2009年3月8日 星期日

我也是臺灣人

流亡者對我都有一分羨慕,那就是我可以住在臺灣,同文同種帶來生活的便利以致飲食購物的便利舒適自不在話下,但這還不是我被羨慕的原因。我的這些流亡伙伴大多都有堅定的性格,外在環境不是他們最在乎的東西,而且很多流亡者都能夠在語言文化各方面充分融入他們所在的不同文不同種社會,生活在異國並不致給他們帶來不便不適;他們對我的羨慕是另一個層面的:他們羨慕我在流亡的狀態之下又有了一個自己的國家。


我在臺灣有了家庭,成了“臺灣女婿”,但這並不必然給我帶來歸屬感。初來時,我享受著太太家人完全接納給我帶來的溫馨,彌補一些我對遠在新疆無法見面的家人的思念;沉浸在臺灣人的熱情中;享受著臺灣的現代文明;實踐著臺灣的自由;如饑似渴地學習臺灣在民主化轉型過程中的寶貴經驗;說實話,當然喜歡臺灣,但,是以外人的身份喜歡著,羨慕著臺灣。


因為喜歡,自然關心,而進一步就有了承擔。尤其我的兩個孩子在臺灣出生、成長,我不僅是“臺灣女婿”,也是“臺灣之子的爸爸”,從關心教育,關心治安,到進一步關心政治,都不再僅僅是以外人的身份。一九九八年,我開始在臺中全國廣播主持談話性節目,在call in 聽眾的鼓勵和帶動之下,那些過去以外人身份小聲謹慎表達的“觀察、想法”慢慢轉化成為在地的大聲疾呼的“意見、批判”。這節目被熱烈的接受了,我的臺灣人身份被平靜地接受了。


一九九九年七月,我取得了臺灣身份證,開始納稅、投票,對自己的臺灣人身份也已經能夠完全從容以對了,流亡者特有的一種焦慮還在,但另一種踩在自己家鄉土地上的篤定也在同時慢慢滋生。正是這種篤定,讓我在二〇〇二年之後的幾年,承擔起公共知識分子的責任,以關心自己國家的出發點,在報刊、廣播、電視毫不保留地表達我對政府、對政黨、對政治人物、對媒體甚至對臺灣選民的嚴肅批判,到了二〇〇四年,我更直接投身到中正紀念堂廣場的學生運動,在凱達格蘭大道跟臺灣人民一起,投身到公民運動中!


我自認我的初衷是正直的,我的立場是客觀的,但當然任何意見表達出來,聽到的人的感受都會見仁見智。對我所表達的意見,臺灣社會有相當的肯定,同時不以為然者也必定大有人在,也許是政治立場的不同,也許是看到了我自己看不到的盲點,我對於這些指教也都能虛心檢討,而最令我感動的是無論多麼對立,我“是不是一個臺灣人”從來不是問題。


我的流亡伙伴們羨慕的正是臺灣接受了我這個“半子”成為完整的臺灣社會一份子。而今,我從容、篤定、倍感光榮地接受這個身份,我深懷感激。

2009年3月2日 星期一

馬英九的特質

我與馬英九第一次見面是1990年,當時他的職務是行政院大陸研考會報秘書。很怪的一個職務。後來出任陸委會副主委,才知道這個秘書是這種可以當副部長的秘書。從那以後,各種場合見面次數不下數十次,見到我,他都會趨前主動打招呼,并以“開希”稱呼我,任何認得他的人都會說,他是一個非常客氣,非常親切的人;但反而是我會躲著他,避免讓人覺得我趨炎附勢。但對於他每年六四都會留意此事,都會以他的方式紀念,以及在六四相關話題上有堅決的表態,我心中充滿感激,去年他當上總統,六四到了被媒體盯著,而去年臺北根本沒有六四紀念活動,他也還是在這一天以寫文章方式紀念,卻仍然被批評,其實是非常不公平。 


 


我不是馬迷,更不是國民黨的支持者,連“泛藍”都不願意承認。2000年之前,我可能會更願意承認自己親民進黨。不錯,2004及2008兩次總統選舉,我的票是投給了國民黨,但絕不是因為支持國民黨,而是為了懲罰民進黨。——2000年之後繼續支持民進黨,不是糊塗,就是拿了吃了,或是想拿想吃人家的,手軟嘴軟。


 


