Home Blog Page 748

储建国:中美如何在价值观上求同?

0

作者:储建国  来源:中美印象

将中美从冲突的阴影中拉出来,不仅决定两国人民的命运,也影响人类文明的走向。人类的战争归根到底是源于生存性困境,尤其是生存资源的争夺。人类的文明则是为摆脱生存性困境,尤其是开发和守护生存资源而形成的群体性关系,特别是观念层面的关系。相较于动物群体,人类群体对资源和权力的争夺在性质上没有大的变化,但因为观念的不同而发生冲突和战争则是人类应对生存性困境而发生的重大变异。冲突群体均认为对“人之为人”拥有更“正确”的看法,从而视自己在为某种“尊严”而战。

不过,人类文明的交流和演化也在不断化解观念之异,不断增加观念之同和观念之依。人类在智人阶段通过大迁徙散落于世界各地,相对封闭地发展出一些文明。来自不同文明的人们在交流时不仅惊宅于对方的“异”,也惊诧于双方的“同”。譬如说不同文明的人都喝酒,这就是足够惊诧的“同”,其实这反映了人类个体共同面临的生存性焦虑,“借酒浇愁”,浇的是个体与环境之间的分离而产生的孤独感。这种“分离”是所谓“自由”的根源。也许可以说,只要是喝酒的文明都发展出了“自由”观念。它不是一个很神秘的东西,也不是某种文明的专利。

西方文明往前发展,之所以最终集合于“自由”的名下,主要是个体与环境(人与物,人与人〉的“分离”过度发展,导致难以克服的“分裂”,马克思借用“异化”一词来描述,是比较准确的。基督教用“separation is sin (分离即是罪)”来描述也体现了其神学的深遂。这句话可以换成另一句现代西方人看来很不正确的话:“freedom is sin(自由即是罪)”,其实其含义同源同理。

现代西方文明通过高扬“自由”来应对“分离”困境,越是高扬,困境越大,正是因为其目的和效果不是在克服“分离”,而是在加速和夸大“分离”。故而,西方文明在不断地悔“罪(sin)”,又不断地犯“罪(sin)”,这也构成了一对矛盾的均衡。一些西方人和思想家在这种矛盾中不可自拔,或陷入“痛苦的虚无”之中,与东方“快乐的空悟”形成鲜明对照。更多的西方人仍在“自由”的旗帜下,带领着众多的非西方人,或高歌猛进,或歇斯底里,在“天人之裂”、“人人之裂”的道路上越走越远。

一种文明,在形成类似终极的体验之前,必有一些不同层次的环节需要展开。

中国文明并不比其他文明神秘,或者说是较早在“理性”层次上“去神秘化”的一种大规模文明。这种说法很多学者以不同的方式予以表达。中国先祖如其他文明人一样,感知到天人之分(裂)、人人之分(裂)。老子以“道一”而致天人之合,孔子以“仁义”而致“人人之和”。“失道而后仁”,潜在的含义是“仁生于道”,以应对生生之分。

人类从娘胎里走出来,既有向处“任性”的冲动,也有向内“归根(胎)”的念想。前者生出“自由”,后者生出“仁义”,二者均为人类普世之道,只是不同文明所执力度,所开结构,所历进程不同而已。聪明的思想家努力调和二者之间的冲突。“率性之谓道”,说明自由之中生仁义。“为仁由己”说明仁义之中显自由。“富贵不能淫,贫贱不能移,威武不能屈”更是说明惟有仁义才能成就自由人格。

西方思想家也在进行类似的调和。康德说自由与道德律是一体两面的事,这种德国式的思辨并没能成为西方自由思想的主流,尽管康德在西方思想界的地位很高。马克思一方面继承了西方的自由传统,一方面揭示了西方社会在追求自由的过程中所呈现的分裂(尤其是阶级分裂)性特征。他所设想的未来社会是原始社会在更高层次的回归,或者说是“自由”在各个层面上充分展开后,人类回归更高层次的“仁义”。“自由人联合体”不是一种松散的堆状体,而是基于“仁义+自由”的紧密的有机体。社会主义之“社会”如果没有将一个个普通而又平等之人用“仁义之网”联结起来,以附着在高度发达的经济政治结构之上,那怎么可能是马克思所向往的理想社会?“自由”本身无论如何展开,都无法织就这么一张“仁义之网”,但“自由”倘若不展开,“仁义之网”又有可能退化为“压迫之网”,这也是中国过去的历史所昭示的。

""

如是,中西文明交流,从根子上说,是为应对各自的生存性困境而进行的“仁义”和“自由”的对话,为未来新文明计,不宜夸大二者之间的冲突,而应于异中求同求依,求“仁义”之同,求“自由”之同,求“仁义”与“自由”的互依互存。

马克思是西方自由之道的传承者,也是西方现实自由社会的批判者,他近乎本能地认识到中国文明对于人类未来的意义,但毕竟有文明理解的隔阂,他这方面的思想没有充分展开。中国人接受了马克思的思想,成功地进行了革命和改革,在革故鼎新中又推陈出新,吸纳了西方的“自由”文明,复兴了中国的“仁义”文明,更通过当代中国人的实践创造着新的文明要素。

因此之故,当代中国人要转变对“马克思”之文明功能的认识,要更多地把他当作中西文明沟通的“桥梁”,而不是当作中西文明冲突的“武器”。

同样,当代西方人,尤其是美国人也要转变认识,不要一提中国的马克思主义,就想搞意识形态的十字军东征。

相较而言,在这种转变上,当代美国人比当代中国人更难。中国人可以“仁义”通“自由”,美国人难以“自由”通“仁义”。疫情危机暴露出美国众多精英和民众“反仁”、“反智”到了难以复加的地步。

中国人从“天下关怀”中退缩后,更多了些“族国自保”意识,在外引内化,创生新文明的过程中,也产生了诸多狭隘观念,有意无意地从冲突的角度来理解中西文明的关系。尤其是中美之间,某种“冲突”观念同构式发展,将文明引导至一悲观的方向。中国人在扭转方向上有必要先行一步,以刚性行动防止近期危险的同时,更要以柔性态度准备长期的文明交流。中国在没有通过侵略扩张,而主要通过外学内创的方式取得了值得肯定的文明成就。之所说是“文明成就”而不只是“经济发展”,就是要提醒人们认识其背后融合过去、现在和未来的价值基础,除了前述“仁义通自由”的关系外,还要补充一个“发展开太平”,马克思的“大历史发展观”对于重塑中国的“太平盛世”思想起了重要的作用,这里不展开论述。

在美国当前焦虑、狂躁的舆论氛围中,与其精英和大众讲这些道理都很困难。中国人暂时没必要强推自己的道理,也起不到多大作用。为文明长久之计,无论美国人如何骂中国,中国人都应该欢迎他们来中国多看看,多走走,多谈谈。不管是哪种文明,只要是人,只要条件俱备,做到互通情理都是可能的。

崔天凯大使最近讲到中美关系四条原则:“和平共处,共同演化,管控分歧,扩大合作”。其中,“共同演化”是个比较新的说法,应该从文明演化的角度去理解,当前的关键就是从价值观方面去寻找共处、互依的基点。双方对此都要有信心。就中国来说,要有更强的自信扩大改革开放,就美国来说,要有更强的自信迎接新的文明。

(作者为武汉大学政治与公共管理学院教授,比较政治研究中心主任)


来源时间:2020/8/27   发布时间:2020/8/27

旧文章ID:22801

萧功秦:太平洋战争是如何爆发的 ——从近代几次战争看人类决策理性的局限性限性

0

作者:萧功秦  来源:萧功秦论评

人的理性为什么也会犯错误

人是理性的动物,人之所以是万物之灵,就是因为人具有理性,我们人类籍助于理性,创造了文明与科学,并增进了人类本身的福祉。

所谓的决策理性,就是人类在决策过程中运用的理性思维,更具体地说,决策理性就是不同时代的人类,在对风险,成本与收益的全面综合考量的基础上,运用自己所掌握知识与信息,通过分析、推理与判断的思维活动,为实现主体设定的预期目标,而力求作出最佳行动方案的思维过程。

所有的人,无论哪个民族,无论那个时代,无论做任何事情,小到去附近商店购置某种型号的电饭锅,大到是否决定对某国开战,实际上都是在运用人类的决策理性。人类的历史,说到底,就是人类在面临挑战与压力时,不断作出自己的行动选择的过程,因此也是人类运用自己的决策籍以趋利避害,实现预期目标的过程。

然而,我们不能对人类的决策理性抱有过高的评价。人类的决策理性是有其缺陷与局限性的。这是因为,人的理性不可避免地受到决策者的主观因素的干扰与支配。

首先,它容易受决策者固有的文化偏见、陈旧过时的信条与原则的支配。

其次,它容易受决策者本身的知识结构的影响,偏执的或过时的知识结构,会对信息作出错误的解读,从而影响决策的正确性。

第三,人类的决策思维还容易受信息的不完全性的干扰或支配,错误的或不完整的信息,会直接导致决策的错误。

除此以外,人是有感情的、有特定情绪状态与心理状态的动物,人在决策时,也会受到他自己未必意识到的情绪状态、下意识、不稳定的心理因素等非理性因素的干扰。甚至有时决策者在特定条件下的浪漫激情,也会干扰决策行为。

希特勒与库尔斯克战役

正是在这个意义上,我们可以说,人类决策理性犯错误的概率,与人们非理性的主观因素的干扰程度成正比。

""

库尔斯克战役中的苏军

我们可以以第二次世界大战中的著名库尔斯克战役为例子,发生于1943年的这场堪称为人类历史上规模最大的坦克大战中,苏德双方共出动8000辆坦克,双方动员的总兵力达到280万人,苏军阵亡17万人,德军阵亡四万人。从双方伤亡比来看,德军实际上已经基本取得胜利。

但在决战的最关键的时刻,希特勒突然接到英法盟军已经在意大利西西里登陆的消息,他对身边的人说,“今天我的心情非常不好”。事实上,正是在高度不安的情绪干扰下,他作出了一个错误的决定,他不顾一切地命令从前线撤出主力部队,改赴西战场。这就造成苏军从被动变主动,并向全世界宣称自己是库尔斯克战役的最终胜利者。

""

德军在库尔斯克的撤退,实际上在关键时刻挽救了苏联。直到二次大战后很多年,人们才从军事档案中得知真实的情况,与苏联战时的宣传完全相反。这是决策理性受非理性的情绪因素支配,造成决策方的消极后果的一个典型案例。

决策理性不同于科学理性

由此可见,实验室里的科学家运用的科学理性,与决策理性相比,有很大的不同,前者面对的变量因子相对有限,被考察对象相对封 闭,情绪与文化因素对主体的判断的干扰影响相对较少;而后者,即人类的决策理性,却受决策者主体的情感、心理素质、浪漫心态等非理性因素的影响,受他本人的知识偏见、意识形态执念,文化定见与习俗偏见的干扰的概率,远远要高得多。

从历史上看,不同的国家与社会,在关键时期所作出的关键选择,大多数是由该国的统治精英所作出来的。而统治精英个人的决策理性,却受诸多个人主观因素的影响。这些因素有时连他本人都未曾意识到。精英正确的决策,会让这个民族在山重水复的艰困中走向柳暗花明,而精英错误的决策,则会让一个民族陷入长期灾难的深渊。精英的决策理性,也就决定性地影响了这个民族的历史命运。

下面,我想就中国近代以来几次战争中的治国精英的决策过程,来考察一下决策理性的局限性,这几次战争是1840年的鸦片战争,1860年的英法联军战争,1900年的庚子战争(即八国联军之役),1937年的全面中日战争,以及1941年底的开始的太平洋战争,这五次战争对中国的命运都有着巨大的影响,我们从统治精英的决策思维这一特殊角度来考察战争发生的经过,会对我们理性地从过去的历史获得教益具有重要的意义。

太平洋战争前两年,美日决策层都没有想到要打仗

太平洋战争发生于1941年12月,在此一年以前,日本与美国信任虽然已经下降,但日美双方都没有想到会发生战争。

日本根本不想进攻美国,日本是个贫油国家,只能生产本国需要的全部石油的15%。其余的85%的石油,必须依赖进口,当时中东的石油还没有被发现,日本进口石油的90%,则是由美国生产并提供的。其次,美国每年还向日本提供数百万吨的废钢铁,这是资源缺乏的日本打仗必需的,日本人都知道,美国的综合国力是日本的13倍,没有人认为与美国开战是明智的。日本国力根本无法长期支撑对美国的战争。

同样,美国也不想与日本打仗。1940年9月以前,美国虽然对日本侵略中国表示不满,美国传统上是孤立主义的国家,它虽然在道义上也支持中国,但却对1937年爆发的全面中日战争基本上保持中立。美国不断把废钢铁与石油卖给日本,从中日战争中获得商业利益。也是它乐于保持中立的原因。

自认为聪明的日本人却连续犯了两个低级错误

然而,在此后一年多时间里,日本帝国的决策者们却连续犯了两个他们自己没有想到的低级错误。

日本的第一个低级错误是,它在1940年9月加入了德意联盟。日本外相松冈洋右从欧洲访问回来后,到处鼓吹加入德意同盟的好处,这个人当时被认为是精通国际问题的专家,是被公众认为是绝顶聪明的日本人。在他的鼓动下,日本加入了德意同盟。

""

德意日三国同盟在柏林成立

日本之所以这样做,说起来,还是为了避免与美国打仗。日本人的想法是,只要军事上最强大的三个国家联合起来,美国就不敢在以后对日本说三道四了。日本人还认为,当时德国与苏联关系看上去还很不错,希特勒与斯大林称兄道弟,打得火热,说不定连苏联不久以后也会参加了这个同盟,那世界上最强大的四个国家,德,意,日,苏,都成为盟友,日本也就所向无敌了。

""

松冈洋右曾被认为是最聪明的日本人

在日本人看来,有了三国联盟这个资本,还更有利于以后与美国之间讨价还价。

然而这件事情产生的结果却恰恰相反。这是因为,日本这样做,就触犯了美国人的根本利益,美国认为,德国将在欧洲称霸,日本将在亚洲称霸,前者将使美国失去大西洋的通商自由,后者将使美国失去太平洋的通商自由,这种前景是美国万万不可能接受的。在美国人看来,德国已经是美国的敌人,与美国的敌人结盟,当然日本就成了美国的敌人。

于是,美国作出了对日本禁运废钢铁的决定。美国从中立立场,转向对中国抗战的支持。1941年3月美国与中国签定租借法案,价值16亿美元的战略物资运住中国,对于最困难时期的中国抗战,可以说是雪中送炭。

其实日本与德国结盟,日本精英们运用自己的决策理性所作出这一历史决定的“性价比”实在太低了,除了虚张声势壮胆以外,对于日本并没有任何实际的好处。德国对于远在远东的日本帮不上什么忙。却让日本成为美国的敌人,日本的决策精英们根本不理解自己犯了致命的错误。

接下来,日本又犯了第二个更严重的决策错误。1941年7月,日本海军进驻了越南南部的金兰湾。

""

众所周知,日本是一个资源贫乏的国家,这始终是日本人的心头病。日本人认为,在欧洲战场上,荷兰被德国占领后,荷兰在印尼的殖民地就成了无主地带,那里每年可以生产450万桶石油,只要把印尼石油弄到手,以后可以不必依靠美国供给石油了。而出兵越南金兰湾,就是为了前去印尼。于是,近卫政府逼迫法属印度支那政府同意日本进驻南越的决定。此后不久日舰进军越南。日本人这样做时,却没有想到越南金兰湾,离美国殖民地菲律宾近在咫尺。

日本资深外交元老币原喜重郎得知消息后,焦急地赶到日本军部与军方交涉,他急切地问,军舰派出了没有?军方人士告诉他说,早已经在海路上了,币原大吃一惊,连说“糟了糟了”。因为他深知日本此举必将引起美国的敌对,作为资深外交家,他认为极为不智。日本军方却对币原喜重郎的反应大为不解,他们说,天皇海军要去的地方是印尼,而不是菲律宾,与美国有何关系?这完全符合日本人的思维。

美国的反应出乎日本人的意料

接下来的发生的情况是,美国对日本进驻越南金兰湾的反应极为强烈。美国人认为,日本人已经威胁到菲律宾了,再说,与英国利益密切相关的新加坡,作为英美势力范围的南亚各国,也从此都会受到了日本的威胁。这是美国万万不可接受的。于是美国从此开始,把日本看作是势不两立的敌对国。日舰进入金兰湾这一事件,就成为美日关系的分水岭。

接下来,美国总统罗斯福就要对这个敌国出手了,美国在1941年8月1日,决定迫使日本人与美国谈判,否则将全面禁止对日本出口石油。这是日本人原先万万没有料到的。一旦美国不再把石油卖给日本,这将意味着,失去燃油的日本就会变成无灯的黑暗世界,更不要说打仗用油了。日本现有的存油,加上的国内生产的原油,用不了多久,战争就无法进行下去了。因此,日本不得不与美国坐下来谈判。

美国人一旦出手,就让日本陷入进退两难

在以后的四个月的日美谈判中,美国对日本提出的要求是,日本必须从中国全境撤军,,包括1937年以后占领的华东,华南、华中,与华北的所有地区,以及1931年占领的东三省,都必须全部撤出日本军队。否则美国将中断对日本的全部石油供应。

在日本人看来,日本只是派几只军舰去了金兰湾,而美国却要求日本从中国全部撤军,完全不考虑日本为此已经付出了死伤几十万人的代价,才获得这些战利品。美国的要价,太没有分寸感了,对于日本来说美国要价确实太高了。但美国坚持这样的要求,这样日本就陷入一个两难困境:

——如果拒绝美国要求,就会失去美国每年五百万桶的石油供应,日本现在的燃油存量,只能再支持一段时间,以后日本将成为没有燃油供应的黑暗世界了。

——而如果满足美国的从中国全境撤军的要求,这就相当于中国不战而胜,日本在惨淡经营多年的侵华战争,在死伤几十万日本人的生命之后,等于白打,日本中日战争从此宣告失败。

经过三个多月的谈判,最后日本还是决定有条件地妥协,日本人让步的内容是,只要美国不停止对日本的石油供应,日本可以从除东北以外的其他大多数地区撤军。也就是说,日本最终准备让步到从中国撤出除东北以外的90%的军队,只保留华北少数军队防止中共,25年后全部撤出。日本为此制定了甲案与乙案,只要美国愿意商议,日本还可以在撤军时间上,再作进一步的让步。

日美谈判中主要分歧点,是从满洲国撤军的问题,日本认为这是万万不可让步的,从中国东三省(即满洲国)撤兵,意味着“满洲国”的解体,同时意味着日本连七七事变以前获得的东三省也从此失去了,日本决策层认为,这是根本无法向日本国人交代的。

然而,罗斯福的态度很坚决,他要求日本必须从中国全境撤军,因为日本占领东北是违反了华盛顿公约的,是在道义上不允许的,美国1941年11月提出赫尔备忘录,这是美国对日本的最后通牒。

美国人卡住了日本的脖子,却只以为按住了日本人的手

美国为什么那么强硬?因为美国人也错误地估计了日本人,当时的陆军史汀生私下认为,日本决不敢与美国打仗,美国对日本的压力恰到好处,足以使日本人让步,又不敢发动对美国的战争。美国的决策精英们并没有意识到这样做的后果,以为只是略施压力而己,事实上,美国人已经卡住了日本人的脖子,并把日本逼到死角。但却以为只是按住了日本人的手腕而己。

在这种情况下,偷袭珍珠港,就成为日本军国主义者死里求生的唯一选择。在日本军国主义者们看来,日本统帅部认为,趁此发起向美国发起突然进攻,只要精密计算得当,对美奇袭或许能险胜,一旦在太平洋上打败美国海军,让美国此后相当一个时间里一蹶不振,就会使美国没有干预日本的战争能力,日本就可以从此夺得南洋全部资源,这样又可以长期应付战争需要了。当日本被美国逼到墙角以后,赞成这种主张的人已经占绝对多数。其急先锋是统帅部。(重光葵《昭和的动乱》第284 页 )

""

日本人说,偷袭珍珠港是美国人逼出来的,日本舰队总司令三本五十六本来是个明白人,他留学过美国,也深知美国的实力,一直反对与美国开战,但此时在日本主流的压力下,只能寄希望于短期打一仗来别开生面了,他完全知道日本无法经受长期战争。而日本的普通大众,在军国主义长期煽动下,已经进入全民颠狂状态,任何理性务实的声音已经淹没在军国主义狂热激情之中。

那么,美国人是如何应对的呢?美国人的决策理性是如何发挥的呢?当时美国高层的决策精英们,从战后开放的档案资料中看,其实也并非神机妙算者,说实话,他们没有一个人想到日本与美国开战。

美国陆军部长史汀生就认为,日本根本经不起中断石油供应的严重后果。他的论点是,日本不管怎么恶劣,毕竟还是有理智的,不会同美国开战,因为资源短缺的日本等于自取灭亡。

""

陆军部长史汀生与马歇尔

罗斯福本人也根本没有想到日本会主动进攻珍珠港,根据美国驻日本公使格鲁的日记记载,罗斯福在开战前几天,还打电报给格鲁,这位美国总统在电报中认为,谈判破裂以后,日本有可能在菲律宾沿海做一些小动作而己。他根本没有想到是,此时,远征珍珠港的日军舰队早已经出发了。

至于社会上广泛流传的一种说法,称罗斯福故意刺激日本让日本偷袭珍珠港,通过苦肉计来促使美国人参战,更是毫无根据的臆说,这个传闻的津津乐道者,也是对美国文化的无知者。

美国并没有做好战争准备

应该说,一旦美日开战,美国并非胜券在握。这场恶战充满各种变数,美国当时综合军事力量,并非人们想像的那样强大。太平洋战争前美国军队的实际人数之少,可以说少到了与美国强大国力不相称的程度。

谁能想得到,在太平洋战争发生前的二年,1939年9月,美国军队总人数,只占全世界排名的第十九位。军队人数仅十七万四千人。只有三个编制齐全的师,但兵员都不足百分数之五十。这三个师分布在不同地点。

最令人难以想像的是,由于缺乏军事车辆,美国开国以来,还从来没有机会进行师一级的训练。美国军队装备过时,没有一个装甲师。由于缺乏经费,只能每隔四年进行一次为期两周的军事演习,马歇尔新任参谋长时说,美军已经降为三流国家的军队。

直到太平洋战争开战前不久,美国全部军人只有26万人,还不如日本最大可动员的军队500万人的一个零头。

这些数据信息,我们可以从《史迪威在华经验》一书中读到。其实,这也并不奇怪,美国周围没有强敌,美国地理位置得天独厚,它本来就不必为自己的国防有任何担忧。

中途岛战役中,日本军舰吨位数占绝对优势,美国由于幸运地破译了日本情报而险胜,如果中途岛战役中美国失败,历史的变数将会大为增加。

""

美国以实力为基础取得了胜利

中途岛之战为日本丧失海权之始,菲律宾海战使日本海军丧失殆尽,从此已经没有了制海权。

此后,塞班岛之战让美军获得直接轰炸日本的基地。日本工业与军事所需要的大量原材料无法从国外获得,日本陷于资源枯竭困境。日本丧失军事再生能力的过程,从此就进入恶性循环。元气不可逆地消耗殆尽。

""

1945年3月9日东京大轰炸以后

美国利用自己的制空权,对日本本土进行毁灭性地轰炸,1945年3月9日晚上美军对东京进行大轰炸。此后几天内,燃烧弹让日本平民死亡近五十万人,八百万人无家可归,远超过广岛原子弹死伤人数,即使没有原子弹,日本也要战败。

美国最后毕竟胜利了,这是双方实力所决定的。开战时美国经济总量已经是日本的13倍,1944年美国一年生产的战斗机可达十万架。日本在经济上无法支持长期战争,而具最终归于失败

我们的历史书把这场战争看作是正义必胜的范例,这是对的,然而,真实的历史告诉我们,历史是其实充满变数与多种可能的。

太平洋战争告诉我们的历史事实是,日美双方并不是从开始就想打仗,然而日本人自以为聪明的两个低级错误,加入德意同盟与进驻金兰湾,却无意中挑战了美国的根本利益,轮到美国出手时,它只是为了维护自己利益,而并不想到与日本开战,然而,美国对日本施加的压力超过了日本承受力。当美国卡住日本人的脖子时,却漫不经心地以为仅仅按住对方的手而已,美国也没有做好与日本战争的准备。

历史的吊诡是,双方的决策者都是本国的一代精英,智力超群,然而,双方政治精英各自的理性决策,却由于种种知识结构的偏颇,文化原因与信息不足,造成对对方的误判,这种误判的叠加,形成持续的恶性互动,却让人类历史上最大规模的一场战争从此不可避免地发生了。这是人类决策理性彼此互动如何导致战争的一个经典案例。

日美双方决策互动的启示

当然,这场正义的战争中,苦难深重的中国人成为最大的受益者。

1944年底冈村宁次的十八万大军已经打到贵州附近的独山,那里离重庆已经不远了。根据战后冈村宁次的回忆录,如果按他的预想,打败中国已经如囊中探物。

然而,由于美国的参战,由于太平洋战争中美国的节节胜利,太平洋战争即将走向失败的阴影,让日本军部错误地预计美军将在中国温州一带登陆,打重庆,就如同远火不救近火,于是否定了冈村宁次建议攻打重庆的方案。中国从此的抗日战争,在经历了最低谷状态之后,突然进入胜利在望的阶段。

八十年后,如果我们重温这段历史,我们会从人类的决策理性的互动中获得什么启示?如果我们抛开意识形态,单纯从博弈论与决策理性互动的角度来思考问题,这个案例,可以为增进我们的决策智慧,提供许多有价值的东西。

曾经有学者统计过,在人类历史发生战争中,至少有一半以上,是双方并不想打仗,却由于双方理性的误判,以及博弈过程中的恶性互动,而不可避免地走向战争的。一开始双方甚至是想通过某种奇招,来避免战争,以寻求本国的最大利益,然而,决策理性的误判,这种双方误判的叠加,使双方陷入恶性互动之中。在许多情况下,敌人是在不经意中,被不同国家的最聪明的人,在互动中无意中被创造出来的。

当然最后或许必须指出的是,本文作者只是从理性博弈的角度,来考察这次战争,这次战争的正义性是无庸置疑的,作为中国人,作为这场战争的受益者的后代,我对战争中牺牲的英雄们,永远抱着崇敬与感恩之心,但这并不妨碍作者通过这场战争的考察,来分析人类理性的弱点。

人类总是过份相信自己的理性力量,但个人的理性往往是十分有限的,过度的聪明,往往就是过度的愚蠢。

保持对人类理性能力多少一些怀疑之心,少一点自信,多一点谦卑,人类就会比过去更聪明。历史会让人更聪明,但必须经过成熟的反思。

""

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/23

旧文章ID:22809

香港中文大学(深圳) 全球与当代中国高等研究院院长郑永年教授出席习近平主席主持召开的经济社会领域专家座谈会

0

作者:  来源:香港中文大学深圳

""
香港中文大学(深圳)全球与当代中国高等研究院院长郑永年教授就“十四五”规划编制等提出意见和建议

中共中央总书记、国家主席、中央军委主席习近平2020年8月24日下午在中南海主持召开经济社会领域专家座谈会并发表重要讲话。他强调,“十四五”时期是我国全面建成小康社会、实现第一个百年奋斗目标之后,乘势而上开启全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程、向第二个百年奋斗目标进军的第一个五年,我国将进入新发展阶段。凡事预则立,不预则废。我们要着眼长远、把握大势,开门问策、集思广益,研究新情况、作出新规划。中共中央政治局常委、中央书记处书记王沪宁,中共中央政治局常委、国务院副总理韩正出席座谈会。

香港中文大学(深圳)全球与当代中国高等研究院院长郑永年教授与北京大学国家发展研究院名誉院长林毅夫、中国经济体制改革研究会副会长樊纲、清华大学公共管理学院院长江小涓、中国社会科学院副院长蔡昉、国家发展改革委宏观经济研究院院长王昌林、清华大学国家金融研究院院长朱民、上海交通大学安泰经济与管理学院特聘教授陆铭、中国社会科学院世界经济与政治研究所所长张宇燕等9位专家代表先后发言,就“十四五”规划编制等提出意见和建议。本次会议新闻报道在8月24日晚和8月25日晚《新闻联播》中播出。

郑永年教授现任香港中文大学(深圳)讲席教授,组建人文社科学院 "全球与当代中国高等研究院",并任首任院长。作为享誉海内外的中国问题专家,郑永年教授长年致力于中国内部转型及其外部关系研究,先后出版在国内外有影响力的学术专著50多部。其扎实的实地调研基础、独特的海外视角使其学术研究成果既扎根于中国政治实际又有超脱于中国固有政治经验的高度,其学术研究在理论界和社会传播领域受到关注。

郑教授在汇报中表示,以深化改革激发新发展活力,必须拿出更大的勇气、更多的举措破除深层次体制机制障碍,大胆探索自己未来发展之路,以高水平对外开放打造国际合作和竞争新优势,全面提高对外开放水平,建设更高水平开放型经济新体制,形成国际合作和竞争新优势,积极参与全球经济治理体系改革,推动完善更加公平合理的国际经济治理体系。

