Thursday, December 31, 2009

Happy New Year 2010 新年快樂


Posted by Picasa






Afghani -Saale Nao Mubbarak
Afrikaans - Gelukkige nuwe jaar
Albanian -Gezuar Vitin e Ri
Arabic -Antum salimoun
Armenian -Snorhavor Nor Tari
Assyrian -Sheta Brikhta
Azeri -Yeni Iliniz Mubarek!
Bengali - Shuvo Nabo Barsho
Cambodian -Soursdey Chhnam Tmei
Catalan - FELIÇ ANY NOU
Chinese - Chu Shen Tan / Xin Nian Kuai Le
Corsican -Language Pace e Salute
Croatian - Sretna Nova godina!
Cymraeg (Welsh) - Blwyddyn Newydd Dda
Czechoslovakia -Scastny Novy Rok
Danish- Godt Nytår
Dhivehi -Ufaaveri Aa Aharakah Edhen
Dutch -GELUKKIG NIEUWJAAR!
Eskimo- Kiortame pivdluaritlo
Esperanto - Felican Novan Jaron
Estonians - Head uut aastat!
Ethiopian - MELKAM ADDIS AMET YIHUNELIWO!
Finnish - Onnellista Uutta Vuotta
French - Bonne Annee
Gaelic - Bliadhna mhath ur
German - Prosit Neujahr
Greek - Kenourios Chronos
Gujarati - Nutan Varshbhinandan
Hawaiian - Hauoli Makahiki Hou
Hebrew- L'Shannah Tovah
Hindi - Nav varsh ka shubkamnayein
Hong Kong (Cantonese) - Sun Leen Fai Lok
Hungarian- Boldog Ooy Ayvet
Indonesian - Selamat Tahun Baru
Iranian -Saleh now mobarak
Iraqi - Sanah Jadidah
Irish -Bliain nua fe mhaise dhuit
Italian- Felice anno nuovo
Japanese - Akimashite Omedetto Gozaimasu
Kabyle -Asegwas Amegaz
Kannada -Hosa Varushadha Shubhashayagalu
Kisii- SOMWAKA OMOYIA OMUYA
Khmer -Sua Sdei tfnam tmei
Korea - Saehae Bock Mani ba deu sei yo!
Kurdish - NEWROZ PIROZBE
Lithuanian - Laimingu Naujuju Metu
Laotian -dee pee mai
Macedonian - Srekjna Nova Godina
Malay -Selamat Tahun Baru
Marathi -Nveen Varshachy Shubhechcha
Malayalam - Puthuvatsara Aashamsakal
Maltese - Is-Sena t- Tajba
Nepal- Nawa Barsha ko Shuvakamana
Norwegian - Godt Nyttår
Papua New Guinea - Nupela yia i go long yu
Pashto -Nawai Kall Mo Mubarak Shah
Persian -Saleh now ra tabrik migouyam
Philippines - Manigong Bagong Taon
Polish -Szczesliwego Nowego Roku
Portuguese - Feliz Ano Novo
Punjabi - Nave sal di mubarakan
Romanian - AN NOU FERICIT
Russian - S Novim Godom
Samoa - Manuia le Tausaga Fou
Serbo-Croatian - Sretna nova godina
Sindhi -Nayou Saal Mubbarak Hoje
Singhalese- Subha Aluth Awrudhak Vewa
Siraiki- Nawan Saal Shala Mubarak Theevay
Slovak - A stastlivy Novy Rok
Slovenian - sreèno novo leto
Somali -Iyo Sanad Cusub Oo Fiican!
Spanish -Feliz Ano ~Nuevo
Swahili- Heri Za Mwaka Mpyaº
Swedish -GOTT NYTT ÅR! /Gott nytt år!
Sudanese -Warsa Enggal
Tamil - Eniya Puthandu Nalvazhthukkal
Telegu - Noothana samvatsara shubhakankshalu
Thai - Sawadee Pee Mai
Turkish- Yiliniz Kutlu Olsun
Ukrainian- Shchastlyvoho Novoho Roku
Urdu- Naya Saal Mubbarak Ho
Vietnamese- Chuc Mung Tan Nien
Uzbek - Yangi Yil Bilan

The Copenhagen Deal 哥本哈根會議以失敗告終


Posted by Picasa


How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the roomAs recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed --- Guardian's Mark Lynas

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Always on the side of the egg 永遠站在雞蛋的那一端


Posted by Picasa


觀望、抵制、杯葛。calcutec.blogspot.com/2009/03/always-on-side-of-egg.html

大人物很喜歡說,我不做這個這個,是為了彰顯公義。

聽起來正義凜然,看在眼威風八面。最重要的是這個回應簡單快捷,拋下一句便可以拍拍手走開,立即準備下一個出鏡的機會。

村上春樹在今年獲頒耶路撒冷文學獎 Jersalem Prize,領獎地是當時剛剛出兵加沙,帶來戰火連天的以色列。

以他一貫不喜歡領獎,更不喜歡牽進政治紛爭的性格,這是在最差的地方,領最尷尬的獎項。而的確很多人也認為身為小說家的村上春樹應該抵制獎項,否則等於認同以色列的軍事入侵。

不過正正因為他是村上春樹,而不是大人物,他選擇了一個小說家應該做的事。

在二月十五號晚的頒獎禮上,他作了一個不卑不亢、有尊嚴的演講,用最積極的方法告訴所有人一個訊息:Always on the side of the egg。

Good evening. I have come to Jerusalem today as a novelist, which is to say as a professional spinner of lies.

各位晚上好,我今天作為一名小說家來到耶路撒冷的,也就是說一名職業謊言製造者。

Of course, novelists are not the only ones who tell lies. Politicians do it, too, as we all know. Diplomats and generals tell their own kinds of lies on occasion, as do used car salesmen, butchers and builders. The lies of novelists differ from others, however, in that no one criticizes the novelist as immoral for telling lies. Indeed, the bigger and better his lies and the more ingeniously he creates them, the more he is likely to be praised by the public and the critics. Why should that be?

當然,並不是只有小說家才說謊的。政治家也說謊,正如大家所知道的。外交官和將軍有時也要說著他們自己的謊言,就如同二手車推銷員、劊子手以及建築師一樣。但是,小說家的謊言與其他人不一樣,因爲沒有人會批評小說家,稱他們說謊不道德。實際上,小說家的謊言說得越大越好,編造謊言的能力越高明,他才更可能受到公衆和評論家的認可和好評。這是爲什麽呢?

My answer would be this: namely, that by telling skilful lies–which is to say, by making up fictions that appear to be true–the novelist can bring a truth out to a new place and shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to grasp a truth in its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to grab its tail by luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional location, and replacing it with a fictional form. In order to accomplish this, however, we first have to clarify where the truth-lies within us, within ourselves. This is an important qualification for making up good lies.

