From: IN%"[email-masked]" "Editorial Board of Chinese Community Forum" 29-MAR-1994 21:17:49.82
To: IN%"[email-masked]"

==+==+==+==    C h i n e s e   C o m m u n i t y   F o r u m    ==+==+==+===

                        Wednesday, March 30, 1994

                             (Issue No. 9415)

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Chinese Community  Forum (CCF) is a  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
============================================================================
1. U.S. Foreign Policy and MFN for China
 1a. Battered in Beijing.................................Jim Hoagland    104
 1b. Restraint of Trade -- 
     Business vs. Human Rights......................R. S. Greenberger    238
 1c. Psychic Readings Regarding MFN...........................Bo Peng     66
 1d. Time Is on Our Side -- Despite China's Pathetic Record, 
     There's Still Hope................................Kongcong Zhang    101
 1e. Failed Clinton Foreign Policy and MFN.................Daniel Qiu     50
2. Readers, Writers and Editors
 2a. Do We Really Understand American?......................Amanda Wo     46

===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***===========
                              From The Editor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past several issues of CCF, we have discussed MFN issue from different
points of view.  We have carried several articles from Chinese students and
scholars in the U.S.  Meanwhile, several of articles from major news media
on this issue have been brought to our readers.  The articles in this week's
CCF mainly focus on the way Clinton's foreign policy was conducted.  Also,
Mr. Bo Peng, with his sense of humor, portrayed several scenarios after Mr.
Clinton makes his decision.

We also have a letter from one of our readers who questions whether we
really understand Americans.  His comment is in response to a letter we
carried last week from a reader of our Forum.  A key question he asks:
Should we expect Americans to understand our (Chinese) culture in our way? 
We hope that after reading this letter, you will send us your reflection on
this question. 

===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***===========
1. U.S. Foreign Policy and MFN for China
 1a. Battered in Beijing.................................Jim Hoagland    104
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Say this for Warren Christopher's bungled diplomatic foray into  China: It
makes his handling of Bosnia look brilliant by comparison.

The end of winter brings out the worst in the Clinton administration's 
penchant for launching the low-key Christopher at a high-profile  diplomatic
problem as a substitute for adopting a clear, effective  policy.

Almost a year ago Christopher went off to whip the Europeans into  shape on
Bosnia, only to come home in visible retreat.  But at least  the Europeans
were equally responsible for that policy mess.

On China, the secretary of State, the president and their aides have 
produced a policy disaster all on their own.

By the time Christopher left Beijing, he had made a bad situation  worse
with a visit that should never have been made.  The odds now  are that the
Clinton administration will come out with the worst of all  worlds on
China--trying to compensate for political errors through  economic pressure.

Over the past six months Washington has given the crumbling  Communist
dictatorship new political legitimacy by seeking a  "dialogue" on human
rights.  Now that Christopher has been kicked in  the teeth, President
Clinton may be forced to maintain his credibility  by canceling the most
favored nation trading status that is helping  make China more of a
capitalist nation.  He would have been better  off the other way around:
maintaining normal trading status with  China while withholding the
political approval Clinton conveyed by  welcoming China's president for a
bilateral meeting last November in  Seattle and by the other high-level
contacts the administration has  pursued.

Astonishingly, in the wake of Beijing's deliberate humiliation of 
Christopher, Undersecretary of Defense Frank G. Wisner met with  Chinese
officials in Beijing recently to discuss a future meeting  between the two
nations' defense ministers and other subjects.

Could my outrage be misplaced?  Is the Wisner mission a tip-off that  the
recent days of arrests and harassment of dissidents and soft  words by
Christopher was a staged presentation of Chinese  toughness, masking a
secret deal to be unveiled in time to justify  Clinton's granting MFN in
late May?

Let us hope so.

Otherwise one must conclude that the Chinese believe that no matter  what
they do they already have in the bag renewal of the trading  rights that
will net them a projected $24 billion trade surplus with  America this year.

Beijing could easily have drawn the conclusion that Clinton would not  dare
buck "the business lobby" from a speech given to the Hong Kong  Chamber of
Commerce on March 3 by Undersecretary of Commerce  Jeffrey Garten, who
emphasized the importance of China and  Indonesia to Clinton's "national
export strategy" and to American  investors.

