Subject: CSS Today #95019, July 6, 1995

From: [email-masked] (Yuan Wei)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 19:07:09 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.  95019
            ]]]     ]]]]]]]  ]]]]]]]]  ]]]   ]]]    ]]]    _1995.07.06_

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

		     I N    T H I S   I S S U E                 No. of Lines
============================================================================
Special Topic: One China? Two China? Multiple China? -----
    o  Editor's Note ..................................................... 7
    o  There Is Only One China Owned by Over a Billion People ........... 18
    o  It Is the Unification of A Country That Matters .................. 74
    o  Stronger Voice If There Are 5 Chinas? ............................ 89
    o  Why an Independent Taiwan Will Harm Taiwanese Themselves? ....... .81

Eddie's Column -------------------------------------------
    o  One School, Two Votes 
         -A Proposal for the IFCSS Qualification Dilemma................ 102

Open Forum -----------------------------------------------
    o  Why Does CCC Want to Control IFCSS So Badly? .................... 142

======<<<< Special Topic: One China? Two China? Multiple China? >>>>========
Editor's Note ............................................................ 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ER Huan/CSS Today                                                 CSST 95019

After we published the article "Why Lee's Visiting US a Sensitive Issue ?"
by Jackson Wong on CSST95017, we received lot of responses from our readers
trying to present their different views from Mr. Wong. Here we edit a
special issue on this topic. Hope it facilitate the exchange of views on
this matter. We welcome any further comments from our readers on this issue
as well as on any other issues.

======<<<< Special Topic: One China? Two China? Multiple China? >>>>========
There Is Only One China Owned by Over a Billion People .................. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIU Zhijun                                                        CSST 95019

The article in last issue's CSS Today by Jackson Wong reflects the
insensitivity of Mr. Wong on the unification of China. No wonder he
complains that so many CSS are so sensitive to it. I feel at least he is
using "business" eyes to view people's emotions, just like lots of Americans
in this country who view everything as "business". To respect the choice of
majority people in Taiwan is important, to respect majority view of people
in mainland China is equally if not more important. Regardless of communism
or not, it is the facts that majority in the mainland maintain that Taiwan
is part of China, China owns the land. Period. To support Taiwan's
independence is equal to support an active war bewteen the Strait. If you
are so pragmatic about this, you should understand this. The hard reality is
that only one China will be accepted by its owner-over a billion people.
It'll be hard to persuade so many people to change that. I don't think U.S.
really wants to see the unification, for one reason, China will be too
strong. All other reasons are just lies. So why I as well as so many other
Chinese are so sensitive to Lee's visit? Because it hurts our feelings. We
have feelings, different from yours if you have.

======<<<< Special Topic: One China? Two China? Multiple China? >>>>========
It Is the Unification of A Country That Matters ......................... 74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WANG Hongyu                                                       CSST 95019

Please excuse me for not agreeing with Jackson Wong's opinion expressed in
the article "Why Lee's Visiting US a Sensitive Issue ?"

First, Mr. Wong argues that Lee should be treated equally as any other
people and the people in Taiwan has a final say on Taiwan's future. He also
hinted that Dr. Lee is elected through "democratic" process and may be more
legitimate. What we have been arguing here for days and weeks is not an
issue of political system but the unification of a country which has been
separated due to decades of interference by other countries. The political
system of a country is not a reason whether a country should be or is forced
to break up. That is why, regardless of how much the U.S. resents Iraq or
how many fighters cruise over Iraq daily, U.S. has never muttered publicly
to break Iraq into two or more countries. This is an international practice
and widely respected by the international communities. Taiwan was governed
by the nationalist government due to losing the civil war. Though it was
denied the right to represent the only China at United Nation and by most of
the countries in the world since the early 1970's, it had and has (?) been
self-claimed to represent the whole China, including Taiwan. The government
in Taiwan did and does not say that the future of Mainland China shall be
determined by the Chinese in Mainland China. Even Dr. Lee today still calls
the Chinese government to learn from Taiwan's political system. However, if
Chinese government really responses to Dr. Lee's call, there will be 30 new
countries conceived by China and given to birth tomorrow, much more than the
ex-Soviet Union could produce. When Mr. Wong claimed that Taiwan's future
shall be determined by the Chinese in Taiwan, he should understand the
Chinese in Mainland China would also like to claim the Chinese as a whole
(including the Chinese in Taiwan) have the right to determine the fate of
China including Taiwan. If someone wants to solve this dispute by democratic
process or by public opinion, I think most of the Chinese (including the
Chinese in Taiwan) will vote for unification.