這些年,馬英九擔任臺北市長,國民黨主席。說實話,當臺北市長作得應該算可以,這個職務,只要當政者不是心術不正,懶散怠惰,以其全國最優厚的資源,最優秀的團隊,最完備的條件,以及前任,也就是現在身陷囹圄的陳水扁,力行改革所創造的任事環境,要作好真的也不難。但大家也一直沒有以臺北市長這個職務來審視他,而是以國民黨的政治明星,政治領袖來觀察這個人,這也不能怪別人,一來政治工作本來如此,不想當政治明星,就別來擔任這種明星職務,二來馬英九自己也樂此不疲,馬英九喜歡作秀,是民進黨人對他的批評。每當電視攝像機鏡頭對準他,眼睛就開始放光,人就有精神,十足的喜歡當明星的感覺,無可厚非,民進黨的批評酸溜溜,不厚道。但外人以政治明星來要求他更無可厚非。在我這個外人看來,他在過去八年,當明星秀過頭,當領袖,沒本事。 


 


馬英九的作秀更準確的詞應該叫“表演欲強”,因為作秀這個詞有一種欺騙的感覺,馬英九的“作秀”有很大的真實感,認真表演自我的成分特別多,而且是自視極高的那種自我感覺,比起一般臺面上的政治人物作秀非常不同。其實應該說,他是喜歡把他眼中的自己強力推銷出去。那個自我就是悲天憫人,清廉正直,恪守分際,學養豐富而且勤勞誠樸。相信這也是他對自己真誠的要求以及自我修養的方向。他過去的成功也與他的這些特質有密切關係,2008年,馬英九以極高的選票當選總統,與他成功推銷自己的這些特質、魅力有完全的因果關係。但每當大家從他與其他政客的比較中找到對他欣賞的理由時,他在電視鏡頭前扭腰擺臀,總是會倒倒一些人的胃口,給批評他作秀的人留下話柄。即使被智囊(單數)提醒,表現端莊了,但控制不了喜歡上電視的欲望,在畫面上看來多少有點像走臺步,是謂秀過頭。


 


明星不等於領袖,這似乎是個淺而易見到人人都懂的道理,但我猜人人都懂就不包括那個明星。當馬英九參選國民黨主席時,很多馬迷厲聲反對,反對的理由有幾個,一,在總統選舉時,黨主席要扮演推舉助選候選人的角色,馬迷擔心“球員兼裁判”不利自己的偶像,二,覺得王金平是實力派,搶這個職務怕偶像得罪不起他,三,還有人覺得國民黨這個大醬缸會讓偶像這個不沾鍋吃力不討好。這些說法都讓人感受到馬英九的明星魅力以及馬迷粉絲對他的寵愛。而當時我對於他參選這個職位則是抱著極大的興趣來觀察,甚至覺得自己過去對馬英九誤解太深:馬英九原來不是一個只懂得潔身自好,獨善其身的書生,而很可能是一個願意捲起袖子,承擔一個政治人物該承擔的責任的人。畢竟追求職務上的更上一層樓不過是一種輔助記分方式而已,真正自己該在乎的是如何善用這個職務帶來的權力而有所作為。就像打任何球,總是能夠利用對手的弱點或占據有利位置得分并不意味著好球,而打出好球才應該是追求的目標,球員忘記了這個目標就太可惜了。 


 


而真的就那麼可惜,馬英九擔任國民黨主席期間,即沒有將國民黨的腐朽、僵化、反改革作出一番整頓,也沒有對失去政權進行痛定思痛的反省,甚至連一個熟練政客會運用黨主席權力作一些自私的實力規劃也沒有。馬英九參選國民黨主席的意義,似乎只是要讓自己的履歷更完備,以及空閒的兩年不致沒有版面,就像是一個沒人氣的歌手,拼命上節目鬧緋聞曝光以求賣多幾張唱片卻忘了創作出好作品才是正道。讓我看穿了一個事實,那就是,馬英九始終就是一個明星,不是政治家,更不是領袖。


 


要說馬英九的特質,無疑的,他真的是一個悲天憫人,清廉正直,恪守分際,學養豐富而且勤勞誠樸的好人,但他的成長環境限制了他的格局,而他誤以為出過國,留過洋,能夠流利的說英文就意味著他有世界性格局;成為被廣泛接受的政治明星讓他誤以為他自己是出色政治家,對自己優秀特質的迷戀使自己進入驕傲的誤區而無法自拔,使他格局受限,難以突破;而他的粉絲,即所謂的馬迷對他的寵溺以及他一次次順利的選戰又更加使他身陷自以為是,剛愎自用的惡性循環之中。我如果要對馬英九作出簡化的特質描述,那就是:善良、正直、規矩;僵化、不智、傲慢。是的,傲慢,別忘了一個非常謙恭有禮的人也可以是非常傲慢的。 


 