认真听取大家发言后,习近平发表了重要讲话。他表示,专家学者们做了很好的发言,从各自专业领域出发,对“十四五”时期发展环境、思路、任务、举措提出了很有价值的意见和建议,参会的其他专家提交了书面发言,请有关方面研究吸收。

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/26

旧文章ID:22808

薛理泰:美国对华战略底线已改变——中美战略博弈系列之一

0

作者:薛理泰 朱惠忠  来源:三策智库

今春至今,美中两国关系急转直下,不但两国建交以来为之罕见,而且邦交自恶化至公开敌对不稍掩饰,甚至涉及华府对北京政权合法性的公然否定。这一剧变之严峻,堪称1949年以来得未曾有。

邦交恶化无以复加

7月23日,美国国务卿蓬佩奥在加州尼克松图书馆发表题为《共产中国与自由世界的未来》的演说,公开呼吁全世界和中国人民行动起来以“改变中国共产党”。事已至此,两国邦交之恶化濒临登峰造极矣。

""

与此同时,美国及其盟国出动海空军在南海及台海周边海域举行军事演习,中国也在南海及台湾南北两端海域举行海空军事演习,双方针锋相对。美方在南海南端演习,类似于登门踢馆;中方则在南海北端演习,等同于在家门内摩拳擦掌。

尤其值得关注的是,7月15日开始,连续十多天,美国出动军机抵近中国海岸线进行侦察,包括7月26日美国P-8A反潜机飞至距中国海岸线仅76公里的空域,前所未有。这在中国军方眼里,看来不属于示威行为,而应归类于临战前的战备活动,于是气氛益呈紧张。

紧接着,上海松江区举行居民防空疏散演练。这项战备活动往年也有,但在酷暑中组织居民老小进行紧急疏散的演练却是第一遭。

无独有偶,外媒传说美军将炸毁中方在南海的人工岛,还绘声绘色地列出美济岛为首选目标。依据大战略的视角,从外交、地缘政治、军事、工程可操作性着眼,此“首选”说法显然是高水平的防务专家的意见,决非学者、记者所能臆测,因而顿时在海外喧腾人口。

台海与南海危局迥异

毋庸讳言,美国正在各个领域发力,加紧与中国在各个领域的角力,带有犁庭扫穴的性质。现阶段美中两国在军事领域的较量无非集中在台海、南海这两个地域。下面分析一下,如果两国爆发军事冲突,首先可能发生在哪个地域。

先要确认究竟是哪一方会主动为之。只要看两国军事能力的比较和国际话语权的差异,以及美国阻遏中国急起直追的心情,彰明较着,显然是美国会主动挑起冲突。

再审视台海、南海何处有更高的爆炸性。台海局势紧张,却不会成为美国主动发力的首选。且不说金门、马祖,台湾本岛距离大陆也不足两百公里。若台海发生战端,大陆占有地利。

试想,中国军方秣马厉兵逾七十载,海陆空天,电子兵力、战场建设早已就绪,空军、海军航空兵亟待及锋而试。纵使美日军力远道驰援台湾,以航母为基地的航空兵毕竟不如陆基航空兵便捷有效。相当时间段内,在与中国争夺制空权、制海权、制交通权方面,美国难占上风。

与台海相反,南沙诸岛远离广东、海南及西沙永兴岛的军港和军用机场。以1988年中越发生海战的赤瓜礁为例,距大陆1400公里,距海南岛陵水机场900公里,连黄岩岛距大陆也有1200公里。

中国在永暑、美济、渚碧三岛早就筑了机场,迄今尚未部署军机。目前美军伺机寻衅,中国军机自然碍难进驻。而从海南岛、西沙永兴岛,尤其从大陆出动军机,抵达南沙群岛时,已接近作战半径的极限,稍作逗留,即须返回陆地机场。因而,中国军机无法为南沙岛礁提供有效、持续的空中掩护。

中国空军为南沙岛礁提供保护存在着难处,海军面临的难度可能更大。毕竟,中国所面对的是全球第一军事强国的空军和海军。

何况,美日两国海军还有次等强度的介入手段,亦即使用潜艇在较长时间段内阻隔中国海军为南沙人工岛礁的长期驻守输送补给品。太平洋战争期间,美军潜艇就是阻隔日本本土与海外日军联系往来的最有效手段。1962年古巴导弹危机中,美军潜艇也起到了相同的作用。

鉴此,在美中角力时,台海与南海乍看一体两面,究其决策实情,却是大相径庭。至少在现阶段,若中国迫不得已与美国交战,南沙群岛及其周边海域是兵法里所说的“绝地”。

以此类推,得出深一层推论:如美国主动挑起战事,应该首选在南海发难。反之,若中国决心冒险犯难,以打破积年桎梏,则会整合各种资源,选择台海作为国家统一及崛起的关键节点。各方不可能反其道而行之。

美国改变博弈底线

有一个情况值得注意,即美国业已改变与中国进行战略博弈的底线。原来美国认为中国仅是一个区域性大国,并在此基础上制定并执行相关政策,现在不再如此。

过去美国在南海争端中至少表面上立场中立,在两岸关系上也能顾及到“一个中国”的原则,但近年来已经有所不同。原因无他,乃是美国改变了与中国进行战略博弈的底线。

中国专家的视角与美国同行有所不同,战略视野存在着代沟,缺乏协调的余地。借用道家思想概念,美国人注重“道”(核心理念、本质规律)和“法”(法律、制度),中国人则贯注于“术”(行为、技巧)和“器”(工具、方法)。美国人强调体制性改变,中国人热衷于“弯道超车”。

然而,在美国战略家心目中存在一处阴影,即对日本崛起的防范。美国既要通过全方位决裂的手段扳倒中国,自然少不了其盟邦日本就近拔刀相助,但一旦扳倒了中国,美日联盟的性质也就将发生根本性变化。

""

日本决心要走正常化国家的道路。苏联早就解体,假设中国又被扳倒,亚太地区制衡日本的大国消失了,日本就势必会重新评估美日联盟的价值。对美国说来,来自中国或日本的挑战,在本质上并无二致,区别在于历史上的双边关系:中国人叠次受惠于美国,而日本人则经受过两次核爆之害。想深一层,美国战略家心目中的这层隐忧,终究会在美中角力的关键时刻起到作用。

然而,中美之间是否注定会有一战?潜在的军事冲突能否避免?我们将在下一篇文章中阐述。

(作者薛理泰是前斯坦福大学国际安全和合作中心研究科学家)

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/26

旧文章ID:22806

安刚:沟通的力量

作者:安刚  来源:中美聚焦

安刚:清华大学战略与安全研究中心客座研究员,《世界知识》杂志资深编辑

"安刚.gif"

中国领导人邓小平(左)欢迎美国国家安全委员会顾问兼总统特使布伦特·斯考克罗夫特。

2020年8月7日,美国前总统国家安全事务助理布伦特·斯考克罗夫特去世。消息传到中国,给弥漫在战略界的忧虑和伤感氛围增添了一丝凝重。

斯考克罗夫特作为当代中美关系史上一个重要人物之所以被铭记史册,为中国学界熟知和尊敬,不仅是因为他在实务操作中体现的战略思维,更是因为他曾在最危险时刻参与推动了中美之间的艰难对话。2020年8月7日,美国前总统国家安全事务助理布伦特·斯考克罗夫特去世。消息传到中国,给弥漫在战略界的忧虑和伤感氛围增添了一丝凝重。

钱其琛的《外交十记》记录了1989年的接触:“就在以美国为首的西方世界制裁中国的喊声甚嚣尘上之时,美国派来了密使。”

“秘使外交”是在老布什总统主动致密函给中国领导人邓小平并得到邓复函之后开启的。时任总统国家安全事务助理的斯考克罗夫特将军作为老布什的特使,以在困难中维护中美关系为使命,于1989年7月秘密访华,把邓小平提出的“解铃还需系铃人”原则带回华盛顿。

此后半年,老布什三次致函邓小平,邓小平两次复函,就“解铃还需系铃人”原则做更深层次的沟通,商定争取使中美关系重回正常轨道而不是倒退。那一年12月初,斯考克罗夫特再次访华,探寻恢复两国关系的“路线图”。

进入1990年,东欧剧变削弱了老布什政府改善对华关系的主动性,但随后,伊拉克入侵科威特引发的海湾危机凸显了中美在联合国安理会保持合作的重要意义,两国外长经多轮会晤,“路线图”步入实施阶段,美国对华制裁开始松动,中国重启融入世界的进程。

这是中美建交以来最成功的一次“危机解套”。在与老布什合著的回忆录《重组的世界》中,斯考克罗夫特对那段历史也有详细记述,其中专辟一章并以“解套”为题。

斯考克罗夫特认为,两国领导人之间的个人关系增进了双方对对方动机的信任度,即使在如何行动的问题上并不一致。他也写道,双方都拥有信念,“路线图”才得以被成功实践,没有这样的信念,即便最严谨设计的对等步骤也难以付诸实施。

当年老布什是带着浓重的中国情结和对中美合作有利于世界的信念推动改善对华关系的,为此背负了沉重的国内政治压力。在与中方达成一系列谅解后,老布什否决了国会众参两院通过的撤销中国最惠国待遇的“佩洛西法案”。这一否决又被众院否决,之后老布什在白宫和国会山之间进行了艰难的协调,才使总统否决在参院再次投票中幸存。难以想象,如果当时总统否决再次被国会推翻,历史将会以怎样的方式改写。

中美关系并不缺少危机的“尖峰时刻”——31年前、21年前、19年前都曾有过,但最终都通过双方基于对共同利益深刻认知的沟通化解掉了。然而,目前中美关系正在经历的危机是弥漫式的,其尖锐度虽尚不及过去几次,但广度和深度却是前所未有的。

就在斯考克罗夫特去世前一天和后一天,特朗普签署两道总统行政令,对中国的Tiktok和腾讯公司实施交易限制,美国财政部宣布对中国涉港官员实施制裁。中美关系的危机正大踏步向资本市场和网络空间深入,“大脱钩”明显加快。

严格来讲,我们正在经历中美之间第一次真正意义上的可以用“大国关系危机”来界定的下坠,管理的必要性和难度远超以往。然而在此过程中,双方出现了前所未有的沟通失灵现象。

过去几个月,中美之间的官方高层沟通实际停摆,政策信息交换主要靠隔空喊话进行,很多尖锐的言辞和坊间的舆论缺乏当面的解释,在猜测和臆断中不断发酵,加剧了误判的危险。

把控着美国对华政策调整方向的右翼势力不具备动力、诚意推动沟通,更不具备维系中美关系的信念,指导他们的唯一理念是进攻性的现实主义世界观和高度意识形态化、丛林法则化的政策取向。美国国内政治也失去了给予两国关系一定喘息空间的基本条件,国会成为反华遏华政策的最大“工具箱”,正在进行的大选更为对华强硬政策的极端化操作提供了肥沃土壤。

与此同时,代际更迭将一些少壮派推上美国对华操作的前台,他们热衷于剑走偏锋,缺乏专业的历练和历史知识的积淀,也对战略和政策性的对话缺乏耐心,对中美关系的破坏力大于建设性。

显而易见,“老布什-斯考克罗夫特式”的危机沟通无法在目前的美国对华政策中被复制。但对中方而言,随波逐流地放弃沟通努力将是不理智的。中美关系越是向下沉沦,中国越需要在其运作中重新唤起沟通的力量,一手抗争、一手对话。

有人说,美国已经决定全力打压中国,沟通是浪费时间。这种说法过于武断。诚然,美国国内已就加强应对中国崛起形成了新的跨党派共识,压制中国对美竞争力的过快增长是今后一二十年的基本方向,但在具体实施策略上仍有很大内部分歧,民主党主张同中国有限接触、有限合作。即便在共和党内部,大量专业人员也对白宫的极端作法持保留态度。

且不论中美之间在双边、地区和全球层面上尚有深度利益纠缠,即便当年美苏相互高度隔绝、各率一个阵营进行冷战对峙,两超之间也是有庞杂、系统和高度专业化的沟通机制并且坚持运作的。

处理当下的中美关系危机,我们为何需要坚持沟通?在笔者看来,目的是要在复杂性、流动性极强的时期尽量澄清一些事实,消除一些误解,避免一些误判,杜绝一些误传,并为将来中美关系仍有可能的良性调整预留一点空间,以便在条件重新具备时将其引导回基本稳定和建设性协调的状态。

不得不说,沟通是对美斗争手段的重要组成部分。如果说中方的斗争是为了制约美方破坏两国关系的偏激做法,保住中美关系的大局,维护自己的主权安全和发展利益,那么保持沟通则是为了避免过于激烈的冲突,避免合作彻底破局。

我们需要和谁沟通?在美国,仍有大量的知识精英和社会民众关心中美关系,认同中美合作对两国和全球的意义,希望它不要继续坏下去。这些人既包括民主、共和两党的建制派,也包括特朗普政府和美国军方内部的专业派、理性派,地方州县一级的务实派,更包括美国人民,他们都是沟通的对象。

美国国防部长埃斯珀在7月发表的讲话里提出了年内首次访华的意向,随后中美两国防长通了电话,这是一个好的迹象,表明了双方高层之间的沟通意愿并没有完全消失。

我们需要沟通什么?第一是战略目标和政策意图,这是国与国之间沟通的永恒首要命题,即便是各说各话,也有助于加深了解,拓展视野,丰富做判断的基础。第二是处理彼此关系的基本原则,即便是敌国关系,也需要有明确的逻辑边界和行为底线。在这方面,当前十分紧迫的是明确相互尊重政治制度、互不干涉内政、不把意识形态之争上升为中美核心矛盾和两国竞争基本面的基本准则。这似乎是当前中方在对美沟通问题上的首要关切。第三是危机控制和风险管理,这既涉及战略和政治意图,也涉及覆盖面甚广、专业性很强的执行规范和操作规程,以及相关机制建设。这是当前美方在对华沟通问题上的首要关切。在这方面,中方也仍有很多东西需要向包括美国在内的外界学习。第四是即便在两国政治关系恶化的情况下也可以保留的合作方向。

我们应该怎样沟通?这涉及对两国间残存、瘫痪的沟通机制的梳理、激活、改进和完善。事实上,在中美之间,包括防疫和医疗在内,许多领域性、专业级、工作层的沟通交流机制仍在不受政治干扰地默默运转,它们理应得到支持。这也涉及风格的调整,多一些坦率,少一些形式主义和照本宣科,以便赋予沟通更多实质内涵。此外还涉及渠道的拓宽,应该主动创造条件,鼓励不同界别的人士各显其能,线上线下多走出去,多元沟通,这才符合中美两国都是多元社会的客观条件,才能真正起到“小河有水大河满”的效果。

“至少留一扇门”,这是斯考克罗夫特在其回忆录中谈及他面对中美关系危机时写下的话,也是邓小平和老布什在当时极其不利的氛围中的共同期许。邓小平在1989年11月15日写给老布什的最后一封信中写道:“在我退休的时候,改变中美关系目前恶化的局面是我的心愿。”

富有政治智慧和开放精神的那一代人,以高度务实的态度实现了极难条件下的解套。在他们看来,沟通不是实利主义的工具,而是信念的载体。

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/25

旧文章ID:22805

90岁的李泽厚在美国科罗拉多州小镇 最后的访谈

0

作者:卫毅  来源:南方人物周刊

"Capture.PNG"

“我从来都不信神。命运是自己决定的,不是神决定的。只能自己反思自己。靠神是靠不住的……总之在这里,我最后要向读者说的一句话就是:谢谢!这算是告别吧”

2020

2020年的春天,理性的李泽厚,在某个时刻,陷入了感性的情境。“春风三月,凭窗远眺,但见白雪罩顶的洛基山脉,再也看不到那满山红艳的杜鹃花和金黄色的遍野油菜花了。怅何如之。”这是他为一本选集的序言写下的一段文字。他身处博尔德——美国科罗拉多州的一个小镇。他已在此地居住多年。在洛基山脚下,他想到了故乡湖南。

博尔德已经有七十多人因新冠肺炎去世,对于只有几万人的小镇来说,比例太高。2月的时候,李泽厚在家做平衡运动,摔伤了腰椎。很快,疫情蔓延了整个美国。他年事已高,担心去医院治疗时感染病毒,“我这个年龄,要是感染了,肯定没命了。”

他一直待在家中,看着窗外,从冬天到春天,再从春天到夏天。这样的感觉并不好。他在几年前安装了心脏起搏器,眼睛也越来越差,身体还有一些别的毛病,这多少会影响心情。他说话有些吃力。在越洋电话中,我们聊了多次,才完成了此次访谈。他的头脑惊人地清晰,但时间不长,就能听到电话那头逐渐急促的呼吸声。这时,我们会停下来,第二天再谈。我提出两次访谈之间能否间隔几天,好能够让他没有这么疲惫。他否定了这个提议。他说拖得太久,会让他一直有心理压力。他是急性子的人。

北京时间临近中午,博尔德时间正是晚上。谈及的话题在千年间穿越,也跨越了大半个地球。好几次,在第二天访谈的时候,他会说,昨晚聊完之后,精神太兴奋,要吃双倍的安眠药才能入睡。他一直靠安眠药生活,家里有十几种安眠药,视失眠程度而使用。有的安眠药药性很强,几乎可以说是麻醉药。他早上起得晚,有时一天吃两顿饭。晚餐时间大多在7点。晚上则要在床上躺两三个小时才能睡着。前段时间,因为腰伤,他整天躺在床上。现在,他行走仍不方便,努力让自己坐着,担心像许多老人那样,躺久了便再也起不来了。

他并不忌讳谈及生死,他觉得他和许多人一样,在2020年的上半年,都在践行着他的哲学理念——人首先要活着。

"Capture.PNG"

2011年,李泽厚在美国科罗拉多州小镇博尔德家中  图/本刊记者 卫毅

中西马

李泽厚在6月13日度过了自己的九十岁生日。他收到了许多祝福。他从不大办生日,只是和自己的太太和儿子在家里吃一顿饭,喝几杯上好洋酒。几十年来,都是如此。

即使见面,李泽厚也并不喜欢闲聊,他总是在思考问题。我在2011年初拜访过他在美国的家。他带着我在每一层楼都转了转,到客厅一坐下,马上进入他正在思考的问题。历史与哲学,是打开他精神世界的两扇门。而情与理,是门里的两条交叉路径。

刘悦笛是中国社科院哲学研究所美学室研究员。2003年,他进研究所的时候,李泽厚已经退休多年。李泽厚50年代到研究所工作时,工作证是“哲字〇一号”。那时候哲学所没几个人。

这3年,身体不好,李泽厚没有回国。以往每年,他都会在国内住一段时间,会在饭桌上和哲学所的一些在职的和退休的同事们聊天。70后刘悦笛是其中的小辈。他们聊得投缘,有时候单独见面会把一整瓶酒给喝了。李泽厚酒量大。

“他是我遇到的在学术对话上最平等的人。”刘悦笛说,“和他聊天的时候,他是这样一种心态:你放马过来,你来批我啊。但是他非常固执,他对自己的观点非常坚定。”刘悦笛认为跟李泽厚聊天有一种思想的快乐。

2013年,作为富布莱特学者,刘悦笛到纽约大学访学一年。2014年元旦,他和朋友开车横穿好几个州,来到李泽厚位于博尔德的家。他记得李泽厚的夫人做的特别好吃的以色列风味饭菜,还有李泽厚家屋后的四棵松。“其实是三棵半松,有一棵松是断的。”刘悦笛说,“冯友兰有三松堂,我就说,你这应该叫三松半堂。”

那几天,他们都在聊天。哲学家是他们聊天的重要内容,尤其是那些被视作李泽厚对手的哲学家,比如牟宗三。“牟宗三是他一个主要的对手。再往前,他的很多观点是针对王阳明的。500年来,心性学说主导中国传统思想界。李泽厚一直反对这样的状况。当然,有人说李泽厚是当代王阳明,这个说法会让他高兴。”

在李泽厚看来,心性学说只是一部分儒者的追求,不能代表中国整体的智慧。他的思想不是建立在少数知识分子的精神诉求上,他愿意面对更广阔的生活。刘悦笛认为李泽厚能代表20世纪后半叶中国思想的一个倾向。“儒学传统、西方哲学、马克思主义,在他这里都有体现。”这是中国哲学界的一个说法——打通中西马。

“有人觉得怎么能把中西马都结合在一起,这是吹破天下牛的事情,但是我觉得李泽厚做的就是这个事情。”刘悦笛说,“这是我对他的思想定位。”

"Capture.PNG"

李泽厚少年时的小楷作业

读者

与许多人一样,刘悦笛是在高中读了《美的历程》。读大二的时候,老师推荐他读马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》。“这是我的哲学入门书,也是理解李泽厚哲学的关键。”

李泽厚接触马克思主义很早,读中学时,看了周建人编译的《新哲学手册》(大用图书公司,1948年版)。手册选取了英国人朋斯(Emile Burns)编的《马克思主义手册》中的“马恩哲学精义”部分,命名为“新哲学”。他受影响最深刻的是其中《德意志意识形态》一书的“费尔巴哈章”,它第一次系统阐述了历史唯物主义的基本原理。但此章晦涩难读,李泽厚说自己是硬着头皮啃下来(以后也多次研读过),并完全接受了其中的观点,至今没多少根本上的改变。他觉得比较起来,自己学习马克思主义的起点较高。从一开始,自己的实践论与唯物史观便不可分割。直到现在,他仍坚持认为制造—使用工具的群体实践活动是人类起源和发展的决定性因素,从而,这也就是认同马克思、恩格斯所提出的制造工具、科技、生产力和经济是自古至今人类社会生活的根本基础。他认为这就是唯物史观的硬核(hard core),是马克思、恩格斯留下的最宝贵的遗产。50年代参与到美学论争中时,他的美学观点被称为“实践美学”。

李泽厚在思想上早熟。苏州一中的教师杨斌发给我几张李泽厚中学作文手稿复印件,大多是用漂亮的文言文写就。其中一篇是《反东坡晁错论》。16岁的李泽厚在作文中写道:“魏征有言:‘非独君择臣,臣亦择其君。’鲁人不用孔子,孔子行;故大丈夫行事,宜再三择之而后可,非聪明睿智之主,则不能舒我才,而合则留,不合则去,又何复倦倦于此哉?”这样的文字出自中学生之手,令人惊叹。李泽厚的母亲曾拿他的作文给别人看,别人以为这是大学生所写。

正在修订《李泽厚学术年谱》的杨斌,很多年前只是李泽厚的一位读者。他在苏北灌南中学的阅览室里读到李泽厚《走我自己的路》时,被其文字所吸引,“非常喜欢这样的文字风格。”杨斌开始想方设法找李泽厚的书来看。后来,已调到苏州一中的他看到了李泽厚和陈明的对谈录《浮生论学》,里面谈及许多个人经历,让他对李泽厚越发感兴趣。他产生了和陈明联系、了解李泽厚的想法。陈明当时是《原道》杂志主编,杂志上有编辑部电话,杨斌照着号码打过去,接电话的正好是周末在办公室加班的陈明。陈明很忙,说,我把电话给你,你直接跟他讲吧。

杨斌不敢拨这个电话。“我跟他距离太远,也不了解他,我不知道他会不会跟我这么一个普通读者对话。”

电话在杨斌手上一放就是五年。他自己也说不清楚是什么原因,大概是“有段时间嗓子不好,没有上课,比较无聊”,他鬼使神差地拿出那个放了五年的号码,拨了出去,那是他第一次打越洋电话。李泽厚在电话里问他,你是谁?杨斌说,听李先生的声音很年轻啊,跟年龄不相称。“他一听这句话就很高兴,笑了。他说,你觉得我的声音很年轻吗?我说是,真的超出了我的预料之外。他这么一说,我就很放松,距离就拉近了,没有那种隔膜感。就像熟悉的人一样,聊起来了。”

李泽厚2009年回国的时候,杨斌正好去天津出差,办完公事,到北京见了李泽厚。李泽厚带杨斌进书房,让他挑一本书,他挑了一本《人类学历史本体论》——这是他没有的书。那次始于下午3点的聊天,李泽厚原本打算聊一个小时,结果聊了3个小时。这让杨斌感到意外。

我几乎有同样的经历。第一次采访李泽厚也是在2009年某个下午,同样是3点开始,原本计划聊一个小时,结果一直聊到晚上8点半,大家都完全忘记了吃饭。李泽厚看重年轻人和学界以外的读者。

聊天的地点是社科院宿舍。在80年代,李泽厚工作的社科院哲学所有三百多人。“那是社科院最鼎盛的时候。”刘悦笛说。如今社科院哲学所一百多人,李泽厚的学生赵汀阳还在那儿工作,已是学部委员。

李泽厚并不要求学生读自己的书,他们的观点也并不完全一致。比如,李泽厚并不赞同赵汀阳的“天下体系”。赵汀阳在《天下体系》导论中表达了对李泽厚“西体中用”的不同看法。这在导师和学生的关系中并不多见。这次采访李泽厚,他说,不必再采访他的学生,学生们对他的了解大多停留在过去,未必知道他有哪些新想法。

广东江门的马群林是近年与李泽厚交往最多的人。李泽厚的字写得潦草,许多人认不出来,马群林是少数能辨清李泽厚笔迹的人。马群林说,李泽厚总是一个人埋头于自己的写作,在外人看来完全可以请家人帮的小忙,如用手机拍照,他也拒绝,都是一个人单干。

李泽厚的国内稿费由马群林保管。马群林曾帮助李泽厚编辑青岛版《人类学历史本体论》,十几万的版税,李泽厚要赠予他,他坚决不要。近几年,李泽厚已从稿费中送给别人好几万。“我年纪大了,这些钱对我已毫无意义。”

1979年上大学的马群林说自己是“新三届”,李泽厚对他们那几批大学生影响太大。80年代,如何兆武所说,李泽厚“几乎是独领风骚,风靡了神州大陆”。

马群林近年编选了几部李泽厚论著,全程参与了李泽厚近年一些著作的出版,但他们从未谋面,只打过几次电话,平时主要是通过邮件、微信联系。

在马群林看来,李泽厚不拘小节,乐于助人,友善真诚。“你提的意见、建议只要好,他都会重视、采纳,不管你是教授学者还是普通读者。”但马群林又说,李泽厚在原则问题上是绝不让步的,他不会迁就和讨好谁,讨厌虚伪和不诚实,直道而行,极具个性(有人说是“特异”性格)。

李泽厚不愿谈自己的经历,马群林偶尔问及,“他就用几个字回你,或者默不作声。”

杨斌在为李泽厚编撰年谱的时候,遇到一个问题:序言由谁来写?杨斌根据平时和李泽厚的交谈和理解,认为请李泽厚的朋友和学生写都不太合适,因为他们只能说好话,而在编撰年谱时,李泽厚多次表示不要引用学生对他的评价,那样不合适。杨斌最后用了学者贾晋华的文章作为代序。贾晋华序言的部分文字来自于她的《<哥伦比亚二十世纪哲学指南>中的李泽厚》。《哥伦比亚二十世纪哲学指南》的中国哲学论文由汉学家安乐哲撰写。他在论文中介绍了九位中国哲学家。李泽厚的篇幅是其中最长的。

邓德隆是一位职业经理人,也是李泽厚的“粉丝”,被李泽厚认为聪明绝顶。他能大段背诵李泽厚书中文字。杨斌和他一起编写了《李泽厚话语》。邓德隆在给安乐哲的一封通信中写道:“学界谈儒家哲学或思想,学者们往往将之等同于古代。实则儒学一直处于消化吸纳外来思想后不断前行的动态之中。汉儒消化吸纳道法、阴阳家,宋明理学消化吸纳了佛家,李泽厚先生吸纳了康德、马克思、后现代、杜威等外来思想后,开出了第四期儒学,从而使儒学在全球化、大生产的时代,再获新的生命力——为人类的普遍性注入中国文化的独特性。”

在李泽厚浩如烟海的话语中,邓德隆特别看重“中国的山水画有如西方的十字架”这句话。他认为这句话消化吸纳了基督教两个世界的传统,以永恒的宇宙(中国人的“天”,自然山水为其代表符号)代替永恒的上帝,从而将一个世界观的中国文化注入了在西方只有另一个超验世界才有的神圣性。

邓德隆在对李泽厚的评价里提到了杜威。刘悦笛在和安乐哲的交流中也认为李泽厚像“中国的杜威”。李泽厚并不认为自己像杜威。“杜威讲实用主义,有用就是真理。我的看法并不相同,我讲的实用理性反对的是西方的先验理性。”

多年前,在北京的一次“李泽厚学术思想研讨会”上,与会者讨论了一个有趣的话题——“李泽厚像谁?”从马克思主义本土化角度来说,有人认为他像卢卡奇;从对80年代的广泛影响来看,有人认为他像萨特;以“思想黯淡时期寥落孤星”作比,有人认为他像阿伯拉尔……如此等等。有意思的是,当李泽厚的思想进入《诺顿文学理论与批评选集》评选的时候,他经历了和法国社会理论家布尔迪厄的一次“PK”。一位西方评委认为,李泽厚的美学思想和布尔迪厄近似。

推荐人之一顾明栋认为布尔迪厄“主要用的是社会学、经济学的方法,强调审美的阶级性、社会性和意识形态的作用”,而李泽厚“主要用的是人类学和历史心理学的方法,探讨‘人类如何可能’和‘人的审美意识如何可能’等问题,得出的是文化积淀的理论”。

最后的结果是,布尔迪厄的文章落选,李泽厚《美学四讲》第八章“形式层与原始积淀”入选这部最权威的文论选集,李泽厚的名字与两千五百年间包括柏拉图、亚里士多德在内的148个名字放在了一起,他是其中惟一的中国学者。

"Capture.PNG"

1985年,钱学森(中)与李泽厚夫妇在北京和平里九区1号

知行

刘悦笛觉得自己在许多方面与李泽厚一致。李泽厚奉行知识人古老的准则——知行合一。“他最赞同的是梁漱溟,梁漱溟是知行合一的。”

在刘悦笛看来,如果一个儒者只是在书斋中做思想分析,与王阳明那种行走天下的人,和朱熹那种到处普及他思想的人,是不一样的。“我觉得李泽厚了不起的地方,就在于他和现实的契合。”

从50年代到现在,李泽厚思考过每一个时间点上出现的问题。“他并没有偏离主流,”刘悦笛说,“他晚期的思想更是中国可以提供给世界的思想,尤其是情本体思想。情本体并不是唯情主义,一切以情为高,不是唯情是举,而是情理合一。情本体讲的是以理性为主导,其实讲的是中国人的情理结构。就像中国人现在办事,讲的还是合情合理。”

刘悦笛和李泽厚在伦理学上有许多探讨。他们的谈话整理成了《伦理学杂谈》。对谈文字中,李泽厚一直表现出他的理性。但在最后,说到历史和人生时,李泽厚变得深情起来。他说,“佛知空而执空,道知空而戏空,儒知空却执有,一无所靠而奋力自强。深知人生的荒凉、虚幻、谬误却珍惜此生,投入世界,让情感本体使虚无消失,所以虽心空万物却执着顽强,洒脱空灵却进退有度。修身齐家,正心诚意,努力取得超越时间的心灵境界——这是否就是‘孔颜乐处’?”

