第一次到柏林。时值隆冬，天色灰灰，空气冰凉。这座在二战废墟上重建的城市，点缀着许多现代派、后现代派风格的建筑，加之忙碌的节日前购物人群，倒也颇有生气。
应哈佛大学欧洲研究柏林中心邀请，我前往在该中心举办的“中国：人权与经济机遇”对话讲演会上发言。
抵达之前有一段插曲。会前三周，会议组织人来信说，曾答应与会的第三位发言人突然提出因故不能出席，剩下我们两位。另一位是《华尔街日报》前任驻北京记者尹.约翰先生。约翰今年刚出一本新书《野草》。书中记述三位普通中国百姓寻求社会公正的经历。约翰先生曾因为他在中国期间的新闻报道荣获美国的普里茨大奖。因故退出的第三位发言人是麻省理工大学的一位华人经济学教授。主持单位曾希望我们之间能有一场关于中国的经济、公民社会、和人权的对话。对话缺了一方，哈佛中心十分着急。几天后，他们另外邀请了一位欧籍经济学者、现任欧洲某商业公司驻上海代表。看来一场有趣的对话可以照原计划进行了。
没想到，会前三天，主持人来信说该商人也突然退出。不过他倒是坦诚，他说他的公司不允许他在这种讨论中国的人权状况的公开讲演会上露面，认为他答应出席太冒险，将损害该公司在中国的生意！到达柏林当天，笔者又听说，曾经提前注册的听众中的一些商界和金融界人士也来信表示歉意，说他们出于压力不得不缺席。
是这些金融和商界人士过于惧怕、因此实行自我审查（self-censorship）呢 ，还是有关机构在下面对他们施加压力、用取消合同和投资机会或者研究访问机会威胁他们退出？笔者不得而知。
这场讲演会定在柏林的“外国事务协商委员会”（相当于纽约的Council for Foreign Affairs）举行。好几位以短期进修大陆学生身份注册的同胞届时到达会场。陆续在会议厅后面落座后，当中不只一位举起相机纷纷对着我们几位坐在讲台上的发言人和主持人拍照。
出乎主持人意外的是，抵达的听众把一间能容纳120人的会议厅几乎装满了。后来得知，有些不能代表商界到场的人士以个人身份前来出席。
主持会议的塔夫茨大学（在美国波士顿）教授斯密斯简单回顾了20世纪各国在人权与经济贸易关系问题上失败与成功的经验教训。他谈到当年有些美国公司在希特勒上台后，继续与他治下的纳粹帝国通商好几年。二战后，美国人民接受了教训，支持政府对苏联实行经贸制裁以及随后在80年代对南非种族歧视当局实行的制裁。但是，89年后，美国很快解除了对中国实行的人权与贸易挂钩的政策。至于中国的人权与经济发展和国际贸易之间是否应该完全脱节，这是当前颇有争议的问题，他希望这次讲演会能激发听众的思考。
接下来，约翰先生发言。他注重介绍他在中国期间与普通百姓的接触，他的经历使他感到民间社会不屈的力量和困境，但是他相信这股力量将会推动中国社会自下而上的变革。
我的发言首先肯定了近年来中国政府在立法、乡村选举试验、以及把“保护人权”写入宪法等方面的正面尝试，但是，由于基本体制痼疾，在保护基本人权方面仍然存在严重问题，如大量使用死刑、酷刑（刑讯逼供）和非法羁押；民间自发争取经济和社会文化人权的团体和人士继续遭到迫害和压制，恰恰因为他们的参政、言论、结社、集会、信仰自由等公民政治权利受到严重侵犯；中国式的集权控制下的经济发展和官僚腐败造成社会分配不公、贫富悬殊急剧扩大；国外企业到中国投资经商对中国的政治改革进程和人权改进显然有直接影响，雅虎香港公司协助公安治罪网上作家师涛提供证据、雅虎和微软等公司签署进入中国市场自检条约、在其搜寻器上查封“民主”“人权”等字眼等例，就可以说明这个问题。
接下来听众提问，讨论了近一小时。主持会议的斯密斯教授最后邀请在场的几位“年轻中国学生”发言。他们之间悄声商议后，推出一位发言人。这位年轻女士用相当流利的英文说，邓小平的英明改革是中国历史上的伟绩，酷刑等只是文革中的现象，中国人口众多，是存在一些问题，但是要慢慢解决，不能因此造成社会动乱，繁荣的经济给外商带来极好的投资机会，不要错过，等等。台上台下各位的目光都集中到我身上，看来我不得不出来“应战”。
近年来在各种场合公开演讲，我已经习惯了这类“慷慨呈辞”，“应战”起来也有了经验。年轻人是中国的未来，出来留学的人更有挑起重任的机会。他们在海外公开场合如此发言，没准也是身不由己，但完全有可能是他们在言论、媒体控制下只能接触官方许可信息而形成了这些代表他们本人真实思想的看法。民族情绪或许也夹杂其中。