Asked by reporters how his speech fit with the president's emphasis  on
human rights and Christopher's upcoming visit to China, Garten  replied that
he did.not deal with human rights.  (To which Jonathan  Mirsky of the Times
of London responded: "Come on.  Even Oscar  Schindler did a little human
rights.")

Christopher's performance may well have confirmed for the Chinese  that
bullying this administration works.  Speaking before unhappy  U.S.
businessmen in Beijing, the secretary softened the  administration's stand
on what the Chinese must do to get MFN  renewed.  Before the Chinese beat up
on him, Washington sought  substantial progress in human rights.  Now
Christopher seeks only  "limited progress."

That downgrading of the U.S. goal--under the twin pressures of the 
Leninists who run the Chinese government and U.S. businessmen  reaping
handsome profits in a low-wage economy--does the  dissidents of China a
disservice.  And it obscures what "human  rights" means in the context of
China today.

A petition signed by Xu Liangying, a 74-year-old historian who  translated
Albert Einstein's collected works into Chinese, and six  other prominent
intellectuals stated the dissidents' one basic  demand: to be able to say in
public they want a democratic China in  which the Communist Party has to
compete for power at the ballot  box rather than monopolize it through the
barrel of a gun.

Prime Minister Li Peng's army murdered hundreds of students  rather than let
them say those dangerous words in June 1989.   A  score of people who would
have said those words to a senior U.S.  official were arrested just before
or during Christopher's visit, with  little visible outrage by the
secretary.

China is a reality that has to be acknowledged.  Trade in nonmilitary 
goods, on a normal basis, is a constructive way to do that.  But Clinton 
has saddled himself with the choice of revoking MFN or cynically  claiming
that his policies have produced significant change in China  when that is
not the case.

Better to do what no government, including Bill Clinton's, has ever  done. 
That is to admit it has botched its China policy and needs to  start fresh. 
Grant MFN, suspend high-level political contacts and  have Clinton again
meet with pro-democracy Chinese students and  publicly support Tibet.

That would at least gain Clinton something that Christopher's visit  did not
produce: Respect from the tough-minded rulers of China.

          [From: Washington Post National Weekly Edition, March 21-27, 1994]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1b. Restraint of Trade -- 
     Business vs. Human Rights.......................R. S. Greenberger   238
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary of State Warren Christopher had barely begun his human-rights
lecture to Chinese Premier Li Peng during his recent trip when the Chinese
leader interrupted.  He had held many positive meetings with top executives
of U.S. companies recently, he noted, including General Electric, AT&T, IBM
and "Gold Sacks" - an apparent reference to the Wall Street investment
house.

The message was clear enough: Beijing isn't taking Mr. Christopher's
lectures very seriously.  A cacophony of conflicting signals from the U.S.
has led Chinese leaders to conclude that the Clinton team won't follow
through on its threat to totally revoke China's trading rights.  And they
may be right.

Without strong leadership from the top, even the U.S. government isn't
speaking in unison.  Earlier this month, John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary
of State for human rights, went to China to warn that the U.S. would revoke
China's favored trading status by June unless Beijing significantly improves
its human-rights performance.  Without checking in advance with Mr.
Christopher, Mr. Shattuck also met in secret with leading Chinese dissident
- a move that incensed Chinese leaders after news of the session surfaced in
Beijing.

-- Digging a Diplomatic Hole

But at the same time as Mr. Shattuck was threatening to cut off trade
relations, a top Commerce Department official, Jeffrey Garten, was in the
Chinese capital trying to strengthen those ties.  He was discussing
arrangements for a trade meeting that will bring more than 100 Chinese
officials to Washington next month.  His visit was paving the way as well
for a planned trip by Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and two dozen U.S.
Corporate chieftains to Beijing in August - two months "after" the deadline
for China to show progress on human rights.

The presidents's National Economic Council and his National Security Council
plan a joint meeting today in an effort to find a way out of a hole they
have dug for  themselves.  Meanwhile, China's leaders continue to defy U.S.
demands that they make improvements on human-rights issues in exchange for
trade privileges.  Just yesterday, China's foreign minister publicly lashed
out at U.S. policy, declaring that China could live without the American
market.

-- Dropping Odds

One U.S. official predicts that today's session will be a tense one.