“他讲历史的悲欢离合的时候,经常感叹宇宙的无限,人生的无常。我们的对话如果荟萃为一本书,他说题目就叫《论命运》。他觉得哲学就是应该研究人类命运。他讲这些的时候,其实是讲集体无意识的东西,不是个人的小悲小喜。他一直讲要从大我到小我,他的感叹有深邃的历史感,这是一般人很难企及的。他讲人类理性神秘的时候,一般人很难理解。理性怎么能神秘呢?可是宇宙为什么就在那里?这就是一种形而上学,但却是审美形而上学,而不是道德形而上学。”刘悦笛说。

最近关于李泽厚著作权的问题,忽然成为一个新闻话题。刘悦笛介入其中,帮李泽厚发声明。最后,李泽厚中止了继续诉诸法律行为。“他遵循情理结构去做事,把握这个‘度’,讲这个‘理’,最后还有‘情’,”刘悦笛补充说,“在版权这件事上,他的‘情’多了一些。”

李泽厚重情。在向我论证这个观点的时候,刘悦笛举出的一个例子是一部电视剧,这让我感到有些意外。“他身上有中国古典的东西——义。我们都喜欢看一个电视剧《新世界》,孙红雷演的,其中的那种兄弟义气,如今是难以看到了。”

情义的一面还体现在他和女性的关系。“他年谱里的记载非常有趣,某年回国,会会朋友,特别是女朋友们。”刘悦笛笑了,“年谱里有特别有意思的地方,非常生动。”

编写年谱的杨斌告诉我,这段文字来自李泽厚1993年写的《北京行》。那时他刚到美国不久。“这些都给李先生看过的,他没让删,我就没删。”

在马群林眼里,李泽厚迥异于同时代的学人,非常开放多元。他在编选《李泽厚散文》时,特意摘编了“情爱多元”一篇,其中很多观点是80年代讲过的,放在现在,仍然很“猛”,很多人怕是无法接受。

这让李泽厚成为一个活生生的人。他并不在意别人谈他受争议的部分。他在对话的时候,别人提出不同意见时,他反而有更多谈话的欲望。许多人告诉我,要想跟李泽厚聊得长,就要这么做。

李泽厚推崇康德所说“人是目的”。他的学说强调“人”的存在。他在近期和刘悦笛的聊天中,将哲学分成有人哲学和无人哲学。比如,他们会聊到,西方强调自然环境保护后,反对人类中心主义。李泽厚则说,我就是人类中心主义,那又怎样。他几乎从不会被人说动,越说他越坚定。朋友们建议他改动一些文字的时候,他的话几乎成了口头禅——“我一字不改。”

李泽厚很喜欢“虽万千人,吾往矣。”这句话。这是儒家勇气的一面。这种勇气贯穿了他置身其中的历次论争。这些论争写出来便是一部足够精彩的当代史。

在旁人看来,李泽厚的经历足够丰富,但他不愿意说太多。杨斌最开始给李泽厚做年谱时,他是反对的。他觉得这事做不成。杨斌还是做出来了,修订的书稿已经增补到几十万字。

李泽厚是一本越读越厚的书。他跟杨斌说过这样一句话:我有的书读一遍等于没读。有的批评者,可能一遍也没读过,尤其是近年所作。从50年代到现在,他有过太多的批评者,依次登场。但李泽厚却愿意将这几十年简化为两件事:看书和写文章。哲学家大概不乐于留下传记。海德格尔也说,我出生,我写书,我死了。

"Capture.PNG"

1997年,李泽厚与北岛、刘小枫、甘阳、林道群、罗多弼(从右到左)在瑞典

手稿

杨斌在不断地挖掘着李泽厚更多的资料。比如李泽厚和武汉大学教授刘纲纪的通信。李刘两人交往多年,几十年间,有两百多封书信往来。杨斌觉得这其中有记录下来的价值。他课余时间去武大,住在招待所里,将刘纲纪保留的信件复印带回,又从李泽厚那里得到另一方的信件。他像考古一样,将数百封信辨认年月和笔迹,录入电脑。这些书信已经整理好,但迟迟没有出版,因为里面涉及到对很多人的批评,李泽厚不愿改动,这事就搁置下来,他觉得要出版就完整地出版。

刘悦笛在李泽厚家看过很多手稿,包括《中国近代思想史论》、《美的历程》的手稿,他觉得可以整理出来,作为资料出版,让读者看到他思想成熟的过程。李泽厚不同意,他说,已经把这些手稿烧了。大家觉得不可理解。李泽厚认为没必要留下这么多手稿,就如他认为出全集没必要,选集就可以了。

如果不是疫情,杨斌现在可能在美国。他跟李泽厚说过多次,希望到他家里拜访。他特别想在李泽厚家里看到他的一些手稿。李泽厚还是同样的说法,他把这些东西都烧掉了。三年前,在上海,李泽厚倒是给过杨斌一些手稿,包括他1960年代初下放劳动时写的一些劳动计划和总结的手稿。“我不相信他把手稿都烧了。”杨斌说。

马群林曾向出版社建议,将李泽厚的书信手稿收集整理出版,出版社也极有兴趣,但李泽厚让他收回这个建议,认为搞这些东西没有意义。“他决定不做的事情,是不可能推进的。”

"Capture.PNG"

90年代以来部分著作初版

刘悦笛尊敬李泽厚,多年来与之边论辩边追随着他的思想,但没有把他当圣人。“他是我身边的思想家。有大胆、大才、大识和大力。”刘悦笛说,“我不觉得世界上有圣人,甘地像现在也被拉倒,孔子也不会称自己圣人的,一个既有优点又有缺点的人,才是完整的人。”

和李泽厚“认识”多年,但是逢年过节,马群林从来没有向他问过好。去年春节前,马群林突然心血来潮,发了一条拜年微信给李泽厚。李泽厚回他:“记得以前过节,我们从来没有问候过,这次属例外,还是像原来那样更好。”李泽厚以前就对自己的学生说,过年不要给他拜年。“他认为他不需要拜年那些东西,就像他不需要过生日一样。”

李泽厚九十岁生日那天,马群林和许多人一样,给他发了生日祝福。马群林想让李泽厚拍一张过生日的照片,以便本刊使用。李泽厚回他:“No。”

李泽厚八十岁的时候,上过本刊封面,他看到杂志,题了几句话:“惜彼春华,仓惶避豺虎;抚今秋暮,白眼看鸡虫。题封面照,自寿,并谢朋友们。”

"Capture.PNG"

在他九十高寿这一年,在充满历史感的2020年,他说这是他最后一次接受采访了,他要给读者作一个道别。访谈用时数日,开始和结束的时候,他都说“谢谢”。他的情理世界里,理性贯穿其中,最终落在一个“情”字上。

叩寂寞而求音

对话李泽厚

谈往事

李泽厚:我首先来几句开场白吧,好不好?

人物周刊:您请说。

李泽厚:我是多年不接受采访了,这次采访,我的确是犹豫了好一阵,我已经九十岁了,活不了几年了,我想也是最后一次机会了。一些朋友讲,我的书,包括几十年的书,现在还有读者愿意看,一直有不少读者热情关注和支持。特别是有出版社相告,我的书在三线城市卖得很好。第一,我当时没想到像《美的历程》《批判哲学的批判》都是70年代的作品,居然几十年仍卖得不错。第二,哲学是否一定要写得玄奥难懂才能表达?海德格尔、维特根斯坦都提出了他们的反对,但他们的书仍然难懂,是否哲学的确需要如此?这是我没有弄清楚的问题,提出来请大家讨论。总之在这里,我最后要向读者说的一句话就是:谢谢!这算是告别吧。

人物周刊:我听了很感动。

李泽厚:实事求是。最近我身体也一直不好,我二十多岁得肺结核,在五七干校的时候,分到老弱病残组。我的父母都死于四十岁以前,我估计我只能活六十岁,我能活到现在这个岁数,自己根本没有想到。这也是一种偶然、侥幸。这听起来好像不好听,但是事实。

人物周刊:作家李洱获得茅盾文学奖的小说《应物兄》,里面提到了您,小说中的一部分,他是以1986年您到华东师范大学讲座为背景,您还记得这次活动吗?听说您当时只讲了15分钟?为什么这么短,还有没有印象?

李泽厚:当时不是我一个人讲,他们已经讲了很多了,一定要我讲,我没有什么题目好讲,很多人对我很不满意,那我也没办法。(笑)

人物周刊:十年前您也说,早知道当时在大学这么受欢迎,就应该多去。您觉得去得少了?

李泽厚:我是自我感觉并不良好的人,文章已经都写过了,老重复不大愿意。我觉得我没有什么太多东西可讲的。很多讲演邀请我都拒绝了。我不像很多人到处讲演。当然,我完全不反对别人到处讲演。

人物周刊:2014年,您到华东师范大学开了一个伦理学研讨班,又是什么样的契机?隔了这么多年,为什么又到大学里去了?

李泽厚:华东师大的书记童世骏先生是很好的学者,他来邀请。特别是杨国荣教授,几次要我去讲,我答应了四次,一直没去。2014年,第一次讲的时候,我说我是来还债的,因为我答应人家了,我说答应了四次,我就讲四次。

对我来说,那次很重要的事情就是,将我提出的伦理学整体轮廓(三要点)作了相对集中的论述。我提出问题,让同学回答,然后再发表意见。他们整理出来了一本《什么是道德?》。我的习惯是,别人的话我是一句都不改,我只改我自己讲的。这是我遵循的对话原则,包括《浮生论学》《告别革命》及其他对话。

人物周刊:您还喜欢用自问自答这种形式?

李泽厚:对,我觉得对话体裁适合我晚年的表达方式,干脆、鲜明、直接,不必引经据典、搬运资料来仔细论证,不是高头讲章,不为繁文缛节所掩盖。这跟学术界现在的学术规范可能很不符合。我就不管它了,并且以孔孟、柏拉图、朱熹、王阳明作例。

我多次讲过,哲学只是“制造概念,提出视角以省察一切”,属于不同于知识(有客观确定性)和信仰(有主观确定性)的意见(这是康德的说法,我赞成的),而非知识、认识、科学。但并无妨深刻尖锐,常常几句话就可以讲清楚问题,不必那么繁琐。说来说去弄得人不知到底说了什么,这是后现代主义的文风。

我去年出的《伦理学新说述要》,也是自问自答体,这是我对伦理学的一个简短总结。“新说”是指西方没有,中国也没有的。我把“伦理”和“道德”两个词严格区分。西方有区分,但没有我这样分的,我分得很严格。西方恐怕以后才能接受,现在很难接受。这本小书对我的伦理学三个要点作了扼要阐述,我主要是讲整个伦理学的哲学构架形式,并未落实到伦理学所讲的内容中去。伦理学包括了政治哲学、各种规范伦理学和道德心理学等等,庞大无边,因之先确定整个形式结构是重要的,它们是研讨这庞大无边的伦理学的前提。

我的伦理学主要是说明,人的道德,从个体来说是教育,教育是广义的,不只是学校教育,你所在的环境就是教育,包括家庭、社会、风俗习惯,这都是教育。印度人用手吃饭,又用手擦大便。在争论清洁问题时,有个印度人跟我辩论,“你们中国人用筷子就很不干净,你夹的菜有我的口水,我夹的菜也有你的口水,那很不干净嘛”,我也没法说。有些习俗,就转变为外在伦理和内在道德。中国搞儒学的大讲“孝”,先验的“孝”。说“孝”是一种先验的“本性”,抽象玄奥得很,但实际上“孝”是具体的,以前讲“不孝有三,无后为大”,现在还这样吗?以前自由恋爱是不道德的,一定要服从“父母之命,媒妁之言”,妇女更没有选择丈夫的权利。1949年之前,在偏远农村,两个人通奸,就得装猪笼里淹死,叫“沉塘”。现在自由恋爱是道德的,反对自由恋爱是不道德的。哪个是先验的呢,讲不清楚了。“孝”也是这样,第一个太太生不出儿子,必须纳妾,这才是“孝”。是“先验”吗?“孝”是很具体的实实在在的行为和心理啊。

人物周刊:您好像一直不怕得罪人?

李泽厚:我在学术上从不考虑是否得罪人的问题。我以为,学术异同也不应伤害私人关系,“文革”中,我不还带酒到朱光潜先生家里做客嘛。我的几个好朋友,许多观点我就明确反对过。我和孙长江、金冲及都打过笔战,但仍然是好朋友。

人物周刊:您二十多岁的时候,参加跟上一辈人的美学论争,那时候完全没什么顾忌么?

李泽厚:我没任何顾忌。我在北大做学生的时候,老实讲,主要靠自学,我读了一些书以后,我对自己有多少分量,心里头有个掂估。我从来不迷信导师。后来冯友兰、胡绳,都想我做他们的研究生,我不干。我觉得至少在人文领域根本不需要什么导师。有导师反而受束缚。你已成人了,自己可以去选择,自己去思考。我总是自己到书本里找答案。其实也可以问老师。学问学问,应该问,但是我这方面很欠缺,所以吃亏不少。我这个人不大愿意跟人交往,这是我最大的缺点。

人物周刊:从小就这样吗?

李泽厚:从几岁的时候就这样。这就是个性,个性的偶然性。(笑)

"Capture.PNG"

1936年全家福,右起:父亲、李泽厚、二姑、祖母、弟弟、母亲。李泽厚说:假使能回到那时,该多好

人物周刊:金庸去世的时候,您写过纪念文章,提到他曾经要给您六千美金,您没有接受,但也没告诉任何人,只一同去金庸处的一个人知道。这篇文章在金庸逝世时引起很大的议论。

李泽厚:我去美国即任教,收入不菲,中国一般所谓去外国“讲学”大都是“访问学者”(Visiting Scholar),不必讲课,我当时与外国教授一样必须正式授课,要开三门课,是“访问教授”(Visiting Professor),二者待遇相差甚远。以后陆续受聘,从未失业,生活一直优裕。金庸资助一位朋友三万美金,没用完,退回六千美金给他。他就要把这六千美金给我,这更像施舍嘛。我在香港开会,让我上门去拿,我当然拒绝了,拒绝得很坚决。当时我还寄三千美金给我妹妹呢,我要你这六千块干嘛。我不想为了这六千块而背负上人情债。我坚决不要他的钱。金庸大吃一惊,走的时候,他送我出门外很远。我们都是很客气的,两人都没有不高兴的样子。我说了,谢谢他的好意。我对金庸也一直没有什么意见。我照样参加他的活动,他请我吃饭,我照样去,也仍然谈笑风生,他在安徽还夸奖过我的著作。我们二人并未因此有所疏远,当然本来也不亲近。我以为对我们两人都是小事一桩。

那是90年代,有人算了一笔账,说六千美金可以在中国买房,我笑笑而已。后来他们要把写金庸的文章收入纪念集里面,问我的意见。我说,一个字不改。问了两次,我都这样说。没什么好改的。他身边的很多人都说,金庸对钱特别看得重,斤斤计较。这也不算什么大过,他就是看重钱,这不算什么大缺点。他也不是一毛不拔,他知道好些人说他吝啬,他也不大在乎。

关于金庸这篇文章,本来我是不想写的,朋友再三让我写,但除了赞扬外,我没什么具体事情,就顺便讲了。文章登出来后,很多人骂我。老实讲,我这个人的确太不懂人情世故了。中国有句老话——“批判会上无好人,追悼会上无坏人。”批判会上不能讲人优点,缺点不应该在追悼会上讲。我不大注意这些,违背了大家的礼仪习惯,所以挨骂也就“活该”了。

"Capture.PNG"

1979年秋,李泽厚在北京十渡

谈学术

人物周刊:今年“五四”那段时间,网上有一个关于“前浪”和“后浪”的视频被讨论很多,您是怎么看一代又一代年轻人?

李泽厚:关于“五四”我写过两篇文章。一篇是《救亡与启蒙的双重变奏》,这篇被说得很多。另一篇比较短,叫《启蒙的走向》,大家没怎么注意,其实很重要。“五四”七十周年的时候,在北大举行了座谈会,很多人发表了讲演,我也讲了,就是这篇《启蒙的走向》。“五四”的一个话题是启蒙。90年代以后,中国一些年轻学者搬出一大堆后现代理论,反对启蒙。首先要搞清楚什么是启蒙。康德讲得很清楚,启蒙就是唤醒理性。“五四”时期,中国的启蒙也是为了救亡,这我也讲得很清楚。有些人批评我,却根本没有看该文。该文一开始就说救亡与启蒙是相互促进的。《启蒙的走向》中还讲过,“五四”是“激情有余,理性不足”。当时火烧赵家楼,打外交部长,只有一个人比较独特,就是梁漱溟,他说这是违法了。还有一点,民国的时候,国民党曾经想把青年节从5月4号改到3月29号,3月29号是黄花岗七十二烈士殉难那一天,这是国民党想维护他们的党国统一,结果没改成。我们这一代人还记得,你们恐怕就不太知道了。

启蒙催生了现代社会。现代社会是以个人为单位,以契约为原则。中国以前是没有什么契约的。但现在有的人讲启蒙又很奇怪,稀奇古怪的都有。我觉得启蒙就是以前讲的启蒙,没有什么其他的启蒙。美国著名学者讲宋明理学是启蒙,能同意吗?为什么我在2004年还提出要启蒙,不要“蒙启”呢?那时候蒋庆他们在搞读经班,不要学校。有的人认为慈禧太后废除科举都错了,但你不废除科举,办新式学校,能有现代化吗?有的人真的信了,进了学堂,不进学校了。结果十年证明失败了,教出来的学生什么都不懂。启蒙是促进现代化的必要条件。启蒙就是欧洲讲的启蒙,就是由理性决定,没有什么别的启蒙。

人物周刊:您思考过启蒙带来的问题么?

李泽厚:当然,启蒙的确带来很多问题。前面提到的《伦理学新说述要》里,专门有一节叫“过犹不及”。理性控制一切的话,结果造成理性至上。恶性竞争,贫富悬殊,以个人的名义控制资源等等。结果引出反启蒙反理性的思潮。从尼采开始,一直到福柯、德里达这些人。反启蒙反理性这个思潮很新鲜、时髦,于是就被中国一些人拿过来了。你看,外国现在反对这个,新殖民主义啊,认为这是精英的侵略。于是有的人坚决反对加入WTO,我当时跟这些朋友口头辩论过,我觉得加入WTO对中国绝对有好处。

自然科学不断翻新,因为越做越细,能够提出新意见。人文科学很难翻新,几个结论在那,怎么翻新?所以有的人为了出名,就做翻案文章。国外很多人文学科学者,完全是做翻案文章出名。比如以前说中世纪是黑暗的时代,现在一些学者讲,中世纪也有很多好的啊,哪些哪些很进步啊,做翻案文章,结果就出名了,其实并不正确。又如,国外一些学者认为中国近现代化是自己发展出来的,外来刺激—反应说是错误的,推翻了费正清等人的旧说,其实并不正确。这种所谓翻案创新,无奇不有,例如说现在速度快,时间便短,因此活八十岁不如以前活四五十岁时间更长,宁肯活那四五十岁为好……如此等等,不一而足,貌似新颖,其实不对,但可以因此而出名嘛。自然科学的翻新一般不会倒退,人文领域则不一定,有些就是倒退。

其实,很多老的理论比新的理论好,并不是越新的越好。我以前就讲过,洛克、康德,比斯特劳斯、施密特要好,要强得多。当然也不能一概而论,有的翻案正确,有的提供不同视角,大有裨益,如此等等,这就要具体对待了。但现在主要是,四十多年过去了,人们还是在赶西方后现代的时髦,都是转述、模仿。根本性的创造太少。我讲过当代一些学人有“两大问题”:一是,情绪左右思想,不能客观分析;二是,喜欢抽象议论,缺乏具体思维。

启蒙有利有弊,但总体来说,是利大于弊,推动历史前进。史蒂芬·平克写过一本《当下的启蒙》,否定了后现代,从尼采一直批评到了福柯、德里达,结果遭到许多学者的攻击。我却跟平克的看法相当一致。我不同意他的语言本能的看法,但在痛斥后现代反启蒙这个问题上,与他的用统计学材料对尼采等人的责难贬斥,却非常赞同。启蒙没有什么西化的问题,同是启蒙,英、法、美,就并不一样,但总的趋势就是推崇理性。现在中国不是理性太多了,而是理性太少。这方面,我还是康德主义者,理性还是人类的特征。

尼采是怀疑一切,尼采永远有人喜欢。黑格尔说过,年轻人有三个特点:第一,认为一切都应打破,重估一切价值;第二,认为自己最行,是天才;第三,要么是黑,要么是白。年轻人喜欢尼采不奇怪,年轻人总是认为自己最好嘛,都要打破嘛。我觉得二十岁喜欢尼采可以理解,鲁迅也喜欢过尼采,但是,你到六十岁还喜欢尼采,我就觉得值得怀疑了。尼采好,还是康德好?我觉得康德比尼采高明多了。尼采有他的学术价值,但中国的一些学者把尼采捧成圣人似的,碰都碰不得,这我很不赞成。

人物周刊:您认为他们为什么推崇尼采呢?

李泽厚:一个就是因为年轻啊,要打破一切啊。最后还是为了名利。做一个独立的哲学家多好,休谟、康德等人都是如此。哲学家和政治家很不相同,政治家可以有许多学术参谋,但他只能采取一种,而且要适应不同情景状况加以修改应用,不会也不可能那么学理充分。政治家不可能是书斋中的哲学家,也不可能是什么“哲学王”(柏拉图)。哲学家也不必做政治家的“帝王师”,两者本有分工,无需统一。

国外有人说我的欠缺是没带多少学生,可以支持支援你的思想学说。的确,现在好些学者、教授到处去带学生,然后徒子徒孙一大堆,成了一股势力,一个派别,于是名声大振。我就没有什么学生。特别是我从来没有要求学生看我的书。我的学生也的确都没怎么看我的书。这也怪我,我现在后悔了。我要是让他们看我的书,他们现在的成就可能会大一点。(笑)

"Capture.PNG"

80年代初,李泽厚与伍蠡甫、朱光潜、洪毅然

人物周刊:网上曾经流传您给学生赵士林写的序,大家觉得你们都很坦诚,您在序里批评自己的学生,说他背着您写书,您对这本书不负责。很少有人这样写序的,而且赵士林把序登出来了。

李泽厚:我不管啊,我对那本书不负责任。但那本书还得罪人了,因为赵士林在书里骂了别人。我写了这个序,但别人还是认为我指使赵士林写的。那就没有办法了。我没有骂人的习惯,我对人印象不好,也不骂人。

人物周刊:许多学者都说您在学术上的原创力是极其难得的,您自己有没有想过,是什么原因让您有这么强的原创力?

李泽厚:我的确没想过。我读书读得比较广泛。我在北大读书的时候,早上看柏拉图,下午看别林斯基,早上看的是哲学,下午看的是文学。学哲学可能看得比较高,要总揽全局,但考虑的问题很多都太空。如果书读得太少,就只知道玩弄一些概念。搞历史的呢,是狭而深,就盯着那个领域,别的学问都不感兴趣,也认为那些没价值,必须有足够多的史料,才是真学问,所以也很难干出非常重要的原创。学文学的看得比较杂博,比较广,但都比较肤浅。我很多年前就跟学生讲过,你要高、要深、要博,你才会有原创力。自然科学家不一定如此,人文领域似有此前提。

原创力从哪里来呢,想象力当然重要,但我以为最重要的是判断力。康德讲判断力很多是没法教的。自然科学家的原创力也是来自独特的选择和判断,艺术家的理性判断力不一定要高,但是感性的原创领悟要很强。

原创力一方面靠你先天的领悟能力,一方面后天有一些范例可以学习,80年代我就讲过“支援意识”问题。康德两百年前的书现在还很耐读,那是了不起的,康德便极其博学,又有极强大的判断力,他提出的那些问题,现在还没有最后的回答,这样的一些人物就值得学习。这是智慧,不是知识。知识可以教,智慧就不能。一些大师都没有什么老师,爱因斯坦有什么老师啊。我觉得当前文坛、学界似乎一方面缺乏原创性,大多是搬来西方学院话语套在中国问题上;另一方面则仍然是红卫兵式的“不破不立”,对前人和同辈的成果成就不屑一顾或吹毛求疵一概骂倒,只喜欢找同行的毛病、错误,而不看重他们的优长与贡献,这也是中国传统的老毛病。曹丕就说过,文人相轻,自古皆然。元稹、白居易通信中说“韦苏州”(韦应物)诗生前没人看得上,死后却被人高扬等等,可见一斑。自己老摆出一副创造脸却并无创造,如鲁迅当年嘲笑过的“创造社”一样。

人物周刊:有一段时间,桑德尔(Michael Sandel)在国内很火,您曾经用了很大篇幅的文字来回应桑德尔,为什么对这个话题这么感兴趣?

李泽厚:当时他在中国太受欢迎了,在北京、上海讲演,几进几出,很多人推崇吹捧他,很少有学者提出质疑的。比如说,某个地方受灾了,他当场问一大群学生,要不要涨价?你是道德原则还是市场原则?要学生举牌作“是”(yes)“否”(no)的回应。他主张道德原则,都不应该涨价。这本身就是误导嘛。即使是受灾,受灾地区也不同啊,居民的富裕情况也不一样啊,要具体问题具体分析嘛。黑格尔和马克思都讲得很多,就是根据具体的时间、地点和条件来决定哪个是对哪个是错。你不能说统统都是道德原则,统统都要减税,那不对。有的地方可以减,有的地方可以不减。你不能用一个先验的概念来统一一切。我那本书就是反对这种理性至上的黑白分明的一统思想,亦即与先验理性有关,所以那本书既是反对桑德尔,也可以说是借题发挥,主要倒是谈自己的伦理学。

人物周刊:这些年,“致良知”这个话题说得也很多,您又是怎么看?

李泽厚:我在最近那篇文章里面,后来在原稿的基础上又增加了一倍多,有一页专门谈这个问题,包括《伦理学新说述要》,也提了“致良知”是什么意思。因为中国没有上帝的信仰,企业家们的钱赚足了,子孙都可以过很好的生活了,那还有什么寄托呢,就想找一些东西来修身养性,就搞出了“致良知”,但这实际上根本不是王阳明那个意思。王阳明的意思是把道德变为一种直觉,恰恰是要经过刻苦的锻炼,不是像信佛或者信什么东西。他们是找一个东西信吧。信什么,信良知。良知哪里来的呢,是天给的,中国的天是含含混混的。

"Capture.PNG"

80年代,李泽厚在美国

谈疫情和哲学

人物周刊:美国目前的疫情还很严重,您身处其中,有怎样的体会?

