Subject: CSS Today #95017, June 14, 1995

From: Yuan Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 19:38:15 PDT

############################################################\\   \\#########
   T h e   E l e c t r o n i c    N e w s l e t t e r    o f \\   \\C S S
%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=\\ N \\=%=%=%=
          ____________       ____________       _____________  \\   \\
        /   _____     ))   /    _________))   /    __________)) \\ E \\
       /   //    )____))  {    ((________    {    ((_________    \\   \\
      {   ||     _____     \_________    ))   \__________    ))   \\ W \\
       \   \\____)    ))   __________)   ))   ___________)   ))    \\   \\
        \____________//   (_____________//   (______________//      \\   \\
                                                                     \\   \\
         ]]]]]]]]]  ]]]]]]]  ]]]]]]]]   ]]]]]]]  ]]]   ]]]            \\   \
            ]]]    ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]]  ]]   ]]              \\
            ]]]    ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]] ]]]]]]]]]   ]] ]]    ==========
            ]]]    ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]]    ]]]     No.  95017
            ]]]     ]]]]]]]  ]]]]]]]]  ]]]   ]]]    ]]]    _1995.06.15_

%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=
CSS Today Editorial Board                             <[email-masked]>
%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=

           I N    T H I S   I S S U E                           No. of Lines
============================================================================
Special Topic: Lee Teng-hui's US Visit and CSS' Response
    o  Majority CSS Express Concerns Over LEE's Visit  .................. 21
    o  After Lee Teng-hui Returned to Taiwan............................. 98
    o  IFCSS Council's Show on LEE's Visit .............................. 32
    o  CSS Across the Country Condemn IFCSS Council's Show .............. 40
In the Community --------------------------------------
    o  Commemoration of 6.4 at Buffalo .................................. 14

Open Forum --------------------------------------------
    o  Beginning of an Era ............................................. 102
    o  LI Jinghong Distores Facts Once Again  ........................... 79
    o  Who is the Boss of IFCSS ? ....................................... 81
    o  An IFCSS Council's Stand of "No Stands" .......................... 70
    o  Why LEE's Visiting US a Sensitive Issue? ......................... 41

Humor and Prospective -----------------------
    o  Animal Farm  .................................................... 192

=====<<<< Special Topic: Lee Teng-hui's US Visit and CSS' Response >>>>=====
Majority CSS Express Concerns Over Lee's Visit .......................... 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ER Huan/CSS Today                                                 CSST 95017

Dr. Lee's "private" visit to his Alma Mater has raised deep concerns among
CSS in this country and around the world. Besides the letter to President
Clinton written by IFCSS Acting President, another letter addressed to
President Clinton written by CSS volunteer was also circulated among CSS
for signatures. Many CSS within this country and around the world have
actively responded to the letter campaign.  Meanwhile, during Dr. Lee's stay
in Cornell, a rally was held on June 9 by CSS in Cornell University, calling
for unification of greater China and condemning any deeds of separation.

It has been widely perceived that Dr. Lee's so-called "private visit" was
not merely a private one. From his highly politicalized "private  visit",
many CSS are concerned over the possible impact on the Sino-US relation,
as well as the relation between Mainland China and Taiwan.  Although CSS
population has different emotion toward Taiwan's effort to establish its
diplomatic tie with outside world, they strongly oppose any attempt to
pursue separation, namely, one China and one Taiwan.

CSS Today also learned that the coordinator of the letter campaign also
received large amount of messages from individual CSS expressing support
for this effort. The overwhelming responses from individual show their firm
stand on one China policy.

=====<<<< Special Topic: Lee Teng-hui's US Visit and CSS' Response >>>>=====
After Lee Teng-hui Returned to Taiwan ..................................  98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WANG Ji/CSS Today                                                 CSST 95017

By all standards, Lee Teng-hui had a successful visit, to both his alma
mater, Cornell University, and this country, the United States.  However,
the nice trip did not end as Lee's airplane landed in Taipei.  The business
is going  on, as the orders for more Boeing airplanes are placed, and the
crude oil from  Alaskan field is waiting to be shipped.  More importantly,
Lee is working on visiting another alma mater, Kyoto University, Japan.
It is not hard to  imagine that Lee is happy, as we we can see from his
appearance in Cornell campus.

But, behind the arrays of cameras and big smiles, some people are not happy.
First are the leaders in Zhongnanhai, who vowed to fight to avert Lee's
plane to Taipei after it was about to take off, but watched it touched down
the Los Angeles without any difficulty.  It is easy to imagine that JIANG
Zeming could mistake the plane is his, and the stretch limousines was
ferrying himself to the White House for a historical meeting he is longing
for.  Second are some members of the current IFCSS Council, particularly
the Chairman, LI Jinghong, who share the same last name with Lee but found
his efforts in helping Lee visit the US did not guarantee him a ticket to
perform a royalty dance, which he has practiced years, for Lee in either
Hotel or the welcome banquet, and XING Zheng, an alumni of Lee, found
himself no place to stay after reached the main entrance of the auditorium
where Lee was talking about the future of Taiwan to two groups outside, one
is claimed to be Taiwanese and another one is Chinese, since XING could not
figure out to which group he belongs.

Lee's visit is rather short, and he returned to Taiwan before any headline
news were generated.  The significance of the visit is also limited to the
breakthrough of the private presidential visit itself.  However, the shock
wave generated by the visit in the Chinese community in the US exposed more
hidden layers we have not seen or realized for a long time.

