LEVEL 1 - 2 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1991 Federal Information Systems Corporation Federal News Service JUNE 3, 1991, MONDAY SECTION: COMMERCE AND TRADE SPEECHES OR CONFERENCES LENGTH: 7539 words HEADLINE: NEWS CONFERENCE WITH THE TAXPAYERS ALLIANCE AGAINST BAILOUT OF COMMUNISM MODERATOR: JOHN P. CREGAN SPEAKERS: HOWARD PHILLIPS, CHAIRMAN OF CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS RICHARD VIGUERIE, UNITED CONSERVATIVES OF AMERICA CHEN XINGYU, FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT CHINESE STUDENTS L. BRENT BOZELL, CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATIVE VICTORY COMMITTEE PETER T. FLAHERTY, CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGN FUND ALAN TONELSON, CHAIRMAN, ECONOMIC STRATEGY INSTITUTE Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, DC BODY: ... Chinese student group in this country to speak. And the organization is the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, and the gentleman that will be speaking is Chen Xingyu. MR. CHEN: Thank you, Mr. Cregan. My name is Chen Yingyu from the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars in the ... LEVEL 1 - 3 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1991 Reuters Reuters North American Wire June 3, 1991, Monday, AM cycle LENGTH: 517 words HEADLINE: CONSERVATIVES HIT BUSH FOR TRADE DEALS FOR CHINA, SOVIET UNION BYLINE: By Michael Posner DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: ... it the the low tariffs the U.S. levies on most nations- Bush argued that not doing it would isolate China. Chen Xingyu, who represented Chinese students in the United States, differed with Bush over his isolation theory. "Imposing conditions on ... LEVEL 1 - 4 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1991 Agence France Presse Agence France Presse May 31, 1991 SECTION: News LENGTH: 620 words HEADLINE: U.S. based Chinese dissidents rethinking strategy BYLINE: GERRY AZIAKOU DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: ... pro-democratic forces. Only through dialogue can we reach a peaceful transition to democracy," said IFCSS member Chen Xingyu, who co-signed the letter. But the democracy cause appears to have lost much of its urgency for many Chinese dissidents, ... LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1996 The Daily Yomiuri The Daily Yomiuri June 23, 1996, Sunday SECTION: Pg. 3 LENGTH: 608 words HEADLINE: Only 1 Deng relative remains in hometown BYLINE: Kiyoshi Aihara; Daily Yomiuri Staff Writer DATELINE: GUANGAN, China BODY: ... lives of Chinese." Deng left the village to study in France when he was 14 years old and never returned. LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1996 The Daily Yomiuri The Daily Yomiuri June 23, 1996, Sunday SECTION: Pg. 3 LENGTH: 608 words HEADLINE: Only 1 Deng relative remains in hometown BYLINE: Kiyoshi Aihara; Daily Yomiuri Staff Writer DATELINE: GUANGAN, China BODY: After a jolting five-hour ride on a bumpy road from Chongqing, a large industrial city in southwestern China's Sichuan Province, a car carrying me and another reporter ground to a halt in Paifang, the birthplace of Deng Xiaoping. China's 91-year-old paramount leader was born in the village in 1904. Today, the impressive dwelling in which he was born--a compound of three tile-roofed The Daily Yomiuri, June 23, 1996 wooden structures with a courtyard--is open to the public, drawing 500 to 1,000 visitors a day. Deng and almost all of his relatives have moved from the village, but Dan Wenquan, a 58-year-old farmer who is a first cousin of the Chinese leader, still lives in Paifang. Dan's father, Yixing, was a younger brother of Deng's mother. Yixing, who is two years older than Deng, and the future leader attended the same pre-primary school. "My father was always told by my grandfather that Deng was so smart that he would succeed in life," said Dan, who resembles Deng, both of whom are diminutive and have similar eyebrows. "I have never met Deng, but I am very proud of him because he has contributed a great deal to improving the lives of Chinese." Deng left the village to study in France when he was 14 years old and never returned. Dan and his wife, Chen Xingyu, live in a two-story stone house several hundred meters from the dwelling where Deng was born. On a wall of his house is a large picture of Deng with an inscription calling him an architect of modern China. Dan moved to the house around 1987. Before that, he and his family The Daily Yomiuri, June 23, 1996 lived for about 30 years in Deng's house with other local farmers, after Deng's family moved to Chongqing in 1950. "We wanted to live there longer because I think that was a good choice for us and Deng's family, but the local authorities forced us to leave," Dan said. "They prohibited us from using a fire for cooking or burning waste because the house was becoming more and more popular as a sightseeing spot." Dan believes that Deng's birthplace should be kept as it is in the event that Deng ever returns for a visit. Dan has bitter memories of the Cultural Revolution. Deng, then general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, was ostracized because he was critical of the 1966-76 revolution, and an ancestral grave in the village was vandalized by local residents who backed the revolution. "I tried to stop them," Dan said, "but I failed because I was outnumbered." In the early part of the century, any promising Chinese could be appointed as a bureaucrat after passing an examination. An examinee was backed by many people--immediate family, relatives and hometown residents--because a bureaucrat always looked after his backers. Even today, strong connections help a person get a good job. The Daily Yomiuri, June 23, 1996 However, Deng has neither helped Dan or the villagers financially nor visited the town. The only thing Deng reportedly did was have his first son, Pufang, clean up the ancestral cemetery plot, which was restored in 1982, when Pufang visited a few years ago. Dan, a middle-class farmer, farms a 130-square-meter plot in which he grows rice and corn. He also raises a few head of cattle. His daughter and son, both unmarried, have seasonal jobs at textile factories in Chengdu, capital of the province. "When I retired from military service and came back from Jilin Province in 1961, I could have asked Deng to arrange a lucrative post, but I didn't because I have been a farmer since I was born," said Dan. "I'm not envious and in no way do I accuse him of not giving us support. He always considered the nation as a whole to be most important, not a handful of relatives. That's OK with me." LOAD-DATE: June 25, 1996 LEVEL 1 - 2 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1991 Federal Information Systems Corporation Federal News Service JUNE 3, 1991, MONDAY SECTION: COMMERCE AND TRADE SPEECHES OR CONFERENCES LENGTH: 7539 words HEADLINE: NEWS CONFERENCE WITH THE TAXPAYERS ALLIANCE AGAINST BAILOUT OF COMMUNISM MODERATOR: JOHN P. CREGAN SPEAKERS: HOWARD PHILLIPS, CHAIRMAN OF CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS RICHARD VIGUERIE, UNITED CONSERVATIVES OF AMERICA CHEN XINGYU, FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT CHINESE STUDENTS L. BRENT BOZELL, CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATIVE VICTORY COMMITTEE PETER T. FLAHERTY, CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGN FUND ALAN TONELSON, CHAIRMAN, ECONOMIC STRATEGY INSTITUTE Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, DC BODY: MR. CREGAN: Good afternoon, and thank you for coming. My name is John P. Cregan, and I'm president of the United States Business and Industrial Council, which is a national organization of 1,500 conservative business leaders committed to American economic preeminence. We are here today to announce the formation of the Taxpayers Alliance Against the Bailout of Communism. Today and in the next couple of weeks, we will release details of our national action plan to mobilize grassroots support on behalf of legislation opposed to the renewal of unconditional Most Favored Nation trade privileges to the People's Republic of China and to oppose the extension of Most Favored Nation trade privileges to the Soviet Union. I want to say at the outset that while the focus of this campaign will be national in scope and multi-dimensional, conservatives -- American conservatives -- should be at the fore of an issue like this. Those of us joining in the press conference today feel that it is incumbent on American conservatives who helped bring victory to the President in 1988 to point out when