這樣的明星作為臺灣總統在2008年是需要的,金融危機前可能也是足夠的。臺灣在經歷陳水扁民進黨八年的折騰之後,損失最重的是社會價值觀,羞恥感的流失,是非觀的模糊,擁有權力的人不知謙卑,追求利益的人不擇手段。2008年,臺灣在經歷民主化過程幾十年之後陷入民主最大的夢魘,民粹泛濫,人民在混帳政客、無恥文人、嗜血媒體、貪婪奸商的操弄下,呈現對立仇恨、膚淺非理性的狀態,哪怕在痛恨這種狀態的同時表現得還是一樣。那時的臺灣需要的是一個“好人”,需要的是溫和的撥亂反正,重建價值,需要的是休養生息,療傷止痛。馬英九的善良、正直、規矩使他成為幾乎絕無僅有的適合人選。


 


然而,2008年進入下半年,已當選就職總統的馬英九卻必須面對一個比參選時嚴峻得多的形勢。這個形勢就是席卷全球,影響深巨的金融海嘯。它給臺灣總統提出的課題不僅僅是每個國家都必須面對的經濟危機,還包括因為這個金融海嘯而大大提高的中國大陸的國際影響力,還包括至今沒能從敗選中走出來的民進黨借機繼續制造對立,還包括更加複雜困難的參與國際社會的需求。這一切都呼喚馬英九“好人”以外的特質,這卻無法令我樂觀。


 


今天的世界需要祝福,影響全球,影響臺灣甚巨的中國大陸也需要祝福,臺灣當然也需要祝福,就祝福馬英九的保守特質保佑臺灣不要出什麼紕漏;祝福他能夠聽得進去的那個把智囊,出於偏愛而給他出的主意,剛好都是好主意,而且都能讓他覺得可以出夠風頭,過足自戀的癮於是欣然接受。


 


祝福,祝福。


 


2009年3月1日 星期日

Amazing similarities

Leaving in exile for nearly 20 years, I wonder all the time how much I can be the same with my fellow Chinese left behind, classmates, childhood buddies, or just average Lao zhang and Xiao Wang walking on the street of Beijing.



I know the difference must be enormous. 20 years living aboard have given me opportunities to learn so much more than I would ever have if I spent the last 20 years living in China.



Few days ago, I was surfing the internet, looking for some old time literature and music. I was searching for those that made some strong impacts to me twenty some years ago. Novel such as 北方的河, 海水下面是泥土 or an old song from a TV series. They are a little old now as they are not the most hit item on the net, digging them out can be a labor. The return from the search-engine on those entries often direct me to BBS where people talked about or, doing the same, searching for those. Messages left on those BBS have convinced me for one thing. The similarities of thought on those are quite amazing. Maybe we lived through a time period when accessible cultural materials are so limited, our focus were often directed to same items; maybe we lived through a time period when surrounding are so challenging, our outlooks were often shaped to same types; maybe we lived through a time period when the hope are so faint, the quest for it were often merged to same path.



I found amazing similarities in the ideas that was buried in very different choice of words between myself and those who left behind, classmates, childhood buddies, or just average Lao Zhang and Xiao Wang walking on the street of Beijing. I found these similarities soothing, to an anxious heart worries about exile may change too much.


2008年11月2日 星期日

在對立後面


陳雲林來臺,維安規格高被媒體形容為“元首級禮遇”,是少見多怪,頭腦清醒的人大概都不會看不出這中間的差別。而且這番高規格跟兩個星期前張銘清來臺期間發生的暴力沖突當然有絕對的關係,又與臺灣過去幾年的非理性兩極對立又有極大關係。


 


可惜,臺灣一場一邊倒的總統選舉結果,還是沒能讓沉溺於因政治兩極對立而亢奮的小部分人清醒過來,急功近利而短視的政客還在繼續操弄對立;淺薄而嗜血的媒體把這小部分人放大為臺灣的全貌;朝野當權者,無論是因為愚蠢自大,或是所謂被綁架,都無法在這種氛圍中保持清醒;沮喪的大多數只好繼續沮喪,或者從《海角七號》中找到些許慰藉。


 


真希望陳雲林看到的是另外一個臺灣,一個更真實更能夠代表大多數臺灣人的臺灣:一個自由,多元的臺灣,而自由與多元的最深刻精神內涵就是對他人自由與與己不同的多元主張的尊重與包容。在臺灣,有人主張統一,有人主張臺灣獨立,確信陳雲林早就知道,這次也看見了。但是,無論那聲音是不是多數,所有的臺灣人都尊重這些主張,這,才應該是讓他感到震撼的那股力量。而這次陳雲林的臺灣之行,在層層的維安人員包圍之下,恐怕,不容易感受到。


 


對臺灣影響最大的外部因素,大概就是中國大陸,美國,再加一個夾在美國與中國之間的日本;其中,影響最大的是中國,這一點,任何政客都不應忽視。臺灣的內部經濟,臺灣的國際地位,臺灣的安全,無不與中國有極為密切的關係,能夠與中國有良好的關係幾乎是臺灣發展的必需。不承認這一點,如果不是居心叵測,至少也是缺乏視野。


 