I feel that, when the government in Taiwan claims to have two China, or in
another word, one China and one Taiwan, it looks just like a married couple,
one spouse is seeking LEGAL divorce. However, before a divorce is finalized,
the spouse wants to claim a car belongs to her/him simply because she/he has
been operating the car even though the car has been claimed and owned by
both for a long time.

Second, Mr. Wong suggests that it may be to the interest of Chinese to break
up China (including Taiwan) into several pieces so that China is not screwed
up at large scale. I did not know if there was such claim when the
Nationalist government had screwed China for fifty or sixty years. That is
how they ended up with staying in Taiwan with the U.S. battleship cruising
around for decades. If one does not like his/her government/political
system, he/she can seek for change. Once again, this is a domestic issue but
not a reason to split a country without the majority consent. Most often,
the results, as evident from the ancient history and modern history, are
civil wars. The war in Bosnia is just another example of civilization. I
think I have talked enough about how Chinese screwed and screws China, which
was and is known to the world, possibly that Dr. Lee's effort is just part
of it. The Nationalist killed the Communists and the Communist killed and
squeeze the Nationalist. Just a reminder, Does anyone still remember how
much and how long the Chinese has been screwed by the developed countries,
including those conceived in the democratic systems and liberty ? It was
them who designed to break up China into pieces and one got a share each. No
matter how one government cares about Human Rights, one country can only be
freed from being abused by having a strong economy and a strong defense,as
demonstrated by the U.S. government and the United States as a country.
Otherwise, the history may repeat what occurred after the World War II,
China could "win" a world war on the justice side by defeating the evil at
the cost of giving up more territory sovereignty.

Unfortunately, the world was and is not an "ideal" world. When Chinese
suffered from the ten year chaos in Mainland China, the Nationalist in
Taiwan was conducting political persecution and the U.S. was about to end
the century-long segregation and race discrimination officially. Sometimes,
race problem can be beyond the political system, as evident from the current
reversion of the short-lived three-DECADE long affirmative action.

I believe the long overdue unification is to the best interest of the
Chinese on both sides of the strait. We should try to avoid the tragedy of
Chinese screwing Chinese from occurring again especially when the Chinese
are not just as easily screwed by others as before.

======<<<< Special Topic: One China? Two China? Multiple China? >>>>========
Stronger Voice if there are 5 China? .................................... 89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LI Zebao                                                          CSST 95019

As all of us noticed on the net, Mr. Wong provided an argument of that 5
China would voice strongly. The following is what I think of reading his
article entitled "Why Lee's Visit US a Sensitive Issue" (CSST 95017).

1."How can one ignore or pay no respect to those people living in Taiwan?"
(J. Wong, csst95017)

If one is not strong enough, no point to request respect. It seems wrong,
but it is fact. Taiwan is one of small islands in the world. The superpower
country has never paid attention to those small islands, with the exception
of military reason. At present, it is only China aims its missiles to US,
and it makes Uncle Sam very uncomfortable. This explains why US has not
issued Lee's visa for years, and did not treated him as a president this
time. If I were from Taiwan, I would not be comfortable with Lee's
visit:"Why wasn't my president treated as same as other presidents in US?
Shame on it!" It is not fair. The question is:" Is there a really fair
relationship between countries?" If so, US wouldn't have betrayed KMT 25
years ago. Does US care of people living in Taiwan? No! ROC was US loyal
friend, defeated in Civil War but not extinguished. When US was a little
uncomfortable with CCP, who held some atomic bombs, and was interested in
market in PRC, Uncle Sam discarded his old friend and ignored people living
in Taiwan. Here are two points: military and economy, based on which a
country establishes its diplomatic policy. All Taiwanese, older that 35,
must have remembered their feelings 25 years ago: following US, one after
one country ended up its relationship with ROC and went to PRC. They felt of
being betrayed, but doing nothing at all. This was what I was told by a
Taiwanese. He also question me angrily:"Why did your CCP treat us (Taiwan)
in this way?" 1st, I corrected him that I was not a CCP, then I
recommended:"Why don't you ask your friends why they betray you? If this is
CCP's fault, why does your friends buy it?" This example demonstrates that
people living in a small and weak country can be ignored. This is history
and fact, even though it is bad and hurts someone's heart.