this administration has diverged from the agenda that secured that support. We will be the first to applaud the President when he is right, whether it be in the war in the Gulf, or in the war against crime. But when the President departs from Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 the conservative agenda, as when he reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge last summer, we will not hesitate to express our dissatisfaction. We are here today to say that renewing Most Favored Nation trade privileges for Beijing or Moscow amounts to the foreign policy equivalent of last year's fiasco on taxes for the Bush administration. When the President stands tough in defense of the right to life or when he explains why a liberal civil rights bill would mandate quotas, we will be standing right there with him. But we are here today to contend that by granting Most Favored Nation trade privileges for China or the Soviet Union, the President, in effect, is embarking on an affirmative action plan for the hardline communists in Beijing and in Moscow. Those of us gathered here today and many others who are with us in spirit believe that the issue of MFN for China and the Soviet Union should be linked for these reasons. We believe in democracy and a market economy, not in reformed socialism or reformed communism, and we contend that Soviet-style socialism or Peking-style socialism under Deng cannot be truly reformed; it can only be abandoned. This was essentially the message that former President Nixon made in his major op editorial in yesterday's Washington Post, and President Nixon is one who knows something trade and aid with the Soviets. Absent genuine reform, based on a new paradigm rather than a facelift of the old one, the fruits of MFN provide the hardliners in Moscow and in Peking with an alternative to the following dilemma. That dilemma is either to completely abandon the failed system of socialism or to continue the status quo and to Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 face the perils of that which was faced by the late President Ceasescu in Romania. But by granting MFN, we essentially buy the hardliners in Moscow and Beijing time. They do have an alternative to genuine reform. In any event, the principal objective of the hardliners in Beijing and in Moscow in getting MFN is essentially the same; and that is access to hard currency, the bulk of which unfortunately will be fed into the current military-industrial complexes in both countries. The way in which the two regimes will manipulate MFN is a little different, however. The Chinese are engaged in dumping goods, many, by their own acknowledgement, produced by slave labor, on the American market. They're the most egregious pirater of intellectual property in the world today, and they are systematically closing their market to our exports. Thus, they are running massive trade surpluses. They ran a trade surplus of $10 billion last year, it's expected that it may top $12 billion this year. Last year, our exports to China actually decline, and in March, the last month for which we have records, comprehensive records, our overall trade deficit declined by 20 percent, but our trade deficit with China increased by 17 percent. As a representative of American business I am here to say today that I think the case against renewing Most Favored Nation trade privileges for the Peoples Republic of China can be rejected entirely on economic grounds. We do have a representative of a major Chinese student coalition, the major one in America, Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 who can explain what is happening when the Chinese get this hard currency, whether it's trickling down and actually helping the Chinese people, or it's being fed into their military industrial complex. Ladies and gentlemen, what it all comes down to is this. In the case of both China and the Soviet Union, unconditional Most Favored Nation trade privileges, MFN, stands for the following, money for nothing. Money in return for nothing in the way of substantive reforms and liberalizations; special trade privileges; the extension of government-guaranteed credit; and access to our high technology in return for empty promises would essentially amount to nothing. MFN, Most Favored Nation status for Beijing and Moscow, stands for money for nothing. Now, in conclusion, China may retain its PFN status, President's Favorite Nation, but it should have it's Most Favored Nation renewal conditioned on real reform. And when it comes to the Soviet Union, many of us assembled here today would rather see MFN extended to Vilnius and ot the various Baltic republics rather than to the Kremlin and Moscow. And we understand that legislation will shortly be introduced by Senators Bradley and Helms which would do just that. I'd now like the -- conservative leaders that have joined me today, and also the representative of the major Chinese student group to make some remarks and we'll begin with Howard Phillips who is chairman of the Conservative Caucus. Howard? MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. Since the beginning of the Iraq War, President Bush has benefited from a Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 unilater cease-fire of critical comment on the part of many conservatives. In the absence of visible focused opposition, the President has moved incrementally and relentlessly to implement a policy of US support for the communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Red China. Without coordinated grassroots opposition to these policies, anti-communist strength in the Congress has proven undependable. For example, on May 15, out of 43 Republican Senators, only eight voted against President Bush's proposal for a $1.5 billion grain subsidy to Mikhail Gorbachev, the KGB, the Red Army and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The President has more in store for us: The possible invitation of Mikhail Gorbachev to the G-7 economic summit; an additional waiver of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment for the USSR, despite the fact that their so-called immigration reforms are not even scheduled to take effect until 1993; extended MFN status for Red China; Export-Import Bank credits and loan guarantees for the Soviet Union; associate membership in the World Bank and observer status in GATT for Moscow; a liberalized policy of technology transfers; involvement of Soviet military leaders in NATO strategy discussions; dismantlement of systems providing early warning against Soviet missile attacks; a 25 percent five-year reduction in US military strength; and even more. I'm just back from a nine-day visit to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The unanimous plea of those with whom our 40-person group met was "Do not rescue our communist jailkeepers. Let the Soviet system collapse." Contrary to the popular wisdom, the money we send to Moscow does not go down the drain. I Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 wish it did. It reinforces the authority of those who hold the levers of power. With a 32 to 1 official ruble to dollar exchange rate and with Soviet residents typically earning only a few hundred rubles per month, every $1.5 billion we send to the Kremlin is the equivalent of $48 billion plus of political and military leverage. In extending MFN to the Red Chinese the Bush administration is ignoring a clear record of slave labor production and giving Beijing a multibillion dollar trade advantage over American workers. It's time for those of us who disagree with those policies to take action. Accordingly, a taxpayer's alliance against the bailout of communism is being formed. During the weeks ahead we will seek to rally popular opposition to the bailout of commumnism as we initiate a full range of activities to alert the American people to the cruel, destructive implications of George Bush's policy. Mr. Bush has called for a new world order requiring the votes of Red China and the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council. The price he is asking us and others throughout the world to pay for their votes is much too high. Thank you. MR. CREGAN: Thank you, Howard. I'd now like to ask Richard Viguerie, Chairman of United Conservatives of America, to make a statement. MR. VIGUERIE: Thank you, John. President Bush has generated more anger, frustration among conservatives at any time since he broke his pledge to the American taxpayers that he wouldn't raise taxes. President Bush has single-handedly united all conservatives, taxpayers, ethnic