First, while Lee was denouncing the separationists in Taipei before he went
to the airport, LI Jinghong and his associates, who claimed represent
Chinese students and scholars in the US, sent out a shocking message that
under his leadership, the Council, demanding the acting President of the
IFCSS, to renounce an earlier statement which called President Clinton take
cautions when dealing with Taiwan.  It was surprising that LI would like
such a statement to be released concerning the unification issue, which
occupied the brains of so many Chinese during the last few weeks, as I
experienced during my travel from San Francisco to New York.  In the
Chinatown of San Francisco, the banners hung on the streets reads "Lee
Teng-hui should not be allowed to visit the US", while another group was
assembling a welcome team to go to Los Angeles airport to greet the
President.  LI may think he is smart enough to hide his real attitude
toward the visit by saying that the group or the council itself is
apolitical, but he stupidly forget that the IFCSS statement did not say
anything political either rather than mentioning that the implication of
the visit to the current "One China" policy which was adhered by the US
government since the Nixon visit to China more than twenty years ago.
Nobody, even the spokesman of Lee, did not deny the significance of the
implications of the visit, and actually they are quite happy with the
worrisome implications.  His performance this time, under the non-political
banner he abandoned long time ago, once again revealed that this group,
headed or heralded by Li, has the political agenda which is different with
any group we have seen around.  But as shameful as they are, they still
want to put their weird slogan everywhere in the name of the CSS community.
Here I just wondered if LI go to the airport to greet Lee in the name of
Taiwan Folks Club or the Lee's(not Li's) Family Association.

The one-man show of XING Zheng, current head and only member of the newly
surfaced ACSS at Cornell University, is more disgusting.  While many people
are worried about the implications and possible disastrous results of the
visit, XING ventured out to greet Lee on behalf of the CSS there.  His
outrageous behavior did outraged the CSS there, and a statement was
released to denounce the false representation and claim.  At this time,
XING changed his tactics, and he coined another group and acted as the self
appointed head, but sent out numerous statements without any name on it, as
he used to behave in the CSS community.  Once again, the key issue here is
that just like his buddy, LI Jinghong, in LA, XING wanted to represent the
CSS community without any consent from any people with brain.

Lee's visit brought a great show to the Chinese community, which may not
be on the schedule of Lee.  We saw some people embraced Lee without second
thought, and we saw many folks from Taiwan were overwhelmed by the show up
of Lee in Cornell campus.  However, we also saw the separationists seized
the opportunity to stage another TI show, and the Chinese Government also
puppeted a group of their patrons with read-five-stars flags on hand.
Actually, the scene at Cornell at the time was fascinating, if you can
imagine that there were blue flags from Nationalist supporters, Green flags
from the separationists, and finally, Red flags from the Communists
supporters.  This may puzzle some Cornell Alumnus there, but the signal is
clear, the Taiwan issue is much more hot than any American, including
President Clinton, to imagine, and anybody wants to touch it should precede
with extreme caution, before he is burnt.  The majority of CSS, by issuing
statements and staging protests, want all the parties, US politicians,
Nationalists, Communists, and anyone who think he or she is a Chinese,
should aware the potential disasters before they jump into the Strait.

Now the stage is closed, but questions remaining:  Will the non-political
LI and associates initiate another fight to outside people in the IFCSS who
think he or she wants to be political?  And, XING Zheng, can you tell us
where did you stand during the protest, Chinese side or Taiwanese side?

We may not be able to get answers from LI and XING but one thing is obvious
that they are not representatives of the CSS community, and they will never
be.  This may explain why they are constantly claiming they are acting on
behave us.  It is clear LI was not in "Sichuan Folks Club", and we still do
not know to which club he belongs.  For XING, the choice was either Chinese
or Taiwanese, nothing in the middle.

After Lee Teng-hui returned to Taiwan, LI and XING have no place to hide.

=====<<<< Special Topic: Lee Teng-hui's US Visit and CSS' Response >>>>=====
IFCSS Council's Show on LEE's Visit ..................................... 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIANG Dong/ CSS Today                                             CSST 95017

On June 3, 1995, the IFCSS Council chair LI Jinghong issued a public
statement claiming that the IFCSS Council has "unonymously passed" a
resolution asking the IFCSS President LIU Chengyan publicly withdraw the
open letter to President Clinton emphasizing US's "one-China" policy.
In his statement, Mr. LI Jinghong declared that the IFCSS "takes no stand"
on this issue.

According to World Journal (Shi Jie Shi Bao), Li Jinghong indicated that
the President LIU Chengyan did not consult the council when he issued
the statement on electronic network emphasizing "one China" policy over
LEE Teng-hui US-visiting issue.  The council immediately summoned the
meeting after knowing it and decided the withdraw.

LI Jinghong called LEE Teng-hui's visiting issue an "international
political conflict" and declared that IFCSS had never taken any stand on
such "conflicts".  LI also accused LIU to cause "extremely bad influence
in a large range".

Great concern was arosed among CSS by LI Jinghong's statement.  CSS Today
has learnt that what Mr. LI said on World Journal were largely erroneous.
At least information from three sources (see the column below) indicates
that majority CSS are not happy with the "resolution" by IFCSS council
led by LI Jinghong.  It is stated that, the council's meeting was a pre-
scheduled one long before the incidence of the "open letter". The council
didn't "immediately summon" the meeting due to the open letter.

More interestingly, it was questioned that Li Jinghong has falsely made up
an announcement claiming this resolution was passed "unonymously".  Due to
the fact that "the resolution was passed without two thirds majority of
council members", Mr LIU Chengyan, the current IFCSS president, was able
to veto it.