李泽厚:美国刚开始的时候,因为川普(Trump)不主张戴口罩,民间的习俗也不喜欢戴口罩,也不重视隔离、社交距离等等,戴口罩的人较少,这是一个很大的错误,在老百姓那里,戴口罩好像是病人,其实戴口罩很大程度是保护自己不受外来的感染。刚开始的时候,社交距离也不注意。但现在有一些限制。我们这个小镇已经死掉七十多个人了。疫情在美国每个州扩散也不平衡,州政府有自己的权力,联邦政府没法指挥。有的州情况比较好,有的州情况就很差,我们这里算比较差的一个州。川普就喜欢乱七八糟说话,他讲的话也不作数,今天这样讲,明天那样讲。美国政府犯了很大错误,造成疫情这么严重。

人物周刊:美国人对口罩的态度跟中国人很不一样,这会不会有您说的“文化心理结构”在起作用呢?

李泽厚:有啊。文化心理结构是就社会说的,就个体来说,是个人的情理结构。美国人认为戴口罩就是有病,形成了一种习俗。中国人不是这样的,在中国戴口罩没有人感觉你是病人。

人物周刊:您怎么看疫情对全球化的影响?

李泽厚:我没有资格谈论这个问题,因为我不是经济学家。但作为一个普通的知识人,也可以提一些看法。我不像有些人那么悲观。大家讨论的主要是经济问题。我的哲学的第一个命题就是“人活着”。这是最重要的。然后才是上帝啊,语言啊,意识啊,人生意义啊。90年代,我在悼冯友兰的文章中说,哲学应该考虑根本问题,根本问题就是“人活着”,也就是人的命运问题。这个命运包括人类的命运、国家的命运、个人的命运,这次疫情恰恰倒证明了我的这个理论。所谓经济问题嘛,就是讨论人怎么能活下去而且活得更好,人的衣食住行能不能维持下去,维持得更好一些?

我一直认为,全球化是不可避免的历史总趋势,因为全球化首先是经济一体化,但是疫情有可能让全球化推迟二三十年。但对人类历史来说,这二三十年算什么呢,人类几百万年了,有文明的历史已经四五千年了,这二三十年对于人类历史来说,算不了什么。在疫情以前,已经出现了英国的脱欧,还有川普讲美国优先,都是国家主义、民族主义,保护国家利益最重要,实际上就是推迟全球化。

50年代起我一直认为,欧盟是全球走向大同之路的范例,也是以经济为基础。以前德国和法国打仗那么多年,现在德国和法国打仗是不可能了,因为经济上大家彼此可以活得更好一些嘛,那何必再打仗呢?所以这是人类长久的总体趋势。我讲人类学历史本体论嘛,迟早会这样。我看不到了,很多人看不到了,但历史经过一些曲折和倒退,还是会向前进。我对中国的前途和世界的前途是乐观的,对我个人的前途是悲观的,我可能看不到一点希望或萌芽了。一个人最多活一百多岁,对人类几千年历史来说,这算什么。全球化会推迟,但也不会推迟特别长。经济是互相需要的,高科技的发展在推动经济一体化,这几十年不是科技高速发展嘛,互联网什么的,大家在全球各地都可以联系,高科技是有利于全球化的。国家之间全部切断不大可能。当然了,这得看国家领导人的智慧。

历史经常在前进倒退,有时候倒退几百年都有。汉朝人口已经达到六千万了,战争让人口大大削减。历史上的战争和瘟疫,死的人太多了,“白骨露于野,千里无鸡鸣”(曹操诗)。现在比起历史上那些倒退,要轻得多了。

"Capture.PNG"

1998年,李泽厚在科罗拉多学院获人文学荣誉博士

人物周刊:您经常讲伦理主义与历史主义的二律背反,您特别注重历史。

李泽厚:对啊。我读中学的时候,数理化都很好,特别是化学,方程式背得特别多。大家都认为我考理科的。但是我的志愿,第一是哲学系,第二是历史系。就这两个系。我喜欢看历史书,远远超过看哲学书。我对中国历史特别熟悉,哪一朝哪一代发生的重要历史事件,我都非常清楚。我看过很多纪事本末。我的哲学叫人类学历史本体论,有“历史”两个字。我认为数学是学理工科的基础,历史是学文科的基础,而不是哲学。

人物周刊:您说的“吃饭哲学”,会被一些人笑话。

李泽厚:这个说法,一些人或大为不解,或觉得这也太庸俗了,甚至有学人斥责这是在“恶搞”唯物史观。我在“康德书”里宣讲关于“使用—制造工具的劳动实践”或“生产力—科学技术是整个人类社会的基础”这一根本观点。马克思说:“为了生活,首先就需要衣、食、住以及其他东西,因此第一个历史活动就是生产满足这些需要的资料,即生产物质生活本身。”这话是非常准确的。这也就是人们仅仅为了能够生活,也必须每日每时都要进行的(现在也和几千年前一样)一种历史活动,即一切历史的一种基本条件。这也就是我强调“人活着”作为哲学第一命题,以及我的“吃饭哲学”的主要含义。所以,“吃饭哲学”始终只是一种通俗说法,为的是故意采取这种“粗鄙”“庸俗”的用词,使语言在使用中具有刺激功能,以针对轻视、鄙视物质生存、日常生活,侈谈道德理性、精神生命、灵魂拯救之类的各派理论学说。其本名仍应是“人类学历史本体论”。

人活着不就是要吃饭嘛。人和动物的不同,不是语言,动物也有交流的语言啊。我觉得人的特点是使用工具。黑猩猩会使用十几种工具,但它不使用工具,它还能活着,用手摘香蕉啊。但人没有工具没法生活。人现在住到山里也都还带点小电器吧。

这次疫情恰恰证明我的“吃饭哲学”是对的。大家首先关注的是失业怎么办,没有工作,没有钱了,没有饭吃了。哲学就是研究最基本的一些问题。研究那些玄而又玄或虚无缥缈的,天下啊,语言啊,那是次要的嘛,研究可以,但不是哲学根本问题嘛。最普通的常识其实常常是最重要的。所以我寸步不让。越骂我,我就讲得越多。

人物周刊:说到“吃饭哲学”,这和您的另一个观点——“西体中用”是联系在一起的。

李泽厚:张之洞讲的“中体西用”,虽然提倡科技,但忠君是第一位的,因为当时是封建皇权,所以他反对康有为他们提的开议会啊,改革啊,慈禧太后非常欣赏他,重用他。

“西体中用”是我80年代就提出的,是针对“中体西用”和“全盘西化”。我讲的“西体”,讲的就是“吃饭哲学”。吃饭你靠什么,日常生活你靠什么?邓小平讲科技是第一生产力。我讲的西体就是要现代化,各种东西各种机器,并不是“用”,而是“体”。这些科技不是我们发明的,是从西方引进的。科技生产力就是“体”。日常生活就是“体”。只有这样才能活着,才能走向现代化。当然传统的农业社会,人也能活,但现在大家还愿意活在那个夏无空调、冬无暖气、人无手机、厨无电器的时代吗?也许少数人愿意,那就由他们自己吧。

马克思说科技生产力是向外走,讲生产关系,讲阶级斗争,讲改变社会。我是向内走,我认为科技生产力产生了理性,使人的心理不同于动物。人的理性不是天赐的,不是生来就有的,而是使用工具产生了理性。我反对先验理性。我问人生下来什么时候有理性,没有人能回答我。“实用理性”的确是我创出的词,以前没有的。就像“乐感文化”,也是我创的,以前没有的。这就叫“制造概念,提供视角”,开始有人痛斥,现在好像好些人也在用了。

人物周刊:疫情中,许多哲学家都发表了自己的看法。哲学家在面对疫情的时候,应该怎么做或思考什么是合适的?

李泽厚:多年前我就讲过,上面也讲过,理论家应该和实践家分开,哲学家、思想家应该和革命家、政治家分开,这二者不能混为一谈。革命家、政治家是社会变化的直接实践者、指导者,他们所需要的支配、影响群众的热情,和理论家的热情,不是一回事。而且,二者在思维方式和方法上也不会一样。所以,理论家、思想家、哲学家,与革命家、政治家、各种集团的领袖们,应该作出明确分工。理论可以多种多样、百家争鸣,而革命家、政治家、领袖们则要求意志集中、行动统一。后者要根据当下的现实形势、利害关系、策略考虑来作出决定,采取行动,这就会对理论进行选择或折中,但经常只容许一种。理论家们却可以不计当前利害,从较长远的宏观视角来把握、思索和争辩。当然理论家和革命家政治家也还有各种不同的层次和种类,也有互相交叉渗透的各种情况,我现在是一种“理想型”的划分。马克思说,过去哲学只解释世界,问题在于改变世界。这个哲学视角是深刻的。但改变世界的理论和引领实践这一改变,却完全可以由不同的人来承担。理论是需要长期讨论和反复争辩的,革命或政治决定则即便激烈争辩也必须尽快确定方案,鼓励执行。

对于疫情也是这样,不能要求哲学家对疫情发表一贯正确的意见,这很难。即使是正确的,执政者也不一定能够按照这个去做。行政的措施,行政的策略,跟理论是不同的。执政者有做对的时候,但不意味着永远对啊。一个哲学家的理论,运用到政治上也好,经济上也好,不一定就适合,有可能走样,有可能应用不了。哲学家对疫情可以有各种判断,各种理论都可以啊,不一定哪个就是对的。

人物周刊:说到哲学和历史问题,您好多年前就说过,历史哲学的最高命题是偶然与必然的问题。

李泽厚:我50年代就这么认为,历史充满了偶然性。我今年发表的《历史、伦理与形而上学》(《探索与争鸣》2020年第1期)就讲了这个问题。我讲历史有三个性质:第一是具体性。历史一定是发生在一定的时间、地点和各种条件之下的事情。这是历史最重要的性质;第二是历史有积累性。这点大家注意得不多。从人类历史来讲,是进步的,我对整个人类历史不是悲观的。人类是靠工具吃饭。工具就是科技。疫情以后,科技还是会发展,这是阻挡不住的。我非常赞同史蒂芬·平克的说法,后现代是错误的,福柯、德里达是错误的。历史有积累性,内在的积累便是心理的日益复杂、丰富和多样,即“积淀”,不必悲观;第三是历史的偶然性。比如说,恐怖分子使用原子弹或制造病毒,那人类便可以死光,很有可能的。以前冷热武器时代都不可能,现在却可能,所以说哲学要研究人类命运问题。

人物周刊:您在《伦理学新说述要》里说,“历史绝不是一堆僵化的文本记录,不只是所谓事迹、人物、数据、账目……它实际容载着的是无数世代人们生活的悲欢离合、偶在实然。”这句“偶在实然”,让人的感受很复杂。

李泽厚:西方是两个世界,要到天国去。中国就是停留在这个世界,要重视这个世界的情感。在西方,上帝的爱是最重要的,首先是爱上帝,是上帝叫你爱自己的亲人,中国人很难接受。中国人看重历史。因为生活就是悲欢离合啊,历史就是日常生活啊,这个世界的日常生活就是根本,不是到天国去求得什么,天国很完美,反而同质、单调、无聊。

人物周刊:您一直强调逻辑性,您的文章很有逻辑性,而且去除了很多情绪化的东西,让强大的逻辑来说话。您是怎么保持这种状态,不让情绪左右自己?

李泽厚:在80年代我写过一篇短文《写文章的人要学点平面几何》,就是讲理论文章要概念清楚,遵守逻辑,要有论证,不要模模糊糊,不要让人看半天不知说了些什么。对于学术发展来说,这是一个基本问题。还讲过,中国需要“语言的洗礼”。要发泄情绪的话,可以写诗,可以写小说嘛,在文学艺术里你发泄什么样的情感、情绪都没关系。文艺是要打动人的感情。学术呢,就是要注重逻辑,就是以理服人,就这么简单。中学时代我就注意逻辑。大学时代我专门学了逻辑。我是非常自觉地注重逻辑。

人物周刊:您这么讲理性,您的学说还强调“情本体”。

李泽厚:人不能光靠理性啊,所以我讲“情理结构”。如果只有理性,就是机器了。机器没有情感。都是情的话,人就是动物了,动物没有什么理性。

所谓“本体”,不是康德所说与现象界相区别的本体界,而只是“本根”“根本”“最后实在”的意思。所谓“情本体”,是以“情”为人生的最终实在、根本。“情本体”的背后,其实有个中国传统,就是我过去说的“天地国亲师”,要西方人信仰这样的东西那是很难的事。我讲过要西方彻底了解、接受这个传统,可能要两百年以后,人类历史上,两百年很短啊。二十多年前我在德国讲,你们的教授里,汉学家除外,谁能举出十个中国人的名字?不管什么中国人,古人今人都行。他们就是举不出。但在中国,随便找个教授,举出二十个德国人名,都不是什么难事。所以在文化层面上,要让他们了解来自中国的思想,那还要很长的时间。

谈人生

人物周刊:十年前,您过八十岁生日的时候,只是和家里人吃一顿饭,喝几杯高级的洋酒,九十岁生日怎么过呢?

李泽厚:没有任何变动。我家里有路易十三,这算比较高级的酒了。我从来不过生日。包括八十岁那一年,他们几次要给我祝寿,我都辞谢了。去年,国内就有两批人打算赴美预贺九十寿辰,统统被我婉拒了。我不干这件事,因为没什么意义。我只过过一次生日,就是六十岁。那是1990年,在北京,我也只是请我的几个弟弟妹妹来家里吃了顿饭,没有任何外人。

"Capture.PNG"

2000年,李泽厚与弟弟和三位共祖父母的妹妹

人物周刊:以前大家都说您手不释卷,现在每天看书的时间多吗?

李泽厚:现在因为眼睛不好了。以前就不怎么好,老了嘛,看书的时间只能很短。但不看书,又没什么事情喜欢做。

人物周刊:您所在的博尔德人口很少,您以前也说过,住在那里太孤独了,人太少了。

李泽厚:那没办法,孤独伴了我一生。

人物周刊:九十年来,有没有那么一刻,产生过有神的想法?

李泽厚:我从来没有过。我从来都不信神。命运是自己决定的,不是神决定的。只能自己反思自己。靠神是靠不住的。人们说上帝已经死在奥斯维辛,上帝如果全知全能,怎么能允许希特勒杀那么多人,那么残酷呢。所以我以为到底是一个世界还是两个世界,这是一个很重要的哲学问题。

人物周刊:十年前,我们在访谈里就谈到“幸福”的问题。十年之间,这个问题被大家一再谈论,您理解的“幸福”是怎样的?

李泽厚:“幸福”是没有一个客观标准的。物质生活也许可以,衣食住行的改善,对一般的人来说,就是幸福。但是有的人认为物质生活没有价值啊,宁可做苦行僧。有的人认为物质生活是痛苦,反而不幸福啊。有的人认为幸福是伦理学的问题,我认为不是,幸福是一个宗教问题,一个美学问题。

人物周刊:十年前采访您,您说死后要把大脑冰冻起来,几百年之后再研究,看能否从您的大脑里发现中国文化的残迹,证明您的积淀理论。如果能证明文化影响大脑,您觉得比您所有的书加起来贡献都要大。现在还有这样的想法么?

李泽厚:这不是想法,我已经联系了那个冷冻机构,已经捐了8万美金,每年还得付几百美金会员费。当然,如果做不成或不能做,这8万美元会全退回,现在他们拿去是为该机构的投资等用途。很多人联系这个机构,是想复活(《圣经》便承诺过人身体复活),他们希望死了不久就复活。我认为复活是绝不可能的。我不要求复活,所以我要求保存越长越好,等到脑科学发达到可以进行研究的时候,但是能不能做到就不知道了。我已经这么做了,我不是随便讲句空话而已,但我现在估计95%是做不成的。

人物周刊:您一直关注脑科学,您很乐于从科学的角度跟您的学说做一些对接。

李泽厚:人类对世界,对宇宙,对外物的了解,比对我们自身的了解多得多啊。相较于理论物理这样的学科,医学还是非常幼稚的科学,因为医学更难啊,人的生命,加上社会因素,很难啊,不是那么容易搞清楚的。假设理论物理是大学,医学就是幼儿园,差得很远。人类实际上最主要是大脑,大脑支配着一切。所以,研究脑科学很重要。脑指挥一切,但具体怎么指挥,现在搞不清楚嘛,我为什么说要300年或500年,至少得这么长的时间,才能够有一个初步了解。

人物周刊:谢谢您接受采访。这些天聊下来,您也很疲惫了。最后,您还有哪些话要向读者讲?

李泽厚:我想引用我比较喜欢的自况集句联:“悲晨曦之易夕,感人生之长勤(陶潜);课虚无以责有,叩寂寞而求音(陆机)”。以此作结,并告别读者。谢谢!

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/7/14

旧文章ID:22804

批评“平权”华裔教授因言获罪,所谓的“平权”其实是为了平等而抛弃平等

作者:圣地呀GO议事厅  来源:圣地呀GO

独立宣言中说 “人皆生而平等”(All men are created equal)。宪法第一修正案规定,美国人有自由发表任何主张和意见的权利,这种言论自由不受权力机构的审查及限制,也无需担心受到报复。当我们觉得“平等”出现问题而自由发言时,会受到“平等”的对待吗?

华裔教授因言获罪

匹斯堡大学时报的报道说,2020年8月11日, 匹兹堡大学医学院(UPMC)心脏病专家兼医学华裔副教授Norman Wang因为在论文中批评医学领域的平权行动,遭到该大学的撤职和打压。

""

这篇论文3月24日发表于《美国心脏协会杂志》上,王教授说了什么“大逆不道”的话呢?

王教授说,“美国医学界,通过多样性,包容性和平等的AA平权扶持行动的努力很大部分上是不成功的,这是因为高等教育机构中使用族裔和种族的录取标准限制了合格的申请人数量和合法的竞争”。平权行动造成一些族裔的受益人相对较弱的学业起步,许多人没有完成他们预期的课程,或没有学术成就,无缘成为学业佼佼者,和有吸引力的就业候选人。

他还说:“最终,所有有志于医学和心脏病学专业的人都必须根据个人学术而不是种族和民族身份作为录取的评估依据。”王还在论文中说,“没有可以公认的经验证据或者推论来支持“多样性挽救生命(diversity saves lives)”这一口号。”

他在总结中说:“不应为短期的人口统计数而去牺牲掉我们长期的学术解决方案和卓越的表现。”

他还建议,到2028年,大学和医学院入学的种族和族裔偏好应该被消除。

8月6日,匹斯堡大学卫生科学部门副总兼医学院院长印度籍的Anantha Shekhar 对文中的观点进行了否定。

""""


他在Twitter上发表声明说:“最近,一家同行评审的期刊发表了一篇由大学社区成员撰写的文章,表达了反对公平和包容性的观点。” “这些观点没有反映出匹兹堡大学及其医学院的价值观,也没有反映出我们为公共利益传播知识的骄傲追求。”

他补充说,匹斯堡大学医学院是一所顶尖的医学院,“以身作则和引以为荣是我们不可掉以轻心的责任。”“作为一个机构和社区,我们不容忍任何种族主义或歧视,我们始终致力于为所有人提供一个更具包容性和公平性的环境。”

""

“一石激起千层浪”,社交媒体上爆发强烈反对之后 ,王教授被强调“包容性和公平性”的匹兹堡大学医学院从其担任的心血管专科医生培训项目主任的职位撤职,并取消其心脏病专家,医学副教授的研究基金。《美国心脏协会杂志》也撤回了王教授的论文,称该论文对多样性和包容性有害,还称不容忍任何种族主义或歧视,要致力于为所有人提供一个更具包容性和公平性的环境。

社区人士指出,王教授发表的是一篇学术论文,是经过同行审阅的白皮书,不是随便在推特上发牢骚。王引用了108篇学术研究成果,来论证自己的观点,跨度从1969年到2019年。他认为,多项研究表明,种族AA强推少数族裔学医,导致成绩不佳,辍学率居高不下,并没有起到帮助少数族裔的目的。因此,所有立志医学和主攻心脏病学的考生,必须择优录取,而不是根据种族和族裔来考量。

还有不少人认同王教授讲的话,认为普通大学申请,医学院申请AA或有积极效果。但申请顶级专业的专科培训时,对心脏专科医生的要求很高,没有机会犯错误,所以个人能力与培训机构的要求如果不匹配,对受训者是很大的压力,生长环境造成的劣势通过努力弥补已足,能力的差距无法妥协。否则,会对受训者个人造成摧毁自信的伤害。

有人在网上发起了请愿活动,呼唤言论自由,目前签字人数已经达到了六千多人。

""

慈母多败儿:平权之害

最高法院大法官克拉伦斯托马斯(Clarence Thomas)曾经讲过他的经历,他想要去的律师事务所几乎都无视他的耶鲁法学博士学位。

面试官认为,他是耶鲁大学激进的平权补偿政策(AA)的受益者,这些政策淡化对黑人学生的LSAT分数和成绩的要求,针对性地质疑他的资格,并“怀疑我是否真的如成绩显示的那样聪明”,托马斯在他的回忆录写到。

""

按照托马斯的说法,耶鲁的平权补偿(AA)配额放宽了他的种族标准,以至于他的成就被轻看,不被上流社会承认。在这次经历之后,托马斯在他的博士学位旁边贴上一张15美分的香烟贴纸,以示他去耶鲁之错。

也许他有点低估了他的精英法学院教育的价值。但他没有低估像他这样天才少数族裔学生所面临的根本问题,直到今天仍然如此:我们的教育文化重视表面的多元化,实际上却是在损害那些本应该受益的人的利益。

《错配效应》(The Mismatch Effect)一书的作者斯图尔特泰勒(Stuart Taylor)写道,哈佛大学和其他精英学校实施的这些种族平衡政策,虽然可能是善意的,但实际上可能对整个种族社区产生负面影响。

""

根据泰勒的研究,比如,那些“被匹配错了 (mismatched)”的黑人学生,即如果学校不考虑种族因素就可能不会录取的学生,即使被录取进学校,相对于白人学生而言也会有超过2倍的可能性成为学校垫底的那20%学生。

法学院的黑人研究生无法通过律师资格考试的可能性是白人的四倍。他们在校园中的社会融合程度较低,毕业率也低于白人。

毕业后情况变得更糟。经济学家道格·威廉姆斯(Doug Williams)2013年的一项研究发现,有相似学历的法学院毕业的黑人研究生在律师资格考试中的表现比他们的白人同行更差。

即使他将研究仅限于那些真正参加过律师资格考试的法学院毕业生,他发现黑人毕业生第一次参加律师资格考试就能通过的可能性也比白人低31%。

另据“美国国家教育统计中心”称:美国全日制大学生中,只有41%的人能够在4年内获得学士学位,只有59%的人在6年内获得学士学位。

UCB教授大卫·基普更是在他2019年8月份的新书《大学辍学丑闻》中指出:美国有3400万25岁以上的人有大学学分、但没有学位。也就是说,他们因为种种原因在获得文凭之前辍学了。

""""

亚裔和白人学生比非裔和西班牙裔美国同学更有可能获得学位。

2012年开始上大学的所有黑人学生中,只有41%的人在6年内获得了学位。对西班牙裔学生来说,这是49.5%。

比尔盖茨2017年就曾在他的博客上痛心写下过这样的一段话:

“乔治亚州立大学(GSU),一所服务于低收入和少数族裔学生的城市大学,GSU因惨淡的毕业率而苦苦挣扎。就在十多年前,GSU的整体毕业率为32%。在西班牙裔学生中,这一比例为22%。在非裔美国人中,为29%。如果没有更多的毕业生,我们的国家将面临技术工人短缺的问题,获得脱贫机会的低收入家庭将越来越少。”

平权法案从本质上说,这种照顾其实也是对少数族裔的歧视和羞辱,是“上等人”对“下等人”的施舍之物,是一项带有时代悲剧色彩的制度安排。这只会让黑人整体一直处于一个弱势的地位:因为有平权法案的存在,黑人可以不需要达成其他族裔一样的成果就能得到和其他族裔一样的收获,这就让黑人群体非常依赖这个平权法案而失去了提升自己的动力,到头来只能一直仰仗白人的施舍,自己无法靠自己站起来。

为了平等而抛弃平等

作为一种防止对“肤色、宗教、性别、性取向或民族出身”等少数群体造成歧视性伤害的一种手段,美国的“平权法案”在保护少数族裔利益、消除种族歧视、避免历史倒退、促进社会融合等方面所发挥过的历史作用当然无可争辩,也无可替代。然而,随着时代发展和社会变迁,“平权法案”以肤色为标尺来维护社会正义和实现社会平等的做法必然要遭遇不断增多的反对者的置疑和挑战。

""

“平权”的本意是“扶持”。“平权法案”遵守的原则是“弱势优先”,意在用法律方式把广大被侮辱与被损害的少数族裔权利追讨回来。为了消除当时“普遍流行”的种族歧视观念,“平权法案”在就业、上学、治病等方面给黑人等少数民族以优先权。“平权法案”是对历史的忏悔和修正,但它在实施过程中不可避免地会导致“反向歧视”,造成对占人口大多数的“主体民族”的伤害。无论是从当时还是今天的角度来看,“平权法案”都不是一个平等的法案。

准确地说,它是一项“为了实现平等而不得不抛弃平等”的法案。

为了让黑人与白人平起平坐,为了增加黑人在政府机构、高等学府中的“代表席位”,法律规定他们应该获得优先的机会和更好的条件。作为一种扶持性的政策,“平权法案”囿于当时的社会历史条件,不得不采纳“用新的不平等来修正旧的不平等”这样明显的矫枉过正的手段,从而让刚刚被解开手铐脚镣的人有能力与其他人站在同一条跑线上,从而让美国社会从可怕的种族歧视和严重的社会矛盾中挣脱出来。

在“平权“运动这么多年后,时代已经发生了变化,通过自身的努力,一个起跑线上的少数族裔之间也已经拉开了差距。

“平权法案”曾是美国“庶民的胜利”,是美国民权运动的丰硕成果。但它作为一项临时性的补偿政策,早已应该退出历史舞台。它不该,也不可能成为一项永久性的法律。

""

2018年7月3日,特朗普政府曾取消奥巴马时期大学录取指南(考虑种族因素来促进所谓的多样化),敦促美国大学在招生过程中,不看种族,要求大学放弃将种族视作为促进多元化的指导方针来招生。但我们看到,一些民主党政客们还在继续用新的不平等来掩盖旧的偏见,继续用旧的种族矛盾来培育新的社会分裂。

比如还在起诉中的哈佛大学歧视案,马上要全民投票的加州的Prop 16法案,还有已经被判歧视的耶鲁大学……美国大学的招生录取标准与学生的肤色和种族直接相关——如此不可思议的现象就足以说明“平权法案”的危害。

种族的限制导致了亚裔学生只能“内部竞争”,导致了即使亚裔孩子分数高于黑人以及墨西哥人几百分,还是要落选的结果。因为考虑种族因素,名额是有限的,好比说在大学招生的时候,亚裔的名额只有10个人,你身为华人,考的比黑人/墨西哥人甚至白人更高也没用,你的竞争对手永远就是那几个和你一样优秀、和你一样要争取这10个名额的华人。

“我们要做的不止是打开一道公平的大门,而是要我们全体公民都能够从公平的大门下通过。”“所谓公平,不只是权力和理论,更是事实和结果。”——当我们再次聆听历史上美国的政治家们这类“永垂史册的伟大发言”时,我们不禁要问,在这种“平权”下人人平等的精神何在?公平竞争的原则何在?

无论如何,一项以种族政策为基础的国家政策,肯定背离了公平、平等和社会正义,也不可能促进社会进步和文明发展。

请加入我们,反对Prop 16 !

捐款和支持请登录:Stopprop16.org

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/26

旧文章ID:22803

突发!中美军事摩擦升级……

0

作者:  来源:感恩的鱼

来源:直新闻、环球网

8月25日,报道称:美U-2高空侦察机擅自闯入中国人民解放军北部战区实弹演习禁飞区活动,严重干扰中方正常演训活动,严重违反中美海空安全行为准则及相关国际惯例,极易引发误解误判甚至造成海空意外事件,是赤裸裸的挑衅行动,中方对此坚决反对,并已向美方提出严正交涉。中方要求美方立即停止此类挑衅行动,以实际行动维护本地区和平稳定。

一、美高空侦察机擅闯解放军实弹禁飞区是否是违反国际法的行为?

1. 如果实弹演习禁飞区是划在领海以内,按照1982年《联合国海洋法公约》第25条的规定,沿海国可以为安全目的划定安全区,暂时停止无害通过,过往船舶应当遵守这样的规定。但是对于外国的军用飞机,由于在领海之上的领空没有规定飞机的无害通过权,不管是否为演习目的划定演习禁区,外国的军机未经允许进入演习区都是违反国际法的。

2. 如果实弹演习禁飞区划在领海之外,无论他是在专属经济区还是在公海领域,根据国际惯例,任何国家都有为演习或武器试验目的划定警告区的权利,但同时在划定警告区的时候也要妥为估计国际社会的航行自由,尽量不把这种演习警告区划设在繁忙的国际海上交通要道上。一旦任何国家合法划定了这样的警告区,其他国家的船舶和飞机就有对划设区域国家履行相互顾及的义务,应尽量避免在这个区域内航行,尽管他们有合法航行和飞越的权利。如果擅自闯入警告区,那就是风险自担。

二、对于擅闯实弹演习禁飞区的美国高空侦察机是否可以直接将其击落?

