COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Dr. Frank Press, President
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
Dr. Frank Press, President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Ave.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Press:

	It was I who asked whether you had consulted Fang Lizhi
about the resumption of relations between the academies.  Here
are some further thoughts about consulting Chinese
scientists other than officials about the matter.  These ideas
are based on considerable familiarity with the Soviet scene
and much less familiarity with China.

	What the Academy does or doesn't do will have only
a marginal effect on the political situation in China.
It's certainly hard to claim that the U.S. National Academy's support
of Sakharov, etc. was a major force.  However, our actions
can affect the morale of those Chinese scientists deciding
whether to continue some kind of fight for democracy or
just to escape to the West.

	My present opinion is that the National Academy should
ostentatiously consult Chinese colleagues who aren't currently
part of the Chinese scientific establishment.  An individual can
be asked privately if he is willing to be asked publically.  Fang
Lizhi is important, because he's out of the hands of the
Government and therefore can speak freely.  The reason advocating
publicize consultation where possible is that it undermines the
legitimacy of the officials, and it also pushes the officials
into a greater show of independence.

	Also it will greatly raise the morale of the scientists
who are consulted.  Having expressed dissident opinions in
a communist country subjects a person to isolation, and
significant foreign contacts help a person maintain his
morale and position.  In the case of the Soviet Union,
dissidents always said that their foreign contacts were
important in limiting their abuse by low level officials,
e.g. by the KGB.

	Naturally, we don't have to be bound by the advice
we get, and they probably won't all say the same thing anyway.
Therefore, I would like to suggest an actual resolution of the
issue.  The National Academy of Sciences should announce that
it expects to resume relations three years after the Tienanmen
massacre, unless something happens to warrant earlier resumption
or further postponement.  I believe this will satisfy most
members.  Probably the original break in relations should have
been announced for a fixed period.

	There is a sharper variant.  Announce that relations
will resumed in three years or when Deng Hsiaopeng dies,
whichever is sooner.  Many Chinese are waiting for him to
die, and will welcome official recognition of this fact.

	I don't know whether much is known about the internal
politics, if any, of Academia Sinica.  We can conjecture some
things about it from what is known about the Soviet Academy.
Gurii Ivanovich Marchuk was put in office when Ligachev was
the Politbureau member in charge of science.  He is cordially
disliked by most academicians and people working in the
institutes of the Soviet Academy.  This dislike precedes
the recent election campaign, and is related to how he
advanced in the hierarchy of Soviet science---by intrigue.
The 1989 elections to the People's Congress intensified this,
because Marchuk led the unsuccessful attempt to get
an unopposed slate elected and to limit voting to academicians.
(The compromise led to one delegate for every 150 scientists
in the institutes as well as academicians taking part in the
vote).

	I regard Marchuk as personally a very affable
and friendly man.  At least he was in the late 1960s when
I knew him as Director of the Computation Center of the
Siberian Division of the Soviet Academy.

	According to this analogy, it is likely to be harmful
for the National Academy to confine its public attention
to the officials of the Chinese Academy.

	Finally, I think it is wrong for us to judge without
consultation what is good for Chinese scientists, and as
someone said at the meeting, for the Chinese people.  As
you know, one of the things that enraged the Brezhnev
regime about Sakharov was that he publically advocated
foreign restrictions on Soviet trade, etc.  I don't remember
if he spoke about Academy restrictions.

Sincerely,