=====<<<< Special Topic: Lee Teng-hui's US Visit and CSS' Response >>>>=====
CSS Across the Country Condemn IFCSS Council's Show ..................... 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIANG Dong/ CSS Today                                                             CSST 95017

On June 5 and June 9, Chinese students and scholars association leaders
from more than ten universities and colleges in Southern California,
including UC San Diego, UCLA, UC Riverside, UC Irvine, CSU Long Beach, CSU
Fullerton, Caltech, Claremont, Graduate School, Pomona College issued two
joint statements publicly condemning Mr LI Jinghong, a recall-pending IFCSS
council chairman.  LI claimed in June 3 that IFCSS council had decided to
withdraw President LIU Chengyan's statement on US "One-China" policy.

In the open letter, CSSA leaders from some schools expressed their extreme
dissatisfaction: "It is a shame that the IFCSS Council headed by Mr. LI
Jinghong, which always proclaims to represents the Chinese students and
scholars in the U.S., should issue such a statement on this important issue
without first consulting with the opinions of those whom it supposes to
represent."  " ... by stating that the IFCSS has 'no stand on this issue,'
Mr. LI Jinghong and his associates have tacitly given credibility to Taiwan
independence movement, and to those who will try anything to undermine a
unified and strong China." The statement once again rejects LI Jinghong and
his council in representing the interest of CSS in this country.

In a similar move, 142 CSS from east coast and some midwest universities
issued another open letter to President Clinton concerning US "one-China"
policy.  At Cornell, over 150 CSS held a rally showing their support for
"One China".  Many CSS told CSS Today that IFCSS Council headed by LI
Jinghong became infamous over this issue.  They also mentioned that LIU
Chengyan did convey a very fundamental message to the White House,
representing our concerns over the "One China" policy, which is mostly
agreed upon by the majority Chinese students and scholars.  The president
of CSSA in Colorado State University, Mr. WU Jinnan, points out, that such
a "no stand" claim clearly shows their "stands" against the unification
of China.  While denouncing Mr LI and his colleagous' tricky "stand", WU
Jinnan sharply points out that (the IFCSS council) is "against our will but
in our names".

Just three months ago, fourteen out of twenty-one IFCSS delegates from
Pacific region announced their decision to recall Mr. LI Jinghong, an IFCSS
council members from Southern California who neglect repeatly the interest
of CSS in the region.  By watching Mr.LI's continuous show in the name of
IFCSS council and against the interest of CSS,  IFCSS' image as a CSS
organization continues to drop, many CSS told the CSS Today reporter.

=========================<<<< In the Community >>>>=========================
Commemoration of 6.4 at Buffalo ......................................... 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PU Dai/ CSS Today                                                 CSST 95017

On June 4, a 6.4 commemoration was held at Buffalo.  The ceremony was
organized by the June Fourth Memorial Fund in Buffalo, which has been
organizing the commemoration every year since 1990.  As usual, the
county executive (a Democrat) and a city councilman (a Republican) gave
speeches, so did a pastor and representatives from local communities,
including CSP, and two musical bands played and sung.  The weather was very
pleasant. About 50 CSP and American friends attended the ceremony.  A special
goal of this year's event is to initiate a donation drive for erecting a
memorial monument or statue for 6.4.  The county executive pledged financial
support in his speech, that was a big boost.  Dr. LUO Ning gave a keynote
speech. Two local TV stations come and one radio station interviewed through
phone.  There questions are mostly related to the current situation of China.
It seems media do pay attention to the events in China now, but with more
caution than six years ago.

============================<<<< Open Forum >>>>============================
Beginning of an Era -- In Commemoration of June Fourth ................. 102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LUO Ning                                                          CSST 95017

It is June Fourth again.

The events took place in Beijing six years ago shocked the world.  It takes
a long time for the people of China and the people of the world to absorb
the full meaning of these events.

In that tumultuous spring of 1989, China was at the crossroads.  The
economic reform began in 1978 had brought profound changes of Chinese
society, in particular in the countryside.  The political reform was taking
its toddling steps since mid-1980's and was gaining steam when China
entered 1989.  The pain of growth of the new economic and social forces
within the society which had been under total control of Mao and the
Communist Party, the confusion about the metamorphosis of the social
structure, and the anger over the corruption of government officials taking
advantage of the economic transition, all those had aligned people from
different walks of life together, to demand the government to take strong
and resolute measure to curb corruption, and at the same time to demand
more political freedom from the government, the political freedom which
was guaranteed by the constitution of China but was greatly decimated in
practice.

The year began with the letter of Professor Fang Lizhi to Mr. Deng
Xiaoping to petition for the pardon of Mr. Wei Jinsheng, a political
dissident who had been sentenced to jail for fifteen years for his
activities in the "Democracy Wall" movement in 1979.  It was followed by
petition letters of a group of leading writers and artists and a group
of leading scientists in Beijing.  The expectation and momentum were
building up for a change, the scope and scale of which no one could have
anticipated.

The sudden death of Mr. Hu Yaobang, an ousted leader of the Communist
Party's liberal wing, triggered a massive scale of commemoration
activities. The mourning of the dead provided a common platform and
particularly the emotional strength for people to speak out and to act
together.  Chinese students, in consistent of their traditional role in
Chinese politics, stood out as the leading voice and the focal point in
the mass activities.  The decision of the Communist Party's leadership to
suppress the commemoration activity turned it into an open civil protest
movement, which drew support and participation from teachers, workers,
government employees, journalists, and other citizens of Beijing.  The
whole world was watching, through the TV cameras, the unfolding drama.

The thunder of the tanks and the machine guns in the early morning of
June Fourth shattered that dream, a dream for freedom and justice.
Hundreds of students and Beijing citizens shed their last drop of blood
for this dream, a dream shared by all the peoples around the world, a
dream which did not come true.