1. 对于在领海上空划设的禁飞区,如果美国侦察机未经允许擅闯中国领空,中国解放军当然可以行使自卫权将其击落。

2. 对于在领海之外划设的实弹演习禁飞区,如果外国军机不顾危险擅闯禁飞区,那么只能是风险自担,比如被演习中的实弹射击意外击落,后果和责任自负,因为它违反了相互顾及的义务。但是,划设禁飞区的国家在国际法上并没有故意将其击落的权利。当然,如果外国高空侦察机刻意挑衅,对划设禁飞区国家的舰机构成威胁,我们当然可以行使自卫权将其外逼、驱离甚至在构成重大威胁的时候为自保对其使用武力。

3. 无论领空之内还是领空之外,对外国军用飞行器在直接使用武力之前,还是要进行识别、查证和警告性射击,除非遭受直接威胁为自卫需要一般不应直接使用武力将其击落。当然,在领空之内和之外行使自卫权的条件可以有所不同。

三、根据国际法沿海国是否有为演习目的划设禁飞区的权利?

关于在自己国家领空划设禁飞区的权利,前面已经讲过。关于在自己国家领空之外的他国领空和他国领空之外的空域是否有划设禁飞区的权利,分不同情况:第一种情况是对于在一个主权国家领空划设禁飞区的情况,必须有联合国安理会根据宪章第七章的授权。第二种情况是对于在领空之外的专属经济区或公海上空划设禁飞区,如前所述,按照国际惯例一般把该区域称为警告区,而不是称之为禁飞区,因为外国船舶和飞机在这一海空域也有合法的航行飞越自由。

四、演习期间各国相互跟踪监视并不罕见!

对于一个国家在领海之外划设的演习警告区,其他国家的船舶和飞机进入甚至对该国演习进行跟踪监视,只要遵守相互顾及的义务即尊重该国为演习目的划设演习警告区的权利即可。也就是说,外国船只和飞机可以待在演习区内相对安全的位置,但只要不是直接挑衅,就必须自行承担风险。

25日晚,国防部新闻发言人吴谦发表谈话,对当日美军机擅闯我演习禁飞区表示坚决反对。相关专家对《环球时报》表示,这是一种危险性极高的挑衅行为,美方此举无疑为中美双方可能爆发的危机又添了一把火。

吴谦表示,25日当天,美U-2高空侦察机擅自闯入中国人民解放军北部战区实弹演习禁飞区活动,严重干扰中方正常演训活动,严重违反中美海空安全行为准则及相关国际惯例,极易引发误解误判甚至造成海空意外事件,是赤裸裸的挑衅行动,中方对此坚决反对,并已向美方提出严正交涉。中方要求美方立即停止此类挑衅行动,以实际行动维护本地区和平稳定。

几天前中国山东海事局官网发布消息,8月22日12时至8月26日12时,黄海青岛至连云港以东海域内将组织重大军事活动。为确保安全,任何船只在上述时间内不得进入该海域。

一位匿名专业人士25日对《环球时报》表示,美空军侦察机无视中国军方划定和宣布的禁飞区的存在,恣意妄行,充分暴露了美军方蓄意挑衅中国的险恶用心。据该人士介绍,包括美军方在内的世界各国军方在组织军事演习时都要划定和宣布禁飞区,这是为了避免危险事件的发生,是各国军方的通行做法,合理合规。第三方的各类飞行器都要谨慎飞行,防止误入禁飞区而引发误判、误击等突发意外事件,导致空中悲剧发生。

“而美国侦察机明知故犯的恶劣举动,显然是对通行做法的一种破坏,这种行径极其危险,也是对自身安全的不负责任,置美国军人的生命安全于不顾。”该人士表示,中国军方在美军机侵入禁飞区前一定是全程监视,并按照中美达成的《海空意外相遇规则》进行了处置。

美国侦察机置规则于不顾,置自身安全不顾,依然擅闯禁飞区,这无疑是给当前中美双方可能爆发的危机又添了一把火。这位人士表示,不难发现,近一段时间以来,美军不断在中国周边制造事端,从南海到台湾海峡,从东海到黄海不断派舰机抵近侦察或越界行动,不断挑衅中国的领土主权,不断增加中美军方差枪走火的概率,美军方一系列挑衅行为的后果是极其严重的。如因此产生的误解误判而导致的不测事件必然由美国承担全部责任。该人士警告说,美军方不要低估了解放军维护国家安全的能力,不要怀疑解放军坚决捍卫中国主权的决心,悬崖勒马是正道,莫将自己的舰机和军人埋葬在异国他乡而后悔。

值得注意的是,美军机擅闯我演习禁飞区的当日,中方就向美方严正交涉,这释放了什么样的信号?另一位相关人士同日对《环球时报》表示,“这体现了中方负责任的态度,通过外交和舆论迫使美方立刻停止这种愚蠢、不负责任的做法,切实维护地区的和平安全。中方通过外交渠道向美方提出交涉,说明中方表现出了最大限度的克制,中方在致力于努力维护地区的和平安全与稳定。”这位人士表示,通常在实弹演习中,美军机闯进来相当于是闯入一个活靶子,假如真要是由于美方进入演习区域而发生了误击误伤事件,只能是美军人员自认倒霉。上述人士表示,美方企图利用侦察机来对我进行侦察的做法是无法得逞的。因为在实战中,情况瞬息万变,从另一个角度而言,美军侦察机的突然出现就是使得此次演习更具有实战效果。

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/26

旧文章ID:22802

Pompeo’s Fact-twisting China Speech Versus the Truth

0

作者:  来源:Xinhuanet.com

BEIJING, Aug. 24 (Xinhua) — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in his recent speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, negated every aspect of China-U.S. relations, maliciously attacked the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and China’s political system, and attempted to drive a wedge between the CPC and the Chinese people. He also wantonly criticized China’s domestic and foreign policies, spread the so-called "China threat", and called for an anti-China alliance to contain China’s development.

""

Pompeo’s baseless, fact-distorting speech misrepresents history and the reality. It is full of ideological prejudice and driven by a Cold-War mentality. His remarks have not only been condemned by the Chinese people, but also criticized and opposed by sensible people in the United States as well as the international community.

To debunk the lies fabricated by Pompeo, let the facts speak for themselves.

1. Mike Pompeo: The Chinese people are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe.

False.

Fact check: The Communist Party of China (CPC) does not have any special interest of its own. It takes seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation as its original aspiration and founding mission. It represents the fundamental interests of the greatest possible majority of the Chinese people and remains dedicated to wholeheartedly serving the people. The CPC believes that all is by the people and for the people. It puts the people’s interests first, with safeguarding the people’s interests as the starting point and ultimate goal of all of its work. Under the leadership of the CPC, the Chinese people have won independence, freedom and liberation, and continued to make great achievements in the process of national construction and development.

— The CPC comes from the people and is rooted in the people. The CPC’s position of leadership is the choice of history and the people. Since its founding 99 years ago, the CPC has grown from a small party with just more than 50 members to a large party with nearly 100 million members. The CPC is deeply rooted in the Chinese people and closely linked to them, and has maintained its great vitality. By the end of 2019, the CPC had 91.914 million members and 18.992 million applicants for Party membership. It is the world’s largest party that governs the world’s most populous country on a long-term basis. No one can turn a blind eye to the fact that the CPC is supported by the Chinese people. James Palmer, senior editor with the U.S. magazine Foreign Policy, noted that the CPC is deeply woven into the fabric of ordinary Chinese life. It is a common belief that "without the party, there would be no new China" and trust in the CPC is the mainstream public opinion in China.

— Kishore Mahbubani, a professor at the National University of Singapore and former Singaporean ambassador to the United Nations, wrote, in an article carried by The National Interest, that while Pompeo claimed that the Chinese people are completely distinct from the CPC, the fact is that each year a large number of Chinese apply to join the CPC and only a small number of them get in, making it as difficult to join the CPC as it is to get into leading universities in America. The CPC is not a party about to crack up under American pressure as it is floating on an ocean of legitimacy among 1.4 billion Chinese people.

— The CPC upholds a thinking of development that puts the people in the center. Under the leadership of the CPC, China has seen its per capita GDP increase from less than 120 yuan in the early 1950s to more than 70,000 yuan today, the basic needs of nearly 1.4 billion people well met, impoverished population drop by 850 million, employment provided for 770 million people, and basic support extended to the 250 million elderly people, 85 million people with disabilities and more than 60 million urban and rural people living on subsistence allowance. China, with a population of nearly 1.4 billion, has made a historic leap forward from poverty, to a life of subsistence and to one of moderate prosperity. China has put in place the world’s largest systems for education, social security, health care and democratic elections at the primary level.

— Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the CPC and the Chinese government have put the people and their lives front and center, saving lives at all costs and protecting people’s health and safety. Everything possible has been done to treat every patient, whether he or she is 108 years old or a new-born baby. China has scored major strategic achievements in bringing the virus under control. China’s economic growth shifted from negative to positive territory in the second quarter this year, up 3.2 percent. China’s economy is seeing the resumption of growth and steady recovery. Experts from the Institute of International Finance, UBS and other well-known international institutions, as well as media outlets, have expressed optimism about China’s economic prospects.

— At the height of the COVID-19 epidemic when the people’s lives and safety were in grave danger, upon a call for action from the CPC Central Committee, Party members and officials came to the fore. More than 4.6 million primary-level Party organizations operated in full gear. From racing against the clock to save more lives in intensive care units to visiting urban and rural communities for possible infections, from working overtime for production of supplies in factory workshops to pursuing a breakthrough in virus research at laboratories, more than 39 million Party members had been working day and night at the front-line to fight the epidemic. In this process, nearly 400 Party members laid down their lives, as they, together with other CPC members, faced danger squarely. The Party flag has always flown high at the front line. All of these speak to the fact that CPC organizations at all levels have acted as strong bastions against the virus and Party members and officials have played an exemplary role. They are the mainstay of the country in this fight.

— In August 2018, Ipsos, a well-known market research company in the world, released a report titled What Worries the World. It found that China led the world in national optimism as 91 percent of its people believe that their country is going on the right track. China claimed the top spot in 28 countries surveyed, leaving the United States far behind in the ranking.

– In May 2020, Edelman, a renowned communications firm headquartered in the United States, updated its report of Trust Barometer. It revealed that the Chinese people have 95 percent trust in their government, making the country the top of the countries surveyed, whereas the United States was placed next to last, in the territory of distrust.

— In July 2020, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School made public a survey titled Understanding CCP Resilience: Surveying Chinese Public Opinion Through Time. It found that Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board since 2003, and people in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Breakdown data also showed a near-universal upturn in the people’s satisfaction toward all four levels of government from 2003 to 2016, with approval ratings running as high as 93.1 percent.

— The China Data Lab in the University of California, San Diego, recently released an article, saying that the Chinese public’s trust in and support of their government have grown from strength to strength. They have significantly rallied since the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic. According to this survey, as of May 2020, the average level of trust in the central government has jumped to 8.87 on a scale of one to 10, and 83 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to the statement that they prefer living under China’s political system as compared to others.

— Unlike what the CPC has done for the people in coping with COVID-19, politicians in the United States held on to the primacy of personal political gains and "capital first". To this end, they played down the epidemic, ignored science, and even resorted to blame game. The result is a major outbreak that has taken a heavy toll on Americans’ lives and health. According to media tallies in May, more than one third of coronavirus deaths in America’s 31 states came from nursing homes.

By Aug. 24, the United States had recorded a cumulative total of 5.69 million confirmed cases, more than 63 times of that in China. More than 170,000 people had died, equivalent to about 540 deaths per million, which were 37 times and 160 times the corresponding numbers in China. With a population of four percent of the world’s total, the United States made up 24 percent of global infections and 22 percent of global deaths.

The public’s anxiety has continued to climb up. Some 81 percent of Americans in a recent poll reported feeling "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about the virus. A latest NPR/Ipsos poll released on Aug. 4 found that two thirds of respondents said they believe the United States is handling the epidemic worse than other countries. Among them, 41 percent contended that the country’s performance is "much worse" than that of other countries, while 25 percent rated the performance as being "somewhat worse."

Americans have come to a pretty dire place in the combat, said a pollster with Ipsos, and they are looking for sweeping, really broad, powerful action. The U.S. economy has suffered a heavy blow as its GDP contracted at an annualized rate of 32.9 percent in the second quarter, the deepest drop in output since record began in 1947. Fitch, one of the three major credit rating agencies in the world, revised its outlook on the country’s sovereign rating from "stable" to "negative."

2. Mike Pompeo: China is not a free country, as 1.4 billion Chinese are surveilled and oppressed. China is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.

False.

Fact check: China practices socialism with Chinese characteristics. An essential feature of the socialist democracy is that the people are the masters of the country. The socialist political system with Chinese characteristics upholds the unity of Party leadership, the running of the country by the people, and law-based governance, and features enhancing institutional safeguards for the running of the country by the people.

— China achieved freedom from the oppression of imperialism and colonialism. Freedom, democracy and rule of law are codified in China’s Constitution. They are also part of the core values of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In 1997, the 15th CPC National Congress committed to "…ensuring that the people enjoy extensive rights and freedom endowed by law, and respecting and guaranteeing human rights." In 2007, respecting and guaranteeing of human rights was added into the CPC Constitution for the first time. In 2017, the 19th CPC National Congress established Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as the guiding thinking of the CPC, and categorically stated that the CPC should "strengthen legal protection for human rights to ensure that the people enjoy extensive rights and freedoms as prescribed by law," and stressed protecting people’s personal rights, property rights, and right to dignity. The Chinese government earnestly respects and fully protects the human rights and freedoms of Chinese citizens in accordance with China’s Constitution and other laws.

— On May 28, 2020, the third session of the 13th National People’s Congress adopted the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, representing an important milestone in the country’s advancement of socialist rule of law in the new era. With seven parts, 1,260 articles and more than 100,000 words, the civil code was compiled based on systematically incorporating and modifying existing civil laws and regulations formulated in different periods, including the general principles of the civil law and laws on real rights, contract, guarantee, marriage, adoption, inheritance, tort liability and personality rights. It adjusts personal and property relations between natural persons, legal persons and other civil subjects, and provides equal protection of rights in various areas including safeguarding life and health, property safety, convenient transactions, people’s happiness and dignity.

— China safeguards freedom of religious belief in accordance with the law. The country has nearly 200 million religious believers, more than 380,000 clerical personnel, and about 140,000 places of worship registered for religious activities. The scriptures of Islam, Buddhism and Christianity among other religions have been translated, published and distributed in multiple languages. In Tibet Autonomous Region, there are 1,787 religious venues which house more than 46,000 Buddhist monks and nuns. Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has 24,800 religious venues including mosques, churches, temples and Taoist abbeys; there is one mosque for 530 Muslims on average in the region; the number of clerical personnel is 29,300; students have access to undergraduate programs in Islamic institutes; and more than 1.76 million copies of the Quran and Selections from Sahih of al-Buhari have been distributed.

— Liberty does not mean a free rein, and science, reason, law, order and international rules are all foundations of liberty. Liberty, says Montesquieu in "The Spirit of the Laws," is a right of doing whatever the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what they forbid, he would be no longer possessed of liberty. Freedom has boundaries. Even the so-called "free nations" delimit a "no-go zone" for liberty and never allow anyone to challenge the bottom line of the legal system. The Chinese government has the power conferred by the law to take various measures to safeguard national unity, ethnic solidarity and social stability. It is also duty-bound to protect the lawful rights and interests of the vast majority of the people by taking these measures. The exercise of its power and the fulfillment of its duties fall within China’s domestic affairs and no interference from external forces will be tolerated.

— The constitutions of more than 100 countries provide that the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms should not jeopardize national security. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs, the right to freedom of expression, the right of peaceful assembly, and the right to a public trial among other rights may be subject to limitations that are necessary to protect public safety or order. The European Convention on Human Rights also has similar provisions. The United States, Britain, Canada and Australia among other countries have built strict legal systems to safeguard national security and stay tough on fighting crimes endangering national security.

3.Mike Pompeo: The United States is a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.

False.

Fact check: The United States proclaims itself as a "beacon of freedom," which is no more than an illusion that deceives both its people and the world. According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 80 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction, an all-time high in AP-NORC surveys. According to a poll published by the Pew Research Center on July 1, only 12 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, while 87 percent say they are dissatisfied, and most Americans are dissatisfied with how the government operates. According to a Gallup poll, American pride has reached the lowest point in two decades, with only 20 percent of Americans satisfied with the way things are going in their country. Extreme pride among whites has fallen below 50 percent for the first time and non-whites 24 percent.

— The United States is highly unpopular around the globe, as only one third of people across the world acknowledge the United States’ leading position. A survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that people from multiple countries are losing their trust in the United States. Researchers conducted the survey among 11,000 people from nine European countries, and over two thirds of respondents from Germany, France, Spain and Denmark said that their views of the United States have worsened. The country’s reputation dropped particularly drastically in France and Germany, as 46 percent of French respondents and 42 percent of German respondents said the United States’ image has "severely worsened" due to COVID-19. The 2020 Best Countries report also showed that the world’s trust in the United States has dropped by more than 50 percent since 2016, the sharpest drop of any country assessed in the report.

— An annual survey report published by Gallup on July 27 showed that "U.S. leadership remains unpopular worldwide." The "free world" proclaimed by the United States, in particular, disapproves U.S. leadership. The approval of U.S. leadership is at its lowest among the country’s traditional allies in Europe, where 61 percent of respondents disapprove of its performance, and only 24 percent approve of it. In the United Kingdom, the figure is 65 percent disapprove, with a similar outcome in France. In Germany, the U.S. stature is even worse, as 78 percent disapprove the leadership coming from Washington. In Australia, whose government follows closely its U.S. counterpart, there is deep skepticism about the United States as well, with 67 percent disapproving its performance.

— Tara D. Sonenshine, former U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs and currently a fellow in public diplomacy at the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs, recently said that the United States is losing its global leadership, with its international reputation hitting the bottom and its allies giving up on it. Over the past few years, many of the key policies put forward by the United States are broadly unpopular around the globe, especially the "America-first" principle which provoked discontent among many of its allies. According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, just 20 percent of the respondents has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs.

— U.S. citizens’ personal dignity and privacy suffer systematic violation. The Dallas Morning News reported last December that Texas is home to eight secretive surveillance centers, supported jointly by federal, state and local law enforcement departments, which share information and monitor social media and other online forums for potential threats. A report of the U.S. Government Accountability Office released in June 2019 said that the FBI’s Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation Services Unit may search at its will in the database of over 641 million face photos without any legal permission.

— The United States lacks sufficient protection of ethnic minorities’ human rights and fundamental freedoms. Ethnic minorities in the country suffer bullying and exclusion, facing long-term, widespread and systematic discrimination in the political, economic, cultural and social areas. For American Indians alone, the U.S. government, for a long time, implemented compulsory policies of ethnic extinction, isolation and assimilation against them.

In nearly 100 years after the United States of America was founded, the country drove out and killed American Indians on a large scale during the Westward Movement. By the beginning of the 20th century, the number of American Indians within the border of the United States dropped sharply to 250,000 from five million in 1492. Currently, American Indians only account for two percent of the country’s total population.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, African Americans are over four times more likely to catch the disease than white Americans, with much higher mortality rates as well, highlighting racial inequality in the country. Fatal police shootings are not uncommon either, with the number of such cases reaching 1,004 in 2019 alone. Among the 7,036 bias-induced hate crime cases reported by U.S. law enforcement agencies in 2018, 57.5 percent were motivated by a race, ethnicity or ancestry bias. Furthermore, of hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity or ancestry, 46.9 percent were against African Americans. African Americans accounted for 47.1 percent of the 5,155 victims of race-based hate crimes. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, an African American man in the state of Minnesota, was killed by a white police officer, triggering large-scale protests across the United States. The United Nations Human Rights Council held an urgent debate and adopted a resolution, strongly condemning the incident and calling for the United States to take concrete measures to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of African Americans.

— The United States has the widest wealth gap among Western countries. In January 2017, the Business Insider published a chart by Torsten Slok, Deutsche Bank’s chief international economist, which showed the share of U.S. household wealth by income level. Notably, the top 0.1 percent of households hold about the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90 percent. From 1989 to 2018, the bottom 50 percent of families saw basically no net increase in their wealth. In light of COVID-19, employers in the United States have laid off tens of millions of employees since this February, dealing a particularly heavy blow to low-income workers and dragging the employment rate 35 percent lower than the pre-COVID-19 level.

— The United States suppresses the media and restricts freedom of the press. The Washington Post reported in April 2019 that for the third time in three years, the United States’ standing in an annual index of press freedom declined. In 2019, 38 journalists in the country suffered attacks; journalists were rejected from attending government open events for 28 times; and nine journalists were arrested or faced criminal charges. Media organizations including The New York Times and The Hill in the United States and The Guardian in the United Kingdom frequently reported news of journalists being attacked or arrested while reporting the protests concerning George Floyd, with 148 journalists involved from May 26 to June 2 alone — 40 journalists were shot by gun; 34 physically assaulted by police; 33 arrested or detained; and one female photojournalist even permanently lost vision in her left eye after being shot by a rubber bullet. A report by The Guardian in December last year said the current U.S. administration "has dealt the most sustained assault on press freedom in U.S. history."

— Abusing the concept of national security, the U.S. administration uses national resources to smear, attack, encircle and contain Chinese private companies including Huawei, ByteDance and Tencent, forbid U.S. service providers from purchasing equipment made by Huawei and ZTE, and ban Chinese social media applications such as TikTok and WeChat. The acts violate market principles of fair and free competition. This is sheer daylight robbery. How can such a country serve as the beacon for the Chinese people?

— On July 25, The Atlantic published an article titled "Pompeo’s surreal speech on China" by Thomas Wright, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He pointed out that Pompeo said the United States will organize the "free world" while alienating and undermining the "free world." Pompeo extolled democracy while aiding and abetting its destruction at home in the United States. Pompeo praised the Chinese people while generalizing about the ill intent of Chinese students who want to come to America. Pompeo’s tirade will discredit the case for competition with China among U.S. allies, in Asia and Europe, who are petrified of a full-blown Cold War between the United States and China, Wright said.

4.Mike Pompeo: China seeks global hegemony. China threatens international agreements and treats international agreements as conduits for global dominance.

False.

Fact check: The Constitution of the Communist Party of China and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have made it clear that China follows a path of peaceful development and opposes hegemony. No matter what stage of development it reaches, China will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion. That’s what China says, and also what it does. Since its founding 70 years ago, the PRC has never started any war or occupied an inch of the land of others. In contrast, the United States has never made such policy announcement. In a speech delivered by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 2019, he pointed out that the United States had only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its history of more than 240 years, making the country "the most warlike nation in the history of the world."

— China firmly upholds the international system with the United Nations at its core and an international order based on international law, including a series of international conventions signed within the UN framework. China actively advocates a new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation, develops all-round friendship and cooperation with other countries, and establishes a global network of partnerships. China is committed to building a community with a shared future for mankind. It advocates an international order that features fairness and justice and calls for global cooperation through extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits and for upholding justice while pursuing shared interests. It has all along worked to safeguard the norms governing international relations, the multilateral system and stability of the international order. According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China has become an important pillar of the multilateral system, with the aim to establish a community with a shared future for mankind through practicing multilateralism.

— As the first founding member to sign the UN Charter, China firmly upholds its purposes and principles and honors the spirit of contract and the international rule of law. China has all along kept its promises, followed rules and fulfilled agreements. China opposes acts that undermine the authority and sanctity of international law, including unauthorized use of force and withdrawal from treaties and organizations. China is also the second-largest contributor to the UN regular budget and peacekeeping operations, actively fulfilling its financial obligations to the UN as a developing country.

— China has signed or joined 20 multilateral arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It also actively participates in the international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation process, opposes arms race, and safeguards global strategic balance and stability. China has also voluntarily downsized its military personnel by over 4 million since reform and opening up.

— China has fully fulfilled its obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, and made efforts to build a global climate governance system that is fair, equitable, and mutually beneficial. Compared with 2005, China’s carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 45.8 percent in 2018, achieving emission reduction target set for 2020 two years ahead of schedule, and non-fossil energy accounted for 14.3 percent of China’s total energy consumption. China leads the world in the investment, installed capacity, power generation and consumption of renewable energy, and has more than half of the world’s new energy vehicles. Since 2000, China has contributed to a quarter of the world’s newly increased afforestation areas.

— The United States always seeks selfish gains under the pretext of upholding international law. Its all-time principle is to apply international law in a selective way. The United States has withdrawn from more than 10 international treaties and organizations, severely undermining international fairness and justice, as well as peace, stability and development in the world.

In 1982, the United States, to maintain its maritime hegemony, refused to sign the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which it is still not a party.

In 1985, the United States refused to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) after Nicaragua complained that U.S. armed intervention violated its sovereignty.

In 1995, the United States announced its withdrawal from the UN Industrial Development Organization and refused to pay arrears by claiming domestic budgetary constraints.

In 2001, the United States refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, saying that it was not in its national interest to meet relevant environmental obligations. It is still not a party to the protocol.

In 2001, the United States announced its withdrawal from the UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance after failing to prevent discussion of Israeli military action against Palestinians.

In 2002, the United States formally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972, aiming to develop its anti-ballistic missile systems.

In 2002, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, citing unfavorable terms for American soldiers, diplomats and politicians.

In 2017, the United States announced its withdrawal from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) due to "concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO."

In 2017, the United States announced its formal withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership because it believed that the multilateral trade agreements were not in its best interests and hindered its "America First" policy.

In 2017, the U.S. government announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, believing that it hindered the U.S. economic development and calling global climate change a "created concept."

In 2017, the United States announced that it has decided to end participation in the UN process to develop a Global Compact on Migration, saying that "our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone."

In 2018, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iran’s fulfillment of its Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) commitment and that the United States had no clear evidence to show Iran’s breach of the deal, the United States announced its withdrawal from the JCPOA, a deal that has been endorsed by the UN Security Council, imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran, and prevented other countries from implementing the deal through "long-arm jurisdiction."

In 2018, the United States announced its withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, claiming it failed to effectively protect human rights.

In 2018, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes relating to the jurisdiction of the ICJ in response to Palestine’s complaint to the ICJ over the U.S. government’s relocation of its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

In 2019, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to develop advanced capabilities without restraint.

In 2020, the United States announced steps to exit the Open Skies Treaty despite the opposition from its allies, saying the steps would start on May 22 and would be finished six months later.

In 2020, U.S. national security agencies discussed the possibility of resuming nuclear tests, which has met with wide criticism from the international community, causing concerns that the possible resumption would violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, provoke a nuclear arms race, and further undermine global strategic stability and security.

In 2020, the U.S. government, looking for scapegoats for its botched response to COVID-19, announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organization. It should be noted that the United States still owes more than 200 million U.S. dollars in assessed contributions, which should be paid off before the exit takes effect.

— For some time, the U.S. government has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from a series of international organizations and treaties, including the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the UN. Turning wantonly away from international organizations and treaties is against the spirit of contract and international justice. The rules must be observed in fairness and be mutually binding, and must not be compromised by "pragmatism" and "double standards."

— According to a Pew Research Center survey in February 2019, 45 percent of the surveyed believe the United States poses a grave threat to the world. There are 10 nations surveyed where roughly half or more now see U.S. power as a major threat, including Germany, Japan and South Korea. Recently some U.S. media, experts and scholars publicly said that the country posing the biggest geopolitical threat to the United States is precisely the United States itself.

5. Mike Pompeo: The CCP will subvert the rules-based order that the free world have worked hard to build. The CCP’s actions are the primary challenge today in the free world. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny. It’s time for a new alliance of democracies. The division is between freedom and tyranny, not about siding with America or China.

False.

Fact check: To arbitrarily label a country as "free" or "tyrannical" is a kind of groundless and preposterous arrogance and prejudice. The obsolete prejudices in the last century will not help solve the new problems in the 21st century. The call of our world today is peace and development and all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are entitled to choose their own social system and development path. Preserving world peace and stability and achieving mutually-beneficial cooperation ought to be a common choice of the people of all countries around the world. To foment ideological confrontation is to intentionally lead the world into a new Cold War, and is a resurgence of the notorious McCarthyism that is going against the trend of the times.

— Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his recent article published in Foreign Affairs magazine expressed concern of Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries over the tensions between the United States and China, saying that Asia-Pacific countries do not wish to be forced to choose between the two. He said regional arrangements should be open and inclusive. "They should not, whether by design or result, keep any party out, undermine existing cooperation arrangements, create rival blocs, or force countries to take sides…It is natural for big powers to compete. But it is their capacity for cooperation that is the true test of statecraft," he said.

— Kishore Mahbubani, a professor at the National University of Singapore and a former Singaporean permanent representative to the United Nations, noted that China regained its strength by plugging into the rules-based global order established in 1945. He said China has no desire to overturn this order, and it would be happy to cooperate with America within it. "In short, a prosperous China can live together in peace with a prosperous America, as inconceivable as this thought might seem in the toxic political environment in the U.S."