2."What's wrong with 2, 3, even 5 China?" (J. Wong, csst 95017)

Dr. Lee said his visit to US was as hard as to the Moon because of CCP's
pressure. We all know CCP is not nice enough to be respected, but Uncle Sam
buy it as it is stronger than other parties in China and PRC is much bigger
than ROC. We can imagine how US is feeling that there is a country, as big
as it is, with a population of 1.2 billion which is app. 5 times of its
population. If China would be broken down to 5 China, as small as Taiwan,
would US care of us and would we have stronger voice? No! Taiwan is an
excellent sample--US can discard such a small island at any time without
hesitation. Don't we feel that US like to be a father of all countries in
the world? One guy from a small country told me:"Only China can say NO if US
says YES". US does not want to see a big China, no matter one China with two
systems or other regimes, to interfere its international business. At
present, Taiwan is a little boy and mainland is not strong enough in
economy. But there is a tendency these two brothers will join together, and
then the balance of international politics will tip to the big China. And at
that time, the father will no longer be a father and the world-police will
no longer take responsibilities to keep order in the world. White House does
not want to see this change. To initiate a confilct between mainland and
Taiwan, they issued Lee visa. There they go. The alleviated relationship
between both sides of the Strait will be once again strained. It is a hint
that US will change its one-china policy, adopt 2 China, and favorite 5 or
more China. Don't we feel that US like to encourage people all over the
world, with the exception of USA, to claim to be independent from their
goverment? There is no chance for 5 China to voice strongly. At least Taiwan
does not voice strongly, even it holds 80 billion US$, and never a chance
for it to voice strongly in the future. Lee's visit does not indicate
Taiwan's success in diplomacy. We remember that Dr. Lee was not granted to be
out of Honolulu airport last year. This year, however, he took a trip in US.
How funny it is. Has Taiwan grown up, in economy and military, enough to
shock US? You're kidding. Isnt' is perfectly clear: US is playing Taiwan
card. 2 or 5 China is what US wants.

Territory is an issue beyond politics. Everyone wants it. Both CCP and KMT
condemned south Vietnamese's invasion to our "Nan-Sa Archipelago" years ago,
and both Tsar Empire and Stalin were comfortable to stay where used to be
our territory. Other parties in Taiwan like TI becasue someone wants to be
an official president, and some people think 80 billion US$ can buy
everything for their new country. Do Taiwanese have right to be independent?
No. This is a kind of literal trick. Who gives us this right? By Law or
what? One may answers by the right of existence. All right, do we have right
to choose a country to live? If we're not satisfied with our country, why
don't we have right to live where we like. No one can ignore us because we
are human being and have right to exist. No! Without visa, you have to stay
where you are. You have right to elect goverment, but can't choose country.
Think about the following: Everyone admits Taiwan belongs to China. If some
people insist they have right to be independent, then how about other people
who insist they have right to safeguard their country's territorial
integrity and uphold state sovereignty?

Military, Taiwan is a never-sink carrier guarding south Pacific Ocean and
monitoring travels between Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean. It is important
to mainland China as well as US. If Taiwan is going to be independent from
China, who knows what kind of benefit Taiwanese will get. Watch out!