要提醒執政當局,改善兩岸關係,雖然的的確確是推動經濟,提高國際地位,緩解臺灣面臨軍事威脅的不二法門,固然反對黨指責“賣臺”帽子太大,但人民也并沒有完全放心執政黨。沒錯,這麼大的一步棋,要讓人民完全放心不可能,但至少要讓我們看到當局在捍衛主權,面對中國強權有什麼樣的智慧,有什麼樣的堅持。主權與尊嚴的問題也許不是這次會談的內容,但卻是體現在每次與北京當局打交道的方方面面,也許不是在兩會交手的過程,而是在APEC,而是在中南美洲,而是在WHO。善意提醒執政者,絕不能有“等碰到主權問題時,再表達嚴守立場”的心態,更希望反對黨所指出在國民黨中的“親中勢力”不會影響兩岸政策的制定與執行。作為一個來自中國大陸的異議分子,我深知共產黨利用一些人出於對民進黨幾年來在臺灣惡搞的反感,以及失去權力的憤憤不平心態,用茅臺酒,釣魚臺國宴,警車開道給與溫暖,所努力建立的統一戰線。希望執政當局很清楚地明白,七百五十萬選票所選的絕不是這批人。


 


對於反對黨,我衷心希望能夠重新拾起人民的希望,在對於國民黨失望透頂的時代,給了民進黨機會的臺灣人民過去這八年再次失望,教訓過民進黨之後,仍然沒有看到她的反省自新,眼睜睜看著她走向新黨式微的一條老路,那就是擁抱極端,崇尚對立。善意提醒民進黨,臺灣的媒體是淺薄嗜血的,一些對立沖突的行為可以占據版面,但絕不代表大多數人民的好惡。一個簡單的計算方法:對立法則固然可以穩固一批支持者,但也確立了幾乎同樣數目的對立者,所有中間的選民在對立內容選擇之後,就是選擇要不要對立了;而當對立內容沒有說服力時,懲罰挑動對立也已經變成這些中間選民確定的選擇方向。當執政當局并沒有在大原則上犯錯時,對立的內容被褊狹自私政客所裹脅,只會讓民進黨在中間選民中繼續流失,哪怕國民黨永遠學不會反省自新,只要有像馬英九這樣的人看守住它不犯大錯,民進黨就永遠無法超越小黨的局限。陳雲林來臺灣時,除了衝撞維安而擠上版面,除了給執政黨扣幾頂“賣臺”的大帽子,對兩岸關係提出一些像樣的主張和對今天執政黨的具體批判才是應該作的。


 


而要告訴陳雲林的是,臺灣是一個民主社會,雖然民主有時會走入盲目與民粹的死胡同,但是每一次的選舉都會讓拿著選票,也就是掌握巨大權利的人民,有機會反省;無論媒體多麼淺薄,在資訊開放的社會,這種反省與思考就會揚棄舊思路,舊政客;激烈對立亢奮之後,不得不承擔沉重社會對立後果的人民就會修正自己曾經在激情之下的決定;那些用茅臺酒,釣魚臺國宴培養的“統一戰線”在臺灣就會變成“失意政客”,即使在國民黨這種腐朽僵化的政黨也會很快失去影響力。要跟一個民主社會對話,必須要深刻瞭解選民的思想。在兩岸關係這個議題上,無論表面多麼對立,臺灣人民對此的看法其實相當接近,那就是無論誰都無法接受在上千枚導彈威脅之下的和談,無論誰都對中國在國際社會絞殺打壓臺灣的作法極度反感;無論誰都無法接受北京自居於中央政府的不平等安排,無論誰都無法信任來自對自己的人民開槍的政府所作的承諾。


 


正在沉淀中的臺灣,要完全揚棄操弄民粹的政客,可能還要一段時間;中國要理解這些還有花更長的時間,兩岸關係也必將走上一段相當遠的路。理性,冷靜的選民是民主社會施政正確順利的重要保障。



2008年8月13日 星期三

陳水扁的理想

 


看一個人,一定要全面,無論多么令人討厭的人,如果能有所成就,則一定有其過人之處。陳水扁就是這樣一個人,無論你多麼討厭他,也不得不承認這個人,從美麗島律師到臺北市議員,到立法委員,臺北市長,最終選上總統,在他手上完成了臺灣的第一次政黨輪替,他一定有其過人之處。


 


毅力,正是陳水扁的最大過人之處。如果沒有極為堅強的毅力,很難在艱苦的從政道路上,一路走來,始終充滿鬥志,充滿精力。


 


那麼,陳水扁的毅力來源又是什麼呢?這我只能猜測了。對於權力的渴望,多年的從政過程中品嘗到權力帶來的成就感,現實利益,以及因而產生的貪婪,這些都可能是他的毅力後面的動力來源。但我相信,在最初的時候,在這些足以讓人墮落腐化的誘因還不存在的時候,在需要承擔壓力、風險並付出巨大代價的時候,陳水扁的毅力的來源一定是理想。