Six years have passed since that dark night.

The world today looks very much different from that six years ago.
Communism has collapsed in East Europe and in Soviet Union.  The Cold War
has ended.  An era with more uncertainties, challenges and opportunities
lies in front of humanity.  China has also changed a lot.  The changes in
social structure and in mentality have never reached such a scope and
depth before.  The economic growth of China has become the locomotive of
East Asian economic expansion.  The individual freedom and choice in China
have also expanded a great deal in the economic, social and even political
spheres.

However, the economic growth has not been a fair game for everyone.  There
are those who become millionaire or billionaire overnight due to their
"official connections", and there are those who do not know if their
retirement pension could support them through their remaining years.
There are those who have established their own business by taking the
advantage of transition of economic structure, and there are those who are
thrown out the fast train of development and become unemployed.  There are
estimated one hundred million migrating labors moving from countryside to
cities, taking the hard, dirty and insecure works, but without the basic
services, job safety and security, and social benefit such as medicine and
education, that the city residents enjoy.

These global and domestic opportunities and challenges have become the
new focus now.  It seems that the memory of 1989 has been pushed farther
and farther into the back of people's mind.

It is therefore fitting to ask at this anniversary:
What is the meaning of June Fourth?
What is the meaning of the sacrifice of those who give their
life in the early morning six years ago?

June Fourth is the beginning of an era, an era that the free spirit
has risen above iron and blood, has triumphed over many countries,
and has transmuted into the entrepreneurship in the Chinese market
and the cultural revival among Chinese intellectuals.

The social problems underlying the 1989 civil protest movement have
become much more serious than six years ago.  The corruption is now
much more wide spread.  The civil discontent is again building up.
Recent petition letters by the leading intellectuals in China,
demanding press freedom and legal system to control the corruption,
are just one of the better known indicators of such a crisis.

It is at moment like this that the spirit of June Fourth become more
inspiring.  The pursuit for freedom can never be extinguished.
It will grow, it will also learn.  Learn from the lessons of 1989,
learn from the lessons of East Europe, former Soviet Union, and all
other countries, humanity is more mature and better poised for the
future, when come the moment of truth.

(Editor's note: this is the full text of a speech the author gave
                in Buffalo on June 4, 1995 in commemoration of 6/4)

============================<<<< Open Forum >>>>============================
LI Jinghong Distores Facts Once Again ................................... 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEN Zhengping                                                    CSST 95017

Recently Li Jinghong, chairman of the IFCSS Council told a World Daily
reporter in LA that in its June 3 "emergency teleconference" the Council
"unanimously" resolved to withdraw the letter the IFCSS acting president
Liu Chengyan addressed to President Clinton to express our concern over
the visa granted to Mr. Lee Tenghui to visit the US in a "private,
unofficial" capacity.  This was supposed to be an objective, truthful report
of what actually took place in the occasion mentioned above.  But was it?
Aghast at Li Jinghong's gloss, blatant, and once again, shameless distortion
of facts, I feel it is imperative to make some clarifications to undeceive
the public and to contain the damage caused by Li Jinghong's attempt to
discredit and undermine Liu Chengyan's leadership.

What did Li Jinghong intentionally leave out of the picture to make his
story sound plausible?  First of all, the teleconference was one of the
routine, quarterly events for the Council as required by the IFCSS bylaw.
This conference, originally scheduled for May 27, was postponed because,
according to Li Jinghong who explained at the beginning of the June 3
meeting, a number of council members could not be reached at the time it
was due to start.  However, several council members immediately responded
by saying that they never received the conference call on May 27,
although they waited for it at home.  Secondly, by all those who attended
the June 3 meeting, including perhaps Li Jinghong himself, it was not
understood to be an emergency situation where they were called upon to
specifically respond to Lee Tenghui's visit.  In fact it was not on the
official agenda of the conference, but was brought up as though in passing
and the discussion lasted less than ten minutes, while the conference went
on for over six and a half hours.  Thirdly only about half of the Council
voted for the resolution to withdraw the letter to President Clinton.
When it was time to cast vote, only eight or nine people were left, out of
the sixteen who should have been there.  That was all that there was to the
"unanimous consent" claimed by Li Jinghong.  As a matter of fact, only
Li Jinghong and Lu Wenhe took strong exception to Liu Chengyan's signing
of the letter, in which he did not really took a position on Lee Tenghui's
visit, but merely reminded President Clinton that it is in the best interest
of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the peace and stability
in and beyond the Asian-Pacific region for the US government to continue to
pursue its "one China" policy.

Was it any wonder, or was it merely by coincidence that Li Jinghong and Lu
Wenhe, both members of the influential CCC whose intimate tie with Taiwan
was no secret for the public, strongly opposed to IFCSS' taking a position
on this issue?  It might be of interest to you to know that this year some
people from the Council will as usual make a "field trip" to Taiwan, and
that Liu Xiang, a council member from the Pacific region whose relationship
with the CCC remains ambiguous, is definitely one of those invited.  Were
Li Jinghong and Lu Wenhe afraid that if IFCSS indicated so much as a slight
reservation about Lee Tenghui's visit, their long-time patron from Taiwan
would be provoked to withdraw its invitation to Liu Xiang et al?