======<<<< Special Topic: One China? Two China? Multiple China? >>>>========
Why an Independent Taiwan Will Harm Taiwanese Themselves? ............... 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAN Yue                                                           CSST 95019

The visit of LEE Teng-hui sparked an intense debate over the issue of
Taiwan's independent movement. Some people say that Taiwaneses have their
right to decide the fate of Taiwan; some people say that Mainland Chinese
also have their right to decide the fate of China. No matter what kind of
argument one hold, it is the fact that LEE Teng-hui's Cornell visit has
sparked another wave of independent movement in that Island. Right after
LEE's visit, we saw LIEN Chan's anxious visit to Europe; right after LEE's
visit, we also witnessed that LEE Teng-hui was prepared for buying a UN seat
with $1 billion. Wait and see, this is just a beginning.

I don't want to argue whether Taiwanese people have their right to decide
the fate of their homeland, neither do I want to argue whether Mainland
Chinese have their right to decide the fate of their country (namely
Mainland and Taiwan). I would like to explore whether Taiwan's independence
will benifit anybody in the world. For Taiwanese to pursue an independent
Taiwan, they must have held the belief that an independent will ultimately
benifit themselves. Otherwise, what is the point to pursue a independence?

Before Taiwan really achieves its independency, Chinese all agree that
Taiwan is a part of CHINA. It is a strong belief no matter one belives in a
CCP/CHINA or a ROC/CHINA. If Taiwan can practically achieve its independency,
then there will be new evidence that we Chinese actually can have more than
one China, or simply a China and a Taiwan.

Here it goes. There will be one China and one Taiwan. Then you look at the
great China. Next there will be a Tibet and a China and a Taiwan. Granted!
Look again, there will be a Xin Jiang and a Tibet and a China and a Taiwan.
When you carefuly study the racial tension in the great China in this time,
you will be convinced that there are great discrepancy within the great
China: the rich coastal region and the poor west/northwest. This difference
will push the various part of the great China to pursue their independence if
there are people like Taiwam's LEE Teng-hui who can gain enough muscle in
those regions. Eventually we will see a multi-Chinese-nations in the
territory of the curent great China. What a picture! It will be a modern
version of the Waring States (Chun (1) Qiu(1) Zhan (4) Guo(2)).

Yes, Taiwanese people may not care what would happen in Mainland after their
independence. Sure! They have their right-afterall, they will have already
achieved their independency. But let's take a close look at the then
multiChinese-Nations in the current Chinese territory. There will be
warlords and there will be endless wars, just like during ChiangKaishek's
time in Mainland. But, remember, wars produce hungry, disaster and more
importantly, wars produce refugees. Given the current China's large
population, given the fact that once there is an independent Taiwan, there
will be an independent Tibet, Xin Jiang, Shanghai, Guangdong, etc, then
their will be flooding of refugees, fleeing in all direction to leave Waring
multi-Chinese-nations. These refugees will go to Taiwan, the first
refugeeparadise which just achieve its independence and which is such a
humane and democratic country. Just take a simple calculation, how many
population are there in Taiwan? 21 Million? How many population are there in
mainland China? 1.3 billion? Granted! A iota percentage of the mainland
chinese refugee will bury the little Island! These will be just facts. So
think about it before you declare independence.

In fact, a lot of China's neighbors are just too concerned over the possible
flooding of a Chinese refugees that just have to pray for China's stability.
Remember there was once a novel written by a Chinese in Canada title "Yellow
Disaster (?)" which depicted a grisly picture of just merely the flooding of
Chinese refugees.

Well, the refugee problem is just a passive fact that wouldn't do anything
good for an independent Taiwan. And I think this problem will not happen
unless there will be a blood war between Mainland and Taiwan. I mean,
Mainland China will by no mean allow Taiwan to achieve its independence
without subject to any challenge, no matter who control the country, be it
CCP or DDP or EEP. Who dare to allow Taiwan to achieve its independence
without any action in the leadership of Mainland?

Yes, no one dare to let LEE Teng-hui like people to pursue an ultimate
independent Taiwan without any action in Mainland China. Given the strategic
position Taiwan holds--It is the throat that the future Chinese empire will
go beyond the pacific economically, and possibly militarilly. Letting Taiwan
achieving its independence is equivalent to the cutting China's sea passage
to the world. Just look what a strategic position means in the current world
community: Iraq attacks Kuwait just because the Iraqis desparately needs a
pass to the Persian Gulf for its oil export.