 


美麗島的時候,陳水扁所需仰賴的毅力必定是更堅更強的,可能要比2004年競選連任時更超乎我們的想象。而那時的陳水扁熬了過來,靠的正是這過人的毅力,而這毅力靠的只能是崇高而堅定的理想。可以想見,這些理想是和當初推動臺灣走向民主的所有仁人志士是一樣的,和為這理想而犧牲奉獻的人是一樣的,和他所辯護的施明德是一樣的,和他所推崇的黃信介是一樣的;一樣的美好,一樣的壯麗,一樣的令人動容。


 


這理想在什么時候褪色淡去了呢?想必不是一朝一夕的事情,這里邊的故事寫成小說一定精彩,給任何一個對政治有熱心的人看都一定有非常重要的參考作用,然而此時令我思考的是另外一個問題:陳水扁是怎樣的心境?


 


我願意相信,他還是能夠想起自己當初為理想而奮鬥的風發意氣的,也一定能想起為這理想共同走過來的戰友們的,也許還能夠想起逝去的黃信介主席黨外時期跟他一起憧憬這理想的畫面吧。我很想知道,承認確有將幾億款項匯往國外的陳水扁還能夠想起他的那些理想嗎?


 


陳水扁有沒有對曾擁有理想的驕傲,有沒有回想追求理想過程的激動,有沒有對而今背叛理想的慚愧?反扁者會覺得他大概對那份理想只剩下冷漠甚至是不屑了,然而,我還是願意相信,相信陳水扁在某個靜思的時刻,多少會有一絲絲的感慨與不安吧。今天我希望看到的正是這一絲絲的不安能夠幫助他在這樣的一個權力已經放下,誘惑也在遠去,掌聲與群眾也不再包圍著自己,越來越多的時間需要面對自己的時刻作出正確的抉擇。雖然,我並不樂觀。


 


2008年3月5日 星期三

Ma Ying-Jeou’s Trigonometric Challenge


If there is no surprise, Ma will become the
president of Taiwan
in little over a week, and resume his office in two months.  With all the problems he is facing, Taiwan’s international
status will be a more and more important issue he must deal with.


 


Taiwanese people want a membership in the UN, in
what way, with what name maybe hard to agree, but hoping for the government to
do something about it is overwhelmingly coherent.


 


China, on the other hand, yelling anti succession, blocking
all access of Taiwan on its attempt to claim its name on any international
arena, not only on UN membership but also WHO and many others.  Any time Taiwan
wants to use the name Taiwan
or ROC will be boycott by the Chinese government.


 


The West, worry they may piss off the government
that controls the largest economic engine of the world, took the easiest stand,
repeat one of the most out dated diplomatic statement of the time: “Status Quo!”


 


Taiwan
is an obsessed democracy.  Even if Ma
wants to ignore this demand of people on having an appropriate international
status Taiwan
deserves, the opposition will make sure that voice will be heard.  This will become a big pressure to Ma for
sure.


 


Is this a solvable trigonometric challenge?


 


If one pays enough attention, one would
understand the true interest
of all three parties that hide behind the tumultuous
and hostile and tough voices and actions.


 


What Taiwan really wants is dignity,
safety, equality and participating opportunity.  Do they really want to declare as an
independent country?  Many politicians
argue that that is the only way to secure those wishes.  China’s military threat make people hesitate
about taking any action toward that directions, but at the same time, it makes
people believe more and more in some day it maybe the only way.  Military threat aside, the cultural tie and
economical interests are playing no small part in peoples mind.  In sum, people in Taiwan are undecided about weather
they should claim independent or not.


 


That is actually the only thing China cares.


 


It should be understood that China don’t really want reunification with Taiwan, but they sure can not tolerate Taiwan
to become independent.  This may sound
funny or even contradictory to many who don’t understand the totalitarian
thinking.  To the Chinese regime, to
reunify with Taiwan would only be extra credit, and nobody will be blamed if
that is not done, because the separated status was passed down from the last
generation or even from Mao time.  The
current regime does not have any responsibility of carrying out the
reunification that was not done by Mao or Deng. 
However, it was also seen to the regime that neither Mao nor Deng lost Taiwan.
 Whoever losses Taiwan while in the office will
face tremendous challenge.  It was just a
status of temporarily non-unified.  That
is the status quo China
wants.


 


The West’s true interest now is to have a stable
cross strait relation.  At the beginning,
US and the West supported Taiwan
being an allied-force against communism. 
Time goes by, for other interest, earlier geopolitics, now economy, the
West betray Taiwan.  But after all, in the mean time this allied
force developed into a democracy.  It
became an inconvenient fact that Taiwan
is democracy and China
is not, and they have to take sides from time to time.