In the wake of Mr. Christopher's stormy trip to Beijing, senior officials
concede the odds have dropped that China will make significant progress on
human rights over the next two months.  If they don't, and President Clinton
agrees to continue China's Most Favored Nation trading status, he will be
accused of breaking his word, kowtowing to the Chinese Communists and
demonstrating once again that in the new world, the U.S. lacks the courage
of its convictions.

But if Mr. Clinton fails to extend trading privileges, he will be cutting
off what his Commerce Department calls the world's most promising market for
U.S. goods over the next two decades and tarnishing his own promise to make
economics a guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy.

These vast economic stakes have triggered the bickering among officials over
China policy.  Economic aides in the White House and at the Commerce and
Treasury departments complain bitterly about their colleagues at the State
Department, including Mr. Shattuck and Assistant Secretary for East Asian
and Pacific Affairs Winston Lord.  One White House official joked last week
that while many Americans go to China to buy shirts, Mr. Christopher went
there and lost his.  State Department officials counter that economic
officials are responsible for undercutting the president's threat.

Senior U.S. officials still were emitting mixed signals as recently as last
weekend.  On his way to a meeting of Asian finance ministers in Honolulu on
Friday, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen adopted Mr. Christopher's though
line, saying: "If the decision were made today, I assume that China would
lose that [most favored nation] privilege."

But after arriving in Honolulu, Mr. Bentsen started talking compromise,
telling reporters the U.S. needed to avoid "disengaging" from China.  "I
think we have to explore alternatives to see if we can work this out," he
said. The next day, Mr. Bentsen tried to undo the damage, saying China had
to do more, but  he also said China "has made progress in the last few
months."

Even the Chinese were confused.  An aide to Chinese Finance Minister Liu
Zhongli who had heard Mr. Bentsen's comments scurried after reporters to
double-check the message. "Did he say China has made progress in recent
months?"  Told by reporters he had heard the secretary correctly, the
Chinese official replied: "This is a positive message."

While Mr. Christopher has been heaped with blame over the past week, the
administration's no-win China policy really has its roots in the
presidential campaign of 1992.  Candidate Clinton, taking his cues from
congressional Democrats, repeatedly pummeled President Bush on a
foreign-policy front where Mr. Bush seemed vulnerable: his "coddling" of
aging Chinese rulers who sent tanks into Tiananmen Square in 1989 and mowed
down pro-democracy students. Mr. Bush angered congressional Democrats by
thwarting their efforts to pass punitive measures against China.

Last spring, the Clinton administration finessed the Most Favored Nation
issue by extending the trading privileges for another year.  But in doing
so, the President issued an executive order setting conditions that China
could realistically meet and that were less stringent than ones Congress was
vowing to pass.  The order was hammered by Mr. Lord and Samuel Berger, the
deputy National Security adviser.  The two officials consulted closely with
two congressional Democrats - Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate
Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine - who were spearheading the efforts
for tough sanctions.

-- Signs of Trouble

"At the White House signing ceremony, everyone from the head of the
U.S.-China Business Council to representatives of agricultural exporters to
members of Congress were there, and there was overwhelming support," recalls
Mr. Lord.

That is, except among Mr. Clinton's economic team.  They felt the executive
order overemphasized human rights at the expense of economic opportunity.

By last summer, it was  becoming clear the policy was in trouble.

China was doing little to release political prisoners or ensure that
products shipped to the U.S. weren't being made with prison labor - steps
they needed to take under the executive order.  Moreover, China's leaders
were prompting them to clamp down on any signs of discontent.  And with the
prospect of a succession battle looming when China's aging leader, Deng
Xiaoping, passes from the scene, senior officials were anxious to stand up
to the U.S.

In the meantime, President Clinton was getting an earful both from U.S.
business executives and from overseas trading partners.  They were nervous
that a rupture in U.S.-China relations could jeopardize their budding
business profits and derail the Asian region's prosperity.

On the way back from the Group of Seven Tokyo summit in July, Mr. Clinton
began grumbling about the way the China policy was working - or not working
- presaging a switch in U.S. strategy.  Developed between mid-July and Labor
Day, the new policy was dubbed "comprehensive engagement."  The idea was to
broaden ties with China in trade, business and military affairs, as well as
human rights.  U.S. officials believed this approach would reassure China
that Washington valued the two countries' overall relationship.  They also
hoped that growing cooperation in other fields would enable Beijing to
improve its human-rights record without looking as if it was knuckling under
to the U.S.