Given these kind of sentiments in Mainland China, given the grisly outcome
from a independent Taiwan, is it in Taiwanese's benefit to pursue an
independence?

==========================<<<< Eddie's Column >>>>==========================
One School, Two Votes 
  -A Proposal for the IFCSS Qualification Dilemma....................... 102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie CHENG                                                       CSST 95019

Finally, two weeks before the tentative annual congress or a hastly called
special congress, the issue of delegate qualification becomes the focus in
IFCSS. This belated enthusiasm on this crucial issue, which has already
exposed its ugly head in the previous congress, is nontheless welcome.

It is unlikely, however, either the congresses could solve the qualification
dilemma to any measure of satisfaction. Since any serious revamp on this
issue by a congress would inevitably lead to questions on the qualificaiton
of the delegates themselves, and thus the legitimacy of the conference.
Furthermore, the present delegates, having mostly benefitted from the
existing qualification rules, have a tremendous incentive in maintaining the
status quo.

In any case, if we assume such practical obstacles could be removed and we
were blessed to an opportunity to start over once again, it is a legitimate
issue of debate on what is the proper qualification rules inside IFCSS.

Here, I propose a simple "One School, Two Votes" system, that are based on
the following three principles:

(a) The IFCSS must stay as a student-oriented organization. Her utmost
grass-root must be in the schools (here and hereafter the term "school"
includes established academic research institutes) of higher education.

(b) The IFCSS must maintain a viable connection with the former students who
have since left school to pursue other interests. For they have been
instrumental in the founding of this organization and may possess interests,
which are beneficial to this organization, not entirely coincidental with
those still in schools.

(c) The fundamental criteria of representation qualification, except for the
essential requirements of IFCSS recognition and participation, must reside
within the local school community, instead of the national power centers of
this organization.

This proposal would be unnecessary if any of the above principles are
seriously challenged.

Upon which, it is proposed that each participant school in IFCSS is entitled
of two (2) representation seats in the organization, which are, in principle
but non-bindingly, one for the student body and one for the alumnus body.

IFCSS representation consists SOLELY on such representations. Any person
wish to participate in IFCSS must be affiliated with a school, through
either the student or alumnus organizations.

The local school retains the right in deciding how to utilize the entitled
seats and under NO circumstances could occupy more than two seats. The local
school/community decides on the qualification and procedures in the
competition for these two seats among any interested parties, with the
winners officially representing the school in IFCSS. In case a dispute for
such seats could not be resolved within the locale, the involved school
automatically lose BOTH of its seats.

The delegates from a school is subject to lawful recall by the said school
constitunents who selected the delegates. Replacement delegates, also
lawfully selected, assumes ALL roles of the recalled delegates within the
IFCSS body.

The advantages of such a system include the following:

(1) It is simple in structure and easy for the national organization to
implement and enforce.

(2) It places the responsibility of delegate qualification in the local
community, where it should be, and thus encourages the participation in
local level and strengthens the grass-root. If any persons/group feel being
mis-represented by their delegates, it is their responsibility to organize
and challenge for the seats within their local procedures.

(3) It also encourages the formation and activeness of alumnus organizations
which by themselves are valuable assets of the CSS community.

(4) It reduces the power of IFCSS national centers in attempts to
supervise/interfere local affairs, maintaining an important principle of
democracy.

(5) The two available seats provides flexibility in accomodating vastly
different interests that may exist and thus avoids uncompromisable
confrontations.

(6) This system also provides flexibility in expanding the role of IFCSS:

 (a) A special provision could be granted to alumnus organizations in USA
that are affiliated to schools IN China, such as Beida and USTC. This
encourages such alumnus ties and opens a potential gateway into China. Each
school in China, through its alumnus body, is then entitled to ONE (1)
representative seat in IFCSS.

 (b) The same could be applicable to academic-oriented professional
societies, with each society (one for one discipline) having one seat.

 (c) If so desired, the same could also be applicable to socialand/or
politicaloriented organizations, further diversify the constituents of
IFCSS. Such expansion should be however handled with caution and bestly done
on case-by-case basis.