Li Jinghong also told the World Daily reporter that as this is a highly
political issue, IFCSS intends to take no position on it, as if this was
the first time IFCSS has ever been involved in a "political issue."  Could
he have forgotten that the founding of IFCSS itself was a political
statement in response to the brutal crackdown of the peaceful pro-democracy
demonstration on Tiananmem Square and the killing of innocent, unarmed
students and civilians?  Did he not know that the lobby led and coordinated
by IFCSS two years ago for the passage of the CSPA  was political in nature,
to say the least?  One wonders too when Li Jinghong became the spokesman
for IFCSS.  Was it at the same time as Newt Gingrich's appointment as the
spokesman for the House?  Maybe I should stop to congratulate Li Jinghong
for his successful manipulation of the media to his advantage, or for his
clever use of his position as the chair of the Council, or both.

As an aside, in the recently dismissed lawsuit Luo Ning Vs. the IFCSS
Council, the Council chair admitted of hiring its lawyer at the mere rate
of $30 per hour.  It is highly questionable that any law firm would offer
to do so much for such a minimal fee.  At this rate you can't even hire a
professional carpet cleaner !  If there were additional charges, who was it
that picked up the bill for them?  Could it be the same group that invited
LIU Xiang et al to visit Taiwan?  If that is the case, it is inappropriate
for the Council to involve an external party in an internal dispute of the
IFCSS.  Or, perhaps it was not an internal dispute after all, but a dispute
in which Li Jinghong and Lu Wenhe were co-opted to be the pawn of a third
party with the support of big money.  If this were sheer speculation, on
the other hand, and if $30 per hour was all that they had to pay their legal
counsuls, Li Jinghong might want to refer this law firm to the Chinese
students who need legal services but who can't afford the exorbitant fee of
other law firms, in which case Li Jinghong may really be rendering himself
useful to the community.

============================<<<< Open Forum >>>>============================
Who is the Boss of IFCSS? .............. ................................ 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LI Qiang                                                          CSST 95017

This question sounds weird, isn't it? We all confused!

What has happened?

The most recent dispute was triggered by an open letter sent by Acting
President Liu Chengyan of IFCSS, to President Bill Clinton of the United
States of America, concerning his granting a visa to Dr. Lee Tenghui of
Taiwan, to visit U.S. Surely enough, this is, definitely a significant step
swaying from the long standing "One China" policy.

Whether Acting President Liu Chengyan of IFCSS's letter is well written and
to the point still remains as a question, since the CSS's community is
divided on this issue (the hottest battle ground is in Cornell University,
as we have learnt from the CSSA local network that some mainland Chinese
students want to protest while the others do not agree). We even do not
have to mention the fact that a student leader is too immature to be a
diplomat. However, LIU Chengyan did convey a very fundamental message to
the White House, the concerns over the "One China" policy, which is mostly
agreed upon by the majority Chinese and on both side of Taiwan Strait.
Without this concern, the letter simply conveys nothing more than a greeting.

However, our dearest "Chair" of IFCSS Council Li Jinghong (I put "" on his
tittle since his legitimacy to use this tittle has been challenged by his
constituents two months ago) wasted no time jumping out to challenge this
"One China" concern. According to the World Journal,

     "IFCSS Council Chair Li Jinghong claimed, after being informed that
      Mr. Liu Chengyan published a letter on computer network to President
      of The United States without consulting the council, asking US to
      maintain "One China" policy, the council held a meeting immediately
      and decided to withdraw the letter."

In the Council's resolution released to the network, we have more on this:

     "if Mr. Liu fails to implement the above (Note: to announce publicly
      to withdraw the letter) by June 5, 1995, IFCSS Council Chairperson
      shall take proper actions to implement them."

Not Surprisingly, the response from Southern California, the constituents
of Mr. Li Jinghong, if he is still a legitimate representative of them, is
thunderousely angry. It is all well known that there is generous funding
from Taiwan involved, and each year there are free tours offered to those
supposed representatives of CSS to Taiwan. The remaining question should
be, who is their real sponsor and what is their intention? To cultivate a
CSS community here in the States to support Taiwan Independence? Where is
the "Independence" of IFCSS then?

You can not expect a satisfactory answer from Mr. Li Jinghong anyway. What
he offers to the public is that "IFCSS has never taken any stand on such an
international issue". Sure? Did past IFCSS leader participated, more actively
than anyone else, in the attempt to deny MFN? Was that an "international
issue"? Probably not, one might say. It concerns only China and U.S., all
right. Is it just because, Taiwan is involved this time, and Taiwan is
already an "Independent Country", to merit Mr. Li Jinghong's argument of
"International" nature? Can anyone enlighten me on this?

To add his super weight on the so-called "Council Resolution", Mr. LI
Jinghong demands immediate implementation of his own will, or the will of a
handful of unspeakable, or he would take proper actions. Another impeachment
process? We'll wait and see, since the deadline has already passed and there
is no sign his will is implemented. Another impeachment will surely add to
the outstanding record of 6th IFCSS Council, no one doubts about that, when
Mr. Li Jinghong says no, not a single President, be it elected or acting,
can stay in his office. Equally is true that the Constituents' will counts
for nothing.  No matter what they say, even those who are from Southern
California region, those CSS Mr. Li is supposed to represent, Mr. LI
Jinghong is sure to serve his master to the last day of his illegal tenure.

Watch out, my poor fellow CSS, this illegal Chair of the Council is calling
for his own version of IFCSS 7da. Flanked by his colleague Lu Wenhe, the
infamous CCP spy catcher and thief identifier, they will block anyone they
do not trust, to make sure there is no one who will be able to challenge
their legitimacy to represent you! Be prepared to be raped by this shameless
gang - forever.

As of today's World Journal reports, those so-called pro-Democracy
organizations all welcome Dr. Lee Tenghui's visit. A good picture of
patronage of Taiwan Independent? Just can not believe those who have
degraded so far and so low. Money speaks, doesn't it?