-- More Economic Analysis

U.S. economic officials continued to be uneasy about the thrust of the
policy, however.  At the Commerce Department, Mr. Garten marched into the
fray with a thick, classified economic analysis titled "U.S. Commercial
Interests in China to the year 2000."  In it, he called for more specific
economic analysis to be incorporated into China policy making.

Following a top-level meeting in early October, Deputy U.S. Trade
Representative Charlene Barshefsky, the Commerce Department's Mr. Garten and
Treasury Undersecretary Lawrence Summers stayed behind to complain that Mr.
Lord still was placing excessive emphasis on human rights and security
issues at the expense of trade and economics.  They told Bowman Cutter,
deputy director of the National Economic Council, that the policy was still
unbalanced.  Mr. Cutter took the complaint to Mr. Berger, the deputy
National Security advisor, and further adjustments in the policy process
were made to give the economic officials a greater voice.

Yet the public contradictions continued.  Mr. Clinton tried to juggle the
competing interests at a November gathering of the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation organization in Seattle.  During a parley with top U.S.
officials in his hotel suite before Mr. Clinton met with China's president,
the focus was heavily on commercial interests, recalls one participant.  But
after Mr. Clinton met with the Chinese leader, the U.S. President said he
had emphasized "the need for early concrete  progress" on human-rights
issues.

The new policy continued to send mixed signals to China along diplomatic
channels as well.  Mr. Christopher, who had already met four times with his
Chinese counterpart, planned his recent trip to Beijing to underscore U.S.
determination on human rights.  Not only was the June deadline approaching,
but China's annual meeting of the People's Congress was leading to the
customary roundup or harassment of dissidents.  Chinese officials' fury over
Mr. Shattuck's meeting with Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng added further
fuel to their anti-dissidents campaign.

As Mr. Christopher made his way Beijing, traveling first to Australia and
Japan, prospects for the trip continued to dim.  Sitting in his suite at the
Okura Hotel in Tokyo, Mr. Christopher, prodded by some political advisers
who saw a potential disaster in the making, asked Mr. Lord whether the trip
should be postponed.  Mr. Lord, a former ambassador to China, argued that
canceling it would deprive Mr. Christopher of the chance to carry the U.S.
message directly to the Chinese leaders and might cause a rupture in
relations that couldn't be healed by the June deadline.  The Secretary of
State decided to keep to his schedule.

After his first day in China, where the reception was as frigid as the
winter wind blowing down from Mongolia, Mr. Christopher considered cutting
the visit short.  But again Mr. Lord, along with the U.S. ambassador to
China, Stapleton Roy, argued against such a move.  They said that Chinese
negotiations often fit a pattern of becoming more accommodating after first
day.

According to U.S. officials, the Chinese leaders' tone did moderate somewhat
on the second day, but Mr. Christopher ran into a buzz saw from American
Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, citing the enormous business stake in China,
openly criticized the administration's policy of linking MFN to human
rights. Mr. Christopher's aides, who were expecting such carping, tried to
limit the damage made by closing part of the meeting to the press.

But Mr. Christopher's traveling press corps objected as they were Beijing
asked to leave the session.  Noting that Mr. Christopher moments before had
described American freedoms, one reporter asked if, "in the interest free
speech," reporters could remain in the room.  Mr. Christopher called for a
show of hands from those in the business audience who preferred the session
closed.  The business executives wanted their message carried by the U.S.
media.  Not one hand was raised.

-- Continued Mixed Signals

"We are constantly reminded by our Chinese partners that the annual fear of
MFN withdrawal raises serious questions about the credibility of our
commitment to China." complained William Warwick, chairman of AT&T China
Inc., during the session with the secretary of state.

Mr. Christopher says that China policy is on course and that there is still
time for Beijing to meet the standards set in Mr. Clinton's executive order.
The secretary of state maintains that the noise level of his visit obscured
some marginal progress that was achieved on the last day of his visit.