groups, human Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 rights groups in their opposition to his policy of saving his friend Mikhail Gorbachev and Soviet-style communism. President Bush, we can say, is at least consistent. American foreign policy under President Bush has flowed in the direction of the profits for the multinational corporations, whether it's from Tiananman Square to Red Square, down to the Baltics and over to the Mideast, our foreign policy is consistent with that which is going to benefit the multinational corporations. I urge President Bush, if he is so confident of his policy, to take this issue to the American people, go on national television, and ask the opinion of the American people: How do they feel about saving communism? And if he is not prepared to do it, I urge the Republican Party to communicate with their supporters, communicate with the American people: How do you feel about saving Soviet-style communism? And if President Bush or the Republcan Party is not prepared to do this, I urge the American people to write to President Bush, write to the Republican Party and tell them, "Do you stand with President Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev and the butchers of Tiananman Square and the butchers of the Baltic freedom fighters, or do you stand with those brave freedom fighters and the American taxpayers?" MR. CREGAN: Thank you, Richard. I'd now like to divert from the conservative leaders of the coalition and ask a representative of the principal Chinese student group in this country to speak. And the organization is the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, and the gentleman that will be Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 speaking is Chen Xingyu. MR. CHEN: Thank you, Mr. Cregan. My name is Chen Yingyu from the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars in the United States, which represents over 40,000 Chinese students and scholars studying in this country. From the 27th of May, President Bush announced his recommendation for the commission of the renewal of Most Favored Nation status to China, and we simply do not agree with his position on this issue. And we do not agree with with his speculation that unconditional renewal will promote human rights in China. We also do not agree with him with his comparison of the situation today in China and 15 years ago when he was in China. The Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars testified last week before three subcommittees of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that imposing human rights condition on any continued extension of MFN status for China will reinforce the moderates' ability to argue internally that the brutal repression has its external cost. We support in particular the Pelosi bill, which is H.R. 2212, in the House, because we believe it encompasses flexible, reasonable conditions which can, should and will be met by the Chinese leaders. Imposing conditions on MFN for China will by no means isolate China. In fact, only President Bush and supporters for unconditional renewal are talking about isolation. The scholars and dissidents living in this country agree that engagement is in the best interest of the two countries. However, US concerns Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 about human rights violations and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology cannot go unaddressed. If they do, the message to the Chinese region is strong and clear: Continue to flaunt international human rights and the proliferation norms for no meaningful reaction awaits you. Two years have passed since the Bejing regime mowed down its own people in Tiananmen Square. US policy during that time has not worked. Human rights violations are worse. Hundreds have been sentenced to prison or reeducation camps. Those that were released continue to face extensive surveillance, and can be picked up and interrogated for no reason. Just this week, the police have instituted dormitory searches to quell any further demonstrations of support for democratic forces. And in Tibet, the people are once again under de facto martial law. Chinese assurances on nuclear proliferation are meaningless. In 1988, former Defense Secretary Carlucci returned from China with assurance that arms sales to the Mideast would stop. Last year during the MFN debate, the Bush administration touted Beijing assurance of ending arms sales as trustworthy. Such assurance have proven to be unreliable and cannot once again be credibly paraded before the Congress and American people. While the future of the Chinese government will be totally determined in China, the United States has considerable influence in Asia. The evidence shows that China will respond to even the threat of losing MFN. Last year, during the Congressional debate on MFN, the Chinese government released almost 1000 Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 political prisoners and the famous dissident, Professor Fang Lizhi and his wife. Our organization, the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, supports legislation that will lead to more releases and which prods Chinese government into taking steps to reduce their harassment and repression of democratic and economic reform elements in China. Imposing conditions on MFN is appropriate vehicle to secure such action from Chinese government. We call on members of Congress to support reformers in the internal debates by giving them the tool to use against the hardliners. Intense pressure from local, regional and national interests which will result from such legislation will force the Chinese regime to positively respond to reasonable conditions. As an organization representing major Chinese students and scholars in this country, we would like to convey the message that -- to the President that some independent polls have revealed that about over two-thirds of the Chinese students and scholars support conditional renewal of MFN. And we do think that the Chinese students and scholars understand China better and know the consequence better than the President. Thank you. MR. CREGAN: Thank you, Chen. I think we should just be clear what the chicken and what the egg is here. When we extended Most Favored Nation status to the Chinese 10 years ago, that did not result in the budding democracy movement in China. Rather, it was the courage of Chinese democrats -- small "d" -- that in turn led to us granting MFN. And Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 now in the wake of Tinananmen Square, the continuance of MFN amounts to money for nothing. Economics and politics are closely linked here, because, as I said, our exports to China have actually declined, and if the Chinese government can control access to the export of our goods and services, it can also control the export of our ideas and values. I'd now like to return to the leaders of the coalition and call on Brent Bozel, Chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, to make a statement. MR. BOZELL: Thank you, John. We've been trying to figure out for a couple of years now what this new world order means. And the Bush administration has had a bit of a tough time explaining it to the American people. And the closest we got to it was that we would see a world wherein the nations were governed by the rule of law, and at the head of it would be this thing called the United Nations. We're now starting to see the emergence of George Bush's new world order, and frankly it's a very lousy world that we're getting ourselves involved in. What does it mean? In the new world order, it means the butchers of Tinananmen Square, who butchered by incarcerating, by torturing, by murdering friends of this gentleman, here, will get off scot-free and the Bush administration not only will let them off scot-free but it will give them Most Favored Nation status in return. It also means that in the Soviet Union at a time that we have defeated communism, at a time where the Soviet Union is collapsing and the people, the Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 enslaved people there, are begging us just leave it alone, leave us alone, don't do anything. We are now turning to help Mikhail Gorbachev. That is the new world order as envisioned by George Bush. All conservatives, all Americans ought to be very concerned about this. Have we not learned our lesson yet about helping tyrants? Have we not learned the lesson about helping the Saddam Husseins of the world, about helping the Noriegas of the world, about helping the Ceaucescus of the world. Unfortunately, if our coalition