m (Issue No. 9309) 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 20, 1993 (Issue No. 9309) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= 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: Russian Revolution a. China in Russia Crisis ----- An analysis based on national interests (B) .. Jian Chen 69 b. Russian Crisis, Democracy and National Interests ....... Liming Ling 144 c. How Do I See the Event in Russia .................... Changqing Yang 33 2. Between Readers and Authors: about CCF (10/13/93) Issue No.93.08 ............... Hongkuan Li and Anzhi Lai 72 ============================================================================ ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== From The Editor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In last issue of CCF, two articles on the Russian Revolution has generated some discussion in the China-Net. In this issue, the discussion on the same topic is carried, including three articles by Jian Chen, Liming Ling and Changqing Yang, and an exchange between the reader and author. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1a. China in Russia Crisis ----- An analysis based on national interests (B) ... Jian Chen 69 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a Chinese, we naturally ask what China should do in Russia Crisis. Russia has a stronger military power and much more nuclear weapons than China. A more important factor is that China is a neighbor of Russia and share thousand miles boundary. This determines that China can not afford to offend Russia. Therefore, China has to take a neutral stand in the political struggles in Russia. This is the position of Chinese government. This policy will ensure that China will not lose anything from Russia crisis. However, it will not give China much benefit from Russia disintegration. In the following, I intend to go one step further to discuss the policy of Chinese government and explore the possible benefits to China from the disintegration of Russia. 1. Unload Russia nuclear weapon warheads from missiles. Russia disintegration will remove the nuclear threat against USA. At same time, Russia disintegration will remove the deep threat against China from the north. Although China can not afford to offend Russia, China can and should support United States to unload Russian nuclear warhead. 2. Save Russian scientists, particularly military scientists. As the destruction of Russia is underway, the life of Russian Scientists will become increasingly difficult. It is not the interest for both of United States and China to see these scientists go to some third world countries and increase the threat to the world. United States and China should do the best to save Russian scientists, particularly, military technology scientists. For the interest of China, Russian scientists can bring advanced Russia technology and it is beneficial to China. As a scientist, I do not want to see scientists suffer too much from international politics. 3. Promote the investment in Mongolia. Mongolia was a part of China before 1912 and is surrounded by Russia and China. It has no boundary with any other countries. Neither it has its own exit to the ocean. Disintegration of Russia makes the survival of Mongolia much more difficult. It has nowhere to go but turn to China. The re-unification with China can be beneficial to Mongolians. The investment in Mongolia will help its economy. There are many discussions about Great China Economic Zone, including Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong. It is possible to let Mongolia join Great China Economic Zone and share the benefit of economic booming in China. In long term, after the economic integration, it is possible for Mongolia to rejoin China as a part of Republic of Great China including Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mongolia. Surely, the investments need protections. Chinese government should sign an agreement with Mongolian government for investment protection for Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong businessman. As a major power in the world, Chinese government protected Taiwanese in Gulf War. Chinese government should extend its role and protect Taiwanese investment in other countries. 4. Trade with Russia. Due to the instability of Russia and huge business risk, it is not wise to invest in Russia. However, trade with Russia is possible. With a poor economy in Russia, China can buy advanced technologies with a very good price, particularly, military technologies and advanced weapon systems. There are many things China can do in Russia Crisis for the national interest of China. But China should be extremely careful in dealing with Russia. It is wise for Chinese government to take a neutral political stand in the political struggle. Finally, I wish President Clinton can handle Russia Crisis well and keep United States and the world safe. (From: 6-OCT-1993) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1b. Russian Crisis, Democracy and National Interests ....... Liming Ling 144 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recent events (Beijing bid for 2000 Olympic Game, Yinhe cargo ship and Russian Crisis, etc.) evoked a new round of discussions about American imperialism and Western big powers within the Chinese Community in US. I believe Chinese are becoming more and more sophisticated and matured these days. The days of leaning entirely to one side are probably gone forever. During these discussions, however, besides many enlightening ideas and food for thought, you could still easily see quite a few radical viewpoints on different places (ACT, SCC, etc.), including this net. Nobody believes that the imperialism has totally disappeared in this world. Therefore, the criticisms of imperialism are definitely not irrelevant. However, some criticisms are simply going a bit too far. I am not going to argue with those extremely radical points, but I'd like to remark some interesting but biased viewpoints about Russian Crisis, democracy and national interests. Somebody said on this net: (1) It is naive to believe other nations will act on your national interests; (2) It is equally stupid to make enemies because other nations acting on their national interests. I think he made good points. These two sentences make much more sense than those old ways as to tell friends from enemies only by ideological differences. However, there