 


Given these are the true interests; is there a
chance to find a solution that satisfies all parties?  The answer is yes.  It is not easy and will take quite some
creative thinking, but, yes.


 


The key relay on the fact China wants nothing more
than Taiwan forsake the possibility of Claiming independent; and in the myths
of “One China” to be respected that was created over the long time of
propaganda and self-hypnotism.  If it is guaranteed
that Taiwan
will not claim independent and agree on some terminology of “One China”,
Chinese regime is willing to give up so much on the negotiation table.


 


Assume there is a negotiation table, whereas China has the economic, military and diplomatic upper-hand,
it may seems Taiwan
has little bargaining chips.  But in
fact, giving China those
words of guarantee is the biggest chips Taiwan has.


 


If Taiwan
can get dignity, security, equality and opportunity to participate in the world
arena in exchange of those wording, in my humble opinion, this is a good
trade.  The only issue left is, last but
not the least, the trust issue.  Lack of
trust have brought China to use military threat against Taiwan, blockage in all
international arena against Taiwan;  lack
of trust have made Taiwanese people not being able to sense with the Chinese
regime.  And that is an issue can be
solved by international involvement.  If
the deal is endorsed and guaranteed by the West, if Taiwanese people are
convinced that they can actually get what they truly want without worrying
Chinese may change their mind after they have entered and agreement, they will
take this deal.


 


Let us countentplay a little further, after a
dramatic hand shaking between Hu Jin-Tao and Ma Ying-Jeou in Washington DC or
Paris, the communiqué was announced, and it reads like this: “The two
governments on the two side of the Taiwan straits meet today and agrees that
there is only one China in the world. 
The two governments are equal brotherly members of this one China;  The two government declare that under this
condition, they will never use military force against each other;  In the world, the two governments will support
each other in all areas according to the best interest to their people,
including United Nation; ”  Following the
communiqué, PRC announce full military adjustment and remove of all missiles
against Taiwan, and form a cooperation mechanism with Taiwan defense force for military
coordination;  Taiwan’s UN membership is
agreed by all nations with no obstacle;  State-head
of Taiwan jointly take part in all international occasions side by side with
their Chinese counter part…


 


Of course, this is only a countemplay.  But the logic is not.  Ma Ying-Jeou has a chance, a genuine chance
to realize this.  This maybe is the only
chance too.  Even if the development of
history sets a different course, it is beneficial to understand this chance
truly does exist.



2007年9月2日 星期日

China Mocks the Spirit of the Olympics


When the Summer Olympics take place in Beijing next year, I will
not be there. The obvious reason for this is because I was a student leader in
the protests of 1989 that resulted in what is now often referred to as the June
4 Tiananmen Massacre, and have been in exile ever since. But the less obvious
corollary of this is that I will not be there because China is not ready to embrace the
Olympic spirit.


 


I think it is safe to say that, if the
Chinese government were ready to embrace the Olympic spirit of unity,
inclusiveness and equality, all of us who are exiled from our homeland would
like nothing else than to be in Beijing next year. After all, it would be an
opportunity, not only to enjoy the Olympic festivities, but also to be reunited
with out families. The fact that this will not be the case makes a mockery of China’s
“One World One Dream” Olympics slogan, and its pretensions to being a mature
member of the global community.


 


Mine is simply one of countless stories of
exile from the world’s fastest growing economy, but I think, in view of Beijing’s triumphalism
about hosting the world’s premier sporting event, my exile and what it means
for me personally is worth mentioning. Not only will it not be possible for me
attend the Beijing Olympics, but the Beijing
government will continue to hold the family I have not seen in 18 years
hostage, and will no doubt continue to refuse to issue them passports so that
we can be reunited in a foreign country.


 


I am sure that many people who attend the
Olympics next year will be aware to some degree or other that, despite the
newly sanitized streets of Beijing (involving the eviction of 1.5 million
people, according to the Center on Housing Rights and Evictions), the
awe-inspiring sporting facilities, and the grand panoply of the ceremonies,
there is a dark side to the festivities. But, as the International Olympic
Committee did when it awarded the event to Beijing,
they will have decided that China
has still made great strides towards becoming a better place than it was in the
summer of 1989, and it deserves a chance.


 


I wish this were true. If it were, I would
be joining family and friends in Beijing
next year.


 


The 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics are
regularly described as “China’s
coming out party”. Nineteen years after the world watched the student
occupation of Tiananmen Square, the subsequent decade-and-a-half of
record-breaking economic growth is poised to culminate in a spectacle
calculated to awe the world and marginalize the hecklers who point to China’s
poor human rights record, its petrodollar complicity in genocide in Darfur, its
occupation of Tibet and its aggressive stance on unification with Taiwan, as
evidence that China is not yet mature enough to host the world’s most coveted
sporting event.