Nevertheless, U.S. officials continue to send mixed signals.  Last week, an
administration official told the Washington Post that the U.S. is giving
preliminary thought to liming the impact of provoking MFN by applying it
only to some imports from China.  The official explained that the Chinese
might consider this a more credible threat than vows to totally rescind MFN.

But China hears different voices.  Speaking last weekend in Honolulu,
Chinese Finance Minister Liu said, "I think in the U.S. Congress there are
different views, and I think in the U.S. administration there are different
views.  I think it is the view of U.S. business to solve this issue once and
for all."

[Forwarded by Yuting Zhang <[email-masked]>, from Wall Street Journal
Report on March 22, 1994]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1c. Psychic Readings Regarding MFN...........................Bo Peng     66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, my psychic friend couldn't tell how wise Bill is -- I called, not
Bill. So she just offered three possibilities:

a. Bill is VERY wise.
   Result: China loses MFN, then gets GATT the next morning, 2 min before
           the NYSE opens.
   Consequence: Bill gets to say "Keep your promises, stupid!" 
           CCP gets to say "See? Just like The Great Leader Chairman Mao, we
           never yield to pressure from the imperialists. Uh-uh, no way,
           never, forget it, don't even think about it...... And, now that
           you imperialists have failed, just to make your pitiful lives a
           little more miserable, we're gonna release a dozen so-called
           political prisoners. Heck, they won't be useful later anyway..."
           Japanese LDP gets bummed.
           Chinese people live happily ever after.
           American people live happily ever after.

b. Bill is OK.
   Result: China gets MFN, but with a few sanctions/barriers. The
           elimination of these sanctions/barriers depends on, of course,
           "significant improvements on human rights records blablabla."
           GATT talks drag on.
   Consequence: Bill gets to say:"Look guys, the American economy and human
           rights are like my wife and lover -- how could I just give up
           either?  Compromise, stupid!"
           CCP gets to say:"See that? Did you guys see THAT? HA! We won! DID
           YOU SEE THAT! WEEEEE WO O O O O O N! Eerr...maybe we should start
           collecting a few so-called political prisoners so that we can
           release'em next year..."
           Japanese LDP cranks up its American lobbying machine.
           Chinese people get by another year. Nothing they could do anyway.
           Just try to make a living while they can.
           American people sleep on.

c. Bill is...his favorite word.
   Result: China loses MFN. No GATT, either.
   Consequence:Bill gets to say:"Relax, RELAX!  They'll collapse in a few
           short months. Ha! Wouldn't that be fun, another Commie going down
           the drain? And then they'll be coming and begging. Oh brother!
           Wouldn't that be more fun! Ah you AT&T, Motorola, Hughes guys are
           just out'o ya mind! What'ya think, I'll trade principle for YOUR
           profit? Human rights, stupid!"
           CCP gets to say:"Hell with the imperialists! Now let's recite
           Chairman Mao's quotes 'Zi4 Li4 Gen4 Sheng1...' Com'on! Kill each
           and every one who dares to stir up trouble in this time of
           solidarity. What? Taiwanese are pulling out their money, too? Go
           get the whole damn place! You Brits! If you say one more word
           about election in HK, just ONE li'ttle word, HK is ours the next
           minute! And you..."
           Japanese LDP holds a nationwide party, then throws tons of
           leftovers to China as a gesture of friendship and goodwill.
           Chinese economy collapses in a month. Rice 10,764 Yuan/kg,
           equivalent of $0.02/lb. Bulletproof vests $23,984 each but you
           simply can't find any around. (Of course, people kill for them so
           wearing one could be the most lethal...)
           American people:"Duh? China? OH...oh YEAH, what a pity! But I
           have some china to spare so go ahead take a few..."
           HK collapses in a week. Real estate drops to 1 ruble/acre.
           Extreme immigration regulations enforced in Vietnam.
           Singapore sinks into the ocean due to overloading.

                                                  <[email-masked]>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 1d. Time Is On Our Side -- Despite China's Pathetic Record, 
     There's Still Hope................................Kongcong Zhang    101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
If you have been following the latest developments in Sino-U.S. relations
and you find yourself confused, you are not alone.
 