我的答案是:通過更有技巧地說謊——也就是說,創作看起來似乎是真實的小說——小說家才能夠將真相帶到新的地方,才能讓新的陽光撒到這片新的土地上。在多數情況下,幾乎不可能以其原始形式掌握真相,也不可能準確地闡述真相。這就是爲什麽我要将真相從眾多掩蓋之中拉出來,將它放到一個虛幻的地方,再用一種虛幻的形式將它替代。但是要想做到這一點,我們首先要清楚真實的謊言在我們心中,就在我們自己的心中。這是要想編造完美謊言的一個非常重要的資質。

Today, however, I have no intention of lying. I will try to be as honest as I can. There are only a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them.

但今天,我並不想說謊。我會盡可能地做到誠實。這也是一年當中我不說謊的為數不多的幾天之一,今天碰巧就是其中之一。

So let me tell you the truth. In Japan a fair number of people advised me not to come here to accept the Jerusalem Prize. Some even warned me they would instigate a boycott of my books if I came. The reason for this, of course, was the fierce fighting that was raging in Gaza . The U.N. reported that more than a thousand people had lost their lives in the blockaded city of Gaza, many of them unarmed citizens–children and old people.

讓我來告訴你們真相。在日本有許多人建議我不要來這裡接受“耶路撒冷文學獎”。甚至有些人警告我,如果我要堅持來的話,他們就會掀起抵制閱讀我的小說的活動。當然,原因是加沙的戰爭正如火如荼。據聯合國報導,已經有一千多人在已封鎖的加沙城失去了他們的生命,許多都是手無寸鐵的平民——孩子和老人。

Any number of times after receiving notice of the award, I asked myself whether traveling to Israel at a time like this and accepting a literary prize was the proper thing to do, whether this would create the impression that I supported one side in the conflict, that I endorsed the policies of a nation that chose to unleash its overwhelming military power. Neither, of course, do I wish to see my books subjected to a boycott.

在接到這個獲獎通知後我不斷地問自己,是否要在這樣一個特殊時刻來耶路撒冷,接受這樣的文學獎是否是現在該做的事情,這樣做是否會讓人產生一種印象,說我支持衝突中的其中一方,說我支持選擇向世界展示其龐大軍事力量的國家的政策呢。當然我也不希望看到我的書遭到抵制。

Finally, however, after careful consideration, I made up my mind to come here. One reason for my decision was that all too many people advised me not to do it. Perhaps, like many other novelists, I tend to do the exact opposite of what I am told. If people are telling me– and especially if they are warning me– “Don’t go there,” “Don’t do that,” I tend to want to “go there” and “do that”. It’s in my nature, you might say, as a novelist. Novelists are a special breed. They cannot genuinely trust anything they have not seen with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.

但最後在經過深思熟慮後,我還是決定來到耶路撒冷。我之所以做出這樣的決定,原因之一就是有太多的人不想讓我來這裡。可能與許多其他小說家一樣,我總是要做人們反對我做的事情。如果人們對我說——並且特别是如果他們警告我——“不要去那裡”、“不要這樣做”,我就偏偏要去那裡,偏偏要這樣做。你可能會說,這就是小說家的性格。小說家是另類。如果他們沒有親眼所見,沒有親手觸摸,他們是不會真正相信任何事情的。

And that is why I am here. I chose to come here rather than stay away. I chose to see for myself rather than not to see. I chose to speak to you rather than to say nothing.

這就是我來到這裡的原因。我選擇來這裡,而不是逃避。我選擇親自來看一看,而不是回避,我選擇在這裏向大家說幾句,而不是沉默。

Please do allow me to deliver a message, one very personal message. It is something that I always keep in mind while I am writing fiction. I have never gone so far as to write it on a piece of paper and paste it to the wall: rather, it is carved into the wall of my mind, and it goes something like this:

請允許我在這裡向你們傳遞一條信息,是一個非常私人的信息。在我寫小說時我總是在心裡牢記,但我從來都不會把它寫在紙上,貼在牆上,我是把它刻在了心靈的牆上,這條信息是這樣的:

“Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg.”

“在一座高大堅實的牆和與之相撞的雞蛋之間,我永遠都站在雞蛋的一側”。

Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will do it. But if there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?

是的,無論牆是多麽的正確,雞蛋是多麽地錯誤,我都站在雞蛋的一側。其他人可能會判斷誰是誰非,也許時間或歷史會來判斷。但是,如果一個小說家無論因何種原因站在牆的一側來創造,那麽他的作品的價值何在呢?

What is the meaning of this metaphor? In some cases, it is all too simple and clear. Bombers and tanks and rockets and white phosphorus shells are that high wall. The eggs are the unarmed civilians who are crushed and burned and shot by them. This is one meaning of the metaphor.

這個比喻是什麽意思呢,在有些時候,非常簡單明了。轟炸機、坦克、火箭以及白磷彈就是那堵高牆,雞蛋是被這些武器毀滅、燒傷並擊斃的手無寸鐵的百姓。這就是這個比喻的其中一層含義。

But this is not all. It carries a deeper meaning. Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: it is “The System.” The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others–coldly, efficiently, systematically.

但是,並不僅僅是這些。它還有更深一層的含義,我們來這樣考慮一下,我們中的每一個人或多或少都是一個雞蛋。我們中的每一個人都是存在於一個脆弱外殼中唯一的、不可替代的靈魂。我也一樣,對你們中的每一個人也一樣。並且,我們中的每一個人在某種程度上也面臨著一堵高大堅實的牆。這個牆有一個名字:那就是“體制”。這個體制本來是要保護我們的,但是有時候它會呈現出它自己的一面,然後就開始殘殺我們,並使我們去殘殺他人——冷酷、有效、系統地殘殺。

I have only one reason to write novels, and that is to bring the dignity of the individual soul to the surface and shine a light upon it. The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on the System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them. I truly believe it is the novelist’s job to keep trying to clarify the uniqueness of each individual soul by writing stories–stories of life and death, stories of love, stories that make people cry and quake with fear and shake with laughter. This is why we go on, day after day, concocting fictions with utter seriousness.

我寫小說之有一個原因,那就是要給予每一個靈魂以尊嚴,並且讓他們接受陽光的沐浴。情節的目的聽起來是一種警報,是對體制進行光芒的培訓,阻止它將我們的靈魂纏結在它的圈套中,防止踐踏我們的靈魂。我忠實地相信,小說家的職責就是通過創作故事——關於生死、關於愛情、讓人哭泣和顫慄以及讓人大笑不已的故事,讓人們意識到每一個靈魂的唯一性。這就是我不停創作的原因,日復一日,以十分嚴肅的態度創作小說。

My father passed away last year at the age of ninety. He was a retired teacher and a part-time Buddhist priest. When he was in graduate school in Kyoto , he was drafted into the army and sent to fight in China . As a child born after the war, I used to see him every morning before breakfast offering up long, deeply-felt prayers at the small Buddhist altar in our house. One time I asked him why he did this, and he told me he was praying for the people who had died in the battlefield. He was praying for all the people who died, he said, both ally and enemy alike. Staring at his back as he knelt at the altar, I seemed to feel the shadow of death hovering around him.