does not succeed, in the not too distance future people are going to ask what in the world was the United States doing bailing out the communist system at a time when it was destroyed? And others are going to ask how in the world can the United States claim to be the bastion of the free world? I am here to challenge, not conservatives, we know where conservatives stand, where most of them stand anyway, but I am here to challenge others, liberal Democrats, all the organizations that spoke out against the massacre of Tiananmen Square two years ago. Where are they today? If those liberal organizations want to join with conservative organizations, we would welcome them. We have to give a message to the Bush administration that there is no segment of the American population, of the American population that supports bailing out communism. Thank you. MR. CREGAN: Thank you, Brent. We have two other speakers who will make brief remarks. I would now like to ask Peter J. Flaherty, chairman of the Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 Conservative Campaign Fund to make some remarks. MR. FLAHERTY: Thank you, John. I am Peter Flaherty and I am chairman of the Conservative Campaign Fund, that's a political action committee which was founded in 1988. We support low taxes, a strong defense and congressional reform. I urge every Republican member of the House and Senate to vote against renewal of Most Favored Nation privileges for China. The Democrats are sure to assemble a majority against MFN in both Houses, but Republican votes are needed to override the President's veto which is expected, they'll need two-thirds in each house to override the President's veto. I hope every Republican will think long and hard before casting his or her vote. Do Republicans really want to face 30 second television ads in 1992 featuring the bloody footage of Tiananmen Square? Do Republicans want to become shameless hypocrits on human rights after all the pro democracy rhetoric of the Reagan and Bush years? Do Republicans really want to support a policy which is sure to fail? We heard a lot about human rights from President Bush when it came to wealthy Kuwait. In fact, human rights were supposedly the reason we fought the Gulf War. But now, with China, human rights for the masses are not our concern. Although I find the President's arguments unconvincing, he could have made his case based on pragmatism and practicality. He has instead chosen to make the debate a question of morality. I say fine, let the debate begin. Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 MR. CREGAN: Thank you, Peter. Our last speaker is Alan Tonelson, director of research for the Economic Strategy Institute, which is a think tank headed by Clyde Prestowitz in Washington. Alan, along with a number of prominent economists last week, including Paul Craig Roberts and Alan Keyes and others released a statement on aiding Gorbechev, and the bailout of the Soviet Union. I'd like to have him make some brief remarks right now. MR. TONELSON: Thank you very much, John. I'll try to be extremely brief. First, concerning financing perestroika, I think that this is an objective that if it could be carried off at some acceptable cost to this country, I think you would have a hard time making a really strong case against it. And when I say "financing perestroika," I don't mean to restrict myself to the actual present, I suppose, Gorbachev reform program. I mean the financing of genuine authentic political and also free market oriented reform. The problem is, though, I feel that the stakes that this country ostensibly has in this matter have been wildly exaggerated. I think that there are two basic consequences that at least in principle we have to be concerned with. The first consequence is the prospect of some economic collapse in the USSR precipitating a large refugee flow westward. Now, this is obviously something that no one would like to see, but bearing in mind the question of cost -- and looking at it in the light of cold-blooded realism, as I think we have to, at least at the start -- it's quite clear to me that this prospective refugee flow is primarily Western Europe's problem. Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 The only other consequence of a breakdown of, I guess, order in the USSR that we really need to be concerned with is the prospect that that control over elements of that country's nuclear weapons force would become fragmented. The problem is that touting a reform program, even the kind of a reform program that could actually work, I think really is an unusually roundabout, awkward mechanism for this. If we really are concerned that various irresponsible factions inside that country might gain control over weapons of mass destruction, if that's really the bottom line, then I think we need to address this problem with a fairly narrowly-focused military response, and I think that the kind of response that we need would be some sort of a relatively thin missile defense shield. If this concern about fragment control over Soviet nuclear weapons is really what this campaign to finance perestroika concerns. Concerning MFN status for China, I think this would really be a marvelous opportunitity to reintroduce into US foreign policy two concepts that haave been, I think, quite conspicuously missing for an awfully long time. One is the notion that the United States -- when all is basically said and done -- is an extremely strong, and extremely economically self-reliant, and an extremely geopolitically-secure country. The fact is the rest of the world, generally speaking, needs us a heck of a lot more than we need them, and this goes for the PRC in spades. They've racked up an enormous trade surplus with us, and the notion that we cannot use that as leverage to advance various US foreign policy interests is just absolute nonsense. Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 There are two in particular that I would, I suppose, point out. One, I think we need much more Chinese cooperation in terms of halting or slowing down the spread of advanced weapons technologies around the world, and two, I think that we should really insist that they at least stop opposing Taiwan's accession to the GATT. These are, I think, two relatively modest things to ask from them in return for access to the world's largest and by far the world's most open consumer market, and once again that notion that we don't have enough leverage and that China would essentially tell us to go take a hike if we put conditions on this, is I think absolutely nonsensical. Thank you. MR. CREGAN: Thank you, Alan. And we'd now welcome any questions about the coalition or the issues that we're discussing today, and if you'd just identify the organization you're with. Yes? Q Jim Burger (sp) with Washington Trade Daily. What does the coalition plan on doing in the next few weeks? Are you going to TV, direct mailing -- MR. CREGAN: Well, I'll let the various other representatives speak to direct mail, but the first thing is that we have a petition that we are endeavoring to have as many principally conservative organizations sign onto. Those conservative organizations in turn represent thousands of constituencies out there, and so we are really going out to the grass roots. We also intend to set up an 800 number. We intend to have grass-roots action kits that would Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 include sample letters-to-the-editor, sample op-eds, target list of members of Congress, and some of the, you know, usual things that you put in such. I think it's important, though, that principally the conservative leaders that have joined us today, that we we recognize that thus far, especially in the case of China, the debate is in danger of degenerating into one that is framed between the Republican White House on the one hand and the Senate Majority Leader, the Democratic Senator from Maine, on the other hand. This is, as I said at the outset of my remarks, an issue that conservatives should be at the fore. And I think Howard Phillips and others have made the case that conservatives have been rather quiet up until now on this issue and that's no longer going to be the case. So, to the extent that we can complement the efforts by going to our base support, that is, the conservative members of the House and Senate, and getting them to show up and letting them know that this is a conservative issue and for many groups will be a conservative litmus-test issue, I think that we can help get the votes that will ultimately put this thing over the top in