============================<<<< Open Forum >>>>============================
An IFCSS Council's Stand of "No Stands" ................................. 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WU Jinnan                                                         CSST 95017

We all noticed that IFCSS acting president posted his letter to president
Clinton in public network, expressing our concerns over "the United States'
long-standing 'One China' policy".

Despite of some technical problems regarding IFCSS' operation rules, the
letter indeed reflects the fact that most of Chinese nationals from both
mainland and Taiwan pay a lot of attention to this event. The letter
expresses the will of the majority of Chinese people on both sides of the
Taiwan Strait, that we expect a positive international environment to help
the governments of both sides to reach a peaceful settlement of
reunification.

However, Mr. LI Jinghong and his "council" posted their "resolution" (so
called IFCSS CR6047) to force the IFCSS acting president "to make an
immediate public announcement to withdraw his open letter". In their
"resolution", it clearly states that, "IFCSS has never taken any stands
on such issues".

This "no-stand" policy is actually a trick. let's take a little reasoning
to see what the statement really means.

The statement, "IFCSS has never taken any stands on such issues", directly
implies, "IFCSS does never care any stands on such issues", otherwise,
IFCSS can start to take a stand on such issues. But they don't.

Since they never care "any stands on such issues", the original statement
can be evolved to imply that, IFCSS may accept multi-China policy, IFCSS
may accept the splitting of China into several parts, or IFCSS does not
care the reunification of mainland China and taiwan at all.

Is this kind of "stand" the opinion of CSS in USA?  Actually, the open
letter does not make any "stand" on the issue. It just expresses our
concerns over the issue. But why do some people just want to make a stand
this way?

Obviously, some people in the IFCSS "council" are trying to trap us by
their "interesting" stand of "no stands" on "such issues" for some reasons.
Is this company--IFCSS still independent?

I would like to remind everyone of that, "IFCSS" stands for "Independent
Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars in USA", which means a lot of
us are covered by this name--IFCSS. When a person speaks in the name of
IFCSS, he/she speaks in the names of "Chinese Students and Scholars in USA".

But, who are Mr.LI  Jinghong and his "council" representing?

What's behind their stand of "no stands"?

Are they representing us--CSS in USA?

While Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are denouncing
the attempt of separating taiwan from China, Mr. LI Jinghong and his
"council" announce their tricky stand against our will but in our names!

If they cannot represent us, why do we allow them to speak in our names?

It is time to resolve the problem.

LI Jinghong, LU Wenhe and QI Jusheng (two initiators of the infamous
"resolution" CR6047) must resign from IFCSS "council" immediately.

Or, I call on all the delegates of IFCSS sixth Congress to hold a special
emergency convention to dump this "council" and impeach the above three
guys immediately.

Our stand is firm, those who do not represent us can never speak in our
names!

============================<<<< Open Forum >>>>============================
Why LEE's Visiting US a Sensitive Issue? ................................ 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Wong                                                      CSST 95017

The president of Republic of China, Dr. Lee Tenghui, will visit USA as a
private trip.  The issue now becomes a sensitive topic among Chinese
community in USA (not to mention between Mainland China and Taiwan).  As
all of us know that no matter this is a personal private trip or whatever
the other reason is, this is a political show and this is an international
political game.  We can't change or play the international politics
because we are not in the position. However, we always can exchange and
share our ideas to each other.

To me, President Lee of ROC has full right and should be treated -- equally
as others to visit USA.  My argument as following. Strictly to say, Dr.
Lee is the president of ROC which was selected by all the people living in
Taiwan. One may not recognize ROC as an independent nation or whatever, but
how can one ignore or pay no respect to those people living in Taiwan?
After all, they selected Dr. Lee as their president (I am not in any
position to argue how democratic the way they voted for the president.
That is another issue.)  Those people living in Taiwan have final say if
they want to be independent from or to be united with mainland of China.
People living in Taiwan just like rest of us don't need any others or
other governments to tell them which way is better or worse for them.
Their opinion should be respected.

My second argument is that why it has to be one China.  what's wrong with
2, 3 even 4 or 5 China? Why do we have to leave our thousands years great
culture into single hand of "one china" to take the risk to be ruined if
the government, like CCP's culture revolution did to our nation, (today
is the 6th year anniversary of 6.4 tragedy, it even makes me feel strong
on this), would be crazy enough to ruin its own people and its traditional
cultures?  If we have five China, and if one China is screwed up, at least
we have other four China still keep Chinese culture and tradition for our
future generation.  Even in international political, if there are five
China all run by our Chinese, I am sure there will be much more stronger
voice of Chinese.

There are more reasons.  But the above two are the ones on the top of my
mind. I also like to point out the different concept between ETHNIC,
COUNTRY and GOVERNMENT. One ethnic like Chinese can form many countries,
and one country can have more than one government, especially government
can be changed at different time.

Yes, we could write President Clinton of USA to push him to play positive
role in dealing with the relationship between Mainland of China and Taiwan.
After all a stable Asia is to the best interest of USA, and also best
interest of all of us, right?

======================<<<< Humor and Prospective >>>>=======================
Report From the Animal Farm ............................................ 192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur ZHANG                                                      CSST 95017

(Editor's note: Since the publication of the first part of "report from
                the animal farm", the editor has received a lot of inquiry
                for the second. In order to satisfy our readers, we publish
                the whole text of this "report" on this issue.)

        Many of you have read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell. In Orwell's
account, the animal farm was dominated by the pigs. They were masters of
manipulation. The report ended with the pigs changing the Ten Commandments,
which guaranteed the equality of all animals, to a single Commandment "all
animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than the others."

