Subject: CND-US, July 20, 1993

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 00:53:25 -0500

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   C h i n a   N e w s   D i g e s t  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                               (US Regional)

                          Tuesday, July 20, 1993

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| CND-US, normally 1 or 2 issues a week, is a supplement to CND-Global and |
| has  basically no overlap with the daily news.  CND-US provides in-depth |
| information concerning Chinese students/scholars in the United States.   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Table of Contents                                                 # of Lines
============================================================================
                     CND-US CSPA Information Exchange
                     --------------------------------
1. Reports on the CSPA Forum in L.A. Held by INS Western Center ........ 165
2. Some Unauthoritative Analysis on Rejected I-765 due to Incorrect Fee . 70

        Follow-up's on CND-US Special Issues on IFCSS 5th Congress
        ----------------------------------------------------------
3. Letter from Yungui Ding:
   Comment on "A Delegate's Report on IFCSS 5th Congress" ............... 30
4. Letter from Anzhi Lai:  The CCC and the IFCSS ....................... 120
5. Letter from Jinghong Li:
   About July 12's CND-US Special Issue on IFCSS 5th Congress (V) ...... 105
6. CND's Statement on Some Related Issues ............................... 20
7. Moments of Revelation:
   Impressions of The 5th Congress of IFCSS (I & II) ................... 115
============================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reports on the CSPA Forum in L.A. Held by INS Western Center ........ 165
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) From: *****@*****.caltech.edu  (A CND Reader) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93

The following is a recallection of what was discussed in Saturday (July 17)
afternoon's workshop on CSPA hold at the Auditorium of the East Los Angeles
City College.  This is provided for information purpose only.

This workshop is actually organized by Mr. Guoliang Jiang (I am not sure
about his English name), a lawyer-turned City Councile Man of the City of
Montary Park, in collabaration with a public relation officer of the INS LA
District Office.

Mr. Joeseph Thomas, Director of INS Western Service Center, headed a group
of senior officials from the center and INS LA Office.  They did overview of
the process and answered some questions from the audience. The following is
a concise summary of some key points discussed.

1) General Comments about Processing Applications under CSPA

   - So far, the INS has received less than 40,000 aplications nationwide,
     18,000 of which are filed with the Western Service Center.

   - The Western Service Center has up to now processed initially (more about
     this later) about 10,000. The rest is being processed.

   - The earlist possible date for anybody to receivee  any notice of approval
     will be Sep. 1, 93.

   - State Dept. will issue visa number in the rate of 1000 a day, starting
     from Aug. 1, 93.

   - For those who has already had an "A" number, the first notice will be
     simply to inform you that WSC has received your application and  it will
     be processed. A second notice will be mailed out later to tell you to go
     to a specific local INS center to do finger print and signiture, i.e., to
     do I-89.  For those who have not had any "A" numbers, they will be
     asked to do I-89 when they receive the first notice.

   - A letter of approval/denial will be sent to you in at least 45 days

   - You will not know you priority date until you receive your notice of
     approval.

   - The date appears in your notice is not your priority date. It is simply
     the date that the notice is printed.

   - Visa number is issued according to the priority date. Those applications
     received on and before July 1 will have July 1 as the priority date.
     Those received after July 1 will have their priority date as they come in.

   - There will be  no appeals for any denials of applications.
     One thing you can do though is to ask the immigration afficial to review
     you case when you are facing deportation.

2) Reviewing Procedure of the Western Service Center

   - A notice is sent out to tell you that we are in fact have your case.

   - Requests made to US Goverment Agencies for background review.

   - An application is reviwed for details. May request additional documents.

   - If an application is completed, wait for 45 days for reports from
     backgound reieiw to come in.

   - An application go to an immingration examiner to determine if interview
     is needed on individdual basis.

   - Wait for a visa number.

   - Visa number is received. Notice of approval is sent out.

   - It may take us longer than the State Department to get you a visa number
     because of huge work load.