我的父親是在去年去世的,享年九十歲。他是一名退休教師,是一名兼職佛教高僧。他從京都的研究生院畢業後,應徵入伍,被派到中國打仗。作為一個戰後出生的孩子,每天早晨在早飯前,我總是看到他的在我家的小佛教祭壇前非常虔誠地長時間地祈禱。有一次我就問父親為什麽要這樣做,他就告訴我說,他是在為戰爭中死去的人們祈禱。他說,他為所有死去的人祈禱,無論是同盟還是敵人。當我看着他跪在祭壇前的背影時,我似乎感受到了縈繞在他周圍的死亡的陰影。

My father died, and with him he took his memories, memories that I can never know. But the presence of death that lurked about him remains in my own memory. It is one of the few things I carry on from him, and one of the most important.

我的父親去世了,帶著他的記憶,我永遠都不可能知道的記憶。但是環繞在他周圍的那些死亡卻留在了我自己的記憶中。這是我從他那裡學習到東西之一,也是最重要的東西之一。

I have only one thing I hope to convey to you today. We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, and we are all fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong–and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others’ souls and from our believing in the warmth we gain by joining souls together.

今天我之希望向你們傳達一個信息。我們都是人類,是超越國籍、種族和宗教的個體的人,我們都是脆弱的雞蛋,要面臨被稱作“體制”的堅實的牆。從外表來看,我們根本就沒有贏的希望。這堵牆太高太堅實——並且太冷酷了。如果我們有一點戰勝它的希望,那就是來源於我們對我們自己以及他人靈魂唯一性和不可替代性的信念,來源於我們對将將魂聯合起來可獲得溫暖的信念。

Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow the System to exploit us. We must not allow the System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: we made the System.

花一點時間來考慮這些,我們每一個人都擁有有形的生動的靈魂,而體制沒有。我們不能讓體制來剝削我們。我們不能讓體制現出它自己的一面。不是體制創造了我們,而是我們建立了體制。

That is all I have to say to you.

這就是這想要對你們說的。

I am grateful to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I am grateful that my books are being read by people in many parts of the world. And I would like to express my gratitude to the readers in Israel . You are the biggest reason why I am here. And I hope we are sharing something, something very meaningful. And I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak to you here today.

非常感謝授予了我耶路撒冷文學獎。我也非常感謝世界各地有那麽多人看了我寫的書。我還要感謝以色列的讀者們。你們是我來到這裡的最主要原因。我希望我們能夠分享一些東西,一些有非常有意義的東西。我也非常高興今天有機會在這裡發言。

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家。

正因為村上春樹沒有觀望、抵制和杯葛,我可以欣賞到一篇出色的演講,更可以領悟到一個大概很久也不會忘記的道理。

他領這個獎,不是為自己,而是為了我們,也為了在戰火下無辜的老弱。

比起大人物,這位無足輕重的小說家實在更偉大。

Free Liu Xiaobo 釋放劉曉波


Posted by Picasa


練乙錚:一隻不自量力的壞蛋!

劉曉波判刑之後,大陸以外華人社會反響相當大。在香港,老一脫民主派到中聯辦請願,年輕一代更激,直衝羅湖橋;八九六四至今的新仇舊恨,一下子又湧出來了。在台灣,泛綠陣營藉機大事炒作不在話下,便是最重要泛藍傳媒《聯合報》,前天也刊載中研院研究員陳宜中文章〈劉曉波案築起兩岸障礙〉,談論「○八憲章」內容及劉君被重判入獄十一年所凸顯的兩岸巨大政治差異,結論是,「要促和,就必須促進大陸的政治進步!」

說兩岸政治差異大,到底有多大?論政治體制,台灣五○年起,在一黨專政的前提下實行「地方自治」,縣以下民意代表和行政長官由直選產生;這個安排,和現今大陸一黨領導的人大體制實行縣以下直選的「基層民主」一模一樣。論政治行為,六○年,台灣發生指標性的「《自由中國》事件」,文化人雷震因撰文要求實踐中華民國憲法賦予的政治權利,被捕下獄,服刑十年,法庭給的罪名是「煽動叛亂」;雷震的遭遇,和今天大陸的劉曉波雷同。論經濟發展水平,大陸今年人均收入達三千五百美元,和七三年台灣的三千六百七十美元差不多。如此看來,台灣和大陸的政經形態差異,約在四十年左右。兩岸要跨越這個差異不容易,劉案重判,令統一更加渺茫。這是整個中華民族的悲哀。

中共當然知道重判劉曉波不得人心,徒增對台、港統戰困難,但為什麼一意孤行呢?筆者認為,這是國內形勢需要使然。今年是中國的「政治本命年」,但時介歲末,最後一個敏感日子(十一國慶)已過,當局理應可以放鬆對社會的政治監控;不過,監控並未放鬆。事實上,本月十八日,中共中央發出指示,認為明年的政治形勢不寬鬆,重點工作是「維穩」,監控還要加強,具體是在信息系統全面落實「金盾」二期工程,進一步鎖緊互聯網,同時還要大力強化公安隊伍建設(特別是要「加大『從優待警』力度,愛護民警、關心民警、健全民警心理危機預防、最大限度地激發公安隊伍的向心力」,即防止民警造反)。 ① 如此嚴陣以待,官方說是因為中國已進入「社會矛盾高危高發期」;此期間,「維穩」高於一切,其他工作讓路在所不惜,包括對台工作在內。中共關於「維穩」的邏輯是:若生動亂,黨垮台了,統一何用?

在大陸,「維穩」的對立面是「維權」。這很奇怪,在任何國家,一般而言,民權維護了,社會便穩定,「維權」即「維穩」。但是,在中國大陸,情況剛好相反,從黨中央到地方乾部,無不視「維權」為大敵。 ② 律師維權,抓;傳媒維權,封;上訪者自己維權,壓。劉曉波「炮製」的〈○八憲章〉,講的是維權,他的六篇「罪證」文章,要害是主張以非暴力方式改變社會以改變政權,而主要手段,便是在民間累積點滴維權。處於大陸社會主要矛盾的風口上,劉曉波焉能不判重刑?

