2005年6月3日 星期五

柴玲是個好樣的﹗

 


轉眼之間﹐我們已經在紀念“六四”十六週年的紀念日了﹐我們是不是還要在明年後年繼續感慨這轉眼之間呢﹖更加令我們深思的應該是這轉眼之間逝去這麼多年之後﹐丁子霖還不能從政府口中得到一個公道﹐當年的殺人者今天卻越來越熟練地週旋於國際社會﹐享受著中國經濟奇跡的光環﹐我們還在流亡﹐而且不得不面對我們已經成為越來越多的人的“不方便”這樣一個嚴酷現實。


 


去年的今天﹐我曾在華爾街日報發表一篇文章。在那篇文章裡﹐我作為天安門學運的領導者之一﹐向丁子霖道歉﹐痛苦但誠實面對我內心深處必將跟隨我一生的負罪感。同時提醒世人﹐丁子霖等待的道歉更應該來自開槍殺人的人﹐我以這樣的聲音呼喚世人的良知﹕天安門不僅僅是當年鼓舞世人﹐喚醒良知的一個逐漸淡去的畫面﹔天安門之後倒塌的柏林牆﹐走出監牢的曼德拉﹐獨立的東帝汶在告訴世人﹐這世界的確在我們的良知力量之下變得越來越美好﹔天安門也是提醒我們這個良知的事業是個未完成的事業﹗我們決不能遺忘﹗


 


事實上﹐我們不僅背負倖存者的罪惡感﹐還背負著倖存者責任感﹐這樣的責任感要求我們必須理性地反思﹐過去的十六年﹐我們常常聽到的一些說法﹕學生是不是太激進了?八九年的屠殺學生應不應負責?對於這樣的指責﹐我們從未停止表達我們的反省。


 


不久之前﹐我在台灣的一所大學演講時﹐這個問題再次浮現﹕八九年學運的失敗﹐學生堅持不肯撤退是否要承擔部份責任﹖我舉了這樣的一個例子來回答。


 


一個小村莊﹐有一個雜貨店﹐店老闆是一個很粗魯的人﹐一天到晚酗酒打孩子﹐結果有一天其中有幾個小孩子站出來反抗﹐反抗的小孩脫口而出一句頂撞﹐於是這父親惱羞成怒就把幾個小孩子打死了﹐全村決定譴責這個父親﹐可是過了這些日子﹐因為全村就只有這間雜貨店﹐買醬油還是得找他﹐買大米也得去找他﹐那怎麼辦呢?


 


這家雜貨店這幾年生意愈做愈好﹐先做成超市﹐而後繼快速續發展﹐而成為一個有規模的商業中心﹐很多人在這裡上班。那個老闆呢﹐慢慢改變過去的粗魯形像﹐現在也不穿拖鞋咬檳榔﹐偶而也穿個西裝打領帶﹐也比較有笑容﹐也學會用英文說歡迎光臨了。但任何人提起打死小孩這件事情他仍然堅持沒這回事﹐或者說這是當時不得不採取的措施﹐否則沒有紀律﹐就不可能有發展﹐就不可能有大家所依賴的全村經濟引擎﹐再或者說這是他的家務事﹐跟別人不相乾。過了一些日子﹐村子就有這樣的聲音出現了:“那小孩子也有不對之處﹐就算小孩反抗有道理﹐畢竟不能對大人那麼不禮貌嘛。”


 


今天的中國就是大家不得不去打交道的雜貨店嗎﹖世人就是無奈的村人嗎﹖我們是那群還在主張為死者討回公道的常常令人覺得“不方便”的反抗孩童嗎﹖然而﹐我們不該忘記誰才是真正的兇手﹐面對這個兇手﹐世人也許常常覺得無力﹐但即使無力我們也不能錯誤地指責受害人。在理解村人需要醬油大米和工作機會之餘﹐提醒世人這村莊還需要公平和正義﹐還需要不再打死無辜孩童的保證啊﹗一個會打死自己孩子而不受制裁的人很可能搶回醬油大米和工作﹐甚至還可能繼續向其他無辜的人的逞凶啊﹗


 


去年的今天﹐我在美國華盛頓市與王丹等十幾位當年的學生領袖一起﹐在中國大使館前繼續呼喊沒變的口號時﹐我望著台下站著的當年夥伴﹐十幾年前﹐我們投身於這場驚天動地的運動時﹐展現出了不起的勇敢與理性﹐在過去的十幾年間﹐我們這些當初被稱為天安門的孩子的一代人經歷了許多﹐已經不再是孩子了﹐但理想始終沒變﹐責任感始終沒有放棄。我望著他們十幾年之後更加堅定的眼神﹐大聲告白﹕“夥伴們﹐我們當初是好樣的﹐我以能和你們並肩為榮﹗”當時台下沒有柴玲﹐柴玲因為主張堅持下去﹐而受到很不公平的指責﹐我們沒能站出來保護她﹐深深覺得有愧。柴玲也是這樣一個好夥伴﹐也是我深感榮幸與之為伍的英雄。


 