   - Be patient. No news is not necesarily bad news.

3) Problems Emerged in Filing Applications

   - Some people didn't include the fee for processing I-765. These application
     will be returned for the fees.
     Application for I-765 is processed separately with those of I-485.
     In filling Item 16 of I-765, the correct thing to put in is "C.9",
     which is explained on the back of the form I-765.

   - Some people didn't press hard enough when filling G-325. At least the
     first and the second pages should be regnizable.

   - In the signature block of I-485, your signiture in Chinese is required,
     and you have to print it or write it neatly.

   - Two fingerprint cards are needed. Your card may be returned if it is not
     clear and you don't have second copy as buck-up.

   - You will lose your priority date if you didn't pay the required fee,
     or you didn't sign your form.
     Request of additional documents will not affect your priority date.

   - Passport can be used as the proof of birth if birth certificate is not
     available.

   - Don't send in any additional dicumeents until we request them.
     Otherwise, you may delay your process.

4) Late-Arrival Dependents

   - Late-arrival dependents are not eligible for CSPA.
     However, they can file I-485 under the cateriry of "follow to join."
     But applications will not be processed until the principales are approved.

   - Be aware of the possibility that dependents may fall out of status the
     day the principale is granted PR status. If you are out of status, you
     have to go another country to apply.

   - Dependents have to file their applications in person not by the mailing-in
     process.

--- --- ---

2) From: IFCSS HQ <[email-masked]> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993
   Subject: INS HELD COMMUNITY FORUM ON CSPA IN LA
            IFCSS Headquarters News Release No.5018         July 19, 1993

     On July 15, at the request of the City Council of Monterey
Park, INS Western Service Center and Los Angeles District Office
held a community forum on CSPA. About 1,200 CSPA applicants and
family members attended the forum. Shi Heping, IFCSS Vice
President, was also present and received a warm welcome from the
students.

     Mr. Sam Kiang, councilman of Monterey Park, presided over the
meeting. On behalf of Chinese students nation-wide, Shi Heping
expressed thanks to INS officers for their hard work.

     Mr. Joseph Thomas, Director of Western Service Center, and
four other INS officers introduced CSPA operation and answered
questions from applicants.

     According to the INS officers, after the Service Center
receives an application, it will send out a receipt. But applicants
with incorrect fees or not properly signed will be returned to the
sender. If any document is missing, it will inform the applicant;
if not, the application will be sent to other government offices
for examination. At the end of 45 days, the application goes to an
INS examiner, who determines if it is necessary to conduct an
interview. If it is not necessary, the examiner will request a visa
number from the Department of State, which usually takes a long
time.

     The INS officers stressed that the applicant should not send
any supplementary document without being notified to do so, for it
will delay the processing.

     The overriding concern expressed at the forum is about late-
arriving dependents. Shi Heping explained the current arrangement
using Voluntary Departure and reiterated that IFCSS would continue
to work on the issue and would send out notices via e-mail network
and newspaper if any progress was made.

     The INS officers also mentioned that if an applicant had sent
in just one finger-print chart and if it was not clear, the
application would be returned to the applicant, who would have no
priority date until INS received the application for the second
time. Many students at the forum were unhappy with such handling.
Shi Heping promised to talk to the INS HQ about this, because the
Additional Instruction for I-485 required one instead of two
finger-print charts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Some Unauthoritative Analysis on Rejected I-765 due to Incorrect Fee . 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collected by CND from messages posted to network, for your reference only.

1) From: [email-masked] Sun Jul 18 15:35 CDT 1993

I filed my application on July 1 and received I-797 rejection notice I-797
on July 14. It indicates that the application fee for work permit (I-765)
I filed should be $60 insted of $75.  Together with the notice my two
fingerprints cards were also mailed to me without any explanation. I do not
know why. I wrote a letter to withdraw the work permit application and mailed
them back on July 15. In this case which date would be my priority date?

Would I be treated as the same as file on on July 15? How will it affect the
processing of my I-485?