面對社會矛盾高危,中共幾年前開始,從中央到縣級黨政機構裡,由上而下層層加設「維穩辦」;這種所謂的「常設臨時機構」,由中共「中央維穩領導小組」統率,縣以下的鄉和村,則有縣維穩辦派出的工作小組。在地方,維穩辦統領原有的防邪辦③ 、信訪辦、綜治辦、安委辦、公安局、司法局(即所謂「五辦兩局」)的工作,司法特別不能獨立。辦好維穩,靠的是「群眾路線」,具體指「大量發展『維穩信息督導員』,分佈在管轄區每一角落,專門負責收集影響穩定的各類情況;每位信息督導員還至少要發展五名『耳目』,在矛盾多發地,更要多物色這些『耳目』」。說得白一點,這辦法就是在全國滿佈線人(今年四月十三日廣州出版的《南風窗》雜誌,對「維穩辦」現象和組織有很詳盡報導)。黨原有的「戰鬥碉堡作用」已然不足,新近須再加上一張天羅地網去「維穩」。筆者認為,這也不是辦法。問題是,黨本身腐敗,是社會不穩因素的最大來源;黨員為一己私利,不能不腐,在此前提之下,為應付上頭的「維穩」指令而有所表現,更不得不向維權群眾施加高壓,嚴刑峻法由此而生,結果出現惡性循環,「維穩」遂與「維權」對立。當然,「維穩」的是強勢,是硬牆,是巨石;「維權」的是弱者,是卵。

今年二月,日本作家村上春樹到耶路撒冷接受以色列頒給他的文學獎;在授獎典禮上,他作了轟動文學世界的「雞蛋演說」,嚴詞指摘以色列虐待巴勒斯坦人。對不起,指摘是我作為作家的責任,村上不留情面地說。 「在一座高大堅實的牆和與之相撞的雞蛋之間,我永遠都站在雞蛋那邊。」④

同樣,在「無產階級專政的銅牆鐵壁」面前,劉曉波無疑是一隻不自量力與之相撞的壞蛋。大家選擇站在哪一邊好?

注︰①詳見《新華網》刊載本月十八日中央公安部黨委副書記楊煥寧在全國政法工作電視電話會議上的講話;②內地雜誌《半月談》記者在基層調查,發現官員幹部認為「維權就是和政府過不去」,「維權者就是刁民」。這與中共高層的認識和「實踐」完全一致。詳見《新華網》今年六月二十九日文章〈維穩體制機制遭遇尷尬——權利時代呼喚「維穩」新思維〉;③「防邪辦」主要對付「圈圈功」,從省委一直到街道裡弄都設此辦,整個系統由江澤民一手創立;④這篇演詞筆者大力推薦,原文及很好的中譯見http://calcutec.blogspot.com/2009/03/always- on-

(今日信報)


http://www.hkej.com/template/forum/php/forum_details.php?blog_posts_id=42592

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Free Liu Xiaobo 釋放劉曉波


Posted by Picasa


吳志森﹕秦皇的封建社會已一去不復返了
(明報)2009年12月29日 星期二 05:05
【明報專訊】即使再有一千次煙花璀璨的奧運 ,即使再搞一萬次耀武揚威的閱兵,即使再花千萬在西方媒體大賣廣告,都不及重判劉曉波11年徒刑,更能令中華人民共和國 在國際舞台上揚名了。判決前,15個西方國家使領館人員要求集體旁聽,判決後,發表強烈譴責聲明。大賣中國形象廣告的西方傳媒,對劉曉波案,有詳盡細緻令人感動的報道。西方社會,除了對我國廉價產品血汗勞工稍有了解外,對中國以言入罪的中世紀治國模式,肯定印象深刻。

《零八憲章》簽署人北京 電影學院的崔衛平教授說得好:「這是一場宗教裁判所的審判。怎麼能判處一個人的思想是有罪的?」另一位簽署者香港著名文化評論人梁文道也說:「從此之後,『聖誕快樂』是中國人的一句暗語,它的意思是記住曉波。」

將異見者關在牢裏,殺雞儆猴,是中國統治者的慣技。三十年前固然無日無之,改革開放後也不知凡幾。即使胡溫新政,強調以人為本,把不同政見人士禁足失聲卻愈見瘋狂,胡佳 、譚作人、郭泉、王琦,一個一個判刑坐牢,連「腎石寶寶」爸爸趙連海也以莫須有罪名拘捕審訊,令人髮指!

異見者判刑,偶爾泛起漣漪,但迴響都不及劉曉波案大。審判當天,支持者到法庭要求旁聽,不顧安危打出抗議橫幅。「民間記者」用手機在微博「推特」(Twitter)現場文字圖片直播,國人第一時間掌握審訊判刑的消息。審訊前兩星期,網上流傳《我們願與劉曉波共同承擔責任》的聲明,簽名的,都是《零八憲章》的聯署人:「如果判決劉曉波先生有『罪』,也等同於判決我們每一個人都有『罪』。我們只有和劉曉波先生同擔刑罰。」「共同承擔」不是光說,判刑後,一些簽署者主動投案自首,令當局措手不及,尷尬萬分。

內地大學生根本不知劉曉波是誰,對重判也毫無反應,但重慶西南政法大學念書的香港小子樊俊朗,在校園貼起聲援劉曉波的大字報,只一瞬間就被校方撕掉,樊同學也被公安帶走問話,但網絡廣泛流傳,轟動學界。事件也感染香港人傳統的遊行到中聯辦 示威請願外,直接行動的「80後」,插著「罪•簽署零八憲章」的籤牌,操向羅湖 橋,到內地投案,公安粗暴越境拉人,反響極大,也在內地網絡傳播開去。

七六年天安門 事件有詩寫道:「中國已不是過去的中國,人民也不是愚不可及……」30年過去了,現狀看似沒多大變化,但「秦皇的封建社會已一去不復返了」,劉曉波判刑後在內地引起的強烈反應,表明了「民不畏死,奈何以死懼之」,仍舊用關、殺、逐的老方法來處理不同政見,不但不能解決問題,只會激化矛盾,自吃苦果。

Monday, December 28, 2009

The Decade From Hell 世紀首10年


Posted by Picasa


世紀首10年

踏進2009年最後的一個星期,應該是全球各大報章、雜誌,回顧一年以來,世界所發生大事的時刻。剛好,這又是21世紀,首10年的結束,回頭望一望這過去的10年,對人類社會未來的歲月,或多或少會有點啟發。套用電視劇紅人柴九,常掛在嘴邊的名句﹕人生有多少個10年,使人會感覺到,由於生命的短促,即使不以只爭朝夕的精神,大幹一番,亦莫負青春,浪費時光。

21世紀元年是以千年蟲開始,在這10年來,全球仍籠罩著一股毫無人性的恐怖主義,無論這醜惡的一小撮人,怎樣去理性化這些所謂以神之名,去進行的聖戰行動,而受害人仍然是一般營營役役、不理政治、但求生活兩餐一宿的普通老百姓。難怪乎美國時代雜誌以“來自地獄的10年”,去形容這千僖年後的第一個10 年。歷史諷刺的是,其中的8年的地獄式生活,正正是發生在布殊總統掌政的期間。