 


Politics have been an issue at nearly every
Olympics since the 1936 Berlin
meet, when athletes were expected to shout “sieg
heil
” as they marched past Adolf Hitler’s chancellor’s box. Germany and
Japan were not invited, and the USSR failed to show, at the 1948 London
Olympics; 11 Israeli athletes died as a result of an attack by Palestinian
terrorists at the 1972 Munich Olympics; and more than 60 nations boycotted the
1980 Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, it
seems likely that the Beijing Olympics, despite the hecklers, will go ahead
without any boycotts, and – if Beijing has its
way – without incident in Beijing
itself. 


 


The reason for this, I believe, is related
to the complexities of the West’s perceptions of and relations with China.
A strong case can be made that the protests leading up to June 4 in 1989 were instrumental in opening
up China,
forcing the government to acquiesce to the demands of an educated emergent
middle class. But the suppression of the protests came at enormous cost to China
on the world stage, and the government has been paying for it ever since in
terms of western scrutiny of its human rights record.


 


At the same time, however, when Deng
Xiaoping toured southern China
in 1992 and called on Chinese to go into business “even more boldly” and “more
quickly” to create a socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics, the
West put its post-Tiananmen qualms behind it and poured into China with a flood of foreign
investment. This is perfectly understandable. Since the Opium Wars, the West’s
relationship with China
has hinged on how to inveigle the world’s most populous nation into opening its
doors to the global economy.


 


Fifteen years on, China has become an important motor
of global economic growth. In this way there are two opposing western views of China:
the one-party state that denies basic human rights and imprisons or exiles
dissenters, and global powerhouse, home to 1.3 billion potential consumers.


 


When Beijing
hosts the Olympics next year, it is the latter view it is looking to capitalize
on. Despite the relentless trickle of negative press about China – the
disparities of wealth and poverty, environmental degradation, suppression of
human rights – over the past decade the world has beat a path to China’s door,
and the government in Beijing sees the Olympics as an opportunity to put on a
spectacle that will finally eclipse the world’s lingering images of bloodshed
in the capital.


 


It is very possible that government will be
successful in this endeavor, but as one of countless exiles from modern China
who will not be able to be there in person, the summer of 2008 promises to be a
major betrayal of the Olympic spirit.


 


For Pierre de
Coubertin, who was responsible for the revival of the Olympic Games in 1900,
one of the four principles of the games was to achieve a truce, “a four-yearly
festival of the springtime of mankind." I find this idea of a “truce”
interesting because the reality is that Beijing
has no plans for a truce of any kind. The intention is for Beijing
to parade itself to the rest of the world as the China everybody doing business with
it and the government that rules by slogans and an iron fist would like to
pretend it is: an open, harmonious and peaceful society that is taking its rightful
place as a global leader.


 


The idea behind this four-yearly festival
is that the world put its conflicts behind it and comes together in a spirit of
unity. In Beijing,
that will not happen because any Chinese national who has a grievance with the
country’s one-party government will have no part to play in the celebrations.
That list includes anyone who campaigns for greater autonomy in Tibet, my
homeland of Xinjiang, my adopted home of Taiwan, anyone who has struggled to
expand participatory politics in China or to have the right to worship as they
choose, or anyone who has dissented publicly from whatever the current Party
line happens to be.


 


There should be no mistake about this. China’s
“coming out party” is nothing of the sort. The party in Beijing will be the Chinese Communist Party’s
“coming out party”. This government has long seen participating in the Olympics
as a legitimizing maneuver, not only on the world stage, but also in terms of
winning glory for the Chinese nation, playing on nationalism and simultaneously
conflating China with the one-party state that rules it – as the famous saying
goes, without the Communist Party, there would be no modern China.


 


The state has devoted enormous resources
into transforming itself into an effective sporting nation. It was not until the Los
Angeles games in 1984, that the PRC managed to win its
first gold. But by the 2004 games in Athens, China was in third place behind the United States and Russia, sweeping up 32 golds.
Winning the right to host the Olympics, then, is the final act in this more
than two-decade crusade by the CCP to achieve legitimacy through sporting
prowess.


 


Of course, the Chinese government itself
knows that its motives have little resonance with the Olympic spirit, and as a
result it is cloaking the event in the familiar, fuzzy rhetoric of unity we see
in the official slogan, “One World, One Dream”, which the official website
helpfully explains, “conveys the lofty ideal of the
people in Beijing as well as in China to share the global community and
civilization and to create a bright future hand in hand with the people from
the rest of the world.” Similar
sentiments can be seen in the website’s
explanation of the Beijing Olympics emblem – a calligraphic seal that features
a wriggly human being who appears to be dancing, and which symbolizes a China
that is “opening its arms to welcome the rest of the
world to join the Olympics, [in] a celebration of ‘peace, friendship and
progress of mankind’."