— On July 25, an online international meeting themed "No to the New Cold War," organized by scholars and activists from multiple countries, was streamed live on several platforms. One of the initiators, British scholar John Ross said the theme was not about a "pro-China" statement, but was because the U.S.-led new Cold War will be against the interests of humanity and is a threat to humanity. He said the new Cold War is an attempt by the present U.S. administration to impose its policies on the world and force other countries to follow.

– The U.S. administration has withdrawn from many international treaties and organizations and wantonly wields the big stick of sanctions, disregarding international obligations and norms. It has become the biggest destroyer of international order and the world’s top source of instability. Many Western strategists have pointed out that it is absurd that the United States considers itself a representative of the "free world." By resorting to ideological tactics to build a coalition to contain China, the United States puts itself on the wrong side of history.

— The United States has instigated multiple coups in other countries under the pretext of "freedom" that resulted in military governments coming to power, and provoked chaos through "color revolutions." Lindsey O’Rourke, an associate professor of Boston College’s political science department, observed in her book "Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War" that the United States carried out 64 regime-change operations in other countries between 1947 and 1989. The Manila Times reported in September 2019 that the United States had, in the last decade alone, invaded and managed regime change in over 20 countries around the world. Even today, people in countries including Libya and Syria are still suffering from turmoil caused by wars, with freedom from fear and scarcity nowhere in sight. The international community has seen it increasingly clear the real purpose of the United States’ trumpeting for "freedom".

— In an article by Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University, which was titled "How to Ruin a Superpower" and published on Foreign Policy website on July 23, he pointed out the mistakes the United States committed, one of which was adopting a grand strategy of liberal hegemony in the uni-polar era, which sought to spread democracy, markets, and other liberal values far and wide and to bring the whole world into a "liberal order" that was designed and led by the United States.

— Zheng Yongnian, a professor with the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore, said in an article published in Lianhe Zaobao that an oversimplified classification of a country’s political system as "democracy" or "autocracy/a system concentrating nationwide effort and resources on key national undertakings" will inevitably lead to politicization and ideologicalization, resulting in a double standard that prevents one from seeing the truth. The United States and Western "democracies" have always assumed a posture of being ready to wage a war against China for defending democracy, as if threats to Western democracy come from China. This is, in fact, utterly wrong. The threats to Western democracy only come from within, not from external challenges.

— On July 25, experts and scholars from 48 countries held a meeting and issued a joint statement, pointing out that the words and deeds of the U.S. government against China are becoming increasingly fierce, which poses a threat to world peace, and that a new Cold War in any form is completely against the interests of humanity. The attendees supported China and the United States developing relations on the basis of dialogue and jointly working for solidarity of mankind.

6. Mike Pompeo: President Richard Nixon said "the world cannot be safe until China changes." The engagement the U.S. has been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce. The old paradigm of blind engagement with China has failed. The U.S. must induce China to change.

False.

Fact check: The U.S. engagement with China is deliberate rather than blind, and serves the national interests of the United States. President Nixon promoted the normalization of China-U.S. relations not to change China, but for the common interests of both countries. During his first visit to China in 1972, Nixon told Chinese leaders that he had come for U.S. interests. In a toast at the Great Hall of the People, Nixon said "We began our talks recognizing that we have great differences, but we are determined that those differences not prevent us from living together in peace. You believe deeply in your system, and we believe just as deeply in our system."

— The assertion that the policy of engagement with China pursued by successive U.S. administrations has failed is just a rehash of the Cold War mentality. It turns a blind eye to all that has been achieved in China-U.S. relations over the past decades, and shows ignorance of the historical process and lack of respect for the Chinese and American peoples. This is a political virus which is understandably questioned and rebuked by people in the United States and the international community.

— As two major countries of the world, China and the United States have coexisted peacefully over the past 40 years and more. There have been no wars or sharp confrontations. Instead, both countries have overcome difficulties and kept developing. This is the greatest achievement of the engagement policy. China-U.S. relations are of vital importance to the well-being of the two peoples and to world peace, stability and prosperity.

— Pompeo’s assertion ran contrary to historical facts, said former U.S. senior diplomat Charles Freeman, who joined Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 as an interpreter. "Those who don’t understand what engagement achieved argue that it failed to change the Chinese political system, something it was never intended to do," he said.

— Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Pompeo sought to commit the United States to a path that is bound to fail. It is not within America’s power to determine China’s future, much less transform it. How China addresses its challenges "will be for the Chinese people and their leaders to determine," Haass noted.

— Paul Heer, an expert from the Center for the National Interest, a U.S. think tank, pointed out that the 50 years of engagement with China, which Pompeo denounced as a failure, actually worked. Success in the Cold War against the Soviet Union, which was aided in part by China’s decision to align strategically with the United States; China’s reform and opening-up policy which greatly expanded U.S.-China economic and cultural relations; decades of an endless supply of inexpensive imports and an export market for American farmers and manufacturers; a gradual Chinese embrace of multilateralism and more responsible proliferation behavior; and a dramatic opening up of Chinese society compared to what it had been.

— Kishore Mahbubani, a professor at the National University of Singapore and a former Singaporean ambassador to the United Nations, said that when future historians look back, they’ll be puzzled by the Western expectation that a country like China, with 4,000 years of political history, could be changed by a country like the U.S., with a history of fewer than 250 years. The assumption that the rest of the world will, over time, become just like the West is arrogant.

There is a fundamental difference between the United States and China, said Mahbubani, noting that the United States believes that it has the best society in the world and any other countries can be better off by copying it. However, the world has seen in the past few years how difficult it is to transform a society. When the United States exported democracy to Iraq, it ended in disaster.

Mahbubani said Chinese people have a different position, which is simply that only we Chinese can be Chinese; you choose the system that is good for you, and we choose our own. The reality is that China is now getting stronger and certainly also becoming more capable of execution.

7. Mike Pompeo: America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between the U.S. and China, just as the CCP has never ignored them. The U.S. must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways.

False.

Fact check: Every country takes its development path on the basis of its cultural and historic traditions. No force is entitled to negate the choice of other countries. No country will alter its own system just because others do not like it. China has repeatedly stated that it never intends to challenge or replace the United States, or have a full confrontation with it. China has no intention to engage in rivalry of systems and ideological confrontation with the United States. China never exports ideology, never interferes in other countries’ internal affairs, and never seeks to change the U.S. system. However, the incumbent U.S. administration is afraid to make such an aboveboard declaration as China does.

— China and the United States differ from each other in history, culture, social systems, development paths and national conditions. Therefore, it is inevitable for the two countries to have some differences and frictions. What is important is for the two sides to correctly understand and properly handle such differences. Early on after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the United States pursued a containment policy toward China. The two countries even fought each other on the Korean Peninsula and then fell into 22 years of confrontation. In the 1970s, Dr. Henry Kissinger secretly visited China and then the two countries resumed exchange and opened the gate for peaceful coexistence and common prosperity under the efforts of former U.S. President Richard Nixon, Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai. Ups and downs over the past few decades fully show that confrontation and conflict are not in the interests of China or the United States and dialogue and cooperation are the right way of getting along with each other. For the sake of our two countries and the world at large, China and the United States should not seek to remodel each other. Instead, they must work together to find ways to peaceful coexistence of different systems and civilizations.

— When China-U.S. relations were normalized in 1972, the most fundamental reason for the realization of the cross-Pacific Ocean handshaking between leaders of the two countries was that both sides upheld the principle of mutual respect and seeking common ground while shelving differences, including our ideological differences.

— As the Joint Communique of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America (Shanghai Communique) issued on Feb. 28, 1972 states, there are essential differences between China and the United States in their social systems and foreign policies. However, the two sides agreed that countries, regardless of their social systems, should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, non-aggression against other states, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. The communique explicitly acknowledges that there are essential differences between the social systems of China and the United States, but the differences have not affected the establishment and development of China-U.S. relations.

— According to the Joint Communique of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America (August 17 Communique) signed on Aug. 17, 1982, respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs constitute the fundamental principles guiding China-United States relations. The United States government attaches great importance to its relations with China, and reiterates that it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, reads the communique. It adds that the development of China-United States relations is not only in the interests of the two peoples but also conducive to peace and stability in the world.

— On Nov. 17, 2009, China and the United States signed a joint statement, stressing that each country and its people have the right to choose their own path, and all countries should respect each other’s choice of a development model. The United States reiterated that it welcomes a strong, prosperous and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs.

— In a joint statement by the two countries, which was signed in Washington on Jan. 19, 2011, China and the United States underscored that each country and its people have the right to choose their own path, and all countries should respect each other’s choice of a development model.

— U.S. President Donald Trump paid a state visit to China from Nov. 8 to 10, 2017. The two sides agreed to expand cooperation in a wide range of areas on the basis of mutual benefit, properly manage differences on the basis of mutual respect, enhance the mutual understanding and friendship between the two peoples and strengthen communication and coordination on major international and regional issues so as to move forward the China-U.S. ties.

— What has happened in China-U.S. relations over the past generations demonstrates that this monumental choice made by the two sides is the right one. Over the past 40 years and more since the two countries entered into diplomatic ties, several generations of Chinese and Americans have worked together to advance China-U.S. relations. As a result, bilateral ties have become one of the most deeply interwoven relationships in the world with broadest cooperation areas and most extensive common interests. The ups and downs in China-U.S. relations provide ample evidence that confrontation and conflict are not in the fundamental interests of both sides, and dialogue and cooperation are the only way to go.

8. Mike Pompeo: The United States must distrust and verify when it comes to the CCP.

False.

Fact check: Pompeo’s so-called "distrust and verify" approach to China abounds with strong Cold War mentality, ideological bias, condescending and bullying attitudes, as well as ignorance towards China. Indeed, there is a trust deficit between China and the United States. Its root lies in the Cold War mentality, ideological bias, and zero-sum game mindset of certain U.S. politicians, who have misread, misjudged or even deliberately distorted China’s strategic intention and its internal and external policies.

— Engagement between countries should be built on a foundation of integrity, a premise of equal treatment and a goal of peace, development and win-win cooperation. Bilateral relations should work in reciprocal ways: one country cannot have the other be responsible without taking its own responsibility for the other side. Likewise, one country cannot be concerned only with its own benefits and security without considering those of the other. If the United States assumes China to be a "potential enemy", eventually it is bound to "create an enemy". Only by regarding each other as partners can China and the United States avoid confrontation and become friends.

— China has maintained a highly stable and consistent policy toward the United States, and China stands ready to develop a China-U.S. relationship featuring no conflict and confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation based on coordination, cooperation and stability. This will require the two sides to work in the same direction, respect international law and rules, and engage in equal dialogue and consultation.

— While the United States unscrupulously contains and smears China around the world, and meddles in China’s domestic affairs, it should not demand unrealistically that China show understanding and support to the United States in bilateral and global affairs. As an independent sovereign country, China has every right to uphold its sovereignty, security and development interests, safeguard the achievements that the Chinese people have made through hard work, and reject any bullying and injustice imposed on it.

— The U.S. government has continuously pulled out of international treaties and organizations. It wields the stick of sanctions wherever it wants and ignores its international obligations and the international norms, making itself the most damaging force of the current international order and the biggest source of global instability. The current U.S. administration has pulled out of more international treaties than any one before it. It is the United States, not others, that deserves the "distrust and verify" approach the most.

9. Mike Pompeo: The CCP fails in its promises to the world, leading to the continued rise in the pandemic’s death toll.

False.

Fact check: The Chinese government has taken the most comprehensive, strict and thorough prevention and control measures in the shortest time, containing the epidemic mainly in Wuhan. Data showed that very few cases were from China, and the transmission chain of the virus was effectively cut off. A Science magazine report estimated that the aforementioned measures reduced the number of infected people in China by more than 700,000.

— When Wuhan was locked down on Jan. 23,2020, there was only one confirmed case in the United States. When the U.S. on Feb. 2 closed its borders to all Chinese citizens and foreigners who had been to China over the past 14 days, it reported merely more than 10 confirmed cases. When the U.S. declared a state of emergency on March 13, the country’s COVID-19 tally was 1,896. When the Chinese government lifted the lockdown on Wuhan on April 8, the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. reached 400,000. The country saw its tally rise from one to 1 million in less than 100 days. Currently, the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. has exceeded 5.69 million with the death toll over 170,000.

— From the onset of COVID-19, the largest emergency humanitarian operation in the history of the People’s Republic of China has been carried out. The nation widely shared its experience in COVID-19 prevention and control, provided medical supplies and dispatched medical teams to where they were needed overseas. By early May, seven versions of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines and six versions of the prevention and control guidelines had been made public through an online knowledge center. A 2-billion-yuan special fund had been set up to fight COVID-19, and over 120 video conferences had been held with experts and officials from more than 160 countries and international organizations. Medical supplies had been provided to more than 150 countries and international organizations, and 29 Chinese medical teams had been sent to 27 countries. China set up a joint expert group with the EU, and established a prevention and control cooperation mechanism with the Republic of Korea. China sent a cash donation of 50 million U.S. dollars to the World Health Organization, pledged to make COVID-19 vaccines global public goods, and provided the world with more than 70 billion face masks. In response to the G20 call for debt repayment moratorium for the poorest countries, China has agreed to suspend principal and interest repayments on the debts of 77 developing countries due from May 1 to the end of this year. The international community commended China’s help and support which reflected the spirit of sharing weal and woe and helping each other, and further highlighted the importance of building a community with a shared future for mankind.

— On May 1, the website of U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report by CDC Principal Deputy Chief Anne Schuchat and CDC COVID-19 response team, which showed that after the United States’ first confirmed case was reported on Jan. 21, the pandemic seemed to be brought under control in February, but then intensified rapidly. Factors including a continued rise in imported cases, mass gatherings, the introduction of the virus into high-risk workplaces and densely populated areas, and limited testing that led to covert and asymptomatic transmissions, accelerated the spread of the virus in February and March.

— New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo pointed to a research by Northeastern University showing that the first strain of the novel coronavirus entering his state was not from China. The New York Times quoted American experts who confirmed that most New York coronavirus cases did not come from Asia.

— Statistics from several major Canadian provinces showed that the virus was introduced into Canada by American travelers. A study by France’s Pasteur Institute found that the source of the virus strain transmitted locally was unknown. Russia reported no imported cases from China. Data from the Australian Government Department of Health showed that the proportion of imported cases from Northeast Asia was extremely small. Japan’s National Institute of Infectious Diseases said the pandemic that spread in Japan after March did not originate in China.

— As the New York Times pointed out in an article titled Why is the U.S. exporting coronavirus, the United States, with the largest number of COVID-19 cases in the world, is continuing to deport thousands of immigrants, many infected with the coronavirus. In late April, the Guatemalan government reported that nearly a fifth of the country’s coronavirus cases were linked to deportees from the United States. Seventy-one of 76 deportees tested positive for the coronavirus.

10. Mike Pompeo: The world would be much better if doctors in Wuhan had been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.

False.

Fact check: On Aug. 3, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of medical journal The Lancet, wrote in an article in The Guardian, saying that Chinese doctors quickly warned their government and their government warned the world, but Western nations failed to listen to those warnings. To blame China for this pandemic is to rewrite the history of COVID-19 and to marginalize the failings of Western nations.

— The novel coronavirus is unknown to mankind. It takes a process to study and understand it. As one of the first countries hit by the virus, China undertook a closed-book exam, which means developing effective prevention and control measures requires more careful research beforehand. Jumping to conclusions without research shows no sense of responsibility to science and to the people.

— China has been open, transparent, rapid and effective in its response to COVID-19, with no cover-ups or delays. On Dec. 27, 2019, Dr. Zhang Jixian, director of the respiratory and critical care medicine department at Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, reported suspected cases. After that China took rapid actions, carried out etiological and epidemiological investigations, and blocked the spreading of the epidemic. China’s information sharing has been timely. Starting from Jan. 3, 2020, China provided epidemic updates on a regular basis to the World Health Organization and foreign countries including the United States. China carried out international cooperation, shared the genome sequence of the virus with other countries at the earliest time possible, and shared its epidemic prevention and control experience. The United States ignored the warnings from China. Now out of political motives, it is wantonly questioning China’s transparency. Such a move is utter disrespect for the tremendous efforts and sacrifices of the Chinese people.

— After the COVID-19 outbreak, the vast majority of Chinese medical workers, bearing in mind their supreme mission of safeguarding the lives and health of the people, rushed to the front line of epidemic prevention and control without hesitation, raced against time to rescue patients, fought against the disease, and created one medical miracle after another. Their professional ethics, professionalism and strong will are highly recognized by people from all walks of life in China. The Chinese government has unveiled a slew of measures to protect and care for medical staff and commended them with awards and honors. Zhang Dingyu, head of Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, and Zhang Jixian, the doctor at Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine who first reported the COVID-19 cases, have gotten a merit award. Many medical staff and medical teams were honored with the May Fourth Medals, and eight medical workers, including Li Wenliang, were honored posthumously. Recently, Zhong Nanshan was awarded the Medal of the Republic, while Zhang Boli, Zhang Dingyu and Chen Wei were awarded the national honorary title "the People’s Hero" to honor their significant contribution to the fight against COVID-19.

— U.S. politicians have put politics above science, ignored the reality of their incompetence in fighting the epidemic, and repeatedly criticized the epidemic prevention and control advice raised by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci said he and his family had received death threats and had to get extra security. Recently, over 3,000 U.S. public health experts signed an open letter, criticizing the efforts of White House officials to discredit Fauci. Calling the COVID-19 pandemic the greatest challenge the United States has faced in its history, the open letter said the attempt of the White House to discredit and marginalize Fauci is a dangerous distraction. The Washington Post commented on July 20 that under the guidance of the U.S. government, many Americans believe scientists and mainstream media have exaggerated the severity of the pandemic or even fabricated the pandemic, and that resistance to scientific experts has become part of the political agenda. A New York Times report cited the experience of Dr. Helen Y. Chu, the U.S. whistleblower, and a team of researchers, saying that faced with a public health emergency on a scale potentially not seen in a century, the United States has not responded nimbly. The professional advice of Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was unkindly treated by senior U.S. health officials. He was ousted from his position after refusing to allow wide use of the medicine in accordance with government orders. The official website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped updating in early March and deleted relevant data on the number of people tested for the novel coronavirus and the number of deaths.

11. Mike Pompeo: The massive imbalances in the U.S.-China relationship have built up over decades. Chinese trade abuses sucked supply chains away from America, cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America.

False.

Fact check: In today’s era of globalization, the interests of all countries are deeply intertwined. The formation and development of the global industrial chain and supply chain is the result of the joint work of market rule and the choice of enterprises. China and the United States have become each other’s most important trading partner and investment destination, as well as a community of shared interests deeply connected by industrial, supply and service chains.

– The Sino-U.S. relationship is defined by equality, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation. It has been based on mutual benefit from the very beginning. China owes nothing to the United States. In Sino-U.S. economic and trade cooperation, China receives capital, technology and management experience from the United States, while the United States has gained market share in China and occupied the high end of the global industrial chain and value chain. Both countries have benefited greatly from their cooperation with each other. Through complementary and mutually beneficial cooperation with China, the U.S. economy has achieved faster growth, American families have saved significant costs of living, and American companies have gained handsome profits. Both China and the United States have achieved remarkable development and progress through cooperation, bringing tangible benefits to the two countries and their peoples.

— Sino-U.S. economic and trade cooperation is essentially mutually beneficial and win-win. China and the United States are each other’s largest trading partner and important source of investment. In 2018, their bilateral trade exceeded 630 billion U.S. dollars and the stock of two-way investment exceeded 240 billion U.S. dollars. Statistics of the U.S.-China Business Council in May 2019 showed that between 2009 and 2018, China was one of the fastest-growing markets for U.S. goods exports, with an average annual growth rate of 6.3 percent and a cumulative growth rate of 73.2 percent, much higher than the average growth rate of 56.9 percent to the rest of the world. By the end of 2018, Chinese enterprises had invested 73.17 billion U.S. dollars in the United States. Chinese investment in the United States has made positive contribution to the development of local communities, and the increase in jobs and tax revenue. During COVID-19, China once again became the largest trading partner of the United States. In May 2020, bilateral trade rose to 46.5 billion U.S. dollars, and China’s holding of U.S. Treasury bonds exceeded 1.08 trillion U.S. dollars.

— American enterprises have invested in more than 70,000 businesses in China, with annual sales of 700 billion U.S. dollars, and 97 percent of them are profitable. There are only two single markets that account for more than 10 percent of Apple’s global revenue. One is the U.S. market, with a total revenue of 96.6 billion U.S. dollars, and the other is the Chinese market. In 2017, General Motors’ sales in the Chinese market accounted for 42 percent of its global sales, and were 1 million units more than the sales in the U.S. market. Qualcomm’s chip sales and patent license fees in China accounted for 57 percent of its total revenue. According to a survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China in May 2020, 84 percent of American enterprises are unwilling to withdraw from China, 38 percent of American enterprises will maintain or increase their investment in China, and China is still the most favored market for American enterprises.

— Sino-U.S. economic and trade cooperation has brought tangible benefits to the American people. For more than 40 years, bilateral trade in goods between China and the United States has increased by more than 250 times, supporting about 2.6 million jobs in the United States. About 72,500 U.S. enterprises have invested in China and most of them have benefited a lot.

According to the 2019 State Export Report released by the U.S.-China Business Council on May 1, 2019, U.S. exports to China supported more than 1.1 million jobs in the United States from 2009 to 2018 and 97 percent of the U.S. companies surveyed said doing business with China was profitable. Chinese investment in America had spread across 46 states, directly creating more than 140,000 jobs in America. Trade between China and the United States saved each American family an average cost of 850 U.S. dollars per year, equivalent to 1.5 percent of the household income in America. According to the U.S. Travel Association, Chinese tourists spend an average of 7,000 U.S. dollars per trip to the United States, including air tickets and accommodation.

— The main causes of unemployment among certain groups in the American society are the mistakes of U.S. economic policies and the lack of redistributive and reemployment mechanisms in the context of technological progress and economic restructuring. Arthur R. Kroeber, a member of the National Committee on United States-China Relations, told the Asia Society that the problem with the hit to American employment over the past few decades was the failure of the United States to adjust its domestic policies in a timely manner. A report by the Cato Institute, a U.S. think tank, noted that U.S. manufacturing job losses and worker losses had little to do with Chinese imports.

— According to a Cato Institute report, American consumers have benefited greatly from Sino-U.S. trade. From 2004 to 2015, due to imports from China, U.S. consumer price index dropped by an average 0.19 percent annually, effectively easing inflation in the United States. Sino-U.S. trade helps, not hurts, American manufacturers and workers. It is estimated that out of every U.S. dollar Americans spend on "made in China" products in 2018, 56 cents went to American companies and workers, and importing Chinese products has helped American manufacturing become more competitive, invest more and innovate more.

— The United States unilaterally provoked a trade war with China, and this will ultimately damage its own interests. The Peterson Institute for International Economics projected that raising tariffs on imported automobiles would cause about 195,000 U.S. workers to lose their jobs. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated that due to the additional tariffs imposed on 250 billion U.S. dollars of Chinese exports in 2018, U.S. consumers would have to spend an extra 52.8 billion U.S. dollars every year. That is 414 U.S. dollars more in expenditure for every American family.

Recently, 160 American companies submitted a joint letter to the U.S. Congress, demanding the cancellation of the additional tariffs on China, saying that in 2019, due to the additional tariffs, the U.S. public paid an extra 50 billion U.S. dollars, which is 1,277 U.S. dollars on average for each household, and the market value of U.S. listed companies shrank by 1.7 trillion U.S. dollars.

— The U.S. attempt to forcibly "decouple" the Chinese and American economies, cut off the global industrial, supply and value chains, and disrupt the global economic and trade pattern poses the biggest threat to the safety of the industrial and supply chains of the two countries and the world at large. Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg and former Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon argued that the Trump administration has overlooked the benefits that two generations of Americans have reaped from importing affordable consumer goods, low-cost inputs for high-end manufacturing exports, and growing U.S. export surpluses in services and agricultural products. The trade war or "decoupling" pursued by the Trump administration would hurt American workers, farmers and consumers. According to a study by Moody’s Analytics, Trump’s trade war with China has already cost the United States an estimated 300,000 jobs and an average of around 600 U.S. dollars per household from higher prices.

12.Mike Pompeo: China ripped off America’s prized intellectual property and trade secrets.

False.

Fact check: China is a big country in terms of innovation and intellectual property (IP), and has kept strengthening the protection of scientific innovation and intellectual property. China is now among the world’s leaders in terms of the scale and growth rate of innovation input. Its R&D expenditure had grown from 300.31 billion yuan in 2006 to 1.96779 trillion yuan in 2018, recording an average annual growth of 17 percent and rising from the sixth to the second in the world. China has the world’s biggest number of researchers. China’s IP offices have received the highest number of patent applications for nine years in a row. China has also registered rapid increase in international patent applications and grown into the world’s second biggest filer of international patent applications via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) System. The annual WIPO report recognizes China as a main driving force for intellectual property development in the world.

— In recent years, China has continued to take effective measures, introduced a number of policies and measures to strengthen intellectual property, and intensified law enforcement and protection, which have produced remarkable results. The decision to amend the "Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China" has substantially raised the cost of infringement and violations. China has released the "Guidelines on Strengthening Reform and Innovation in Intellectual Property Trials" and the "Guidelines on Strengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property," emphasizing the need to promote coordinated advancement of intellectual property protection and enhance the overall level of protection. China has joined almost all major international intellectual property treaties. In 2019, the country scored 78.98 points in terms of public satisfaction over intellectual property protection. According to the 2019 "Business Confidence Survey" report released by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, around 60 percent of the 585 EU companies interviewed regarded that China’s administrative and judicial protection of intellectual property had been significantly strengthened. The International Intellectual Property Index report released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in March 2019 specifically pointed out that China has made outstanding achievements in improving the online sales environment and drug patent enforcement. In the World Bank "Doing Business 2020" report, China lifted its ranking to the 31st slot, and made to the list of the top 10 improved economies for the second year in a row.

— The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress held an antitrust hearing on July 29 this year. When asked whether they believe the Chinese government is stealing technology from American companies, the CEOs of Apple, Google, and Amazon all said that they had not experienced such cases.

— Yahoo News quoted U.S. government officials as saying that "U.S. President Trump gave a secret order that gives more powers to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for cyberattacks." This secret authorization makes it easier for the CIA to conduct covert cyber operations without the White House approval. Since the secret order was signed, the CIA has implemented at least 12 operations. On March 3 this year, Chinese cyber security company Qihoo 360 discovered that APT-C-39, a cyberattack organization of the CIA, had conducted cyberattacks on China for 11 years. During this period, China’s aerospace companies, scientific research institutions, petroleum industry, large internet firms and government agencies have all suffered attacks to varying degrees.

13.Mike Pompeo: The Chinese Consulate-General in Houston is a hub of spying and intellectual property theft.

False.

Fact check: The United States fabricated false charges and forcibly closed the Chinese Consulate-General in Houston, with the aim of pushing for a "decoupling" between China and the United States. It is an important part of the U.S. strategy to suppress China and is strongly opposed by the vast majority of rational Americans.

— The Consulate-General in Houston was the first Chinese consular mission opened in the United States following the establishment of China-U.S. diplomatic ties. In the past 41 years, it has worked hard to promote friendship and cooperation between the two peoples, and enhance mutual understanding and all-round cooperation between the two countries in various sectors. While COVID-19 raged on in the southern U.S. states, the Consulate-General donated masks to Houston and Harris County, and assisted Shanghai Municipality, Shandong Province and Shenzhen City of China in donating medical supplies to Houston.

— The composition and number of the staff at the Consulate-General in Houston was open information to the U.S. side. To accuse the Consulate-General as the hub of Chinese spying and intellectual property theft runs against the common sense in diplomacy. Reports from Cable News Network (CNN), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), The Houston Chronicle and British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) showed that closing the Chinese Consulate-General prior to the election was a measure by Trump to "play tough on China", hold up his declining approval rating and turn China into a convenient target to vilify and shore up votes. The New York Times questioned the assertion that "the Houston Consulate-General had a history of engaging in ‘subversive behavior’ and was the ‘epicenter’ of research theft in the United States", and believes that there is no evidence to support this allegation. Shocked by the decision of the U.S. government, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner expressed his hope that whatever the friction may be between the United States and China [it] can be resolved peacefully and that at some point in time the Consulate-General will reopen.

— An editorial of The Houston Chronicle said China is the second-largest trading partner of the Houston region, and the region has benefited greatly from having the Consulate-General in the city. For more than 40 years, the Chinese Consulate-General has served as a symbolic bridge, facilitating travel, trade and cultural ties between Houston and China.

14.Mike Pompeo: Many Chinese students and employees come to the U.S. to steal intellectual property.

False.

Fact check: The United States cooked up false charges against the normal scientific, cultural and people-to-people exchanges and cooperation with China based on the presumption of guilt. Such actions run counter to its self-proclaimed ideas of openness and freedom, the public commitments made by U.S. leaders, and the global trend of personnel exchanges, and have caused serious and negative impact on people-to-people exchanges between the two countries.