就以2001年9月11日開始,兩架自波士頓起飛的客機,被恐怖份子騎劫,撞向紐約姊妹大廈,令近3000人罹難。布殊政府為著進行反擊,入侵阿富汗及瘋狂空襲伊拉克,進一步造成大量平民死傷,而戰爭持續到今天還未有結束。戰爭並沒有把恐怖勢力的活動範圍控制下來,反令極端宗教狂熱份子見本加厲,在全球每一個角落發動恐怖襲擊。在英國、西班牙、巴基斯坦、印度尼西亞、俄羅斯、約旦、菲律賓、土耳其、印度的各大城市,均受到大大小小的恐怖事件破壞,無一悻免。

直接或間接受到戰爭的困擾及在恐怖主義的陰影下,全球遭遇到兩次金融危機的重創,紐約股票市場的萬事達綜合指數,由2000年的高峰5049點,下跌到今天的2200點,股票市值下降了百份之26。經濟衰退令美國的失業率維持在雙位數字之內,工作職位以每月10萬個的速度消失。奧巴馬的當選不單帶給美國人對改變的希冀,而且給世人新的祈盼。畢竟,單憑一個人的意志與魅力是十分有限,但總算在結束伊拉克戰爭、挽救經濟危機及醫保改革中,踏出了可喜的第一步。

在2005年,橫掃路易士安娜州的一場風暴,令超過1500人死亡,財產損失1000萬,說明了美國已淪為第三世界國家。長期以來,經濟資源花在扮演國際警察角色之上,對發生在本土的一場風災,顯得應變無力、失控。加上金融、房地產泡沫爆破,經濟崩潰危在旦夕。大財伐的倒閉、商人貪婪、捻財,反映人性的墮落與道德淪喪,進一步為這千瘡百孔的經濟,鼓起喪鐘。

藉著北京申辦奧運成功,人們希望中國會帶來和諧與祥和的氣氛,也因在西藏及新疆的民族、宗教、政治等複雜問題,顯示出一個缺乏包容精神與民主制度的社會,在處理對不同政見、異議人士的和平挑戰時,為著領袖的權威、政權的利益,仍會是採用極之不文明的手段,去進行武力鎮壓。幸好在世界上,這類的政權已所剩無多了,人民不斷的覺醒,對民主的訴求,已經帶來了無法避免的對抗,然而,歷史最終是傾向正義的一方。

互聯網及資訊載具的急速發展,讓人與人的關係更加密切,地方的距離縮短,但是對封閉極權社會,卻產生更大的恐懼,表現出極度虛怯。人民在網上的言論被嚴密監控,人身自由受到限制。在維權抗爭行動,在互網上發表文章,令無數維權人士、律師,正義知識份子,紛紛被判刑、關進黑獄。成千上萬的民工、礦工,在危險的環境工作,勞動成果被剝奪,身體被摧殘,說明了這個腐敗的統治階級,只顧把利益放在集團手裏,這種不公平的現實,始終會被改變過來。

在上一個世紀結束前,柏林圍牆被推倒了,標誌著接近百年來邪惡勢力的終結。而在新世紀前十年的苦難,應該已經過去,雖然,恐怖主義在全球肆虐,並未有嘗得任何成功的滋味,但人們沒有被嚇倒,反之,來自民間的正義健康力量不斷地增強,從慘痛的經驗中吸取教訓,故此,預料下一個10年,將會是走出黑暗,步向光明的開始。

Free Liu Xiaobo 釋放劉曉波


Posted by Picasa


香港雜評

2009-12-28
練乙錚:國家不解釋

【信報-香島論叢】民主人士劉曉波二十五日獲罪判刑十一年,舉世震撼。北京選擇耶誕作此一舉,看來並非為了利用節日氣氛掩人耳目,而是恰好相反,偏要選在西方世界最重要日子高調重判劉君,看他的支持者怎奈何。這個做法,在今天中國「雄」起來了的形勢底下,十分自然。

不過,和在國際上如此張揚不同,北京在國內卻低調之極。如果不是外交部例行新聞發報會上有外記提問、新華社轉載外交部發言人的簡短答覆,判決的消息因而上了網,否則大陸人根本不知道。判決書出來後,筆者試「百度一下」,發覺顯示的一大堆「劉曉波」條,全部另有其人,犯的法與「顛覆國家政權罪」毫不相干,本文所指的劉曉波,早在「百度」消失;再試「谷歌中國」,也只能在少數一些非.cn域名的小道網站上找出判決書,且絕大部分都要「翻牆」才能看到。判決書如是,其中作為劉的主要「罪證」的六篇文章和〈○八憲章〉文本,更早已從大陸互聯網上蒸發;大陸人要明白劉案到底是什麼回事,根本不可能。中共色厲而內荏,此是明證。筆者嘗一再指出,幾十年來,政治始終是中國大陸之死穴,要保持大局穩定,一靠經濟極速增長,二靠蠻不講理的專政機器;若非如此,局面縱有一個「大得不能倒」的黨去支撑,也很難撑得起。(可笑的是,上周還有本地愛國分子提議在內地搞「十三億人民公投」。)

區區一份判決書,在中國這個「法治國家」(外交部發言人姜俞語),搞得如此神秘兮兮,倒引起筆者仔細閱讀的興趣。判決書不長,七、八千字左右,主要分四部分:指控、答辯、證言、判決,其中證言部分最長,是其餘總和的一倍多;此段文字詳細證明劉曉波伙同他人「炮製」〈○八憲章〉,並把六篇文章在境外問題刊物或網站上發表。對這兩點指控及所列證據,判決書指劉完全承認。至於劉的這些行為為什麼構成違反《刑法》一○五條二款,而不屬於《憲法》上列明的公民政治權利的一部分,判決書則一個字解釋也沒有。國家不解釋。

然而,其他文明國家不是這樣搞法治的,筆者舉○五年加拿大一宗涉「挑動社群仇恨」及「危害國家安全」罪的審判過程為例。案中被判有罪、後被加國政府驅逐出境的德國人安宣道(Ernst Zündal),是個納粹主義者,一九五八年移民加國,一直未得該國國籍;七十年代,他開了一間出版社,向全球推銷納粹主義書刊如《六百萬猶太人真的被害嗎?》、《我們熱愛希特拉的理由》等。他的影響據說相當大,單是美國客戶便為數三萬。一九八三年,一名加籍猶太人向加國人權審議庭投訴安氏行徑,安大略省政府接受投訴,並以安氏出版《六百萬》一書干犯蓄意散播虛假消息罪為由起訴他,官司打了五年,安氏二勝一負,案件進了聯邦最高法院;九二年終審結果,認為之前的判決違憲,安氏遂得無罪獲釋,而他出版該書的行為,屬於言論自由,受加國憲法保護。長達九年的法律程序,爭論的便是安氏的憲法權益。同一議題,劉曉波在本月審判中向北京法院提出,判決書答辯部分也提及這點,但審判長根本不談這個問題。

