May 10, 1992
To: The Chinese Public,
The American Public
What happened three years ago at Tian'anmen Square remains vivid in the minds
of people all over the world. Regretfully, this event has been used by some
Chinese students and scholars (CSS) in the United States for personal gain
despite the damage it does to the Sino-US relationship and to the overwhelming
majority of the people of China. This letter, namely Action 9201, attempts
toclarify an important issue and to make the greater truth known to the Chinese
and to the American public.
As many CSS may remember, one of the consequences of the 1989 "Bush Protection
Order" was de facto to make more difficult and to reduce the extent of Sino-US
cultural and educational exchange. Because of this order, many CSS in China
who wanted and would otherwise have been able to receive an overseas education
have been deprived of the opportunity. But this is the past and the past
can not be changed. What can we expect of the future?
Unfortunately, the activities of a relatively small, self-interested group
of CSS already in the US are bound to bring still more harm to Sino-US relationship,
and regrettably, more harm to the Chinese people, especially the CSS still
in China. This activity is the advocacy of and lobbying for the so-called
"Protection Bill"--really an immigration bill--which is intended to permit
the CSS who came before April 11 of 1990 to apply for permanent residency
(PR) in the United States. They cite the political pressure and human rights
status quo in China as reasons and use the June 4 event as a direct pretense.
Scrutiny of their reasoning, specious as it is, makes clear that they in
fact have ulterior motives and they are in fact conspiring to deceive.
First, the bill pertains only to those CSS currently in the US and who came
before April 11, 1990. The advocates in the US say that they fear political
persecution because they supported the democracy movement in China. But what
about the majority CSS currently in China who participated in the 1989 democracy
movement? Why were many of the 89 movement participants still able to come
to the US to study (after overcoming barriers put into effect in response
to the "Bush Order")? If human rights conditions are so bad in China, why
doesn't the bill protect those who came after April 11, 1990? The fact is:
we Action 9201 supporters, as listed in the support list of this letter,
neither need nor want any "protection" although many of us--if wehad no conscience-could
benefit under provisions of the bill.
Second, the Chinese government would very likely respond, as it has to similar
actions in the past, by exerting more control and adverse pressure on the
CSS in China, many of whom may lose their opportunity to have an overseas
education. If depriving CSS in China an overseas education is an act of persecution,
then this immigration bill likely will bring about persecution of the CSS
in China. Perhaps the bill would more aptly be called the "Chinese student
persecution bill". In this sense, in the interest of a small minority, these
"immigration bill" advocates without hesitation or remorse sacrifice the
best interests of the vast majority of CSS as well as risk harm to the Sino-US
relationship in general.
Third, the economic development, progress towards democracy and improvement
of human rights in China requires well-educated people, especially those
with overseas education. Some CSS say that they need permanent residence
because then they can better fight for democracy in China. The cruel truth
is that many of those CSS most actively using the June 4 event as an excuse
to seek immigration hardly care about democracy in China. Those who are truly
devoted to the democracy movement already will meet the criteria for political
asylum in the US. It is interesting to note that when it came to lobbying
for the "protection bill"--which provided direct personal benefit to these
people--the US Congress received an overwhelming number of calls and letters
of support from these people; but when it came to showing support for bill(s)
concerned with the human rights records in China--bills which had no direct
benefit to these CSS, who had already decided to try to become American Permanent
Residents--the number of calls and letters from CSS became much,
much smaller. Why? Isn't the reason more than obvious?
Fourth, China provided these CSS with years of public education, using resources
which are in very short supply in China, a developing third-world country.
This investment of precious resources was done with the expectation and understanding
that these CSS would make use of their education to do good to China. This
is similar to the U.S. Public Health Service's program in which USPHS pays
for a student's medical school education, in exchange for working as a physician
in rural areas for a certain number of years after graduation. But some of
these CSS have bluntly denied that they owe anything
to China, the country that nurtured them. We may have good reason to doubt
whether such people will make worthwhile contributions anywhere, regardless
of the country in which they reside. Some of these CSS have even claimed,
"Those who died in the June 4 movement are dead forever and cannot be brought
back to life. So what's wrong with taking advantage of their blood?" Can
this be the reason to seek protection? What a brazen and barefaced declaration!
Their selfishness is revealed.
This practice of taking advantage of the June 4 event in such a selfish way,
thoughtlessly risking harm to the Sino-US relationship and sacrificing the
interests of the vast majority of the Chinese people is very unsettling.
Some react with great anger: The green card obtained in this way is really
a "red card" or a "blood card".
Generally, we do not oppose people choosing a new living place and immigrating
to the US. But we think that this should be done through normal procedures,
instead of through seeking personal benefits at the expense of and detriment
to the majority of the Chinese people.
Regretfully, the actions of a small minority are tarnishing the image of
the CSS and the Chinese people as a whole. Some American people say, " These
people make Americans think of Chinese as beggars." As one Chinese student
put it, "Their behavior is destroying my confidence in our nation, China."
Citizens of China as well as of the United States who have a mind and a conscience,
who wish well for the Sino-US relationship, for the people of Chinese and
of the world must not tolerate deception. Human-rights abusers and persecuters
are the ones practiced in that art; real democracy fighters love truth. The
world of tomorrow can be a better world, if the people who can reason make
themselves heard. Please, decent, honest reasoning people, show your support.
You can either directly contact the US legislators or contact us at:
Action 9201 Committee
PO Box 3544
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-0544
[Institutions listed below are for identification purpose only.]
Yeh, Shannon Netix Communications, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA.
Zhang, Shuren Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Xie, Jinya Stuttgart University, Germany.
Zuo, Zhiqi Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Chen, Jian University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Horne, Scott Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Zhou, Shenxue University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Ge, Zening University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
I, _____________________, support this letter. And upon my own discretion,
(Type your name here)
I publish this letter, at my own costs, with the respect to the copyright
note shown below.
Copyright (c) by Action 9201 Committee, 1992. All rights reserved. Deletion/addition
of one letter from/to this letter is NOT allowed without the pre-approval
from the Action 9201 Committee.