— The past four decades have seen growing cultural and people-to-people exchanges between the two sides, with over 5 million mutual visits recorded every year. Exchanges and cooperation in education and scientific research, in particular, have yielded fruitful results and benefited both countries. China has been one of the most popular destinations for American students in the past 40 years, during which more than 330,000 American students have come to China to further their study. China has also been the largest source of overseas students for the United States for 10 consecutive years. In the 2018-2019 academic year alone, the number of Chinese students in the United States totaled 370,000, accounting for one third of the country’s international students. In addition, as the statistics of the U.S. National Science Foundation suggest, China and the United States are each other’s largest collaborating country in internationally co-authored papers and their interdependence far exceeds other countries.

— It is in the interest of both sides to boost exchanges and cooperation in areas like science and technology. As shown in Global AI Talent Tracker, a report published in mid-June by the Paulson Institute’s in-house think tank MacroPolo, America’s big lead in AI is inseparable from China’s talent pool, with nearly one third of these researchers completing their undergraduate education in China.

— In his book The Gift of Global Talent, William Kerr, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, said that inventors with Chinese descent accounted for over 10 percent of patents in the United States. In 2018, for example, Chinese students in the United States reached 370,000, bringing about 20 billion U.S. dollars of benefits to the U.S. economy. Turning a blind eye to the contribution of Chinese students and researchers and acting in disregard of the objection from their own scholars, American politicians are putting their own country’s interests at stake.

— After the U.S. Department of Homeland Security put out the announcement to bar international students taking only online classes from obtaining visas or maintaining current visas, Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filed a lawsuit against the action, contending that the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, because the policy lacked reasonable justification and the public was not given notice to comment on it. Universities and institutions of higher learning across the country have joined Harvard and MIT in the lawsuit or filed lawsuits on their own. Many of them describe the new visa rules as "policymaking at its worst," "cruel and reckless" and "deeply misguided."

— For some time, the United States, out of its ideological bias, has made Chinese students and researchers the target of surveillance, harassment and willful detention, and fabricated absurd charges like "espionage" against Chinese scholars under the presumption of guilt. These U.S. actions have seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens and severely disrupted normal cultural and personnel exchanges between the two countries. Such practices are outright political persecution, which not only goes against morality and justice, but also hurts the United States’ own image. MIT President Rafael Reif said in an open letter to the university in 2019 that the "unfair scrutiny" targeting Chinese would "create a toxic atmosphere of unfounded suspicion and fear", bringing harm to this world-renowned research university and the United States.

15.Mike Pompeo: China sends propagandists into the press conferences, schools, research institutions in the U.S.

False.

Fact check: These remarks have fully exposed the ideological prejudice of the U.S. side. Media organizations should not be judged by the political systems and ideologies of their countries, but the objectivity, authenticity, fairness and impartiality of their news reports. Each country has its own national conditions and ways of media management and operation. The United States should not judge other countries’ media by its own standards and based on its own ideology. Chinese media organizations in the United States have always followed local laws and observed professional ethics. They have carried out news reporting normally and have never interfered in the internal affairs of the United States. Over the years, they have played an important and positive role in enhancing the objective understanding and friendliness of the Chinese people towards the United States.

— In recent years, the U.S. government has imposed unwarranted restrictions on the normal news reporting of Chinese media outlets and their staff in the country. It has continuously escalated discrimination and political suppression against Chinese media and restricted their freedom. In December 2018, CGTN America was registered as a "foreign agent" under orders from the U.S. Department of Justice. On February 18, 2020, the U.S. State Department designated five Chinese media outlets, including Xinhua News Agency, as "foreign missions" and demanded personnel, property and other information from them. On March 2, the U.S. State Department announced that from March 13, the five Chinese media outlets designated as "foreign missions" have to slash the number of Chinese nationals permitted to work in America by 60, a 40 percent cut in staff members, which means de facto expulsion of the Chinese journalists stationed in the country.

— The United States has for a long time imposed discriminatory visa policies on Chinese journalists. U.S.-based Chinese journalists are only granted single-entry visas, which means they have to reapply for visa after they leave for China or for a third country, and nine Chinese journalists have not been able to return to the United States after leaving the country. In contrast, the United States gives multiple-entry visas to journalists from other countries and regions. When applying for U.S. visa, Chinese journalists are often requested to provide substantial amount of additional documents. Meanwhile, it has become a common practice for the U.S. side to prolong and indefinitely delay the approval process and even deny the application in the name of administrative review. Statistics show that from 2018, more than 20 Chinese journalists have had their visa application indefinitely delayed and even denied. Some Chinese journalists applied for U.S. visa in mid-December 2019, but so far have not received any feedback from the U.S. side and their passports have not been returned either. In May 2020, the United States limited the duration of stay for U.S.-based Chinese journalists, including those based in the United Nations, to 90 days, which means they have to apply for a visa extension every 90 days. If the extension application is not approved, the journalists will be forced to leave America. This new move has seriously disrupted the normal reporting work of the Chinese media.

— At present, there are about 500 foreign journalists based in China. China has provided active assistance to facilitate their work and life. Normally, the applications of foreign journalists for the extension of press cards get approved within 10 workdays. For a long time, U.S. journalists in China have been able to travel to and from China many times with their valid certificates without applying for new visas. In 2019 alone, U.S. resident journalists in China traveled to and from the country more than 700 times. China welcomes media outlets and journalists from all countries to report in China in accordance with laws and regulations, and will continue to facilitate and assist their work.

— As of July 2020, a total of 28 U.S. media outlets have sent resident journalists to the Chinese mainland, with 34 offices in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. They have hired 29 U.S. journalists, 34 non-U.S. journalists and 135 employees. In addition, there are more than 20 U.S. media outlets operating in Hong Kong, with more than 400 staff. These U.S. journalists are free to attend press conferences held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ask questions without restriction. In recent years, some U.S. media outlets have concocted a lot of "fake news" with distorted facts, and pointed fingers at Xinjiang and Hong Kong affairs. They are sparing no effort to smear and attack China and even attack China’s political system. China opposes ideological prejudice against it, opposes the fabrication of fake news under the pretext of so-called freedom of the press, and opposes acts that violate the professional ethics of journalism.

16.Mike Pompeo: Chinese companies do not answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-owned and have no need to pursue profits. A good example is Huawei.

False.

Fact check: The fourth national economic census of China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) indicated that by the end of 2018, there were 15.61 million private companies in the country, up 178.6 percent from the end of 2013, and 84.1 percent of total enterprises were private ones, up 68.3 percent. The number of state-controlled enterprises were about 242,000, accounting for only 1.3 percent of total enterprises.

— Creating wealth and profits are the natural pursuit and the most important functions of businesses. NBS statistics revealed the following profits made by China’s major industrial enterprises (with an annual business turnover of at least 20 million yuan each) in 2019: 1.64 trillion yuan by state-controlled enterprises, 4.53 trillion yuan by joint-equity enterprises, 1.56 trillion yuan by foreign as well as Hong Kong-, Macao- and Taiwan-invested enterprises, and 1.82 trillion yuan by private enterprises.

— In China’s economic system, the private sector contributes to over 50 percent of tax revenue, over 60 percent of GDP, over 70 percent of technological innovation, and over 80 percent of urban employment, and accounts for over 90 percent of the number of enterprises.

— Huawei is a leading private enterprise, and 100 percent employee-owned. The Chinese government has no shares in Huawei, which adopts an employee shareholding scheme involving 104,572 people through its trade union. Only Huawei employees are eligible to participate, and no government departments or organizations have any shares in Huawei.

17.Mike Pompeo: Huawei is not an innocent telecommunications company but a national security threat to the U.S.

False.

Fact check: Over the past three decades, Huawei has grown from a small company to one of the world’s largest telecommunications equipment suppliers, providing quality services to over 3 billion people in more than 170 countries and regions. The company has brought enormous business opportunities to the global telecommunications industry and won a good international reputation. Each year, Huawei makes nearly 80 billion U.S. dollars of purchases globally from 13,000 suppliers in more than 140 countries. Purchases from the U.S. alone was nearly 19 billion dollars.

— Huawei strictly abides by local laws wherever it operates. The company has long been expressing its readiness to sign no-backdoor and no-eavesdropping agreements with any country, set up cybersecurity testing centers and open itself to testing. This is enough to prove Huawei’s innocence and transparency. So far, not a single country, a single company or a single individual has been able to produce solid and conclusive evidence to prove that Huawei poses a security threat to them. Huawei funded a cybersecurity testing center in the United Kingdom and opens itself to testing by UK experts. No other companies in any other country could do this, and no U.S. companies could act in such an open and honest way.

— Huawei owns a total of 87,805 patents worldwide, of which more than 90 percent are invention patents, including 11,152 core ones granted by the U.S. authorities. According to the latest statistics from German market intelligence company IPlytics, Huawei has declared the largest number of 5G essential patents, accounting for 15.05 percent of the total number of declarations. The Patent Index 2019 of the European Patent Office suggested that Huawei was its top applicant that year, with its declared 5G essential patents outnumbering all U.S. companies.

— The U.S. government has, with no factual basis at all, abused state power to willfully oppress and sanction Huawei under the pretext of national security. This is nothing short of economic bullying. For the United States, the so-called national security is nothing but a code name of hegemony.

— In an analysis titled Huawei and the Mantra of Security published on July 20, 2020, Xulio Rios, director of the Spanish Observatory of Chinese Politics in Spain, said the repeated use of national security to discredit Huawei looks like a good story. He mentioned that the truth behind the U.S. pressure on its allies to block Huawei is that "Huawei’s technology is highly competitive and places China ahead in the marketplace." They are trying to curb China’s development by classifying Huawei as a "security" threat.

— Jeffrey Sachs, the economics professor at Columbia University, agrees that targeting Huawei is never simply a security concern. "The U.S. concocted in my opinion, the view that Huawei is a global threat," he said, noting that the U.S. has leaned very hard on its allies…to try to break the relations with Huawei. "The United States lost its step on 5G, which is a critical part of the new digital economy."

— According to U.S. media reports, the U.S. Rural Wireless Association (RWA) estimates that 25 percent of its members had Huawei or ZTE equipment in their networks. Replacing the equipment would cost 800 million to 1 billion U.S. dollars, which means certain U.S. rural areas may lose basic communications facilities. Banning the purchase of Huawei and ZTE equipment or services by rural operators, as advocated by some in the U.S., could end up harming the interests of American businesses and consumers.

18.Mike Pompeo: Countries should become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the CCP.

False.

Fact check: The U.S. administration has generalized the concept of national security, resorted to the presumption of guilt and state power to hold down Chinese enterprises, and intervened in the economy with political means. All this has run counter to the free market, fair competition and entrepreneurship that the U.S. has been advocating globally for many years, seriously disrupted the order of the market economy, and violated WTO rules. These acts have undermined the open, transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system, affected the development prospects of the global 5G and digital industries, and damaged the common interests of all countries in the world.

— The Chinese government has never asked, and will not ask its enterprises or individuals to violate local laws, and to collect or provide data, information and intelligence of foreign countries through the installation of "backdoor" or other ways.

— The Chinese government attaches great importance to the protection of personal privacy of citizens and has been committed to improving laws and regulations on the protection of personal privacy. Chinese laws and regulations, such as its Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law and the decision of the NPC Standing Committee on strengthening online information protection, have clear stipulations on the collection, use and protection of personal information.

— After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. adopted the USA Patriot Act that requires Internet companies to provide users’ information on a regular basis. The "Prism Gate" incident has exposed that under the monitoring of U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. citizens have no personal privacy in their phone calls, communications, documents, voice mail and other data. The phone calls of leaders of countries, who used to be very close allies of the United States, have also been eavesdropped by the U.S. for a long time. Facts have shown that it is the United States that has carried out the largest network surveillance and espionage operations in the world, and the U.S. is the largest "hacker empire" in the world. For this, the United Nations adopted the resolution "Privacy in the Digital Age" initiated by European countries.

— In May 2019, the Der Tagesspiegel of Germany reported that after years of scrutiny by the British government, the German Federal Office for Information Security, the European Commission and other agencies, no obvious "backdoor" has been found on Huawei equipment. However, security flaws are often found in the equipment provided by the U.S. company Cisco. Since 2013, Cisco has been involved in at least 10 cases, which are more in line with the description of the so-called "backdoor".

— There are security flaws in Cisco’s devices, and many "backdoor" incidents have been reported. Cisco deliberately sold video surveillance technology containing serious security vulnerabilities to government agencies, and was sued by video surveillance experts of its distributor NetDesign. In 2019, Cisco eventually paid 8.6 million U.S. dollars to settle claims for its act of "leaving backdoor" .

— As early as in 2014, Apple admitted that it could extract personal data such as SMS, address book and photos of its mobile phone users through the backdoor of Apple’s mobile phone system. Its CEO Tim Cook said publicly that "China has never asked us to unlock the iPhone, but the U.S. has asked for it." Facebook was also revealed to have a backdoor to its users’ accounts.

19.Mike Pompeo: China has set up concentration camps in Xinjiang.

False.

Fact check: There are no so-called "concentration camps" in Xinjiang, and its vocational education and training centers were established in accordance with the law. The centers are similar in nature to community correction programs of the United States, the Desistance and Disengagement Programme (DDP) of the UK, and the deradicalization center of France, all beneficial attempts and positive explorations for preventive counter-terrorism and de-extremism. They are consistent with the principles and spirit of a series of counter-terrorism resolutions, including the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

— It is a practice with ulterior motives for some U.S. politicians and media to call Xinjiang vocational education and training centers "concentration camps". The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, a non-governmental organization supported by the U.S. government, has come to the absurd conclusion that 10 percent of Xinjiang’s 20 million population are detained in the so-called "concentration camps", simply based on its interviews with eight people and rough estimates.

A survey by Grayzone, a U.S. news website, revealed that Adrian Zenz, a pseudo scholar, had fabricated the rumor that the total of detainees in Xinjiang exceeded 1 million based on a report by Istiqlal TV, a Turkey-based exile media organization. According to Grayzone, rather than being an impartial news organization, Istiqlal TV has advocated separatism and received all kinds of extremists. Even Adrian Zenz himself admitted that he was uncertain with his estimate.

— For some years, Xinjiang has been a victim of terrorism and extremism. According to preliminary statistics, between 1990 and the end of 2016, ethnic separatists, religious extremists and violent terrorists have plotted and carried out several thousand acts of terrorism, resulting in the death of a large number of innocent civilians, the killing of several hundred police officers, and huge property losses.

Thanks to the law-based anti-terrorism, deradicalization and vocational education and training in Xinjiang, there have been no violent terrorist cases in the region for more than three years, and people of all ethnic groups have acquired a notably stronger sense of fulfillment, happiness and security.

— Vocational education and training centers in Xinjiang have focused on the main problems facing the trainees, such as low proficiency in spoken and written Mandarin, lack of understanding in the law and occupational skills, and influence by religious extremism to various degrees. A curriculum that includes standard spoken and written Mandarin, legal courses, vocational skills and deradicalization has been developed, aiming at eliminating the root causes of terrorism and religious extremism.

The centers strictly implement the basic principles of respecting and protecting human rights enshrined in China’s Constitution and laws, fully respect and guarantee the trainees’ personal freedom and freedom of religious belief, the right to use their spoken and written languages, and the customs of different ethnic groups. There are access to various living facilities, and legal and mental counseling rooms. All trainees are covered by public pension and medical insurance schemes, and are entitled to free health examination.

So far, all the trainees involved in the courses of standard spoken and written Mandarin, legal courses, vocational skills and deradicalization have graduated, and been employed with the help of the government. They are living a much-improved and happier life.

— In October 2019, more than 60 countries, including over 30 Islamic countries, addressed the UN General Assembly in support of China’s policy in Xinjiang. None of the few countries that criticized China’s policies was an Islamic country.

Since the end of December 2018, Xinjiang has been visited by more than 70 groups of UN officials, foreign diplomats in China, representatives of relevant countries to the UN Office at Geneva, media reporters and religious groups. The number of these visitors, who come from over 90 countries, exceeded 1,000. They noted that Xinjiang’s anti-terrorism and deradicalization efforts were consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN in fighting terrorism and safeguarding basic human rights, and should be fully recognized and learned from.

— Many foreign diplomats, experts, scholars and media reporters, after a personal visit to the vocational education and training centers, said the Chinese government had introduced a number of preferential policies and measures to improve people’s livelihoods in Xinjiang in line with local conditions, benefiting the people of all ethnic groups with prosperity and vitality. Before visiting Xinjiang, they had thought that the centers were "concentration camps". However, after seeing with their own eyes how the trainees studied and lived at the centers, receiving skills training and attending various activities based on their interests, they realized that the so-called "concentration camps" were all lies maliciously spread by Western politicians and media.

20.Mike Pompeo: China walked away from its promise to the world on Hong Kong.

False.

Fact check: The central government has been unswervingly implementing the policy of "one country, two systems". Since Hong Kong’s return to the motherland, this principle, along with "the people of Hong Kong administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy, has been effectively implemented and made widely recognized achievements. "One country, two systems" has been proven to be the best institutional arrangement to maintain Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity and stability. The central government will continue to uphold the integrity of the "one country, two systems" policy, and ensure its faithful implementation.

— The legal basis for the Chinese government to govern Hong Kong is China’s Constitution and the Basic Law of the HKSAR. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is not relevant in this regard. As China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, all provisions concerning the UK under the Joint Declaration had been fulfilled. The basic policies on Hong Kong stated by China in the Joint Declaration are its policy declaration, which have since been fully embodied in the Basic Law enacted by the NPC. China’s relevant policies have not changed, and will continue to be adhered to.

— At the 44th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council held between June 30 and July 17, when a small number of Western countries smeared China on Hong Kong-related issues, over 70 countries supported China’s legitimate position and condemned the act to use Hong Kong to interfere in China’s internal affairs. This reflected the common voice and just position of the international community. It is not hard to tell who wins over support of the majority.

— Hong Kong has been one of the world’s freest, open, prosperous and dynamic regions. From 1997 to 2019, its GDP increased from 1.37 trillion to 2.87 trillion Hong Kong dollars. Over the years, Hong Kong has maintained its status as an important global financial center. By the end of 2019, the total value of Hong Kong’s stock market approached five trillion U.S. dollars, closely trailing that of New York, Shanghai and Tokyo.

— According to the annual competitiveness rankings compiled by the Swiss-based International Institute for Management Development, Hong Kong has moved up the chart since its return to the motherland, and has for four times claimed the first or second place between 2015 and 2020.

— By 2019, Hong Kong has been rated as the world’s freest economy for 25 consecutive years by the U.S.-based Heritage Foundation.

21.Mike Pompeo: The CCP has tightened its grip on Hong Kong, where democracy and freedom are suppressed.

False.

Fact check: For more than 150 years under the British colonial rule, there were no democracy in Hong Kong, as none of the governors were elected by the Hong Kong people, and its legislators were directly appointed by the governor for most of the time. In sharp contrast, after Hong Kong’s return to the motherland, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) enjoys executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the Basic Law of the HKSAR. Hong Kong people have been running their own affairs in the HKSAR with a high degree of autonomy. Hong Kong residents enjoy unprecedented and extensive democratic rights and freedoms, which is an undeniable truth for all people without prejudice.

— It is enshrined in the constitutions of more than 100 countries that the exercise of basic rights and freedoms shall not endanger national security. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes it clear that freedoms of religious belief, expression and peaceful assembly, the right to a public trial and other rights may be subject to restrictions that are necessary to protect national security, public order among others. There are similar provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights. What has happened in Hong Kong over the past year clearly reveals that it is impossible for Hong Kong to achieve prosperity and stability without safeguarding national security. During the turbulence over the amendment bill last year, the rioters flagrantly preached "Hong Kong independence", engaged in mass illegal violent activities, vandalizing facilities and attacking innocent civilians. They challenged the governance of the HKSAR government and escalated their violent terrorist activities. External forces became emboldened in their unlawful meddling in Hong Kong affairs. These have gravely threatened the life and property of Hong Kong residents and undermined investor confidence. The main reason for the instability and chaos was that the foundation of national security was not firm enough. The enactment of the law on safeguarding national security in Hong Kong is aimed to plug loopholes in the HKSAR national security legislation.

— The legislation only targets four types of offences, namely, secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security. It is designed to deter and punish a handful of criminals seriously jeopardizing national security, and to protect the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Hong Kong people. All efforts and law enforcement relating to safeguarding national security will be conducted in strict accordance with legal provisions, mandates and procedures. The legislation will not affect the rights and freedoms, including those of speech, of the press, of publication and of assembly that Hong Kong residents enjoy under the law. It will enable them to better exercise their lawful rights and freedoms in a secure environment.

— The enacted legislation will not affect the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under the law. It will not affect the HKSAR’s independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. There will be no change to the policy of "one country, two systems", the capitalist system practiced in the HKSAR, the high degree of autonomy, or the legal system of the HKSAR. The legislation will better safeguard the lawful rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents, ensure its high degree of autonomy, and create conditions for resolving deep-rooted problems concerning its economy and livelihood. It will contribute to Hong Kong’s rule-of-law and business environment, address the concerns in the business communities on social turbulence, and create better conditions for people around the world who are willing to work, invest and live in Hong Kong.

— The legislation meets the aspiration of the people. Nearly 3 million Hong Kong residents signed up in support of the law in just eight days. An online signing campaign against external interference by the U.S. and other forces have got support from 1.65 million people in half a month. The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and other chambers of commerce made announcements to support the legislation, pointing out that it is monumental in Hong Kong’s future development and will help restore social stability. None of the 4,000 regional headquarters and offices of multinationals operating in Hong Kong left the city. The Hang Seng Index kept opening higher and maintained an up-trend after the implementation of the legislation and despite the U.S. announcement of revoking Hong Kong’s special status. All these have directly reflected that the legislation is favored by the financial market.

22. Mike Pompeo: China’s military grows stronger and more menacing.

False.

Fact check: China is a socialist country with a strategic choice to follow the path of peaceful development, an independent foreign policy of peace, and a cultural tradition of "valuing peace as the most precious". All this made China unswervingly pursue a national defense policy that is defensive in nature.

– The development of China’s national defense is necessary to safeguard its own sovereignty, security and development interests, to defend its unity and territorial integrity, and to maintain international and regional peace and security.

— The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has always actively fulfilled the international responsibilities as the military of a major country, and promoted the vision of a community with a shared future for mankind with real action. It has made all-out efforts to advance international military cooperation in the new era, provide more public security goods to the international community, and contribute to building a better world of lasting peace and universal security. Since 1990, the Chinese military has participated in 26 UN peacekeeping operations and sent more than 40,000 peacekeeping military personnel, making it the largest troop contributor to UN peacekeeping missions among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Over the past 30 years, groups of Chinese peacekeepers have braved difficulties and dangers, bringing peace and hope to the conflict areas and the local people. This year, all 410 officers and soldiers of the 18th batch of Chinese peacekeepers at the UN Interim Force in Lebanon were awarded the UN Peace Medal of Honor, and more than 100 officers and soldiers of the 23rd batch of Chinese peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) were awarded by the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO).

— During the COVID-19 outbreak, the PLA actively carried out international cooperation against the epidemic with defense departments and militaries of many countries, contributing to the international public health security and a global community of health for all. During the outbreak, the PLA has sent military anti-epidemic expert groups to four countries including Laos and Cambodia. It has provided epidemic prevention material assistance to defense departments and armies of more than 20 countries such as Pakistan, Russia and Thailand through air force transportation and other means. It has held video conferences with defense departments and armies of 10 countries such as Russia and South Africa to exchange epidemic prevention and control experience.

— Unilateralism by the U.S. undermines international order and its bullying behavior challenges norms governing international relations, posing the greatest threat to the world peace and stability. According to public information, the U.S. military budget for 2019 topped 716 billion U.S. dollars, accounting for over 40 percent of the world’s total military expenditure and equivalent to the total of the nine countries following it. The U.S. defense budget accounted for 3.5 percent of its GDP in 2019, while China’s annual defense expenditure accounted for less than 2 percent of its GDP in the past 30 years, which is lower than not only the world’s major countries, but also the world average of 2.6 percent. China’s per capita military spending is even lower, only accounting for one twenty-second of America’s, one ninth of Britain’s and one fifth of Japan’s.

— With hundreds of military bases around the world, the U.S. has been war-free for only 16 of its 240-plus years of history. The U.S. has imposed "regime change", instigated "color revolutions" and exerted maximum pressure, causing regional turmoil and people’s suffering. Since 2001, the U.S. has illegally launched wars and military operations against Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries, which cost more than 6.4 trillion U.S. dollars and resulted in more than 800,000 deaths and tens of millions displaced.

23. Mike Pompeo: The purpose of the People’s Liberation Army isn’t to protect the Chinese people.

False.

Fact check: The PLA is the people’s army that loves and serves the people. Chinese President Xi Jinping pointed out that our army is the people’s army, and our national defense is the national defense of all the people. The PLA has always born in mind its fundamental purpose of serving the people wholeheartedly by keeping the people in mind, always standing with the people and fighting for them forever. Whether it is earthquake relief, flood emergency rescue, or fight against the epidemic, the people’s army has always been in the forefront, fighting day and night, to protect the people’s lives and property without hesitation. The closely linked relationship between the army and the people, likened to that of fish and water, is an inherent feature of the PLA.

— Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the PLA has resolutely implemented the decisions and plans made by the CPC Central Committee, the Central Military Commission and President Xi Jinping, by acting on orders, bravely shouldering heavy burdens, daring to fight hard battles, racing against time and fighting against the diseases. Over 450 medics from medical universities of the army, navy and air force of the PLA rushed to Wuhan, the hard-hit city in central China’s Hubei Province, and over 10,000 medics of the PLA devoted themselves to fighting the epidemic and protecting the people’s lives and health. They have played an important role in and made outstanding contributions to the epidemic prevention and control.

— Since June, floods have hit some provinces in southern China. The PLA and the People’s Armed Police Force have dispatched 29,000 officers and soldiers to the frontline to fight floods, building dams, rescuing the trapped and resettling the affected. They act as a commando at the critical moment, safeguarding the people’s lives and property.

— The PLA takes participating in poverty alleviation as a major political task, and shares the CPC’s concerns, serves the country’s interests and brings benefits to the people with a strong sense of responsibility. By the end of May, 4,100 poor villages, 293,000 poor households and 924,000 poor people that the PLA targeted to help had all been lifted out of poverty. The PLA’s achievements in poverty alleviation is a demonstration of "the people’s army loves the people" in the new era.

24. Mike Pompeo: China makes unlawful claims in the South China Sea, trampling on international law.

False.

Fact check: China has exercised effective jurisdiction over relevant islands, reefs and waters in the South China Sea for over a thousand years. China’s sovereignty and relevant rights and interests in the South China Sea have been established in the long course of history, and are solidly grounded in history and law, conforming to international law and practice. As early as the 2nd century BC in the Western Han Dynasty, the Chinese people sailed in the South China Sea and discovered the South China Sea islands in the long course of activities. China is the first to have discovered, named, and explored and developed the South China Sea islands and relevant waters, and the first to have continuously, peacefully and effectively exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over them, thus establishing sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and the relevant rights and interests in the South China Sea.

— Many foreign documents also recorded the fact that during a long period of time only Chinese lived or made a living on the Nansha Islands. The records of the Chinese fishermen living and working on the Nansha Islands were kept in documents including The China Sea Directory published in 1868 by order of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty of the United Kingdom, The Asiatic Pilot, Vol. IV, published by the United States Hydrographic Office in 1925, the French magazine Le Monde Colonial Illustré published in September 1933 as well as Japanese literature Boufuu No Shima (Stormy Island) published in 1940.

— China’s longstanding exploration, development and sovereign jurisdiction over the South China Sea islands have long been acknowledged by its neighboring countries, which conforms to the principles of customary international law. China has resumed the exercise of sovereignty and other lawful rights and interests over the relevant islands, reefs and waters in the South China Sea in accordance with the post-World War II (WWII) international order and relevant territorial arrangements established in the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation, and has maintained and consolidated international law in the South China Sea since WWII, which has been recognized by many countries in the world, including the United States. After WWII, China recovered the Nansha Islands and resumed exercising continuous and effective jurisdiction over them.

— In 1948, the Chinese government officially published the dotted line in the South China Sea, reaffirming its territorial sovereignty and relevant rights in the South China Sea. For a long time until the late 1960s, no country, including those littoral countries around the South China Sea, had ever questioned China’s sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. Later, due to the discovery of petroleum in the South China Sea, some countries began to raise territorial claims to all or part of China’s Nansha Islands.

— Since the 1970s, some countries began to send troops to occupy certain islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Islands. So far, a total of 42 islands and reefs in China’s Nansha Islands have been illegally occupied by other countries.

— None of the working oil drilling rigs in disputed waters in the South China Sea is China’s. China’s oil and gas exploration, fishing and other activities in the South China Sea are carried out in waters under China’s jurisdiction. China is committed to working with littoral countries concerned to shelve maritime disputes and promote joint development of oil and gas resources for mutual benefit and win-win results.

– With the joint efforts of China and ASEAN countries, the situation in the South China Sea remains stable in general. The consultations on the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea have made steady progress. China and ASEAN countries are willing to conclude the consultations on the COC at an early date, showing their firm conviction to formulate regional rules and safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea.