        It has been more than forty years since Orwell wrote his report
from the animal farm. Although I have followed the major events taken place
in the animal farm since Orwell's report, family matters had kept me from
knowing much of the current activities in the animal farm. Now, with more
time on hand, I decided to make a trip to the Independent Farm of Educated
Animals, the biggest animal farm in the New Land.

        The animal farm reported by Orwell was located in the Old Land,
a continent apart from where we are now. After the pigs changed the
Ten Commandments to a single Commandment, they stayed in power for the next
forty years. While they were in power, they stripped other animals from
much of their rights. Any animal who criticized pigs would be severely
punished.

        But then, suddenly, there was a farm-wide rebellion against the pigs.
Scores of animals, especially those educated ones, came out to demand for
more animal rights. The pigs got really scared, but they managed to hang on
to power after a bloody crackdown. Many animals fled the farm. Those who fled
all the way to this New Land had found freedom here. In fact, they were awed
by the way residents of the New Land govern that they decided to set up their
own animal farm in similar spirit. The Independent Farm of Educated Animals
(IFEA) was officially born.

        I was about to compliment Mr. Camel, the Chief Animal of the IFEA,
for the nice farm he has when all those bandages he was wearing caught my
eyes: "Those were dog bites," smiled Mr. Camel. "Dog bites? Why did they
attack you? Aren't you the chief of the farm?" Despite Chief Camel's
reluctance to talk about the incident, I later found out the whole story.

        Although all kinds of animals helped creating the IFEA, the most
active and vocal ones are dogs. For some reason, dogs have the greatest
hatred for pigs, at least they say so. Many animals often privately express
displeasure at dogs. They believe that some of the dogs are getting too
extreme with their crusade against pigs. In fact, these dogs believe that
the whole IFEA Bylaw should be replaced by a single decree: PIGS ARE EVIL
AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE SLAUGHTERED. They managed to built a slaughter house
and love to eat pork chops.

        Most other animals have no problem with such a slaughter house by
dogs. But many are genuinely troubled by the barks of the more radical
dogs, some of them hold important positions in the farm. These dogs believe
not only that all pigs should eventually be slaughtered, but everyone should
eat pork all the time. Anyone who doesn't eat pork should not be given an
important role in the farm. Dogs from one of the radical groups called
Continental Canine Cartel (CCC) have even barked the threat to treat anyone
who doesn't eat pork as a pig! To them, an animal who doesn't eat pork is
just "a pig disguised in a sheep's skin."

        When I asked Chief Camel about CCC, he was visibly upset: "I eat
pork, just like those canines. In fact, I love pork chops as much as any
canine.  But I offended the canines because I happen to believe that it is
healthier to eat some vegetables besides pork. I also believe that the
mission of our animal farm is not just trying to slaughter all pigs. There
are other issues of concern for the animals in the farm. So the canines of
CCC think I'm a roadblock to dogism. They barked all year long at me; they
jumped on me; they swung their tails at me; they even bit me. They thought
they can intimidate me. But you know what? They were wrong! I have the
support of other animals."

        But while Chief Camel may have the support of other animals, he has
little support from those who hold important positions in the farm, most
of whom are dogs from the Continental Canine Cartel. The IFEA is supposed to
be a democratic animal farm, with power sharings among three independent
branches: the Chief and his pals, the Quarreling Sixteen, and the Watch
Dogs. This setup was supposed to prevent the kind of dictatorship by pigs in
the Old Land from happening again. This setup worked because for the first
few years all three branches were controlled by dogs; dictatorship by pigs
were definitely out.  Now, the Chief is a camel but the Quarreling Sixteen
wouldn't let him do anything unless he converges to dogism. In fact, he was
almost slaughtered like a pig by the canines of CCC if not for the
intervention of the natives of the New Land.

        "Now, I can't even prepare food for the farm without the approval
of the Quarreling Sixteen," Chief Camel complained bitterly, "They send
one of them to shadow me and check out whatever I do. He will not let the
animals of the farm eat if he thinks I haven't prepared an all-pork meal."
The one sent by the Quarreling Sixteen is a dog from CCC nicknamed "Skunk".
Skunk was allegedly a hero in that rebellion against pigs in the Old Land.
He got this nickname because he always put his feet on desks whenever he
sits down, and they smell like a skunk. He never bother to wash his feet
because he wants to be "down to earth."

        Suddenly, I smelled something unpleasant. "Here comes the Skunk."
Chief Camel quickly sprayed some air freshner. A skinny dog with
dirty feet walked in. He wore an angry facial expression and barked
pointlessly a couple of times. When I introduced myself as a reporter,
he merely stared at me. He then checked around for pork grease and left,
apparently satisfied with the amount he had seen.

        "Was he really a hero in the Old Land?" I asked, somehow finding
it hard to believe that an animal of such dubious character can be revered
by his fellow animals. "I don't know," sighed Chief Camel, "he claims he was
wanted by the pigs there. So other animals just assumed that he must be a
hero." Being wanted by pigs in the Old Land is a badge of courage and a
ticket to celebrity status for any animal in the New Land, especially if
one was on the 17 Most Wanted list. That is why now there are 35 dogs who
all claim to be on that 17 Most Wanted list.

        I felt that as a reporter I should also hear the story from the
dogs side. So I bid Chief Camel farewell shortly and headed to see Red Dog,
who is the chairanimal of the Quarreling Sixteen and was allegedly one of
the most ferocious attackers of Chief Camel. I had met Red Dog a couple
of times before, and rather liked him. As I recalled, he was rather
low-key, with a gentle bark. But his gentle appearance is extremely
deceptive, as Chief Camel found it out the hard way. Whereas Red Dog
impresses nobody with the decibel measure of his barks, he does have the
most persistent barks of all. This quality has earned him much respect from
his fellow canines.