散会后的自由交谈中，这几位学生中的一位提醒我，德国、美国社会也有阴暗面。也许是这样，我回答说，但是我们不能因此就彼此心照不宣、闭口不谈阴暗面？可惜我当时没时间与这位继续交谈：既然中国签署了反对酷刑的国际公约、口头承认有关人权的普世性，官方媒体近来也大量报道美国士兵施行酷刑的消息，那么，为什么就不能公开批评中国现存的酷刑现象？
离开柏林前，我来到残存的“柏林墙”。当年隔绝东、西德两个世界，长达150多公里的森严壁垒，现在只剩下200米长的一段，作为历史遗迹保留下来。从61年东德修建“柏林墙”到它89年的倒塌，曾有150 多人因试图从东德越墙到西德而被东德看守击毙。
这里正好在举行一个露天图片展览：“恐怖的解析”。柏林市政府已经动工在这里修建一个纳粹反人类罪行博物馆，但因经费不足尚未完工。这块废墟曾是40年代纳粹盖世太保的总部。90年人们在这里的一块荒地下面发掘出盖世太保的监狱和刑讯室，旁边的一个荒土堆是他们执行示众绞刑和秘密枪决的地方。这个展览是柏林市举办的，有大量图片和文件翻拍，纪录了当时在这里被监禁、被施酷刑、和枪决的许多德国和国际地下抵抗人士，有他们身前的照片，被枪决的报刊新闻照，刑警的纪录，当中有作家，医生，记者，家庭妇女，有些仅仅因为发表了不满纳粹的文章，或参与了地下抵抗组织的活动，就被关押在这里，不少人在英美俄联军开始攻城时被草率枪决。展览的另一部分记载纳粹如何把柏林的犹太族居民，老人、小孩在内，解押到集中营，再一部分是战后纽伦堡审判战犯的图片和法庭纪录。
据展览引言介绍，当年纽伦堡审判期间对纳粹罪行的大量揭露在德国本土并没有得到充分的报道。世界各地媒体记者芸集纽伦堡，然而只有七个德国记者现场报道。战后德国百姓忙于艰难的日常生活，但是，人们也不愿正视自己身边的丑恶、更不愿承担自己的一份责任。希特勒的纳粹统治系统屠杀六百万犹太人的残暴反人类罪行和战争罪延续了十多年，没有社会各界（商界，媒体，知识分子、市民等）的普遍支持，可能吗？战后德国媒体和公众舆论的相对沉默，使德国社会错过一个极好的反思、教育机会。
在某种程度上，历史恐怕会在我们眼前重演。今天，一股无形的强大的压力正在迫使人们沉默，迫使他们对中国这块土地上发生的刑讯逼供、任意监禁、以言论信仰治罪等人权虐待避而不谈。不光是在德国，在法国，甚至美国，如果遇不到公证舆论的阻滞，这股压力将蔓延、侵蚀“自由世界 ”。
一位德国朋友告诉我，经历过二战的她的父母一辈至今仍然认为，“除了希特勒等头领，德国人民对二战罪行没有任何责任”；然而她的同辈人，60年代成长起来的叛离青年一代，则负有过于沉重的罪感和羞辱，以至失去了批评其他国度违反人权的勇气。这一代也是目前德国政界、商界和知识界的骨干。我可以理解这种心态，但是，他们这样做恰恰无助于杜绝让他们内疚的历史以别的形式、在不同程度上重演，也不利于巩固在斜恶和残暴的废墟上建立起来的德国民主自由。
灰蒙蒙的天空飘起小雨，我的脚趾头开始冻得发疼，我感觉步伐沉重。一群大陆游览者过来了，来参观“柏林墙”，他们没有浏览展出的图片，纷纷拍照留影，匆匆离去，可能是要赶到下一个游览胜地。他们渐去的谈笑声，是我联想起另外一些同胞：他们在做什么？忙于为狱中网络作家辩护？为维护土地权、寻求水源污染救助的同胞上访？为因“刑讯逼供”被判重刑的受害者准备上诉？为受到家庭暴力的妇女提供法律咨询？无形中我感到暖和了许多，加快了步伐。
晓蓉
2005年11月28日 于巴黎
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Friday, June 10, 2005
Tiananmen is not for sale
Xiaorong Li and Lun Zhang
International Herald Tribune
SATURDAY, MAY 28, 2005
PARIS June 4 marks the 16th anniversary of China's bloody repression of pro-democracy protests on Tiananmen Square. The legacy of the massacre has been put sharply in focus by the current debate over lifting the arms embargo imposed by the European Union in response to that event.