are still rooms for improvement. The second sentence is more solid than the first one. In the first sentence, it might be better to add an "only" prior to "on your national interests", because, sometime, there are mutual interests. What are trade relations to do to the countries involved? Don't you expect something from your partner? The "equally" in the second sentence might be omitted, since "naive" is not quite equal to "stupid". American and other Western big powers' behavior during Russian Crisis alienated many netters and a lot of other Chinese people. The following viewpoints might be of representative. (1) Democracy and human rights are only tools of western powers to serve for their national interest in the international politics. (2) United States does not really care about democracy in Russia, instead, United States is more interested in the destruction of Russia and bring Russia into pieces just like former Soviet Union. (3) Russia is too naive to believe United States and western countries will act on their national interest. (4) To bring down Soviet Union from its inside, United States use democracy and human rights as tools to create the internal opponents in Russia, and successfully make them fight each other. Let me comment on these points one by one. First, although "democracy and human rights" could be, and have often been used as tools to serve national interests, they are not "only" tools. Democracy and human rights have their independent values in the progress of human civilization. Failure to recognize this principle, like failure to recognize the fact that "democracy and human rights" could be used as tools, is also very dangerous. Second, you may say US and other western countries, during the Russian Crisis, cared more about their own national interests than the democracy in Russia. You may not say that they didn't care at all about democracy in Russia. You have no evidence to say that US is interested in destruction of Russia. Americans and other western people are afraid of wars, especially with former Soviets or Russians. The best way to avoid that kind of war, they believe, is to democratize the former Soviet Union and its bloc. The German and Japanese histories after WWII support this idea. Americans always supported the reunion of Germany although this may increase German competitiveness. They did not send tropes to Japan to crush it simply because of their long lasting trade deficit. Also, I did not see the American intention to promote the destruction of Russia this time. The destruction of Russia may not be the best interest for the US or western powers, especially when Russia is moving to the direction they hoped before. Here, I'd like to mention that the definition of "destruction" might be different in different people's "dictionary". To me, "destruction" means "devastation" or "catastrophe". The "political reform" and economical reform does not necessarily lead to division of a country, let alone destruction. Even division of a country may not be the same as destruction. Third, please do not underestimate Russians. Russians are not as naive as what you thought or expected. At the same time, please do not overestimate US' and other western powers' influences there. US is not that powerful yet. You may look at the situations in some countries today, which are as small as Somalia or Haiti. Is US the almighty? What happened in the former Soviet Union and now Russia had its own internal logic. I bet the former Soviets in the Ukraine and the Byelorussia are not going to share your pessimistic or sad feeling to the division of the former Soviet Union. It may also be helpful to read some of the works by famous Russian writer, Suo'errenniqin (Nobel laureate in literature, and the author of "Gulag's islands"). He suggested many years ago that Russians should cut the "middle Asian tumors" and others to liberate themselves. Another Western expert on international affairs wrote an essay, at about 20 years ago, titled by "can Soviet Union still exist to the year of 1984?" I was astonished even by the title itself. About 20 years ago, Soviet Union was almost the almighty. Western powers including US were retreating in many aspects. However, you would probably make a similar conclusion after reading his analyses on the various contradictions within that huge country. That guy was not perfect. What he predicted did not appear until almost 10 years later. But, who's going to laugh at him? Fourth, people presented point (4) above forgot some basic things. (1) People fought each other at that vast land between Europe and Asia thousands years before even US existence. Who are going to be blamed for that? (2) It is naive to think (many people thought that way) that Gorbachev started "openness" and "reconstruction" on his own initiative. In fact, he, his comrades and his predecessors were always under pressure. This pressure came from the comparison with Western powers, especially US. Here, US played its role. The pressure of recent years mainly was not from military affairs (they were almost equal already), but from economical and political parts. Had Soviets and its bloc had more powerful economy, it would have been US and other western countries that need to change their various systems. Several reports and articles from Soviet Academy of Sciences to Gorbachev (when he just came to power) revealed a definite lag in Soviet bloc economy comparing to US and its allies, and clearly indicated there was no way out if they kept the same way. At the same time the build up of tension was easily seen between Soviet Union and its bloc, between the leaders (or Communist party) and the people, and between the different nations within the Soviet Union. I don't even need to mention these examples. Democracy and human rights have been advocated hundreds of years, and they appeared definitely before the Communist movement. Why do Soviets and Russians suddenly open their eyes and tend to believe what they thought as trash even 10 years ago? Don't you feel any puzzling? Lenin once said the Socialism could claim victory only after its averaged productivity surpasses the capitalist counterpart, and he was absolutely right about that. Today, the same thing happened to Yeltsin and Deng Xiaoping. Without almost collapse of Chinese economy after the Cultural Revolution, Deng and his colleagues would not initiate the economical reform. Without 6.4 event, Deng