        I received a warm welcome from the chairanimal as I stepped on his
doorsteps. After some polite exchanges I cut right to the real subjects.
        "Did you really bite Chief Camel, and why?"
        "You bet I did. Too bad we didn't hurt him as badly as we had hoped.
You can't have mercy to a pan-fried dumpling."
        "Pan-fried dumpling?" I looked puzzled.
        "Brown skin outside, but all pork inside. We think Chief Camel is
practically a pig. But we are aware that some of our fellow animals disagree.
That's why I have asked Judge Le Horse to give me a ruling on the matter."

        Le Horse is the head od the Watch Dogs, a position he has held
for nearly six years. He is actually a fox, not a horse. But horses have
farm-wide reputation for being honest and fair, so he changed his name to
Le Horse, and thus deemed himself the fairest and justest animal in the
whole farm. One thing about Le Horse is that you don't want to get into
a barking match with him. He holds the Guinness Book record for the
highest decibel measure ever recorded for a bark. Often his barks are so
frighteningly loud that they can cause damage to one's ear drums.

        "Do you think Le Horse will agree with you on Chief Camel?" I had
some doubts. I didn't think dogs had a strong case. "Why not?" said Red
Dog confidently, "Even though Le Horse is not a dog, he is still a canine,
right? He has been our friend for all those years."

        I decided to shift the subject away from Chief Camel. So I asked
the chairanimal about diversity in the farm.
        "Many animals have privately told me that as much as they like
pork chops, they love to see some diversity in the farm. Are you going
to allow more diversity in the farm?"
        "I am really glad you brought this up." said the jubilant
chairanimal, "We have just come up with a new strategic plan for more
diversity. Folks in the farm will love the new plan."
        "What's in the new plan?"
        "Well, do you remember the Xiang Sheng (comedy dialogue) back in the
Old Land called `A Pig Is All Treasure' by Ma Ji and Tang Jiezhong?"
        I remembered vaguely there was such a Xiang Sheng. It was about
the value of every part of a pig.
        "We got really excited after listening to it again. You know, there
are a lot of things we can do with a pig than just eating pork chops. In our
new plan, we will promote pig bone soup, pig hair comb (he showed off his
neatly combed hair), pig leather shoes, pork fat soap and perfume, and many
more. Exciting, isn't it? We will even allow vegetables."

        "Vegetables!" I couldn't believe what I heard. Didn't Chief Camel
get into trouble for advocating vegetables? "Then why did you attack Chief
Camel?" I asked.
        "Even on the issue of vetegables, Chief Camel is too pro-pigs.
The difference between our vegetable policy and Chief Camel's is that
we think vegetables should only be secondary to pork."

        I asked to see a few recipes in his new plan for diversity. Chair
Red Dog handed me a small handbook with the title "Delicious Vegetable
Cuisine Made Easy." I quickly browsed through it and found recipes like
these:

                            Spinach Pork
            Heat a tablespoon pork fat in a wok. Add one leaf of
            spinach and a pinch of salt. Stir fry 10 seconds. Add
            3 lbs. pork and 3 cups of water. Boil in medium heat
            till the pork is tender. Serve 8.

                    Pig Skin Fried in Vegetable Oil
            5 lbs. hair-free pig skin, dried. Heat in a wok one
            drop of vegetable oil, and 3 gallons of pork oil.
            Fry the pig skin until golden. Serve as appetizer.

        I thought those recipes were interesting, although I wasn't
sure whether I would want to try them myself at home. As I was about to
make a few polite comments about the new plan, I heard a thunderous
bark: "Hi Red Dog, I'm coming." So I stood up, and told the chairanimal:
"I guess I must leave now." "Oh, it's Le Horse. He is still 5 miles
away. There is no hurry." But I was about to conclude my visit anyway.
So I thanked him for being such a good host, and promised to visit him again
in the near future.

        A deafening bark from Le Horse almost knocked me over as I was
stepping out. "Hi Red Dog, We got a great verdict! We agreed that
all camels are actually pigs."

(END)

############################################################################
| Editor of This Issue: ER Huan           Deputy Coordinator: YUAN Wei     |
|                   Technical Editor: LIANG Yan, SAN Zi                    |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
| CSS Today is a publication of  the CSS Today Editorial Board devoted to  |
| the CSS community for your right to know.   What CSS Today carries does  |
| not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors.                      |
| ________________________________________________________________________ |
|                                                                          |
|  For back issues of CSS Today, please use one of following:              |
|  (1) ftp to <cnd.org>  and search in folder:  /pub/e-pubs/CSS-Today      |
|  (2) gopher to <cnd.org>:                                                |
|             English-Menu -> Other Electronic Publications  -> CSS-TODAY  |
|     (For WWW:  gopher://cnd.cnd.org:70/11/English-Menu/e-pubs/CSS-TODAY) |
|  (3) ftp to <ftp.ifcss.org>  and search in folder: /pub/org/csst/        |
|     (For www tools, use  ftp://ftp.ifcss.org/pub/org/csst/ )             |
|  (4) http://www.ifcss.org:8001/www/ep.html                               |
|                                                                          |
|  CSS Today welcomes contributions, comments, questions, criticisms and   |
|  anything concerning a healthy establishment of the CSS community. For   |
|  question, please inquire to:                                            |
|                                                                          |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|                         <[email-masked]>                           |
############################################################################