The debate is not only about the meaning of Tiananmen in the context of rapid changes in China, but also the will of the EU to assert its values as it fashions coherent policies toward an increasingly influential China.
China has evolved in important ways, but not in its authoritarian political structure. Its dynamic economy has brought prosperity to many, fostered social pluralism and forced the state to scale back its totalitarian intrusiveness.
Yet those citizens who demand participation in decision-making or who criticize government policies risk retaliation, arbitrary detention, unfair trials or torture. The official verdict on Tiananmen as "counterrevolutionary" stands firm. Public commemorations and demands for an accounting remain punishable offenses.
Chinese leaders underestimate the potency of Tiananmen. After the "SARS doctor," Jiang Yanyong, earned international acclaim by disclosing official cover-ups of the epidemic, he joined the "Tiananmen Mothers" to demand an official re-evaluation of the massacre.
Mourners poured out their hearts for former Party Secretary General Zhao Ziyang, who died last January after spending 15 years under house arrest for having shown sympathy for the students in Tiananmen.
In April, the government hastily banned the anti-Japan demonstrations that it had tacitly permitted after demonstrators extended their focus from the atrocities committed by Japanese troops half a century ago to those committed by the Chinese Liberation Army in 1989.
By holding Tiananmen political prisoners, refusing any reckoning with what happened and burying the memories, it is the government that keeps the spotlight on the massacre.
China finds it humiliating to be classed with countries like Myanmar and Zimbabwe, which are also under EU embargoes for the violations of human rights.
Of course, China is worlds apart from these impoverished and woefully mismanaged states. However, like Myanmar, China harasses democracy activists and imprisons many for their ideas and convictions. Myanmar may have conscripted the most child soldiers, but China executes the largest number of people each year. Despite food insecurity and political violence, Zimbabwe has, unlike China, a functioning opposition, albeit tightly constrained.
Just as European leaders are not about to lift embargoes on Myanmar or Zimbabwe without real rights improvement, so they should keep the embargo on China until there is measurable progress.
The free world must reject the convenient assumption that the Chinese prefer prosperity to political freedom.
The explosion of independent reporting and information has been accompanied by the deployment of an estimated 50,000 cyberpolice who block Web sites, patrol cybercafes, monitor the use of cellular phones and track down Internet activists.
Enhanced economic performance has not meant better protection for those whose lives and interests inconvenience those in power. When China ratified the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, for example, it entered a reservation explicitly rejecting the right of workers to form independent unions. Workers who produce the products flooding European markets are powerless to fight hazardous sweatshop conditions and low wages.
International pressure after Tiananmen in the form of trade sanctions did some good, until the argument prevailed that they punished ordinary Chinese. That argument hardly applies to the weapons embargo, since it is the Chinese state and its military that benefit from the arms trade.
China threatens to retaliate by withholding business contracts and cooperation in other areas if the EU stands firm on rights conditions for lifting the embargo. Heeding these threats only encourages further use of this tactic.
