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 status
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

Committee Members

[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.

Signature:_________________________________ Date:______________________
(sign here)

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.

[返回叶向农文选主页][返回Ｎｅｔｉｘ公司主页][返回Ｎｅｔｉｘ社区主页][返回四大广场主页]