Congress. Anybody else like to -- MR. PHILLIPS: Let me just mention, if I may, two projects which are being planned by the Taxpayers Alliance Against the Bailout of Communism. One is a teach-in, which is now scheduled to begin next week, where we'll bring together literally dozens of people, adding their voices to the view that we should not be propping up communism any more today than we did back in the 20s when it Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 was Lenin calling for a new economic policy. Second, we're going to be initiating an effort to persuade delegates to the 1992 Democratic and Republican national conventions to oppose, as a matter of party policy, any taxpayer bailouts of communist systems and governments. MR. VIGUERIE: John, let me just mention -- MR. CREGAN: Okay. MR. VIGUERIE: The organization that I head up, United Conservatives of America, in conjunction, in cooperation with other conservatives' groups in the coming days, the next week or two, are going to be working to put together the largest coalition to deal with this issue that has been put together perhaps in George Bush's presidency. I think there's going to almost unanimous opposition to it. It's something that has angered and outraged conservatives, and I think you're going to see a large amount of direct mail, of television, radio, meetings, rallies, all directed towards pointing out to the administration that the American people are 180 degrees in opposition to President Bush's policy of saving communism. Q How many people can you reach, personally -- will you plan on reaching? MR. VIGUERIE: It depends, Jim, how long this thing goes on. Hopefully, that Congress won't get around to dealing with this issue for some time, and if Congress adjourns for the summer and doesn't deal with this until late September or October you're talking about many, many millions. And I think that there is going to be an effort on the part of conservatives to put together a coalition Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 to communicate to the American people how Bush has gone against the promises he made in the 1980s to continue the conservative revolution. So I think that this is going to cause a lot of problems for the President. MR. BOZELL: A couple of years ago the administration tried and some leaders of Congress wanted to have a pay raise, and conservatives like us stood out and announced that we weren't going to accept it and that we were going to launch a nationwide effort. Within two months, there was a nationwide effort coast to coast using radio, using direct mail, using television, using many resources. And the interesting thing was that it wasn't just a conservative effort that was made. Many, many organizations that would never call themselves conservatives joined with us in that endeavor. And that's going to happen again, because you are not going to find liberal organizations out there saying "We've changed our mind. We support the butchers of Tiananmen Square." They're going to join us on human rights grounds. The taxpayer organizations are going to join us on financial grounds. Many organizations will join this effort. So it begins as a conservative organization but there will be many, many different aspects to it, and I think we're going to be very successful, again, because George Bush is going to have to find a constituency in the United States of America that is not belonging to some bank somewhere that is willing to say it supports his actions to do business with the Tiananmen Square butchers and it supports his actions to get in bed with the butchers of the Baltics as well. I don't think he can find it. Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 MR. CREGAN: I think that a -- I agree that a very broad coalition just can be put together on this, a couple of other groups. First of all, you can put together some other liberal groups, groups concerned with nuclear proliferation. There are a lot of business interests that range from textiles to the manufacturers of games to -- you know, the Disney people are angry. They claim that they've lost millions of dollars in trademark and copyright piracy. And at the same time, I think this is going to be a marvelous issue for radio. Because the American people are going to find out that while our banks many times cannot make loans to the American people and our companies are having difficulty getting loans in these credit crunch, we're about to extend credits to the Soviet Union, many of them below-market-interest loans, and all of them -- most of them guaranteed by the taxpayer. Yes. Q Nicholas Kalugan, Pacifica Radio. Aren't you talking apples and oranges here? I mean, on the one hand, okay, you look around Capitol Hill, you find very few lawmakers who are supporting unconditional MFN for China. On the other hand, you look around Capitol Hill and you see a lot of support for extending for instance agricultural grain credits to the Soviet Union. Sure, there was an incident in the Baltics, it seems sort of pale in comparison the Tiananmen Square. How do you respond to that? MR. PHILLIPS: Let me respond to it by reading a telegram I received this morning from Parvair Arukian (ph) in Armenia. In the Republic of Armenia the central Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 Soviet government is currently engaged in massive violations of the international obligations that they took upon themselves in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Final Act of '75, the United States (sic) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the convention against genocide. Recent examples of these violations have included, one, the bombing of civilian towns by Soviet government aircraft, which resulted in the extermination of Mantanashin (ph), Katashan (ph), Voxbahr (ph), and 15 villages of Hadrud (ph) region. Two, the central Soviet government has continually persecuted democracy activists for political purposes. Three, the central Soviet government refuses to allow free and fair democratic elections to be held. Four, dictatorial martial law without civil administration continues to be enforced against parts of the republic which seek independence. Five, the central Soviet government has engaged in forced massive deportation of civilian populations. Mr. Arukian (ph) goes on to say, "As an elected member of the Armenian parliament and as president of the coordinating center for the democracy movements in the Soviet republics, I urge the individual nations, particularly in the West, to cease all new credits, grants, loans, aid and to suspend or revoke Most Favored Nation trading status to the Soviet government until such time as the central Soviet government comes into compliance with the above-mentioned international agreements, and the international community to immediately conduct investigations and hearings into the violation of these Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 solemn and sacred internationally guaranteed rights," signed Parvair Arukian (ph), a member of the Armenian Supreme Soviet, president of democracy and independence. As I indicated earlier, I have just returned from nine days, seven of which were spent in the Baltic states. I saw the Soviet tanks. I had one of my most poignant conversations with a young man whose brother stood against the fence on January 19th, I believe -- or it may have been a few days earlier -- the Soviets shot into the crowd. The person to this man's left was killed, the person to his right was wounded. This young man, whose name was Mandagas, said to me, "You know, as a young boy growing up I thought America was the greatest country in the world. It was the symbol of liberty for all of us. It was the bastion of our hopes. As I grew older and I saw the way in which your governments, Republican and Democratic alike propped up Brezhnev and Gorbachev and the other Soviet leaders, I came to have contempt," he said, "for the United States. I said they are simply out to pad their pockets, even if it means keeping us in the prisons." He said to us as we left that he was glad to know there were some Americans -- and there were 40 of us in that group -- who realize "that when you feed the bear, it merely allows him to tighten his claws around our neck." And there were many, many other similar expressions of pain and concern on the part of those whom we saw. The Vice President of the Latvian parliament, Ivar Dainis, said to us that telling the people of the Baltic states to look for reform as a result of economic concessions to Gorbachev is like telling the Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 