Few people can boast of being otherwise.  Not Winston Lord, assistant
secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs and a former
ambassador to China, who admitted to not having a clue why the Chinese
government had chosen Secretary of State Warren Christopher's arrival in
Beijing as the occasion to showcase its political muscle; not Christopher's
aides, who prepared the secretary's trip expecting of Beijing's conciliatory
gestures on human rights but arrived there seeing more abuses of human
rights; and not even the secretary himself, who met with Chinese Premier Li
Peng for the first time as secretary of state only to be told that the
United States would be better off minding its own business.
 
"China will never accept the U.S. human rights concept," Li, who is believed
to have been a key player in the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre and the subsequent
arrest and sentencing of thousands of political dissidents, told
Christopher.  "History has proven that it is futile to apply pressure on
China."
 
To drive its premier's message home, the government arrested more political
dissidents after Christopher's arrival.  That is in addition to more than a
dozen detentions of the country's best-known political dissidents, including
Wei Jingsheng, who was released on parole last September after being jailed
for 14 and a half years in prison for his pro-democracy activities, and Wang
Dan, a student leader from the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations.  To avoid
further police harassment, Wei, and Wang, who was detained twice within 10
days, had to leave Beijing.  Some of the early detainees are still being
held.
 
In the face of chilly receptions by the Chinese government, it is only
natural that the secretary feels frustrated.  "We are not asking for the
impossible of the Chinese government," Christopher told a group of
businessmen gathered at the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing,
explaining the Clinton administration's China policy.  "We are simply asking
that it gives its citizens the basic rights guaranteed by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights."
 
That frustration is made more difficult to swallow by the fact that the
Clinton administration thinks it has done all things possible to engage
China in more areas than one, including trade and military cooperation, an
area regarded as highly sensitive up until recently, and that Chinese
President Jiang Zemin has led U.S. congressional leaders to believe that
progress on human rights issues was coming.
 
But then, the Clinton administration, and for that matter, the whole Western
world, ought to have known better.
 
China is no democracy as the West knows it.  In the less-than-a-half-
century history of the People's Republic of China, the country has always
been ruled by a paramount leader who has the final say on everything of
importance. As is human nature, everybody makes mistakes, and China's
paramount leaders are no exceptions.
 
What becomes tragic is that in attempts to cover their mistakes, China's
paramount leaders make more, bigger, and sometimes ruinous mistakes. 
Chairman Mao persecuted Peng Dehuai, the country's second military command,
for speaking out about Mao's mistakes in staging the Great Leap Forward
movement (1958-60), which, coupled with natural disasters, starved tens of
millions of people to death.  During the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), Mao
turned the country into chaos by inciting factious Red Guards to attack on
his imagined enemies, including Liu Shaoqi, then president of the country.
 
Ironically, the man who would emerge in the late 1970s as the country's
current paramount leader, and who is making the same mistakes (if only to a
lesser extent) as Mao did, is someone who was repeatedly persecuted under
Mao. Whoever says history does not repeat itself needs look no farther than
China.
 
Frustratingly dismal as the human rights situation in China is, there always
is hope.
 
Inside China, for the first time in history, for every democracy activist
well known to the West, there are hundreds more less-known people who fight
for the same cause just as courageously if not more so, not to mention its
growing number of citizens becoming more and more aware of the country's
need for respecting human rights.  Overseas, also for the first time in
history, organizations devoted to promoting democracy in China like the
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (U.S.A.), despite
their short history, are exerting an increasingly significant influence.
 
Then, there is the U.S.-led international community.  Up to the moment, the
United States has mostly acted alone in pressuring the Chinese government.
When a true U.S.-led force applies its pressure, one cannot overstate its
potential for bringing about changes.
 
In the final analysis, political events, staged or not, come and go.  So do
political figures.  But one thing remains constant throughout the history of
civilization: The world has never failed to march in the direction of
recognizing and respecting universal human rights.  So, Mr. Secretary, cheer
up: Time is on our side.
 
                                                    <[email-masked]>

[This article was originally carried on The Badger Herald (UW-Madison),
March 16, 1994]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1e. Failed Foreign Policy and MFN.........................Daniel Qiu     50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has been more than fourteen months since Bill Clinton came to office. 
Although he has showed strong leadership in domestic agenda, I would give an
F+ to his foreign policy so far.  Except his performance on pushing through
NAFTA agreement, his foreign policy has been a failure.  Based on his failed
foreign policy, I would still predict that the MFN of China would be renewed
by June 3.