--- --- ---

2) From: CCNL Reader <[email-masked]> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993

Just an analysis and share with you my situation.

1. I sent out the application on June 30, at the same time with my
   wife.

2. My wife got her receipt on July 12 and had her I-89 done.

3. I have not got the receipt for I-485 package. However, I got the
   rejection notice for I-765 ( employment authorization ) due to
   fee problem ( I wrote a $75 check according the net information
   in stead of $60 ).  Through that rejection notice, I found out
   (indirectly) my application was received on July 2 and the receipt
   # for my I-485 is actully earlier than my wife's, mine is
   Lin92 191 xxxxx, hers is Lin92 192 xxxxx

4. My check was cleared on July 9, my wife's on July 12.

5. My wife also sent a $75 check for her I-765 form but did not get
   the rejection notice for that form.

Conclusion:

1: It is purely a random process regarding receipts.

2. Check clearance may not be a good indicator. If I did not by chance get
   the rejection notice for I-765, I would never know if I was assigned an
   A # or what my receipt # is.

3. Norther center has not carefully examine any application so far.

4. Above are for your references and critisizing purposes.

--- --- ---

3) From: Y. Zhang <[email-masked]> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993

I believe the I-485 and I-765 processes are totally seperated. That's
why your wife get her I-485 receipt and hasn't got I-765 rejected and
you got I-765 rejected but no I-485 receipt. I guess when they opened
our package, they took the I-765 form out and sent it to other branch
of INS. The order of the files might change and the order of picking
files in these two branches may also be different. Since both you and
your wife have already got something back from INS, at least they
have opened your package. I received my I-485 receipt and I-765
rejection letter (same problem as yours, I sent $75 instead of $60)
last Saturday in two seperated envelops. On I-485 and I-765 processing
sheets, I got different receipt number and A numbers. The A number on
I-485 receipt looks like a real A number which has 8 digits and the other
one has a 0 followed by 8 digits.

I would like to hear some comments about the "$75 incident", although
we don't really need "employment authorization" now since it seems
all of us can get Green Card before the expiration of our current one.
Should we go ahead send the correct amount ($60) or just forget it.
If we abanden the application of I-765, will that affect the
I-485 process?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Letter from Yungui Ding:
   Comment on "A Delegate's Report on IFCSS 5th Congress" ............... 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From:  Yungui Ding <[email-masked]> Mon Jul 19

Dear editors:

Since the CND-US Special Issue on IFCSS 5th Congress (V), July 12, 1993
mentioned my name, here is my comment on that report.

The delegates to the IFCSS 5th Congress, as the ordinary CSS, may not know
much about the whole thing of IFCSS election, but they know how they expect
IFCSS to function.  It is natural that people would try to interpret what
they have seen in the congress. That delegate's report was just his/her
observation and analysis as was claimed.

One may call some of it speculations. But the so-called speculation was
exactly the IMPRESSION the runners and/or insiders gave to the delegates or
outsiders.  For that, I think all the three runners, what and how we did,
have contributed to it.

That's exactly the problem of IFCSS:  Lack of openness, or communicatoin.
The public is entitled to know more, not only its work, but also its
personnel.

Therefore I understand the author for possible inaccuracy in the report and
don't blame him/her for that.  On the contrary, we IFCSS activists should
encourage ordinary CSS to think and talk about IFCSS and its related matters,
that is feedback.

The image the insiders try to build for IFCSS may not the one the audience
perceives.  Only with input from ordinary CSS from every angle can this
organization be better off.

I don't take it personally. It is the matter of IFCSS that concerns more
people, instead of some factions/individuals inside the IFCSS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Letter from Anzhi Lai:  The CCC and the IFCSS ....................... 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From:  Anzhi Lai <[email-masked]> Mon Jul 19
Subject: The CCC and the IFCSS

The article "Lin Changsheng of CCC Group Wins, But What Is in for IFCSS" on
July 12's CND-US Special Issue on IFCSS 5th Congress (V) inspired this one.
I thank CND-US for carrying my article.