mouse that if only you let us feed the cat, the life the mouse will be better. He said that this is not something that you should permit to be an internal question. It must be an international question, and the only lesson understood the by the Soviets is the lesson of loss of power which will only occur when the governments of the United States and other Western countries stop keeping them in power with economic concessions. MR. CREGAN: Before -- just on the Soviet, I agree. Right now it's not as fierce as with China. But I think the Soviets are going to help us to a large extent. I mean, in the last couple weeks, we found out that they may very likely have been transporting their top-line SS-09 missiles to Cuba. They have erected border posts in the Baltic states. They're going to do a lot of things. Also, the American people have not really focused on this issue. Remember, when Representative Gephardt made a proposal about 18 months ago that we raise taxes and give aid to the Soviets, he was pretty much laughed off the public policy stage there. But that's what we're doing right now. When the American people find that out, I think we're able to form a very broad coalition. I mentioned at the start that there is going to be legislation introduced by Senators Bradley and Helms. That's a pretty broad ideological base on which to build upon. Alan? MR. TONELSON: I'd like to take the focus off of human rights and off of anti-communism just briefly anyway. My prime concern especially concerning Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 any aid program for Moscow is that it involves spending money that this country simply does not have. If you do see approved a fairly large aid program, if US taxes are not raised, if the corresponding, I guess level of domestic programs are not cut, you wind up spending the money not of this present generation, but of generations to come, which of course have no votes or no voice in this matter whatever. In my book, that's not an especially moral course of action to take. Concerning China, though, I think we're at a very interesting juncture in US foreign policy. The argument -- the traditional argument that the Bush administration is making right now, one of whose main I guess aspects is that even though this step that he wants to take might be politically unpopular, there are some allegedly overwhelming strategic rationale for it. Now, arguably this line of thinking was defensible in the Cold War period when we of course did have many more pressing strategic concerns of that nature than we have right now. In this post-Cold War period that we are either in or that we are, I guess, rapidly heading into, I think there's a much weaker case for the executive branch or foreign policy elites as a whole monopolizing decision-making in questions like this. In fact I would call upon President Bush to make a much more active effort than he has right now to guage the scope and the depth of public opinion on this matter, and to come up with much stronger reasons than he has until now for basically casting pubic opinion aside. I don't think that he has made this case yet, or even come close to it. Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 Q (Name inaudible) -- of the Washington Times. The President is expected to argue that his policy with China helped win the vote of abstention that China cast in the Security Council that won the authorization for the use of force in the Gulf war. How effective do you think that argument is going to be and how do you respond to it as a means of suggesting that his China policy has borne some fruit? MR. CREGAN: I think Mr. Bozell spoke about this is what the new world order is. I don't think the American people want to see a government that pursues policies based on United Nation objectives rather than American interests. And let's be clear again. It's not so much that they helped us, it's that they decided not to hurt us. And -- MR. BOZELL?: They abstained. MR. CREGAN: -- they -- they abstained. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, it's interesting -- and Bush, on February 6th in a speech to the Economics Club of New York, was very candid. He said that his version of the new world order was one in which there was an expanded role for the United Nations. He went on to say on that very occasion that that required having the support of the PRC, as he called it, and the Soviet Union in the Security Council of the United Nations where they can cast a veto. And he said that that was why he had had a more tolerant attitude toward Tiananmen Square and various crackdowns in the Baltics and elsewhere by the Soviets than had been manifested by others. Indeed, on the very day that the Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 Red Chinese abstained on the question of UN resolutions affecting Iraq, they were awarded a $50 million payoff from the Asian Development Bank, for example, one of many payoffs that they have received from the Bush administration. I don't believe that US foreign policy should be held hostage to the votes of the butchers of Beijing or the people who put the black berets in the Baltics in the UN Security Council. I think the foreign policy of the United States should be based on our vital interests and the defense of America's just interest at home and around the world, and it seems to me that Bush has shown his hand, that he's willing to use our taxes to buy the votes of communists, even if it means keeping those communists in power at a time when they have not abandoned their hostility to our vision of liberty and to our survival. The Soviets are still spending 40 percent of GNP, according to Mr. Yazov, on the military. They outbilled us eleven-and-a-half to one on ICBMs two years ago. They are still rolling off major nuclear submarines. So Mr. Bush's view of the new world order is in direct conflict with the security and survival of the United States and with the liberty of the people who live under communist rule. MR. CREGAN: Anybody have -- MR. FLAHERTY: Just one -- MR. CREGAN: Okay. MR. FLAHERTY: -- just one followup on that one. If George Bush wants to make the case that he's trading votes with tyrants around the world, fine, he can do that. I think it's ultimately a position that will hurt him. I am a realist Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 and I believe George Bush will be reelected regardless of whether he wins these fights connected to China or the Soviet Union, but I would point out that it puts some people in Congress in a very difficult situation. Somebody like representative Phil -- or Senator Phil Gramm, who's now on (double secret ?) probation for his tax-cut sellout of the conservative movement, has to vote on this. And he has no commitments to the Red Chinese, but he's going to have to take a stand on this. And if he votes wrong, he's going to have to face it if he runs for president some day. And there's plenty of other members of the House, and especially of the House, and especially of the Senate, who are going to have to run for reelection and are going to have to face advertisements with the footage of Tiananmen Square, whether those ads have been sponsored by Democrat challengers or Republican primary opponents. MR. PHILLIPS: Or an independent presidential candidate -- MR. CHEN: Let me make a point on this issue, too. I think the Chinese government has to face two facts that will endanger their security of the power. The first is, overwhelmingly in China, the popularity support American policy on the Baltics -- on the Gulf war. And the abstention of the Chinese government already aggravates many of the people in China, which would possibly lead to another (uprising ?). And secondly, economic sanctions after the June 4th massacre already put the Chinese government in a position which can face any time an economic crisis. And I think abstention in the UN Council is the only choice of the Chinese Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 government -- there was no other choice, simply. I don't think that's the result of the Bush administration Chinese policy. MR. CREGAN: Unless there's one other question, we'll have to wrap it up. Yes? Q Why didn't the conservative movement launch an all-out effort when China was granted MFN in '89 or '90? And would you accept conditional MFN like the Democrats are proposing? MR. CREGAN: Well, China was granted MFN, as I said, years ago in the wake of the democracy wall, and conservatives were angered last year with the vote. But it's a year later. Things haven't gotten better, they've