 (d) If mutually so desired, participant seats could be expanded into
including schools in Canada and Mexico, much the same way as the NFL and NBA
expand into Canada. Such expansion is straightforward within this system.

============================<<<< Open Forum >>>>============================
Why Does CCC Want to Control IFCSS So Badly? ........................... 142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WANG Ji                                                           CSST 95019

Finally, the IFCSS is in total chaos as the CCC wanted.

When the IFCSS was incorporated in the Summer of 1989, immediately after the
tragedy of the Tiananmen Massacre, the only goal and purpose of the IFCSS
was to organize all the Chinese students and scholars in the US to deal with
the Chinese government to support our brothers and sisters who were being
massacred and prosecuted at the moment and to provide possible protection to
the members for any possible and foreseeable difficulty in the near future.
The situation was tense at the moment, and we had no hope for China in the
future while the lives of the thousands Chinese students and scholars were
also at stack. The creation of the IFCSS, and consequently her operation as
an organization for students and scholars from China, was a success and this
was featured on many US media from the day one. As a member of the delegate
to the Congress and participated many of her projects, I was impressed by
the dedication and devotion of many people, from the Capitol Hill to the
campuses in California, from the mountains in the Northeast to the islands
of Hawaii, on representing all the Chinese students and scholars in many
important issues, such as China policy and protection legislation. The
excellent performance and professionalism led not only me, but also many US
and people out of the student circle, to place heavy hopes to a handful of
the IFCSS veterans for the modernization of China in the near future, and
this has been echoed in many places in the US until recently. As an analogy,
which prompt people to speculate just as the leaders in the Tiananmen Square
to stand up to claim democracy on behalf all the Chinese. However, once
again, it was an illusion and our hope fall down to the cold water, as the
true faces of some people are being revealed by time.

By simply reviewing the history and the previous successful projects of the
IFCSS, it is easy to find out that whenever the IFCSS represents the
majority of the IFCSS, the voice of the IFCSS will be strong and be heard.
This was complete reflected from the successful meeting of the First IFCSS
Congress and the immediate extensive lobbying efforts in pressing the US to
take actions against the Chinese government on many issues concerning the
death and life of people in China. We had seen a constant flow of Chinese
students and scholars in the offices of the members of the Congress, and the
protest parade in Washington DC, the largest one by Chinese in my memory,
was also very successful and impressive. The climax of the IFCSS was the
successful lobbying in the passage of the CSPA, which impressed not only CSS
and US governments, but many people around the world. The continuous decline
of the IFCSS in the recent years, excluding the necessity for such a high
profile organization, should attribute to the narrowing spectrum of its
representations on many issues concerning the CSS community, and even in
today, the radical and extreme fraction of the IFCSS, with its hard core
CCC, is pushing the IFCSS to the a vacuum space. In a latest analysis, the
current officers and the members of the Council, are largely composed by
people outside school rather than the students and scholars, the only and
legal voters of the organization. This shifting did not happen in one term,
but it has been gradually accumulated in past years. The unfortunate thing
was that this trend, though not a mega one, did not alarm many people until
recently.

In the first Congress of the IFCSS, the definition of the scholars are the
visiting scholars who were almost as many as students in many campuses at
the time. And, they were sharing the same feeling and view with us at the
time. For this reason, their representation and voice were necessary and
fundamental to the CSS community, and the name of the IFCSS was coined to
reflect this. However, several years later, the participation of visiting
scholars from China in the IFCSS affairs has been declined to nonexistence,
and another group, represented by the ever increasing numbers of
postdoctoral and professional members, emerged as another important fraction
of the IFCSS, as we have experienced today. The representations of these
people were advocated several years back in the fourth and fifth congresses
by some people and supported by many at the time on the ground that their
voice in the IFCSS should be heard and valued, thus a special membership was
added to have them join the Congress to vote and to be voted. But,
surprising as it is, we did not anticipate that these people, like current
chair of the Council, Mr. Jihong Li and current super judge, Mr. Lishi Luo,
will dominate and stay in the IFCSS forever. For this reason and their
skillful but shameful manipulation and articulation, the IFCSS is almost
completely out of her mission in representing the CSS but becoming a
political tool of the current chaotic and messy political fractions of the
so-called democracy fighters, but actually people fighters. This is shown by
the close connection with many such groups of people like Messrs. Wenhe Lu,
Xing Zheng, and associates. As they are losing grounds for their ill planned
and prepared fight with the Communists, they turn their heads to the name of
the IFCSS, viewing her as the last straw for their strange navigation in the
dangerous political currents.