 


If this is the message
to world, at home the Chinese government is using the Olympics to repress
dissidents and activists, while at the same time using the games to more firmly
establish the legality and validity of its rule. The terrible pity of this is
that the Party is exploiting national pride, and denying the Chinese people of
the right to enjoy the true spirit of the Olympics. Meanwhile, the world’s
participation in the event is an act of collusion with a political party that
in recent years has presided over a remarkable period of economic growth, but
has nevertheless throughout the past six decades since 1949 been responsible
for far more setbacks than it has successes. It also continues to be as
oppressive as it was when I was forced into exile in 1989, despite the
foreign-invested veneer of westernization that can be seen in the major cities.


 


When China made its most recent Olympics
bid, it promised the IOC and the international community that it was prepared
to make substantial improvements in human rights. But, just four days after winning
the bid, then deputy prime minister, Li Lanqing, announced that China
should step up its efforts to counter the Falungong, a spiritual movement whose
members are routinely imprisoned – at least 100 are thought to have died in
detainment. The then vice-president, Hu Jintao, weighed in next, saying it was
essential for China
to counter separatist movements “orchestrated by the Dali Lama and the world’s
anti-China forces.”


 


This should come as no
surprise to anyone, least of all the OIC, which took the surprisingly naïve
position that holding the Olympics in Beijing
was likely to improve China’s
human rights. The opposite was always bound to be the case. For Beijing to pull off the
kind of Olympics it would like to, it is forced to repress anything of a
political nature that might mar its moment of glory.


 


Amnesty International,
for example, is calling for the immediate release of Ye Guozhu, who was
arrested in December 2004, and is serving a four-year prison sentence for
attempting to organize a demonstration against forced evictions in Beijing,
after two restaurants he owned were demolished in 2001 to make way for Olympics
sports facilities. His relatives say he has health problems after having been
tortured in prison, and it is claimed he was beaten with electro-shock battens
in Beijing’s
Chaobai Prison.


 


An equally high-profile
example is human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who was convicted of “subversion”
in December 2006, and is now under house arrest. While under formal arrest, he
claims to have been treated harshly by police. Meanwhile, in April this year,
four pro-Tibetan independence protesters were arrested, after they hung up a
Free Tibet banner at Mount Everest base camp,
protesting the government’s plans to relay the Olympic torch through the Tibetan
Himalayas.


 


According to the
Olympic Charter, sport must be “at the service of the harmonious development of
man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the
preservation of human dignity.” But groups protesting against, or calling for
boycotts of next year’s Olympics point to a host of CCP transgressions against
both a peaceful society and human dignity.


 


A commitment to reform
or abolish China’s
“re-education through labor” policy appears stalled, possibly so as to clean up
the streets of Beijing
of vagrants and drug-users ahead of the Olympics. Meanwhile, Amnesty reports
that the lead up to the Olympics has seen “moves to expand detention without
trial and ‘house arrest’ of activists, and … a tightening of controls over
domestic media and the Internet.”


 


For the most part, the
foreign community seems to have found it relatively easy to ignore these
domestic affronts to the spirit of the Olympics. The issue of Darfur
is proving somewhat more problematic. Names such Bob Geldof and Mia Farrow have
publicly criticized China
for supporting the atrocities in Darfur through massive subsidies to oil-rich Sudan.
In March this year, Farrow wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that popularized the term, “the Genocide
Olympics”. A Google search for the latter, five months later, produces close to
1.5 million hits.


 


For any Chinese – even
those of us in exile – this background to China’s successful bid for the
Olympics should be more a cause for self-examination than for celebration. Ideally,
the Olympics I would like to attend next year would be the ultimate culmination
of the kaifang – open – policy that
was ushered in by Deng Xiaoping in 1979.


 


Deng’s “open door”
policy was a revolutionary turning point in modern Chinese history, and for all
the problems facing China
at this juncture, it has been successful in raising the living standards for
millions of Chinese people. Unfortunately, China’s new-found economic openness
has never been matched by the openness that is needed to reform the country’s
oppressive one-party state. And this being the case the games that will take
place next year will belong to that state, not to the Chinese people, the vast
majority of whom will not be allowed anywhere near the Olympics festivities in
Beijing.


 




For my part, if I were permitted to return to China
for the Olympics, I admit I would seize the opportunity – it would be my chance
to see the ageing parents and the brother I have not seen in close on two
decades. But, the long-awaited family reunion aside, I think it unlikely I
would find much else in the way of cause for celebration.


 


——Published Far Eastern Economic Review, Cover date 2007.09.04.
      This article has won the Hong Kong Human Rights Press Award, (Oped) 2007.