The basic characters of this administration's  foreign policy are promises
of action and broking of promises.  We can very easily count several cases
of these promises:  

Haiti, the White House was never happy with what has been going on in this
tiny Caribbean country more than five hundred miles away from its seashore. 
It has made several attempts to "restore the democracy" in Haiti, yet, no
sign it can be achieved in the near future.  In order to save some face of
breaking promise, a CIA report was "leaked" to the news media, portrayed the
democratically elected Haitian president "mentally unstable."

Somali, the previous administration did a great job in restore peace and
rescue the people from famine.  Yet, when the call of the installation of a
democratic government came out, the US government signed on at first.  But
it was not easy, and when the news of casualty hit home, the administration
backed off.  "It was never the task of the Americans to be there as
policemen."

No example would be better than Bosnia.  Only after half a dozen threats and
then retreats did Uncle Sam finally stand firm on its promises.

In all of those cases, it has been very clear that American national
interests are way above the moral concern of the White House.  It will be the
same by the end of May.  Ideology row with Beijing will yield to the
economic well-being of the American workers and consumers.  Only needs
Clinton to find an excuse to do so.

Well, you may think it is hard especially after Warren Christopher's failed
trip to Beijing.  Not so!  Clinton has already been very "impressed by the
leadership" Beijing has shown in dissuade North Korean from making the
A-bomb, even though no sign of THIS row being resolved yet.  Even if Beijing
would not further "impress" Clinton on "significant progress" in human
rights, he could still claim the need for cooperation with Beijing to pursue
the stability in that region -- a key US national interests.

If I am in Beijing, I would not worry about MFN, at all.  

                                               <[email-masked]>

===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***===========
2. Readers, Writers and Editors
 2a. Do We Really Understand American?......................Amanda Wo     46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I felt very disappointed after reading Gavalda's article.  I love Americans
and I think most of us hardly understand them. 

In my opinion, the core of west culture is individualism. Not every American
regards other cultures as funny, peculiar and amazing.  We thought we know
about other culture, but how much do we know and why do we want to know?  It
is a stereotype that we see American just "White, middle class self-center
people".  "American" itself means multi-culture.  No other nation in this
world can bear more than the United States does.  It is "us" who are not
"American" yet, and (most of whom) want to be "American" one day, always
blame "American" for not having interest on "other culture" (in fact, our
culture for most cases).  

But why they have to learn our culture by  our way? Americans like Italy
food as well as Chinese food.  English absorbed thousands of several
languages.  It was said four out of five Americans know about China but how
many Chinese know about a country which is less developed than our
motherland?  The United States is one of the most developed country in the
                                                            ^countries
world.  Maybe the youth does not have enough appreciation to what they get
today in order to keep this country as strong as it was, but you can hardly
say Americans are bad on learning other's culture.

Before we blame Americans, we should ask ourself one question: How much do
we know about other's culture?  How much do we know about "American"
culture?  About the mainstream religion, about black culture, about Asian
American, about indian, about Mexican culture (Did you see, my list is not
exclusive because my lack of knowledge of American culture?).

I believe nobody would bother himself to learn more unless he has motive. I
agree with Gavalda that Japan is a good example to absorb other culture as
well as keep their own.  However, the United States is also a good example
to adopt multi-culture.  I never feel uneasy in this country because my
culture was ignored or I was ignored.  It is my responsibility to learn more
and to communicated with American and make my culture being part of their
existed culture.  As the same, when they want to do business with China, when
they travel in China, it is their responsibility to learn about our culture. 
To my experience, Americans do want to learn about other culture when they
have to. Do not forget that most of us (foreigners) were top tenth of
population in home country and today we get alone with average American. 
They are intelligent enough!

                                                   <[email-masked]>

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++
+ Executive Editor: Changqing Yang         Executive Moderator: Huang Tang +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name"     +
+       to  LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet)  or  [email-masked] (internet)  +
+ For back issues of CCF:                                                  +
+       anonymous ftp to  cnd.org[132.249.229.100]:pub/community/CCF       +
+ For contribution and inquiry: mail to [email-masked]               +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++