would probably not try to change "planned economy" to "socialist market economy" either. Even if he made the proposal, his comrades were very likely to reject it. However, here, I do not have intention to play down Mr. Deng's essential contribution. Facing crises, different people make different approach. The former General Secretary of CCP, Mr. Hua Guofeng, said that he would have launched a similar reform had he stayed in power several years more. I deeply doubt it. Finally, the person, who wrote the two sentences that appeared at the beginning of this article, also suggested that Chinese people should not make Western powers as enemies because United States and China share a vast common interest. I can't agree more about this. Furthermore! I think the relationship between China and US will be the most important, crucial one (yes! "most", not one of the "mosts") in the whole world in the next century. It is all true to China and to the US. Overseas Chinese students and scholars are likely to play a significant role in it. (From: 9-OCT-1993) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1c. How Do I See the Event in Russia ..................... Changqing Yang 33 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- There have been quite a lot discussion on the nets regarding to the recent event in Moscow. Some people compared that to what happened in Tian'anmen Square four years ago. some compared that to Hua Guofeng arrested Gang of Four 17 years ago. The opinions are polarizing. I guess the key point here is that we have different understandings on Rustkoi, Khasbulatov, and other Parliament members. To what I understand, they were, and still are democrats, at least as democratic as Yeltsin and Gorbachev were. They supported Yeltsin's struggle for democracy two years ago. They voted for Yelstin as their Parliament leader first, then helped him win the presidency. The key difference between them and Yeltsin was that they prefer a more gradual approach on economic and social reform, which I view as a right stradegy, to the so called shock therapy, proposed by Prof. Sachs of Harvard, and embraced by Gaidar and Yeltsin, which I view was radical, impractical, and has cause the total collaps of the economy. There is nothing wrong if people have different opinions as long as they still can cooperate and work together, although it is normally very difficult. The problem has been that both sides were abusing the power they had. Yeltsin, in my view has always been the one who went further than his opponents. In order to get public, and especially the Western support, he used the media, especially the TV stations, under his control to label his opponents communists and fascists. This is something I can not agree with at all. Once you start labeling your opponents, and utilizing the public sentiment, you start to agitate hatred between the people and you are preparing for your dictatorship. That was what I saw in Russia. Yeltin was not Hua Guofeng and the Russian Parliament was not the Gang of Four. (From: 15-OCT-1993) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 2. Between Readers and Authors: about CCF (10/13/93) Issue No.93.08 ............... Hongkuan Li and Anzhi Lai 72 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Lai: I just read your article on Russia, which was carried on CCF. I have to say that I don't agree with your analysis. 1. Your claims about the 1st Revolution in 1917 is NOT justified. 2. Compare with CCP's control over propaganda with Yeltsin's doings, -- well, you only did a very superfacial analysis; again, not justified, -- you only mislead the Chinese readers at best. 3. IMHO, Yeltsin's "hardline" doings towards those old Communists may be a right thing for the majority people of Russia. At least one point is clear, if you do a poll, most people will still vote in favor of Yeltsin. 4. Back to CCP [and Provada, The Truth, & People's Daily], what a single major issue in history was supported by the majority people if a poll was executed independently? So we all got an unfortunate feeling that our government and our leaders always run counter to the general populace. They make the policy behind doors and we never have a basic right to comment based on our conscience. Is Yeltsin doing the same thing right now??? I doubt. By Yeltsin's resolute doings, Russia may really be on the right track to democracy. Hongkuan Li (From: 15-OCT-1993) ___________ __________ __________ Dear Mr. Li, Thanks for your comments on my article on the recent event in Russia. I do not think that I claimed anything about Russia's 1st Revolution in 1917 in my original article. You are right that Yeltsin's control over news media is in no match to CCP's control. But it does not mean that shutting down newpapers like Pravda could be justified, although a large number of Russians do not like Pravda either. If you say I was misleading Chinese readers "at best", I am interested to know what is "at worst" in your mind, mind telling me? According to your comments, you seemed to hate communism. I am glad to know that because I hate it too. However, it remains to be seen if Yeltsin is going to bring a better system after he shoots down those "communists". He may have the majority support in Russia right now. But let me remind you that a majority support could also bring disasters, especially when the majority does not know the whole story. Mao Zedong had absolutely majority support when he was crazy starting the movements of Anti-Rightists, the Three-Red-Flags, the Cultural Revolution, and so on. It seems that President Yeltsin is not as stupid (or smart, depending on how you view it) as the CCP. But he is still manupulating the news media in a way that the professionals in the Western democracy deplore (if you watched Lary King, you know how those guys felt), although may already be a rosy reality our Chinese journalists can only dream of. Again, it remains to be seen if Yeltsin's action is putting Russia on a right track towards democracy. Some friends of mine say that a democracy may not be necessarily born without blood, and if a democracy is really born out of blood, it might be more colorful. The question is: is Yeltsin bringing a democracy to Russians with a bleeding wound? Sorry, I maybe Qi2 Ren2 You1 Tian1'ing again. Anzhi Lai (From: 15-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 + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++