安氏雖然得直,但加國人權審議庭繼續研究他的出版物和網站是否散播民族仇恨、干犯另一法律,他的前妻也主動參加調查。安氏見勢不妙,離加往美,非法在美居留三年,於○三年被美國遞解返加,但此時他因為三年未踏足加境,已喪失加國居留權,甫入境便被查扣。加拿大聯邦法庭最後根據他和加國其他新納粹暴力組織的密切關係,認為他對加國構成治安威脅,不再讓他居留,把他解返德國,德國政府馬上控告他,罪名是「挑動對少數民族仇恨」。長達兩年的審判,爭持非常激烈,結果,安氏被判有罪,入獄五年。無論是加拿大還是德國,審判安氏的法律過程,要點都在於判別他的行為是否違法,而不是他有沒有做出那些行為;後者根本不成疑問,因為都是公開的。劉曉波案也一樣,他的「犯罪行為」公開得不能再公開,問題是他那些行為是否受憲法保護。在大陸,國家不講道理,法庭自然也不方便講什麼道理。中國大陸是個「不講道理的法治國家」。

劉案判決後,本地當權派絕口不談有罪判決的對錯,倒是城大法律學系副教授梁美芬博士有新穎見解:量刑太重是外國政府說三道四的結果。這算是什麼法律理由呢?如果一個國家的公民在本國受審,外國人「說三道四」,被告便罪加一等,法律學者應該認為是這個國家的司法或法制有問題罷,怎會把這個法律過錯委諸別人呢?外交部指摘外國說三道四還可以,但那絕不應該影響本國司法!看來,城大乃至本港其他法律學院師生就梁博士這個理解深入討論一下,會很有意義。

篇幅關係,有關劉案的其他方面,明天續談。

東林書院 The Donglin Academy


Posted by Picasa


鄧拓在《過東林書院》一詩中寫道:東林講學繼龜山,事事關心天地間。莫謂書生空議論,頭顱擲處血斑斑。

馬南村-->燕山夜話-->事事關心

「風聲、雨聲、讀書聲,聲聲入耳;
  家事、國事、天下事,事事關心。」
  這是明代東林黨首領顧憲成撰寫的一副對聯。時間已經過去了三百六十多年,到現在,當人們走進江蘇無錫「東林書院」舊址的時候,還可以尋見這副對聯的遺跡。為什麼忽然想起這副對聯呢?因為有幾位朋友在談話中,認為古人讀書似乎都沒有什麼政治目的,都是為讀書而讀書,都是讀死書的。為了證明這種認識不合事實,才提起了這副對聯。而且,這副對聯知道的人很少,頗有介紹的必要。
  上聯的意思是講書院的環境便於人們專心讀書。這十一個字很生動描寫了自然界的風雨聲和人們的讀書聲交織在一起的情景,令人彷彿置身於當年的東林書院中,耳朵裡好像真的聽見了一片朗誦和講學的聲音,與天籟齊鳴。
  下聯的意思是講在書院中讀書的人都要關心政治。
  這十一個字充分地表明了當時的東林黨人在政治上的抱負。他們主張不能只關心自己的家事,還要關心國家的大事和全世界的事情。那個時候的人已經知道天下不只是一個中國,還有許多別的國家。所以,他們把天下事與國事並提,可見這是指的世界大事,而不限於本國的事情了。
  把上下聯貫患起來看,它的意思更加明顯,就是說一面要致力讀書,一面要關心政治,兩方面要緊密結合。而且,上聯的風聲、雨聲也可以理解為語帶雙關,即兼指自然界的風雨和政治上的風雨而言。因此,這副對聯的意義實在是相當深長的。
  從我們現在的眼光看上去,東林黨人讀書和講學,顯然有他們的政治目的。儘管由於歷史條件的限制,他們當時還是站在封建階級的立場上,為維護封建制度而進行政治鬥爭。但是,他們比起那一班讀死書的和追求功名利祿的人,總算進步得多了。
  當然,以顧憲成和高攀龍等人為代表的東林黨人,當時只知道用「君子」和「小人」去區別政治上的正邪兩派。顧憲成說:「當京官不忠心事主,當地方官不留心民生,隱居鄉里不講求正義,不配稱君子。」在顧憲成死後,高攀龍接著主持東林講席,也是繼續以「君子」與「小人」去品評當時的人物,議論萬曆、天啟年間的時政。他們的思想,從根本上說,並沒有超出宋儒理學,特別是程、朱學說的範圍,這也是可以理解的。因為顧憲成講學的東林書院,本來是宋儒楊龜山創立的書院。楊龜山是程源、程頤兩兄弟的門徒,是「二程之學」的正宗嫡傳。朱熹等人則是楊龜山的弟子。顧憲成重修東林書院的時候,很清楚地宣佈,他是講程朱學說的,也就是繼承楊龜山的衣缽的。人們如果要想從他的身上,打到反封建的革命因素,那恐怕是不可能的。
  我們決不需要恢復所謂東林遺風,就讓它永遠成為古老的歷史陳跡去吧。我們只要懂得努力讀書和關心政治,這兩方面緊密結合的道理就夠了。
  片面地只強調讀書,而不關心政治;或者片面地只強調政治,而不努力讀書,都是極端錯誤的。不讀書而空談政治的人,只是空頭的政治家,決不是真正的政治家。真正的政治家沒有不努力讀書的。完全不讀書的政治家是不可思議的。同樣,不問政治而死讀書本的人,那是無用的書獃子,決不是真正有學問的學者。真正有學問的學者決不能不關心政治。完全不懂政治的學者,無論如何他的學問是不完全的。就這一點說來,所謂「事事關心」實際上也包含著對一切知識都要努力學習的意思在內。
  既要努力讀書,又要關心政治,這是愈來愈明白的道理。古人尚且知道這種道理,宣揚這種道理,難道我們還不如古人,還不懂得這種道理嗎?無論如何,我們應該比古人懂得更充分,更深刻,更透徹!