This miscalculation did not bring any bright hope to them until now, but it
endangered the future thus destroyed the hope of many ordinary CSS who
expect and help the IFCSS in voicing their concern over schooling,
servicing, and living during their primary years in the US. These
expectations are not empty because in the last few years, the IFCSS has been
working with many students in many fronts such as legal assistance,
antidiscrimination, and providing basic assistance such as medical insurance
and low-cost air transportation for the community. The successful dealing
with the CBS on the groundless accusation of spy ring is another masterpiece
of the IFCSS and her dedicated members in the servicing function. However,
if you check the records of the Council members who are messing up the whole
IFCSS, you know that they never participated and supported such projects,
and worse yet, they label people in these functions as the spies or members
of the Communists. In the last few months, they made many allegations and
accusation without any factual support, and they tried hard than ever to
once again to get total control of the IFCSS by moving the next Congress to
Blacksburg, the launching and aggregation point of the CCC, to signal their
full triumph over the CSS community in the organization. And, the latest
development showed that they are going to do whatever necessary to bring the
IFCSS under the CCC and their parent groups, as Mr. Wenhe Lu showed in
recent near suicidal occupying of the IFCSS office in Washington DC.

Another well calculated strategy is that they never revealed to public about
their intention and projection of the IFCSS, and this helped them in certain
way in intimidating and coercing others on the IFCSS issues. To demonstrate
their life-threatening goal, we have to analyze the situation by ourselves
based on their claiming. First, they shall have the CCC members in all the
functions of the IFCSS, just like the Communists did after they took over
the nation. Second, they are going to impose whatever to the CSS community
at their will, and there is no way for ordinary Chinese to challenge them,
as they did in the past. Fortunately we are in the US and our private life
and career are not controlled by these people acting like terrorists.
However, you have the reason to fear that they can bombarding your computer
account for any voice which is not in the line with the CCC, and secondly,
they can report you to the FBI and other US agencies for blackmailing. It
might not be effective, but certainly they can make your life miserable. Or,
they have corrupted agents to beat you in the court or whatever place if
they are confronted. Summarizing all these accounts, you can see that the
CCC and the people there acts more like the Mafia and underground terrorists
groups nowadays, but unfortunately this is the life we are facing. They have
been staging this for a while and they are going to continue doing this, and
I would remain the CSS community to be prepared for the this scenario. Their
exploitation to the IFCSS will be limited because if they seize the IFCSS in
the future, I do not think people with brain will even get close to them.
However, they get their exclusive right to use the name of the IFCSS for
whatever they want to do, like to support the independence of Taiwan or the
two Chinas. In this sense, their control of the IFCSS could be a historical
event in the future.

They can do this in the IFCSS since they know that they have the will and
resources to do as they planned. The majority of Chinese professionals of
the US does not need the IFCSS to represent them, and the CCC is taking this
opportunity to advance their cause. Indeed, the interests of the CSS
community are distinct to others, and this is the reason some people already
begin to organize professional Chinese for their purpose. However, since the
CCC people has the interests which are different with anybody, they have to
stay in the closed cult to aim at the IFCSS constantly. They would not get
much by attaching the IFCSS in their vehicle, but it seems that they did not
realize this in the past and they does not have the appetite to listen and
think over this issue. It might be of their interests to warn them that
their control of the IFCSS will only serve their fantasy, but they will
bring real harm to the CSS community. However, this is exactly what they
want to give to the CSS community.

############################################################################
| Editor of This Issue: ER Huan            Deputy Coordinator: DING Yungui |
|                      Technical Editor: LIANG Guihe                       |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
| 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]>                           |
############################################################################