gotten worse. And as I said, this time we're launching this national grassroots campaign, and this will be an all-out effort. MR. VIGUERIE: This time you're talking real money -- $250 billion. MR. CREGAN: Yeah, that's right -- we're talking real money. And the taxes of the American people have been raised in the interim. And when they find out that this is partly where it's going, and they find out that not only are we bailing out our own S&Ls but we're bailing out the Red Bear S&L, then I think we're going to get some great response. Q Are you talking about China? What is the ($250 billion?) you're referring to? MR. CREGAN: He's speaking primarily of the Soviet Union. But with the Chinese, what we're basically doing is, we're putting a lot of people out of work in this country. They're dumping the kinds of goods at slave labor prices that we can never hope to compete with, and they're putting Americans out of work, and I Federal News Service, JUNE 3, 1991 say it ranges pretty broadly across the spectrum. The way they're getting their hard currency, rather than loans, is by dumping their goods on our market, closing our markets to their exports. And, you know, the statement was made up here that we shouldn't be determining American foreign policy interests based on whether somebody helped us in the United Nations. We also should not be basing American foreign economic policy, foreign trade policy, on what a nation does or doesn't do in the international arena. MR. PHILLIPS: MFN for Red China is a 6 [billion-dollar] to $10-billion bailout for their slave labor goods against American workers. MR. CREGAN: And I spoke with a representative of the Chinese student group, a colleague of Chen's, and they don't have the hard empirical evidence but they'd be willing to bet that much of that $6 billion is going for the military hardware, for the regime, it's not tricking down. I'd like to thank you all for coming. And this will conclude the press conference. Thank you. LANGUAGE: ENGLISH LEVEL 1 - 3 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1991 Reuters Reuters North American Wire June 3, 1991, Monday, AM cycle LENGTH: 517 words HEADLINE: CONSERVATIVES HIT BUSH FOR TRADE DEALS FOR CHINA, SOVIET UNION BYLINE: By Michael Posner DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: Seven conservative activists, breaking with President Bush, denounced Monday his trade overtures to China and the Soviet Union as a policy designed to "bail out" communism. The group told a news conference they would start a campaign to try to kill administration moves to renew most-favored-nation trading (MFN) to China and to ease trade restrictions against the Soviet Union. Reuters North American Wire, June 3, 1991 While they said they normally support the Republican president, they said they were strongly opposed this time to his China and Soviet policy. If wide-spread right wing opposition does develop, it could spell further trouble for the China trade deal since the conservatives would be aligned with liberals in the Democratic-controlled Congress who argued renewal of MFN for China should be conditioned on human rights reforms. On Soviet trade, however, most senators are on record as favoring an additional $1.5 billion in loan guarantees for grain sought by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Bush took a step toward those credits Monday by waiving a trade restriction that could pave the way for the $1.5 billion in grain loan guarantees. "In the case of both China and the Soviet Union, unconditional MFN stands for 'money for nothing,"' said John Cregan, president of the U.S. Business and Industrial Conference made up of about 1,500 conservative businessmen. "Money in return for nothing in the way of substantive reforms and liberalizations," he added. "Special trade privileges, taxpayer guaranteed credits and access to our high technology in return for empty promises ..." Reuters North American Wire, June 3, 1991 The group said they would start a grass-roots campaign to kill the legislation by forming a new organization called "Taxpayers Alliance Against the Bail-Out of Communism." Cregan argued that Soviet and Chinese-styled communism "can not be truly reformed it can only be abandoned." In urging Congress to renew MFN for China, to grant it the the low tariffs the U.S. levies on most nations- Bush argued that not doing it would isolate China. Chen Xingyu, who represented Chinese students in the United States, differed with Bush over his isolation theory. "Imposing conditions on MFN for China will by no means isolate China," he said. "Two years have passed since the Beijing regime mowed down its own people in Tiananmen Square," he said. "U.S. policy during that time has not worked. Human rights violations are worse." Reuters North American Wire, June 3, 1991 Since the Gulf War, conservatives, who have differed with Bush sharply in the past- especially when he reversed his "read my lips, no new taxes" campaign pledge- had declared a truce against further attacks. "Mr. Bush has called for a New World Order, requiring the votes of Red China and the Soviet Union in the UN Security Council, " said Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus. "The price he is asking us to pay for their votes is much too high." Others at the session included conservative fund raiser Richard Viguerie, Peter Flaherty who runs a political action committee, Brent Bozell III of the Conservative Victory Committee and Alan Tonelson of the Economic Strategies Institute. LANGUAGE: ENGLISH 910603 LEVEL 1 - 4 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1991 Agence France Presse Agence France Presse May 31, 1991 SECTION: News LENGTH: 620 words HEADLINE: U.S. based Chinese dissidents rethinking strategy BYLINE: GERRY AZIAKOU DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: Two years after the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, U.S.-based Chinese dissidents are rethinking their strategy to foster democracy in their homeland and are considering opening a dialogue with China's octogenarian leadership. Dissident sources said their immediate goal was to get the United States to renew China's most favored nation (MFN) trading status only in exchange for 1991 Agence France Presse, May 31, 1991 human rights concessions, including the release of dissidents detained in connection with the June 1989 crushing of pro-democracy ferment in Beijing. International economic pressure, they say, offers the best way to bolster reformers and moderates in their on-going power struggle with hardliners for the succession of China's elder statesman Deng Xiaoping. "It is not possible for us to return home now. The best way is to exert maximum pressure internationally so that the faction sympathetic to the (pro-democracy) movement can make a comeback," said Zhao Haiching, a leading member of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS). The Federation, which represents more than 42,000 students and scholars in over 200 universities across the United States, is to hold its annual Congress here in mid-July to review its goals, strategy and organizational structures. High on the agenda will be a letter, already signed by scores of Chinese dissidents, urging Beijing leaders to agree to a dialogue. "The world trend is toward democratization. The Chinese Government must recognize pro-democratic forces. Only through dialogue can we reach a peaceful transition to democracy," said IFCSS member Chen Xingyu, who co-signed the 1991 Agence France Presse, May 31, 1991 letter. But the democracy cause appears to have lost much of its urgency for many Chinese dissidents, who are mainly preoccupied with their studies or jobs. Nevertheless a core of dedicated, articulate members have been carrying the torch, lobbying hard members of Congress for a conditional renewal of China's MFN. At a congressional hearing here this week, Mr. Zhao and China's best-known dissident, astrophysicist Fang Lizhi, expressed dismay at President George Bush's decision to renew China's MFN unconditionally, as he did last year . Anti-Beijing sentiment is running high in Congress because of China's poor human rights record, its sales of nuclear and missile technology to sensitive Middle East countries and its trade surplus with the United States projected to reach 15 billion dollars this year. Congressional Democrats have vowed to block any unconditional renewal of China's MFN. 1991 Agence France Presse, May 31, 1991 The IFCSS threw its support behind a bill introduced by Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, that makes extension of MFN next year conditional on specific actions to improve human rights in China. These actions include release of dissidents detained in connection with the June 1989 crackdown, and end to religious persecution in China, to harassment of Chinese students in the United States and to jamming of Voice of America broadcasts to China. "Events of the last two years demonstrate that the current regime does respond to concerns expressed by the United States when those concerns are backed up by the prospect of economic sanctions," 24 Chinese dissidents said in a letter addressed to members of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The mere debates over MFN in 1990 encouraged the release of some political prisonerts, yet thousands remain in prison only because of their peaceful support for democracy," they added. The disidents plan to mark the June 4 Tiananmen Square anniversary with a rally outside on Congress to be followed in the evening by a candlelight vigil in front of the Chinese Embassy. 