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Free Liu Xiaobo 釋放劉曉波


Posted by Picasa


中共的獨裁愛國主義

作者﹕劉曉波

國家由它的民眾構成,民眾是一個國家的主體,也是國家主權的來源和國家利益的擁有者。在一個合理的政治制度下,政治權力來自民眾的授予,政府靠民眾血汗養活,政府或執政黨僅僅是國家的公僕而非國家的主人。政府必須真正地而不是口頭地把民眾當作衣食父母,而把自己當作民眾公僕。所以,政府的首要職能是善待自己的人民和提供公共服務,無論是權力和國家財政,都必須做到「取之於民而用之於民」;政府所代表的國家利益必須具體化為民眾的利益,最終具體落實為個人的安全、財產、自由和民主等諸項法定權利。

總之,尊民愛民、特別是尊重和保障民眾用和平的方式置疑、批評、甚至反對政府決策的權利,才有資格代表由民眾利益彙集而成的國家利益,也才可以稱之為愛國政府,才有資格倡導愛國主義。

然而,一個獨裁政權的愛國恰恰相反,它高調提倡愛國主義卻從來不尊重不愛護國家的主體——人民。

首先,它的權力不是來自民授而是來自暴力並靠暴力維持,它把本應服務於社會公益的公權力變成政權及權貴的私權力,變成貫徹政權意志、牟取權貴利益的工具。

其次,它維持社會秩序的主要方式是暴力恐怖和意識形態謊言,它剝奪民眾的基本人權,它封鎖公共信息,壓制多元化的價值和不同意見的表達,它不允許自由的思想和信仰,不允許民眾議政、結社、罷工和遊行,不允許民眾用和平方式來表達自身的不滿和對政府的批評。

最後,它靠人民的血汗來養活卻從來敵視民意並以虐待人民為樂,它增進社會福利的主要方式是自上而下的恩賜,它用暴力搶掠了全部社會財富,然後從本應屬於民眾的財產分出一小部份恩賜給民眾,非但不覺得羞恥,反而自以為是「皇恩浩蕩」,逼著民眾感恩戴德。

中共掌權後,為了維持黨權對人民和國家的絕對統治,一直在大談愛國主義,也始終強調一種似是而非的統治邏輯——「亡黨亡國論」。六四後,這種論調變種為「穩定論」和「崩潰論」的相互補充。它的正面宣傳是「只有中共才能給中國帶來穩定和繁榮」,它的反面灌輸是「離開了中共政權中國就將大亂甚至崩潰」,這一正一反的雙簧演奏著「亡黨亡國論」的主旋律。

事實上,「亡黨」與「亡國」之間,並沒有必然的因果關係。因為,任何政黨都是特定利益集團的代表,而沒有資格宣稱為「國家、民族和人民」的代表。即便是執政黨,也不能等於國家,更不能等同於民族及其文化。中共政權,不等於中國,更不能代表中國文化;亡黨,只意味著某一執政黨政權的坍塌,而並不意味著中國的崩潰和中華民族的沉淪。中國歷史上的政權更替頻繁,但中國作為一個國家並沒有「亡國」。

「亡國」,只能是「主權更迭」,即由國與國之間的極端衝突造成,民族被征服,領土被佔領,主權被剝奪,一個國家被另一國家所顛覆並控制(或由佔領者直接統治,或佔領者通過操縱傀儡政權進行間接控制),而絕非「政權更迭」,一國之內的政權更迭與亡國無關。美國有二百多年的歷史,期間由兩大政黨輪流執政的政權更迭定期進行,而美國作為一個國家則一脈相承。

在此意義上,冷戰時期的前蘇聯陣營中的東歐諸國,儘管在表面上還是主權國家,但實際的狀態更近於「亡國」,因為這些東毆國家的政權直接受制於前蘇聯霸權的武力操控,以至於,前蘇聯為了達到完全操控這些國家政權的目的,在這些國家發生旨在擺脫蘇聯共產霸權的改革之時,不惜將坦克直接開進這些國家的首都,以赤裸裸的武力來恢復前蘇聯的共產霸權。

中國是歷史悠久的古老國家,自從秦始皇通過武力兼併而建立統一秦朝政權之後,經歷了無數次政權更迭,但中國作為一個作家並沒有被滅亡。只有蒙族武力顛覆宋朝和滿清武力顛覆明朝,踏破中原大地的馬蹄和手起頭落的馬刀,將漢人置於劣等人地位的種族歧視制度,還可以勉強稱之為「亡國之恥」。反元復宋和反清復明的鬥爭,還可以稱之為「復國」的反侵略反佔領的鬥爭。1840年以來西方列強與中國的武力衝突,即便是中國的屢戰屢敗,不得不簽下大量喪權辱國的條約,也始終沒有淪為徹底的「亡國」,甚至包括日本人扶持的「滿洲國」和汪精衛政權,也並沒有取代中華民國政權。

同樣,在中國近代、現代歷史上,內部的頻繁權力更替之中,衰亡的僅僅是某個「家天下政權」或「黨天下政權」,而非國家本身。孫中山和袁世凱合力推翻滿清之功,最終以國民黨的「黨天下政權」取代了傳統的「家天下政權」。毛澤東及其中共打敗了蔣介石所代表的國民黨政權,不過是國民黨的黨天下被中共的黨天下所取代,也只是一國之內的改朝換代,並不涉及中國主權的轉移。換言之,中共政權只有五十年,而中國歷史已經延綿了五千年,中共所顛覆的僅僅是「國民黨政權」,而非中國這個「國家」。所以,中共在1949年奪取政權,只是又一個「新政權」的建立,而與「建國」無關;毛澤東也僅是「新政權之父」,而決不是「新中國之父」。即便現在的中共是世界上最大的政黨,但六千多萬黨員與十三億人口相比,也僅僅是少數,怎麼就能那麼大言不慚地宣稱「代表人民和國家」。中共之所以一直自奉為「國家、民族和人民」的天然代表,絕非真的「替天行道」,而是要維護獨裁強權及其既得利益。

凡是獨裁政權,都喜歡倡導愛國主義,而獨裁愛國主義不過是禍國殃民的藉口而已。中共獨裁政權提倡的官方愛國主義,是「以黨代國」體制的謬論,愛國的實質是要求人民愛獨裁政權、愛獨裁黨、愛獨裁者,是盜用愛國主義之名而行禍國殃民之實。

2005年10月3日於北京家中

Saturday, December 26, 2009

The First Decade of the 21st Century



Free Liu Xiaobo 釋放劉曉波

























難道中國人只配接受「黨主民主」--- 劉曉波

2005年10月19日,中共國務院新聞辦發布了《中國的民主政治建設》白皮書。儘管這是中共掌權後發表的第一份關於民主建設的白皮書,但除了白皮書的公布本身之外,其內容毫無新意。

白皮書的核心內容是關於「國情論」、「黨權論」和「中共英明論」的論證。

此次白皮書中「國情論」,不再強調中國的經濟落後和人口素質低下,而是重中共的核心領導地位,是歷史的選擇,也是中國人民的自願選擇,也是歷史地形成的,而不是共產黨把自己的意志強加於人民;顯然,「國情論」是為了否定民主形式的普世性,也為了以特殊國情來掩飾中共現政權的合法性。