I. THE CCC (COLUMBUS COMMUNICATION CLUB). Shocked by 6.4 massacre more than 4
years ago, the CSS in the US started to organize themselves independently at
a national level. Among those who were working for the birth of the IFCSS were
some who went a step further: preparing for a Party (Zu3 Dang3). The first
effort produced the IFCSS. The second lasted about a year with, interestingly,
some members of BOTH the later "radical" and "moderate" factions involved in.

When the IFCSS 2da finished in Columbus, Ohio, having given up the Zu Dang
attempt, some of the IFCSS activists, as a part of the Zu Dang initiators,
decided to keep in touch to retain the mutual trust they built up MAINLY in
their IFCSS activities by forming the CCC, an INFORMAL communication club, with
a consensus: fighting against the dictatorship of CCP that brought the tragedy
of 6.4; promoting political and economic changes of China. As today's CCC,
about 2/3 members of it weren't involved in the initial Zu Dang attempt.

CCC is a club of friends. We are by no means a formal or closely structured
organization; however, we condemn 6.4 massacre, we oppose any attempt of
defending the massacre. Our members participate in various projects of the
IFCSS as well as other organizations (e.g., AEIC, CND) at their own will, and
there is no such a thing called "CCC agenda of the IFCSS". CCC members form a
spectrum, with sometimes very different opinions on various issues. If you are
interested in sharing friendship and exchanging ideas with us, we welcome you.

II. THE IFCSS AND THE CCC. Because CCC members actively involved in IFCSS
from its beginning when there was even no CCC, some CCC members had already
been elected to various positions in the IFCSS in its 1da and 2da. This created
a tie that connected CCC with the IFCSS. In the four year history of IFCSS,
IFCSS activists are grouped, as naturally would be, with some groups staying
in the IFCSS, such as CCC, and some others having left, such as AEIC.

In the past, numerous issues were debated in the IFCSS, throughout these deba-
tes, CCC and its members gained the "radical flavor", with which I have no
complaint; however, it is widely speculated that CCC has been very "bad" in
the IFCSS. These speculations were mainly reflected in the IFCSS' presidential
election, operation, member participation, and adjustment of emphasis. Now,
let's take a look at them one by one.

* The Presidential Election of the IFCSS. For 5da, the fantacy of a CCC plot of
letting Li Jinghong cheat the delegates so that the victory of Lin Changsheng
could be locked in is simply groundless. I hope the people whom Li Jinghong
tried to team up to form a strong ticket could evaluate his sincerity (or non-
sincerity as some implied) to campaign. The simple fact of truth is: he was
running based on his own willingness, which was not expected even by a lot of
CCC members, and Lin Changsheng was well prepared but the other two were not.
For previous elections, it was similar: whoever best-prepared won, e.g., Zhao
Haiqing (not CCC faction) won in 3da. It is a simple fact that if you are
committed, well prepared, good at selling your ideas, you win, otherwise, you
lose. To blame one's failure on other's "plot" is, at least, too narrow-minded.

* The Operation of the IFCSS. It is a common knowledge that any organization
is "flavoured". The key question is not the flavor, but whether or not the
leadership of an organization complies with its rules in pursueing its agenda
and leads the will of the majority. In the past, the acomplishments of IFCSS
are mainly reflected in serving the interests of CSS, of which the results can
hardly be better, and in human right campaign with MFN as a major vehicle, of
which some "moderate" friends gave a "can't be better" evaluation referring to
Clinton's Executive Order. If these deserve some minimum credits, I would not
give to CCC itself because they are simply the results of the collective effort
of all who involved in; BUT, if CCC is to be accused of being "bad" in IFCSS,
and the IFCSS has done so much that deserve credits, is the accusation fair?