推進中國的民主化﹐是我們這群“天安門的孩子”一生不會推卸的責任與使命﹐在十六年前我們走上北京街頭至今我們流亡海外﹐這一點認知不曾改變﹐而那時得到的世人的理解與支持﹐曾給我們極大的力量。今天我們堅持著理想﹐也仍然尋求世人的堅定支持﹐提醒世人十六年前被殺死的逐夢者﹐他們的夢想在我們不再堅持時就也死去了。


 


遺忘﹐偏頗與縱容都是可怕的﹐歷史的悲劇往往在它們侵入我們的意識之時重複。我繼去年向丁子霖道歉而大聲疾呼不該遺忘之後﹐今年應該盯著因為人們的無力感而衍生的偏頗縱容﹐大聲說出﹕柴玲是個好樣的﹗


 


——發表於《世界日報》2005.06.04


 


2005年6月2日 星期四

China Should Extend a Hand

 


As a former student leader who has been exiled for 16
years since the Tiananmen massacre of June 4, 1989, I see cause for cautious optimism in the
recent developments in cross-Strait relations. Taiwan is now my home, and the hostility
with which Beijing so often treats this young democracy never ceases to remind
me of the hostility that I and so many others--too many of them now dead--faced
in 1989.


 


That’s why I was so pleased to see the recent
reconciliation between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist
Party, symbolized by CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao’s historic handshake with
visiting Kuomintang Chairman Lien Chan on April 29. I’m not suggesting that any
dramatic changes will come directly from this meeting--the way ahead will not be
easy simply because of a single handshake. Nonetheless the fact that Mr. Hu
greeted Mr. Lien in such a friendly manner marks a significant shift from the
usual strategy of threatening military action against Taiwan, which Beijing was still pursuing
only a month earlier with the passage of the anti-secession law.


 


The handshake took place against a very troubled
background on both sides of the Strait. Many Taiwanese--in particular
supporters of the island’s so-called “pan-blue” opposition parties--have long
been frustrated by confrontational domestic politics and the economic setbacks Taiwan has
experienced in recent years. But distrust among the island’s political forces
had made it almost impossible, until now, for them to reach agreement on how to
reach out to the mainland.


 


On the Chinese side, there is even less trust and
understanding. Modern Chinese have grown up indoctrinated in the belief that a
unified China
would be an even greater China.
The orthodoxy of this faith is reinforced by the fact that they live in a
politically monochromatic system that exiles diversity of opinion and dissent.
This in turn makes it difficult for both Chinese citizens and their leaders to
understand either the KMT or the democratic Taiwanese environment in which it
vies for power.


 


That gulf still separates China and Taiwan. But
reconciliation has to start somewhere, and that’s is why I found some hope in
the smile that creased Mr. Hu lips when he shook hands with Mr. Lien. I know that
smile conceals a greed for power which could one day cause China to attack
Taiwan,
and that the island will have to remain vigilant against this possibility.
Nonetheless a smile is far more likely to lead to a brighter future than a
scowl. Even though the way ahead is still difficult, and will require much hard
work and sacrifices from many people, the goodwill that was extended during Mr.
Lien’s visit makes for a good start.


 


It also makes me wonder whether it is possible to
start bridging another fissure in China’s modern political landscape.
In the run up to Saturday’s 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, I would
like to call upon Mr. Hu to stage a similar reconciliation with the student
protesters. The bloody confrontation between peaceful petitioners and the Beijing regime that took
place that day was a tragedy born of poor judgment and bad decisions by the
government. And the skirmishes that have persisted between Beijing and a generation of exiled dissidents
over the past 16 years are a result of the central government’s inability to
accept dissenting opinions. The outcome has been lives lost, wasted in
imprisonment or lived in exile far from home, while families have been torn
apart, not to mention the immense damage done to China’s image on the international
stage. For some, perhaps, memories of Tiananmen may have dimmed, but there are
still enough people who have not forgotten that, whenever China turns to
the world with a request or demand, inevitably the word “Tiananmen” comes up.


 


The truth is, China continues to politicize Tiananmen
by suppressing information about it and failing to face up to its
responsibility for the lives that has lost on June 4, 1989, just as it has
politicized the Falun Gong religious movement with extensive and ruthless
suppression. If China
truly wants to be accepted into the international community, sooner or later it
will have to settle these grievances by staging reconciliations with both its
political and religious opponents--and a good way to start would be with my
fellow exiles and I.


 


For my part, I would leap at the chance to be able to
return to my homeland, to see my family again and participate in the new China,
providing there were no conditions, such as a prison sentence, an apology for
my student activities or a demand that I not raise my voice with unwelcome
opinions.


 


The international applause for such a step would ring far
louder for Mr. Hu than when he shook hands with Mr. Lien. And it would be far
more than applause--a friendly gesture to a generation of peaceful protesters
would show that China
is taking its first step toward greater tolerance of diversity, out of which
springs the only real hope for a great nation.


 


If the leaders of two parties who fought a civil war
half a century ago can shake hands, it should not be too much for China’s leaders
also to extend a welcoming hand to the students of 1989. Like all other Chinese,
we dream of a greater motherland, and I say to Mr. Hu--let us come home. That
is our undeniable right as Chinese citizens--guaranteed by China’s
constitution--and it would show the world that China is sincere in its efforts to
become a truly modern state. Let us start with a handshake, and bring smiles to
the faces of all those who have suffered in exile over 16 long years.


——Published 2005.06.04, Asia Wall Street Journal