1991 Agence France Presse, May 31, 1991 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH LOAD-DATE: June 20, 1991 LEVEL 1 - 5 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1991 Agence France Presse Agence France Presse May 28, 1991 SECTION: News LENGTH: 484 words HEADLINE: Chinese dissidents want dialogue with Beijing DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: Some exiled Chinese dissidents have offered to open a dialogue with the Chinese Government to reach a peaceful transition to democracy in their homeland, dissident sources said here Tuesday. "Two years after Tiananmen Square (the Chinese army's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy ferment in Beijing), it's time to recognize that only through dialogue can we reach a peaceful transition to democracy," said Chen Xingyu, a co-signer of a letter to be sent to the Chinese leadership. 1991 Agence France Presse, May 28, 1991 The letter was drafted two days ago by Zhu Jiaming, chairman of the Paris-based Federation for a Democratic China (FDC) and is now being circulated for signing among Chinese dissidents, said Mr. Chen, a member of the Washington-based Independent Federation of Chinese students and scholars. So far, roughly 30 dissidents have signed the letter, which asks Beijing to recognize Chinese pro-democracy forces and to agree to a dialogue with them, he added. Dissident sources meanwhile said they were counting on Congress to foil President George Bush's bid to extend most favored nation (MFN) status to China unconditionally. They were pinning their hopes on a bill introduced by representative Nancy Pelosi of California, which links renewal of MFN -- which allows China to export goods to the United States with the lowest available tariffs -- to drastic improvement in China's human rights record. Last year China's trade surplus with the United States reached 10.4 billion dollars and the surplus is projected to reach 15 billion dollars this year. 1991 Agence France Presse, May 28, 1991 China's best know dissident, physicist Fang Lizhi, is scheduled to testify Wednesday at a congressional hearing on the issue of MFN renewal for China. Mr. Bush is to notify Congress of his decision to renew MFN before the end of the week, and Congress then has 90 days to accept or reject the move. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, a leading opponent of the president's China policy, called Mr. Bush's decision "a joke," and insisted that Beijing had not made enough progress in the area of human rights to warrant beneficial trade status. Mr. Mitchell, who has submitted a bill attaching conditions to China's MFN status requiring Beijing to alter its human rights, trade and arms policies, has vowed to make every effort to see that the president's decision is vetoed. Dissident sources meanwhile said they planned to mark the second anniversary of the June 4 Tiananmen Square massacre with a rally co-sponsored with the congressional Human Rights outside Congress. In the evening of June 4, Chinese dissidents are also to hold a candlelight vigil outside the Chinese Embassy here. 1991 Agence France Presse, May 28, 1991 The Independent Federation of Chinese Students is also to hold its annual congress here in July, during which federation members from universities around the United States will take stock of their activities and elect new officers. LANGUAGE: ENGLISH LOAD-DATE: June 20, 1991 LEVEL 1 - 6 OF 6 STORIES Copyright 1989 Newsday, Inc. Newsday July 31, 1989, Monday, ALL EDITIONS SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 13 LENGTH: 595 words HEADLINE: Chinese Students Confab BYLINE: By William Sexton. Newsday Staff Correspondent DATELINE: Chicago BODY: Pro-democracy students from China, hoping to set an example for their own country's future, staged an American-style political convention over the weekend and said, based on first returns, democracy works just fine. Delegates from 182 U.S. campuses gathered to organize a united front against the crackdown on their fellow students in China. But the convention quickly (c) 1989 Newsday, July 31, 1989 became an exercise in practical politics. The approximately 400 participants haggled over their platform and constitution and joined in a freestyle debate with candidates for office before electing a 29-year-old Stanford University Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Liu Yongchuan, as president. Intentionally balancing the ticket, they chose a vice president from an East Coast school: former Communist Party official Han Lianchao, 33, now a student at Yale Law School. Chen Xingyu, a graduate student in mechanical engineering at the University of Wisconsin, described the voting as the first free election in China's 5,000-year history. Chen pronounced the project a great success - even though he lost his race for vice president. It may also have been the first election anywhere in which much of the politicking took place by computer network. Many of the 40,000 Chinese students in the United States are preparing to be scientists, engineers and mathematicians, and for the past month they'd kept nationally-linked school computer systems buzzing with political dialogue. Play-by-play reporting continued via video terminals during the convention. (c) 1989 Newsday, July 31, 1989 The delegates called for putting on trial the three hardline leaders they hold responsible for the massacre June 3-4 in Tiananmen Square: senior leader Deng Xiaoping, Premier Li Peng and state President Yang Shangkun. They also voted "to establish communications and cooperation with the opposition parties of Eastern Europe." Hubert Romanowski, a representative of the Polish union Solidarity, attended as an observer. But the students stopped short of proposing overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party. Delegates conceded there was no alternative at present, and Han Lianchao, their choice for vice president, told a news conference he'd return to the party "if they change their policy, if they change their ways." An expected floor fight never materialized between hardline anti-Communists and more moderate students who want to return home as soon as they can. For many young Chinese, the issues were matters of life and death to families back home as well as crucial to their own future careers. But the students plunged into the project, and all wore name-tags despite concern about surveillence from Chinese government agents. "We have declared to the entire world that Chinese students overseas can unite," said Liu Yongchuan, a student at Stanford. "We cannot only unite, but we can unite democratically." (c) 1989 Newsday, July 31, 1989 Several of China's top dissident leaders who escaped after the June crackdown, including student leader Wuer Kaixi and a number of officials in the toppled administration of former party Secretary Zhao Ziyang, watched as the students established the Federation of Independent Chinese Student Unions. "You are bringing inspiration to our people back in China," said Yan Jiaqi, a senior political adviser to Zhao and now on the regime's most-wanted list. "And I have learned much from this congress myself." Added Su Shaozhi, a senior Marxist theoretician fired when the late Hu Yaobang was purged as party chief in 1987, "I'm really pleased - the students have learned a lot about democracy and putting it to work." LANGUAGE: ENGLISH You have pressed the NEXT PAGE key when NEXIS had already displayed the last page of the last STORY for this search level. You can display preceding materials by using the PREV DOC, PREV PAGE, FIRST DOC or FIRST PAGE key.