Of course, CCC also made mistakes (such us the AEIC project) as many groups do,
which might have affected the operation of IFCSS. If I didn't have the 100-line
limit of CND-US, I would love to analyze this together with my AEIC friends,
whom I wish continuing success on top of their already impressive work.

[Editor's note: judging from the length of the articles in this follow-up
                report on the IFCSS 5th Congress, readers may understand
                why there is a soft limit on the size of each article.]

* The Participation and Grass Roots of the IFCSS. No body would deny the
fact that the participation rate of the IFCSS is low. One interpretation for
this is the "domination" of CCC, with "high" political profile, in the IFCSS.

The average turn-up rate in elections of the local American governments is 20
-30%. The highest Presidential Election turn-up rate was propbably around 60%
(<50% in average). These figures show how realistic we should be in talking
about participation, even without considering that the US people are ENCOURAGED
but the CSS feel PRESSURE to participate in ANY independent organization.

On the othe hand, there are two characteristics with democracy: 1.organizations
are inevitable, 2. none of the organizations will represent all, nor does one
represent nothing. If time could be reversed, we could well experiment on
letting the "moderate" run IFCSS with the "radical" withdrawing. I really hope
that the "moderates" could say with confidence that the participation rate
would be much higher. After all, a serious problem with the IFCSS is, once a
group feels unhappy, it leaves the IFCSS. This has been one of the reasons that
the IFCSS participation rate is low. This problem can hardly appear with a
country, e.g., the GOP can't make another country when the Democrats wins.

The grass root problem is really LARGELY, if not only, a problem of interest
rather than political profile. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why the
CSPA program of the IFCSS enjoyed such a high participation when the IFCSS is
"controlled" by a "bad" CCC that has such a pro-human rights profile.

* The Adjustment of the IFCSS and CCC. More than four years after 6.4, we have
witnessed numerous changes; however, these changes did not happen overnight.

After 6.4, the CCC judgement was that it was not the time to lower down the
political profile based on our morality and the political reality. I would
think that whoever had advocated otherwise then would have lost the majority
support from the general CSS. In response to the then political reality, CCC
favored tough measures against CCP's severe oppression, which I would call
rational rather than "radical". A change of CCP policy, because of the pressure
from all people, became apparent in early 92. This change is marked by relaxa-
tion of economic control accompanied by releasing some political prisoners and
starting to talk about human rights. I believe overseas CSS, including my CCC
friends, contributed to the pressure that forced CCP to retreat from its stand
right after 6.4. The change of CCP's economic policy does not change our firm
conviction of promoting democracy and human rights, and ending one party rule
of China; however, with this altered environment, "build the way back to China"
probably becomes one of the primary tasks of the IFCSS because it reflects the
interests of a majority CSS and is an effective way of promoting democracy. I
wish IFCSS a greater success, and will contribute my share as a CCC member.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Letter from Jinghong Li:
   About July 12's CND-US Special Issue on IFCSS 5th Congress (V) ...... 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: [email-masked] (Jinghong Li) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993
Subject: The Unfinished Campaign: IFCSS 5da, Anonymous Accusing and CND

Dear editors, I am writing this to clarify some misleading information and
groundless accusations carried by CND-US, July 12, 1993 of Special Report
on IFCSS 5th Congress.

1. Anonymous Accusing and CND's Responsibility

Freedom of speech is not freedom of accusing.  When someone exchanges
opinions with others privately is a story, when he/she decides to go public
is another.  The anonymous article on CND-US spent quite some length to
explore my wrong doings and the so-called CCC plot without providing any
evidences.  For a person, who goes as far as to believe some delegates'
humorous rumor of my choice "Liu Gang" (some said "Wang Dan") as VP partner,
I fell sorry for him (or her, whichever fits).

Freedom of press is not freedom of spreading rumors or personal attacks.  CND,
CND-US in particular, as a News/Infor redistributor has acted irresponsibly on
this incident by publishing this accusing-without-facts article in the name
of "anonymous".  As much as I love and support CND, of which I was once a
volunteer, I hate to see it acrossing the line of news media's self discipline.
The least it could have done is to contact those named people/organizations
to verify the facts.  News media's credibility comes with facts and fairness.