— With regard to the award rendered on July 12, 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration, China has solemnly declared that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it. China’s above position has sufficient legal basis. Territorial issues are not subject to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In 2006, China made a declaration under Article 298 of the UNCLOS that maritime delimitation disputes are excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures. By virtue of the principle of sovereignty, the jurisdiction of any international judicial or arbitral body over an inter-State dispute depends on the prior consent of the parties to the dispute. Despite China’s opposition, the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration imposed jurisdiction over matters without China’s prior consent, seriously violating the principles of sovereignty and consent of the States concerned. The Arbitral Tribunal lacked legitimacy, impartiality and jurisdiction. The process was a political farce and the award was on flimsy legal grounds, challenging the norms of international law and impairing the solemnity and authority of UNCLOS. Tom Zwart, a well-known professor of law from the Netherlands, said the award by the Arbitral Tribunal will be regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree in East Asia, and it will fail to garner recognition and support.

— China’s position and proposition on the South China Sea arbitration has won widespread understanding in the international community, and nearly 120 countries expressed their support.

— The United States refuses to join the UNCLOS in order to uphold its maritime hegemony and maintain its hegemonic status to the greatest extent.

— The South China Morning Post published an article titled "It’s the U.S. stirring the pot in South China Sea" on July 28. The article pointed out that the U.S. has no standing with the UNCLOS because it has never ratified it. Don’t people find it bizarre that the U.S. thinks it can sit in judgment over other countries’ disputes? It seems a rather transparent attempt to hijack those disputes to further Pompeo’s own not-so-hidden agenda, the article said.

25.Mike Pompeo: China made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.

False.

Fact check: As a matter of fact, China has been making great contribution to the global maritime trade security. China has always been committed to building a maritime community with a shared future. China has been involved in escort and humanitarian actions in the Gulf of Aden and Somali waters for a long time. China has also been pushing forward to jointly build the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road and fully participating in making and implementing the ocean governance mechanism and relevant rules within the United Nations framework, to fulfill the sustainable development goals related to oceans and seas.

— China has been taking actions in safeguarding global maritime transportation security. According to relevant UN Security Council resolutions, China sent naval fleets to the Gulf of Aden and Somali waters for regular anti-terrorist and anti-piracy escort missions. Up till now, China has dispatched 35 fleets escorting more than 6,800 merchant ships, more than half belonging to foreign countries and international organizations. The safe and highly efficient escort missions by the Chinese naval fleets have won trust and recognition of merchant ships from all over the world. More and more foreign merchant ships have actively sought Chinese naval escort. A Panamanian merchant ship captain sent a mail to the Chinese naval fleet, expressing sincere thanks for the Chinese help.

— China has been developing international cooperation through ocean. The Chinese naval hospital ship Peace Ark has carried out nine overseas missions, covering a distance of over 240,000 nautical miles. It has visited 43 countries and regions, providing free medical services for more than 230,000 people. The ship has also participated in disaster rescue operations and international military drills. Dubbed "the ship of life" and "the ship of friendship", it has left behind many touching stories of Chinese warmth and assistance.

— China has made remarkable contributions to the epidemic prevention and control in international shipping. During the COVID-19 outbreak, China’s Ministry of Transport compiled and issued operational guidelines on COVID-19 epidemic prevention and control for ships and crew, and emergency rescue and treatment guidelines for infected seafarers. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recommended the Chinese solutions to its 174 member countries. The guidelines have been a typical practice of China sharing experience in fighting against the epidemic and uniting with the international society to combat the severe challenges brought by the epidemic on international shipping.

— From 2013 to 2016, China salvaged at least 3,396 Chinese and foreigners in distress from vessel accidents in the South China Sea area. According to the characteristics of the sea area and the actual conditions, China has set up rescue stations in Guangdong and Hainan, and deployed professional salvation vessels on duty. Since July 2018, Nanhaijiu 115, Nanhaijiu 117 and Nanhaijiu 116 salvation vessels have taken turns on duty in the southern sea area of the South China Sea. They have completed 17 rescue missions, saving 37 lives and salvaging five vessels in distress, with the value of the saved property reaching around 39 million yuan. According to a Reuters report in January 2016, some shippers believed a greater Chinese presence in the South China Sea could actually improve safety. One shipper in Singapore said that, "If China is to base search-and-rescue assets on the (disputed) islands then there would potentially be faster response times, improving the chances of rescue and survival."

— Starting from May 2015, China successively built five large-scale lighthouses on Nansha islands and reefs. China has been providing comprehensive navigation services, and undertaken functions concerning navigation support, maritime search and rescue, navigation safety, fishery production, as well as the preparedness and reduction of maritime natural disasters. All these efforts have greatly enhanced the navigation safety support capability in this sea area. Since October 2018, China has started operating marine observation centers, meteorological observation stations and the Nansha Atmospheric Environment Monitoring Station in relevant Nansha islands and reefs, providing more public services to further safeguard the navigation safety in the South China Sea as well as life and work in the littoral countries.

— The United States introduced the Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program in 1979 ahead of the signing of the UNCLOS. Challenging the new maritime order, the move aimed at maximizing the freedom of the U.S. military power rampaging through the oceans. The so-called FON Program is not in conformity with the universally-recognized international law, disregards the sovereignty, security and maritime rights and interests of many littoral countries, and seriously jeopardizes regional peace and stability. Its essence is to advance American maritime supremacy under the pretext of "freedom of navigation", which has been opposed by many members of the international community, especially the developing countries.

— The United States is the most destabilizing factor to the global maritime security, often intercepting and seizing merchant ships and oil tankers of other countries, frequently threatening naval blockade on other countries and main shipping lanes, constantly organizing military exercises in the "disputed waters," and provoking regional tensions. Some U.S. military experts even touted the use of privateers to attack Chinese merchant ships.

26. Mike Pompeo: To help deter China from aggression, the U.S. has created a Space Force and has ramped up its freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well.

False.

Fact check: Aggression and expansion are never in the genes of the Chinese nation throughout its 5,000 years of civilization. China maintains continuity and stability in its foreign policy, and earnestly upholds international law including the UN Charter and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. China has never expanded its sovereignty claims, and is committed to negotiation and consultation to settle the territorial and maritime disputes with neighboring countries based on respect for historical facts and international law.

— China respects and supports all countries’ freedom of navigation and overflight in accordance with international law, and actively safeguards the security of international shipping passages. In fact, the South China Sea is currently one of the world’s safest and freest sea passages. About 50 percent of merchant vessels in the world and one-third of international maritime trade pass through this sea area. More than 100,000 merchant ships sail through it annually. The navigation and overflight in the South China Sea have never been a problem. However, the United States has been using the pretext of "freedom of navigation and overflight" to undermine the sovereignty and security interests of littoral countries, and jeopardize regional peace and stability.

— Since taking office, the current U.S. administration has equated the "freedom of navigation" with the freedom of military action and carried out more than 20 so-called "freedom of navigation operations" in the South China Sea. This year, the United States has sent nearly 3,000 military flights over the sea area. According to a "South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative" website report on Aug. 5, a U.S. Air Force E-8C surveillance plane was seen reconnoitering as close as 59.27 nautical miles (about 109.77 km) off the coast of south China’s Guangdong Province at about 21 o’clock. In July, the E-8C aircraft appeared six times in two weeks in the sea area to conduct reconnaissance operations. The United States also sent two aircraft carriers to these waters for military exercises while calling on its allies and partners to send warships and join it in making waves in the South China Sea. These practices by the United States have posed a serious threat to regional peace and stability and don’t serve the interests of all littoral countries in the region.

— Outer space belongs to all mankind. China calls for the peaceful use of outer space and opposes weaponization or an arms race there. This serves the common interests of all countries and is a shared responsibility. China is committed to jointly safeguarding lasting peace and tranquility in outer space, and opposes making it a new battlefield. The United States, in contrast, has described outer space as a new war-fighting domain, built a Space Force and a Space Command, and planned to deploy anti-missile weapons, which will trigger an arms race and increase the risk of weaponizing outer space and making it a battlefield.


来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/26

旧文章ID:22800

美国的外交政策钟摆如何影响世界?

作者:菲利普•斯蒂芬斯  来源:FT中文网

对欧洲人来说,有一件事比“美国太多”更糟糕。那就是没有足够多的美国。似乎就在昨天,华盛顿方面的朋友们将小布什(George W Bush)入侵伊拉克视为轻率地展示美国军事实力。如今,盟友们哀叹唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)为了追求他那“美国第一”的世界观放弃了美国的全球领导地位。尽管美国推翻萨达姆•侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)有些鲁莽,但任由世界陷入混乱是不负责任且危险的。

我们以前也遇到过这种情况。自这个共和国建立以来,美国的外交政策就像一个来回摆动的钟摆,一端是对美国本土以外事件不感兴趣的自私的孤立主义,另一端是植根于美国例外论的伪善的干预主义。

这样描述可能过于简单,在很大程度上却是事实。上世纪二三十年代,美国筑起壁垒,对欧洲不闻不问。但钟摆摆到另一端时,小布什入侵了伊拉克,许多美国人告诉自己,这是为了在中东传播民主思想的崇高事业。这两项政策都没有给世界带来什么好处——不闻不问的态度放任了法西斯主义在欧洲兴起;一场并不是非打不可的战争让中东大部分地区陷入冲突,而这些冲突在近20年后仍在肆虐。

然而大部分时候,现实要复杂得多。就像我们从《世界中的美国》——罗伯特•佐利克(Robert Zoellick)关于美国外交政策历史的精彩著作——中学到的一样,干预主义和孤立主义与其他因素交织在一起,影响着美国与盟友和对手的关系。美国总统的言论始终带着理想主义的框架,而冷静的现实主义——它使20世纪成为“美国世纪”——调和了这种理想主义。

美国领导的对抗苏联共产党的冷战被恰如其分地用自由、人类尊严和法治的语言表述。然而,这些值得赞赏的目标并没有阻止数届白宫主人支持拉美和非洲南部的暴君和独裁者,以推行美国外交官乔治•凯南(George Kennan)设计的意在限制莫斯科扩大影响力的“遏制”政策。

与盟友打交道时,华盛顿方面的道德热情往往与对自己国家利益的评估正相吻合。美国政府通过鼓舞受压迫殖民地的自决事业,尽其所能加速英国挥别帝国时代。然后,时机成熟时,华盛顿在离开的英国人身后登堂入室,比如在石油丰富的海湾地区。

佐利克描写的恢弘历史始于美国首任外交官本杰明•富兰克林(Benjamin Franklin)成功争取到法国支持其13个殖民地独立,其中有许多时刻都说明了这种不断变化的平衡,并突显了前后45位总统不只是偶尔出现的矛盾。佐利克以其敏锐的才智和长期从事国际外交工作的经验撰写了此书。他最初在老布什(George HW Bush)政府担任国务院顾问,又在小布什政府时期担任美国贸易代表和副国务卿,随后于2007年至2012年间担任世界银行(World Bank)行长。

在这些时期,美国总统关注世界,“大战略”、治国方略和外交等词汇在白宫仍有分量。在国务卿詹姆斯•贝克(James Baker)的谨慎外交时期,佐利克坐到了场边位置。贝克的谨慎外交减弱了共产主义崩溃带来的风险,并为应对第一次海湾战争建立了广泛的国际联盟。

在佐利克看来,美国政策的反复无常主要由5个经久不衰的传统互相作用推动。第一条是确保在自己所在半球的霸权地位,它所带来的东西包括“门罗主义”(Monroe Doctrine)、巴拿马运河(Panama Canal)以及冷战期间华盛顿方面对拉美将军的支持。第二个传统是让外国市场对美国产品和技术开放的必要性;第三个传统是对结盟不断变化的态度。亚历山大•汉密尔顿(Alexander Hamilton)避免了所有纠葛。然而,哈里•杜鲁门(Harry Truman)、迪安•艾奇逊(Dean Acheson)和乔治•马歇尔(George Marshall)在1945年后建立了有史以来世界最强大的联盟体系。

佐利克认为第四个传统是美国领导人必须对公众舆论表现出顺从;第五个传统是美国例外论,即宣称美国一直致力于一个更宏大的目标。这两个传统之间的矛盾解释了一些最大的政策转向。伍德罗•威尔逊(Woodrow Wilson)以承诺不参与第一次世界大战而赢得了1916年总统大选,后来他改变了主意,转而支持自由干预主义,再后来,他关于建立国际联盟(League of Nations)的宏伟计划遭到了国会的否决。

书中还穿插许多有启发性的小故事。理查德•尼克松(Richard Nixon)外交政策的设计师亨利•基辛格(Henry Kissinger)一直以极端现实主义著称,对外交政策中的任何道德因素都不屑一顾。即便如此,在他成功推动就尼克松(Nixon)历史性的对华“开放”进行谈判期间,他将日本——美国的盟友——描述为东亚和平的巨大威胁,读来还是十分令人吃惊。

对于那些担心特朗普总统任期标志着与二战后解决方案永久决裂的人来说,佐利克这本书中传递出的令人担忧的信息是,杜鲁门、艾奇逊和马歇尔在1945年之后创建的广泛联盟体系可能被证实只是一个插曲。自第二次伊拉克战争以来,美国的承诺就不断在减弱。如今,特朗普对北约(Nato)的不屑,以及对美国与日本和韩国的同盟关系的明显蔑视,表明他正在废除这种承诺。欧洲热切希望特朗普能在11月的大选中被赶出白宫,让钟摆开始回摆。

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/25

旧文章ID:22799

张立伟:中美关系的危险前程

作者:张立伟  来源:FT中文网

中美关系进入了一个不可预测的戏剧性阶段,因为人们不知道被鹰派控制的白宫下一秒会做出什么。“鹰派”这个词语可能不准确,因为其表达的仅仅是态度强硬的爱国者,而目前白宫的官员们处于亢奋状态,这使得中美两国乃至整个世界都受到了威胁。

在新冠大流行病重创美国后,特朗普将自己陷入大选来临之前的困境迁怒于中国,他不再制约白宫内成群的反华派,而是选择加入其中,竞争性地抨击和教训中国,以显示自己的强硬。这是他的传统支持者所乐于见到的,但也是极其危险的。

在中美关系戏剧性变化过程中,有许多似是而非的观点将责任全盘推给中国,这是当今世界日益由立场而非事实主导的表现之一。我们有必要避开观念分裂和对立的陷阱,客观看待中美关系的质变历程。

7月23日,美国国务卿蓬佩奥在尼克松故居发表了猛烈攻击中国的演讲,他宣称“尼克松开启的对华接触政策已经失败”,当今世界的主要矛盾是“自由世界和共产主义中国”之间的意识形态差异,呼吁西方组建“国际反华联盟”。

事实上,“接触政策失败”是美国近几年的流行话题。美国负责亚太事务的前助理国务卿库尔特•坎贝尔和前副国家安全顾问伊莱•拉特纳在2018年3/4月刊《外交杂志》 发表的《思虑中国》一文,将这一问题系统化地提出来。他们认为美国对华政策向来基于一种假设,即中国将逐步自由化并融入由美国主导的现行国际秩序,但中国的实际发展越来越不符合美国政策制定者的预期,因此美国需要重新评估对华政策。

这是一种精心设计的焦点转移,为美国维护全球主宰地位和制定打击中国的政策寻找一个可以让世界接受和支持的理由,但也隐藏着“冷战”企图。

当时尼克松访华以及中美建交的目的并不是为了把中国改造成民主国家,那时候中国还到处张贴着“打倒美帝国主义”的标语。美国是想利用接近中国获取地缘政治优势,为美苏争霸的目标服务,而苏联当时也是中国的敌人。在冷战结束后,中国还是遭受了来自西方的制裁,但在冷战中获胜的美国更加自信。在美日贸易冲突之下,尤其是日本将东南亚纳入自己的“雁行战略”后,克林顿选择将中国作为美国全球分工体系中新的制造基地与市场,他对于新自由主义主导的全球化更加乐观,最终同意中国加入世界贸易组织(WTO),这是一种共同需要的双赢安排。

奉行新自由主义的美国将“华盛顿共识”通过自由贸易与多边组织在全球范围内推行。信奉新保守主义的小布什政府任职之初一改中美建交后的对华接触政策。他试图抛弃新自由主义秩序下的“规则支配”原则,转而试图通过武力建立以美国为中心的单极霸权。如果不是反恐战争吸引了他注意力,以及美联储宽松的货币政策、全球分工体系重组,中国就不会有和平的环境和快速增长的机遇。在这个时期,中美两国发生了某种程度的融合,但各自国内逐渐出现崩坏的痕迹。

在陷入伊拉克和阿富汗的战争泥潭之后,美国又爆发了次贷危机,深刻的社会矛盾与经济结构失衡展现在世界面前。与此同时,中国经济快速增长。奥巴马政府将外交政策重心转移到中国。他采取了“自由现实主义”的政策,一方面在多边和进步性方面坚持自由主义取向,维持美国的规则支配地位,要求中国遵守“基于规则的自由主义国际秩序”;另一方面在大国关系中采取现实主义,遏制中俄,被称为“有原则的多边主义”与“有道德的现实主义”的结合。

为了在内忧外患中维持美国的全球主宰地位,奥巴马在国内推动结构性调整:再工业化与医疗改革,改善经济结构失衡,修补贫富差距带来的社会分化。在外交政策上,他多管齐下。在中东支持“颜色革命”的同时进行战略收缩,还在乌克兰和南海地区与中俄博弈。具体到对华外交政策方面,他接受与中国在气候变化、反恐、全球经济政策协调等方面合作,同时在政治上制定了“亚太再平衡”战略,组建跨太平洋伙伴关系协议(TPP)以达成新的契约,试图吸引在中国的供应链向TPP成员国转移,对中国在科技领域的企业并购和技术交流、产品贸易进行阻挠。他试图通过地缘政治、贸易、科技等政策实现对中国的规制,阻止中国扩张政治影响力,削弱经济增长动能。

民主党总统制定规则支配体系以实现自由主义秩序的时候,会削弱美国的权威并接受规则约束,向国际机构让渡实质性决策权,从而限制了一些主权利益。在一些选民看来,他们被自由主义精英们抛弃了:大量移民和产业外迁夺走了他们的工作。正因如此,英国人通过脱欧公投来从自由主义精英手中夺回国家的控制权,美国人则选择以“美国优先”为旗帜的特朗普。

特朗普上台后,采取了“有原则的现实主义”外交政策。他不喜欢自由主义者建立的那些也会束缚美国的规则体系,而是以“美国优先”为基本原则,以“美国再次伟大”为结果导向,通过极限施压的策略,以单边主义代替多边主义,以美国至上破坏全球化,要求包括盟友在内的其他大国出让给美国更多利益,其臭名昭著的表现除了挥舞关税大棒外,还有频繁“退群”,退出美国发挥领导作用的基于规则支配的诸多国际组织和多边协议,唯美国独尊。在对华政策方面,他与奥巴马颇为相似:印太战略(与亚太再平衡相似)、贸易战(与TPP相似)、科技脱钩、破坏供应链等。

如果仅仅观察过去30年的美国外交政策,在克林顿和小布什时期,享受冷战胜利与信息革命双重红利的美国达到实力巅峰。具有理想主义色彩的克林顿想通过经济全球化以及“人权高于主权”在全球推行自由主义,小布什则以单边主义与“先发制人”的武力威胁进行价值观布道。但是,两场战争以及次贷危机使得奥巴马与特朗普时代的美国进入了艰难维持美国主宰地位的阶段,即内部进行各种尝试性调整,外部在战略收缩的同时,打压对手。如果说奥巴马基于自由现实主义理念同时遏制中俄的话,川普则更加务实,想联俄制中。

民主党总统倾向于通过“规则支配”实现全球霸权,克林顿想把中国纳入多边体系加以约束和演变,奥巴马则是重新设立规则规制中国崛起。共和党总统则选择直接使用力量表达自己的意志。二者的区别是软实力与硬实力使用的区别。但是,不管选择什么样的外交政策,他们都具有共同目的,即巩固和维护全球主宰地位,并将对华外交政策置于该目标之下。

美国两党在制定外交政策时都高树意识形态旗帜,试图将其价值理念推行到全球。在美国国内,两党及其政治人物相互攻击,强化意识形态对立,拉拢支持者。比如疫情期间是否该戴口罩不再是科学问题,政治极化导致意识形态在美国有时已经走火入魔,超越了常识和人性,成为社会分裂的根源。意识形态对立导致相互否决的政治极化现象,造成了美国巨大而持续的内外消耗,特朗普看到了这一点并试图超越华盛顿的政治游戏规则,这也反映为其外交政策抛弃价值观而变得更加赤裸裸。

在外交领域,美国高举意识形态大旗,一是让人看不到美国外交的现实主义本质,即主要是为了促进和维护本国利益,削弱竞争者,巩固全球主宰地位,二是美国可以用意识形态孤立、打击对手或所谓的反美国家,笼络联盟,但美国几乎从没有要求服从它的王国和军事独裁政权更替。对华政策上,不管是二战初期美国残酷地漠视日本侵华,还是冷战后期与中国握手言欢,以及克林顿接受中国加入WTO,均主要是现实主义主导的利益选择。

过去几年,中国将主要精力用于经济发展与全面改革,提高增长质量和效率,促进社会分配公正,中国外交政策则是为国内改革服务的,主要体现为道义追求。中美力量对比的结构性变化趋势使得美国一些政客考虑抛弃接触政策以抑制中国。这是蓬佩奥提出“接触政策失败论”的原因。蓬佩奥将中国塑造为自由世界的敌人,试图组建新冷战联盟。但讽刺的是,特朗普为了美国利益频繁“退群”。他在破坏多边体系与同盟架构后,寻求组建新的针对中国的意识形态联盟,依然是为美国利益服务。

新冠大流行病重创了美国国际领导者的形象,特朗普政府抗疫不力,激进的财政与货币政策为日后埋下隐患。新冠大流行导致的企业倒闭与失业现象加剧了社会分化,种族矛盾可能变得更加尖锐,政治极化并没有因为共同敌人病毒而缓和,反而裂痕更大。中国则很快地控制住疫情,恢复了经济增长,并成为世界抗疫物资生产与援助的中心之一。这也使特朗普政府的对华心理发生了变化。

现在看来,特朗普政府可能试图以频繁且不断加重的挑衅激怒中国。如果中国不做出反击,则会加重压制中国的力度。如果中国做出反击,则会陷入与美国一连串的缠斗中,并在此过程中影响内部发展,最终跌入“新冷战”的陷阱。因此中国必须小心谨慎。

几十年来美国几乎每次大选都会出现“中国综合症”,今年疫情对特朗普选情的剧烈逆转所引起的愤怒,数倍放大了“中国威胁论”的工具价值。此时,中国面对两种挑战:一是美国的整体焦虑,二是总统个人的愤怒。因此,中国有必要对特朗普团队的攻击保持理性反击,暂时不能因为回击他的政府而破坏几十年来中美积累的交往信任,将特朗普团队与美国加以区分,可以避免跌入陷阱。

中国将面临一个更加复杂和危险的世界,必须具有对变化做出及时适应性调整的能力。疫情严重冲击了全球各国。在后疫情时代,经济衰退与社会分化导致的民粹崛起、政权脆弱等因素很容易造成世界无序动荡。一些大国也不希望惟独中国继续增长改变世界权力结构。美国政治极化使得向外转移矛盾的压力越来越大,但无论如何都不能弥补内部裂痕。年轻一代政治人物正在逐步接手美国,这些人对中国缺乏历史感,且在政治极化环境下形成斗争性政治思维,美国日益复杂的国内局势与极化的政治人物都对未来中美关系构成威胁,任何可能性都无法排除。

事实上,能否对中国采取理性的政策也影响着美国的命运,在某种意义上,美国抉择的压力并不小于中国。美国前途的不确定性以及与中国零和博弈的意图,将持续影响未来的世界走向。

(注:作者是资深媒体人。本文仅代表作者个人观点。责编邮箱bo.liu@ftchinese.com)

来源时间:2020/8/26   发布时间:2020/8/25

旧文章ID:22798

拉赫曼:特朗普能否再次赢得总统大选?

0

作者:吉迪恩•拉赫曼  来源:FT中文网

上周的民主党全国代表大会上隐隐有一股担忧。但民主党担忧的并不是共和党籍的现任总统唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)真的赢得美国大选,而是担忧特朗普会通过破坏投票或拒绝承认失败来窃取大选结果。喜剧演员萨拉•库珀(Sarah Cooper)总结了这种主流观点,她说:“唐纳德•特朗普知道他无法公正地赢得选举。”

毕竟,这位总统拒绝承诺他会接受选举结果。但如果把注意力集中在选举结果被窃取的危险上,民主党就有可能低估一种更为传统的风险:特朗普可能在不作弊的情况下获胜。

的确,民调显示民主党总统候选人乔•拜登(Joe Biden)遥遥领先于特朗普,而且这种情况已经持续了好几个月。有些人指出民调也曾预测希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)会在2016年获胜,但这些人被他人提醒,拜登目前平均领先约9个百分点,远高于希拉里当年领先的程度。

但历史上也有过候选人享有拜登目前的这种领先优势,最终却被击败的事例。1988年,民主党人迈克尔•杜卡基斯(Michael Dukakis)在获得党代会提名后领先对手17个百分点,结果11月还是输了。而且选举人团制度在结构上就有利于共和党,这意味着拜登可能需要在全国计票中领先4个百分点才能确保获胜。

博彩市场显然并没有把特朗普获胜的可能性一笔勾销。最近的赔率赌这位总统获得连任的几率在36%至43%之间。

就连一些显示拜登遥遥领先的民调,也包含了一些细节,表明可能存在对特朗普的隐性支持。8月中旬的一份调查显示拜登领先7个百分点。但当选民被问及他们认为邻居会支持谁时,特朗普领先5个百分点。这可能表明存在一群“害羞”的特朗普支持者,他们不会向民调机构承认自己效忠的对象。今年7月进行的另一项调查显示,62%的美国人同意“如今的政治气候阻止我说出我相信的事情”。在共和党人中这一比例为77%。

7月份Monmouth在关键的摇摆州宾夕法尼亚州进行的一份民调显示拜登领先13个百分点。但当选民被问及他们认为谁会赢得该州时,他们以46比45的微弱差距选择了特朗普。而且57%的受访者认为他们的社区中有“秘密选民”会投票给特朗普。

摇摆州的一些经验丰富的民主党政治人士感到紧张。密歇根州国会女议员黛比•丁格尔(Debbie Dingell)在7月份对《大西洋》(The Atlantic)杂志表示,一项显示拜登在密歇根州领先16个百分点的民调根本是“胡扯”。正如丁格尔所指出,密歇根州的民调在2016年也预测希拉里会获胜,结果特朗普以微弱优势胜出,那是自1988年以来共和党首次在该州获胜。

这名国会女议员还指出,她在自己的选区看到了很多“警察的命也是命”(Blue Lives Matter)的标语——针对“黑人的命也是命”(Black Lives Matter)运动表达了对警方的支持。她引用了一篇在社交媒体上疯传的帖子总结了她对选民情绪的担忧,这篇帖子抱怨道:“我曾经以为我只不过是个普通人。但我是个出生在双亲家庭的白人,这让我被打上了一堆标签:有特权、种族主义者,要为奴隶制负责。”

即使是引用这样一段话也可能在民主党圈子里引起争议,因为一些支持者可能会认为这是对种族主义情绪的认可和暗中支持。2016年大选失利后,民主党最初的反应是决心解决白人工薪阶层的困境。但这一决心已被人们对这位总统行为的愤怒,以及对种族不平等的强烈关注所取代。床头柜上的《乡巴佬的挽歌》(Hillbilly Elegy)已经换成了《白人的脆弱》(White Fragility)。

这可能给特朗普提供一个机会。他的竞选策略正是要激起白人选民的愤怒和怨恨。他会热烈欢迎一场以种族问题为核心的选举。

即便如此,特朗普仍面临种种巨大的障碍——其中许多是他自己造成的。新型冠状病毒大流行和美国的高死亡率无情地暴露了他在管理上的无能。它还突显了一些对民主党有利的问题的重要性,比如医疗保健和带薪休假。特朗普此前的算盘是以强劲的经济来竞选,但新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19.即2019冠状病毒病)让这一算盘落了空。特朗普的多名前助手对他进行谴责,比如前国家安全顾问约翰•博尔顿(John Bolton)。主持了特朗普2016年竞选活动的史蒂夫•班农(Steve Bannon)刚刚被控欺诈。(他不认罪。)

许多民主党人难以理解为什么会有人投票给特朗普,他们认为这肯定是出于种族歧视或心智不健全。但正是像这样,无法对那些考虑投票给特朗普的人产生多少同情和理解,才是民主党最大的潜在弱点。特朗普的竞选团队将竭尽全力说服他们的核心选民,让他们相信他们依然是——用希拉里的话来说——一群“可怜虫”:一个受压迫、受鄙视的群体。这种怨恨战略曾经奏效过。它为特朗普提供了再次获胜的机会。

译者/何黎

来源时间:2020/8/25   发布时间:2020/8/25

旧文章ID:22797