The ball should be in China's court. It can have the embargo lifted by making concrete and structural progress on civil rights.
Even if a proposed "code of conduct" is applied to future weapons sales, the symbolic act of lifting the embargo would signal triumph of business interest over human rights, sending the wrong message to people in the region who aspire for what Europe stands for.
(Lun Zhang was a student leader during the Tiananmen protests and now lives in Paris. Xiaorong Li is visiting at the Center for International Study and Research in Paris.)
Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/27/opinion/edli.php
International Herald Tribune
SATURDAY, MAY 28, 2005
PARIS June 4 marks the 16th anniversary of China's bloody repression of pro-democracy protests on Tiananmen Square. The legacy of the massacre has been put sharply in focus by the current debate over lifting the arms embargo imposed by the European Union in response to that event.
The debate is not only about the meaning of Tiananmen in the context of rapid changes in China, but also the will of the EU to assert its values as it fashions coherent policies toward an increasingly influential China.
China has evolved in important ways, but not in its authoritarian political structure. Its dynamic economy has brought prosperity to many, fostered social pluralism and forced the state to scale back its totalitarian intrusiveness.
Yet those citizens who demand participation in decision-making or who criticize government policies risk retaliation, arbitrary detention, unfair trials or torture. The official verdict on Tiananmen as "counterrevolutionary" stands firm. Public commemorations and demands for an accounting remain punishable offenses.
Chinese leaders underestimate the potency of Tiananmen. After the "SARS doctor," Jiang Yanyong, earned international acclaim by disclosing official cover-ups of the epidemic, he joined the "Tiananmen Mothers" to demand an official re-evaluation of the massacre.
Mourners poured out their hearts for former Party Secretary General Zhao Ziyang, who died last January after spending 15 years under house arrest for having shown sympathy for the students in Tiananmen.
In April, the government hastily banned the anti-Japan demonstrations that it had tacitly permitted after demonstrators extended their focus from the atrocities committed by Japanese troops half a century ago to those committed by the Chinese Liberation Army in 1989.
By holding Tiananmen political prisoners, refusing any reckoning with what happened and burying the memories, it is the government that keeps the spotlight on the massacre.
China finds it humiliating to be classed with countries like Myanmar and Zimbabwe, which are also under EU embargoes for the violations of human rights.
Of course, China is worlds apart from these impoverished and woefully mismanaged states. However, like Myanmar, China harasses democracy activists and imprisons many for their ideas and convictions. Myanmar may have conscripted the most child soldiers, but China executes the largest number of people each year. Despite food insecurity and political violence, Zimbabwe has, unlike China, a functioning opposition, albeit tightly constrained.
Just as European leaders are not about to lift embargoes on Myanmar or Zimbabwe without real rights improvement, so they should keep the embargo on China until there is measurable progress.
The free world must reject the convenient assumption that the Chinese prefer prosperity to political freedom.
The explosion of independent reporting and information has been accompanied by the deployment of an estimated 50,000 cyberpolice who block Web sites, patrol cybercafes, monitor the use of cellular phones and track down Internet activists.
Enhanced economic performance has not meant better protection for those whose lives and interests inconvenience those in power. When China ratified the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, for example, it entered a reservation explicitly rejecting the right of workers to form independent unions. Workers who produce the products flooding European markets are powerless to fight hazardous sweatshop conditions and low wages.
International pressure after Tiananmen in the form of trade sanctions did some good, until the argument prevailed that they punished ordinary Chinese. That argument hardly applies to the weapons embargo, since it is the Chinese state and its military that benefit from the arms trade.
China threatens to retaliate by withholding business contracts and cooperation in other areas if the EU stands firm on rights conditions for lifting the embargo. Heeding these threats only encourages further use of this tactic.
The ball should be in China's court. It can have the embargo lifted by making concrete and structural progress on civil rights.
Even if a proposed "code of conduct" is applied to future weapons sales, the symbolic act of lifting the embargo would signal triumph of business interest over human rights, sending the wrong message to people in the region who aspire for what Europe stands for.
(Lun Zhang was a student leader during the Tiananmen protests and now lives in Paris. Xiaorong Li is visiting at the Center for International Study and Research in Paris.)
Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/27/opinion/edli.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)