2. Why Join the IFCSS Presidential Race ?

Running for IFCSS presidency is not a easy decision.  Although encouraged by
many friends and colleagues in IFCSS, I decided not to run a long time ago
because of personal reasons.  In May, however, when it became more and more
obvious that there would be only two candidates for 5da presidency: Lin
Changsheng and Ding Yungui, I began to worry.

Being a friend to both, I have nothing against them personally.  It was
their opinions, plans and the lack of experiences in IFCSS related operations
made me to jump in the race at the last moment.  This actully meant I was
ready to do a work which requires more than twice efforts, receives much more
criticism than credit, and get paid much less than what I make.  These are for
the interests of IFCSS.  The anonymous author may not know: there are people
willing to sacrifice for something they believe in, I am just one of the many.

3. Why not to finish the campaign ?

The reason simply put: I failed to find a suitable campaign partner.  The
CND-US anonymous article expressed its surprise and therefore the author's
outrageous of my "inability to find a VP partner".  Well, life is not always
that simple.  In IFCSS's not-that-long history, this is an old problem.

However, one question should be answered: did I really try to find one?
With my personal honor on hand: I tried and tried very hard.  There were
total of four people I seriously considered for partnership.  Unfortunately,
various reasons prohibited the cooperations to become true.  Maybe hard to
image, my first choice was Mr. Ding Yungui.  With my experience and his
young blood, a perfect partnership could be formed.  But, the Constitution
of IFCSS requires a pair to come from different Regions.  5da participants
saw I participated in the attempt to re-align the Region States. Because:

The over sized mid-west region has been a problem from the beginning of
IFCSS.  This hence created a strange Council Member election phenomenon:
while some regions hardly have enough people willing to accept the 2 positions,
the Mid-west has to compete fiercely among 5-8 candidates.  This is not
fairness and actually discourages grass-root participation. On the other hand,
if the re-aligned, we will be able to form the campaign pair since Ohio(mine)
and Iowa (Ding) happen to be at the two opposite sides of mid-west region.
There were also four delegates volunteered to be my VP partner.  Although
appreciated their kindness, I could not accept the offers.  A pair should at
lest know each other's ideas and ability.

4. Why "cheat" on the real situation ?  and What about CCC ?

All efforts in forming a meaningful team failed one day before the electon.
But I withheld this information until the last moment.  During the dancing
party, I told the delegates, citing some technical difficulties, the
partnership situation could not be made available at that moment, and
performed a dance for delegates' forgiveness.  Of course, that was a disaster.
Most of my friends and supporters got angry for my "stupid small smart". Well,
they failed to share my sense of humor.  Nonetherless, I wish people could at
least appreciated little more of my artistic dancing skill.

People would leave early without the often exciting debates.  However, a
quorum of 2/3 of all registered delegate units must be present for a session
to be valid.  Unfortunately, this number was probably set too high for our
Congress, it almost collapsed during the first day because of the nearly 1/3
no-shows.  I decided not to declair even if it meant to be blamed on, and
took it as my share of sacrifice for a successful Congress.

The morning after the final election, July 5, when learned the theory of a CCC
plot to guarantee a 100% win for Mr. Lin.  I laughed off the chair,literally.
The pure speculation made me uneasy not only because I am wrongly accused, but
also its implication of my "stupidity".  Anyone, with such a plot, in his/her
right mind would tell people the "withheld infor"?   And why did not I, or
CCC for that matter, pair up with a person who's guaranteed to lose, hence
the 100% is secured while people enjoy an "exciting fight", instead of
letting the Lin pair sitting there lonely debating with nobody?

I myself am not only a member of CCC, but also a member of AEIC.  I was
also once an active and energetic CND volunteer, ceased acting in CND only
to protect its independent image after I was elected to IFCSS Council.
Upon the retirement from IFCSS, I have already contacted CND offering
to work for any of its working branches.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. CND's Statement on Some Related Issues ............................... 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CND's Statement on Some Related Issues (in reference item No.5 of this issue):

1. CND, including CND-US, welcomes contributions from readers in their
   REAL names/E-mail ID's.  We will continue the policy of withholding
   contributor's name on request (however, the name/e-mail ID of the sender
   must be made known to CND), observing the existing possibility of political
   threat and investigation by some orgnizations and/or individuals on the
   computer network.

2. CND has never restricted off-CND activities of any member, and does have
   a well defined procedure to avoid possible conflict of interests.  CND
   has never requested or implicated that CND membership is exclusive, e.g.,
   there are many CND volunteers belonging to other organizations and some of
   them are CURRENTLY in the leadership of such other organizations as the
   IFCSS, AEIC and FCSSC of Canada, while CND remains completely independent
   of ANY other organizations.

   There are only three situations that a CND volunteer's membership will be
   terminated: 1) loss of contact or resignation by the member, 2) termination
   by CND manager due to prolonged inactivity within CND and 3) the member's
   activity damages CND.  Jinghong Li's CND membership was terminated due to
   the second situation described above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Moments of Revelation:
   Impressions of The 5th Congress of IFCSS (I & II) ................... 115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Zheng Ping Chen <[email-masked]>  Date:  Mon, 19 Jul 1993
By:   Zheng-Ping Chen  &  Yingyin Xu, Case Western Reserve University

We would like to run a mini-series entitled "Moments of Revelation"
delineating our impression of the 5th Congress of IFCSS.  We invite your
comment, pro or con.  Hopefully this kind of discussion will generate a
public forum that would enable and encourage more people to participate
in the on-going dialogue about democracy and the role of IFCSS.

I.  Moments of Revelation:  Censorship Vs. Democracy

"Youths have in abundance enthusiasm, sincerity and conscience."  Not
an exact translation, but almost.  This is a passage recollected from
the speech of one of the guest speakers in the opening ceremony of the
5th Congress of IFCSS.  Although it is reminiscent of the kind of
idealist maxim that characterized the education of our generation, its
appeal does not diminish in retrospect, as "enthusiasm, sincerity and
conscience" were some of the virtues we were trying to recuperate and
revive during the three-day conference.  In the conference rooms in
Lexington, one had an exulting sense of participating in the very making
of history, of finally being physically present in the midst of change
for once in one's life ; the regret of being "belated" was absent for
the first time.  Notwithstanding flickers of disillusionment resulting
from those momentary insight or rather intuitive awareness of the lust
of power beneath the splender and rhetoric of idealism, one left with
the hope of coming back a year from now, to rekindle the light that
proved to be all inclusive and deliciously infectious. One has to admit
that it was worth it, the long exhaustive drive by night, the not terribly
appetiting meals, the stinking, stale, inexplicable elevators, the
suffocating heat of the South.

It was all worth it except for the last minute, which almost spoiled
all that had gone before that was memorable for us (had the damage been
complete we wouldn't have written this).  Mu, Liyue, the mediator for the
presidential election session, was supposed to take a neutral stand and
read word for word the qeustions for the candidates raised by the delegates.
However he took it upon himself to arbitrarily censor them by re-shuffling
the sheets on which questions were written; apparently he suppressed those
he deemed sensitive or poignant, while privileged mostly those that merely
asked the candidates to reiterate or elaborate points in their campaign
speech.  Whether or not he was aware of it, his action had aroused the
alert of many delegates present.  What he might have thought was a private
act had been subjected to public surveillance for at least 20 minutes.
At the critical moment (for it was critical, was it not?) when his
not-so-wel-concealed trick was exposed by one delegate, the chairman of
this session, Geng, Xiao, who was also the former president of IFCSS, came
to his rescue by deciding that, in the interest of time, he shall pick two
more questions out of the remaining eight at random to conclude that part
of the evening.  Granted time was fast running out (and so too the celebration
of July 4 was about over), and the chairman was trying to get the job done,
or trying to be effecient, there were those of us who felt being cheated out
of a hearing promised us well in advance as a reward for our patience.
Obviously we are no disinterested critics, because our question had been
slighted (and maybe torn to pieces in the midnight revel afterward?).
However we raised the question not out of malice but out of concern for the
future of IFCSS.  Let that be the excuse, if you will, for our problematizing
this seemingly trivial incident.  Whatever was the nagging question we
intended to ask, we leave it to the imagination of the reader, and it does
not matter now any way, now that the curtains have fallen, the feast(?) was
cleared, the congradulations have been offered and reciprocated, and the
auditorium at Lexington has resumed its silence.

Let us be allowed one more disclainer, and we shall be done.  We bear no
personal grudge against Comarade Mu, Liyue, who is not perfect, but then
neither is any of us.  We are no perfectionist, only worshippers and hopefuls.
Are we willing to emulate democracy in a painstaking way, by accepting all
that may be unpleasant and unpalatable in the process, or are we prepared to
be content with its mere sham?

II.  Moments of Revelation:  Devotion Dance ?!

During the "free talk" session toward the end of the congress, some people
voiced reservation about the so-call "Zhong Zhi Wu," the "devotion dance"
that one of the ex-presidential candidates improvised to amuse the crowd
and to solicite support in the previous evening, which was designated by
the program committee as social hours.  Is it objectionable to adopt such
a sarcastic, maybe even "blasphemous" form of entertainment on such a
serious occasion ?   Some people seemed to be offended by the very fact
of evoking the memory of Chairman Mao, the arch-enemy of Democracy, during
the official meeting of a pro-democracy organization.  The opponent seemed
to have forgotten that the congress was at recess that evening.  The
objection might have originated from a deeper, internalized shame that
has become part of our national collective unconsciousness.  So, are we
so ashamed of our past that we can't tolerate a parodic theatrical adaption
of segment of it, and the most painful part of it for that matter ?  As I
watched the amateur dancer reenact the gestures of pledging allegiance to
a deified human, I thought it was at once comical, touching and terrible.
There was a child-like innocence, which we have forever lost, in the display
of blind faith in a manmade demagog; at the same one was aware also that it
was a tragedy of gigantic scale.  The dance forced us to confront our
treacherous, troublesome past, and to define our own positioning in history.
The dance and the context that framed the dance, historical or at present,
were as complex, as profound as they were paradoxical.  To use a cliche, I
think the effect of the dance was phenomenonal. Certianly no one would be
so naive as to assume that history was repeating itself at that very moment.
Rather I believe that most of us then experienced ambivalence toward history,
which perhaps manifested a terrible capacity for self-parody as well as
self-liberation.   The choice of the dance was justified by the irony
accompanying it. The dance reminded one of the fabulous Medieval carnivals
in which the official and the unofficial, the sacred and the profane were
confounded, and in which all that has been repressed and prohibited found
an outlet.  It was emacipating.  Personally I admire the dancer for his
courage and ingenuity and for his attempt at transcendence.  To transcend
history is but an illusion, as we are "always already" implicated in history,
there is no escape.  However we can loosen its grip on us by trying to
understand it, and to do so, what we need is distance and irony, not obsession.

(to be continued by the authors)

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             Editors of This Issue:  Bo Xiong,  Deming Tang               |
|               Coordinating Editor:  Mingyang Xu                          |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  China News Digest (CND) offers the following services:                  |
|     (1) Global News (daily)        (2) US Regional News                  |
|     (3) Canada Regional News       (4) Europe & Pacific Regional News    |
|     (5) Hua Xia Wen Zhai (a weekly Chinese magazine)                     |
|     (6) several information packages.                                    |
|  For subscription information, mail to: [email-masked]                 |
|  To get help, mail to:                  [email-masked]                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+