「黨權論」公開肯定了中國現行的黨權至上體制,無論是抽象的人民主權的民主建設,還是寫進憲法的人權保護及其具體人權,也無論是全國人民代表大會制度和政協制度,還是所謂的中共特色的「民主集中制」,更無論是基層民主進程,還是依法治國,皆要在中共黨權的領導之下,而與人民主權無關。

「中共英明論」意在宣示:當下中國取得的所有成就都是中共的功勞,甚至不惜把一系列失敗辯護為偉大的成就。同樣,改革以來中國的任何一點點民主成就,也都是中共英明領導的功勞,而絕非來自民間的自發爭取。

於是,白皮書等於向全世界宣告:在人民主權的民主之上,還有中共黨權這個更高的權威,這個黨權才是至高無上,也就是「黨主人民」和「黨主民主」,人大是黨權的傀儡,政協是黨權的花瓶,司法是黨權的工具,人權和民主等詞彙是黨權的裝飾。像中共當局發布的人權白皮書一樣,這份民主白皮書也充滿了謊言,比如,白皮書說:「中華人民共和國的一切權力屬於人民。」但是, 13億國人是黨權驅趕下的羊群,根本無緣參與國家主席的選舉;再如:白皮書聲言「發展黨內民主」,但6800萬黨員中的絕大多數,也不過是黨奴而已,也與黨魁選舉無緣。

這就是白皮書所標榜的「中國的政治民主建設」!

所以,與其說此白皮書是關於「中國的民主政治建設」的公告,不如說是為「維護黨權至上的獨裁體制」的公開辯護。

1949年10月1日,毛澤東第一次登上天安門之後,「他是人民的大救星」的歌聲唱遍大陸,且歷久而不衰,直到今天,還是人們發泄不滿時的懷舊工具;1984年10月1日,鄧小平走下天安門檢閱三軍、接受「小平您好」的真心擁戴之後,「總設計師」一揮手,就恩賜給小民以奔小康的機遇,「讓一部分人先富起來」,在經濟上獲得有限的解放;1999年10月1日,江澤民在檢閱了三軍之後,儘管遭到來自各方面的抨擊,但他仍然穩坐「繼往開來的領路人」的核心位置,進行了又一次皇恩浩蕩的理論創新,讓那些發了大財的資本家加入中共,在政治上獲得欽定的解放,不再只是人大、政協中的統戰對象和政治花瓶,而成為執政黨的一員。不知道新黨魁胡錦濤準備何時登上天安門檢閱三軍,為自己的親民形象造型。

我不否認中共執政集團內,會有善待人民且具有一定現代政治意識的高官,比如胡耀邦和趙紫陽,在當政之時也確實做過不少善政,並為推進政改而甘冒風險。但是,即便如此,百姓的權益也只能等待自上而下的恩賜,何,這樣的好官在中共體制下難以長存。退一萬步講,如果國人能經常遇到明主,或皇帝的開恩不是偶然行為,而是隔三差五地浩蕩一次,等待恩典的民族惰性,儘管有辱做人的尊嚴,因為得到了實惠也還情有可原。可悲的是,國人歷經諸多苦難和漫長等待,才會偶然遇到一個賢明的君主或一次極為吝嗇的開恩,得到的總是遲到的微薄補償和可憐安慰,為什麼仍然只會仰視皇冠?何況,在中國,王朝循環的歷史上的每一次皇恩浩蕩,要麼發生在百廢待興的開國之初,要麼發生在危機四伏的末年,在根本上不是為了民眾的福祉,而是出於鞏固政權、維持政權或挽救政權的政治需要。而國人仍然像完全需要成年人照顧的嬰兒,只會等待明主的出現。難道國人真的就永遠長不大、永遠人格殘疾和弱智,宿命般地只配跪祈求和接受皇恩?!

毫無疑問,後毛時代的大陸,比之於毛澤東時代,國人得到了溫飽的實惠和極有限的個人選擇空間,鄧小平開創的實用主義貓論比強調階級鬥爭的毛思想,具有了靈活而柔軟的彈性,但是,這一切變化,都沒有在根基上改變國人的基本生存狀態;這塊土地上的統治者和被統治者之間的關係,仍然是千古一系,單傳至今。那就是:人的權利、國家的命運、社會的任何進步和老百姓生活的任何改善,主動權和決定權皆牢牢握在獨裁者的手中,皆是自上而下的恩賜,需要子民們三呼萬歲,以示百姓的忠誠和感恩;需要社會名流扮演同舟共濟的諍友,需要御用文人妙筆生花的辯護和讚美,以示君主的英明和戴德。

儘管,近年來民間維權運動有所起色,但也必須看到民間維權事業面臨的嚴峻現實,自下而上的爭取做人尊嚴和自身權益的運動,不是被陰險的獨裁者作為奪權和建立新王朝的工具而利用,就是被野蠻的專制機器徹底剿滅,一場場揭竿而起的大規模民間反抗運動,無論是傳統的暴力反抗的改朝換代,還是現代的和平抗爭的政治反對運動,都無法撼動專制制度和奴性文化的根基。

原因何在?

獨裁官權的鎮壓固然是原因之一,但民眾的冷漠則是更深層的原因。在愚昧、懦弱而盲目的民眾心中,被利用等於被解放,等於重獲新生;在懦弱而聰明的犬儒身上,被鎮壓就是被征服,就等於從此做幫兇、做幫閒,起碼做沉默的順民。國人何時嘗到過當家作主的真正解放的滋味?中國何曾走出過專制王朝的治亂循環的歷史怪圈?

直到今天,中共執政的日子,仍然以「解放以後」、「建國以來」和「新中國成立以後」的表達方式,以「沒有共產黨就沒有新中國」的說辭,成為一代代人最基本的歷史常識和語言習慣,深深地沉澱在民族的集體記憶中,普遍地應用於人們的口語和書面語中。就是那些對中共歷史瞭如指掌的知識分子和黨內開明派,在揭露中共執政後的纍纍罪惡時,也要習慣性地用上述詞彙來為歷史劃界。

同樣,現在的百姓談起八九運動和六四大屠殺,絕大多數人隨口說出的詞仍然是「動亂」或「暴亂」,即便是親歷了浩大的和平遊行和血腥大屠殺的北京市民,也大都用官方定性的詞彙;即便官方已經悄悄地在公開媒體上用「政治風波」代替了「動亂」和「暴亂」,人們的語言也並沒有隨之改變多少。1999年江澤民政權鎮壓法輪功以來,「邪教」一詞也在民眾中、特別是大中小學生中迅速普及。前幾年,我每次聽到熟人講起八九運動用「動亂」一詞時,都要予以反駁和糾正。這種糾正,開始是憤怒,繼而是嚴肅,最後是無可奈何,時間一長便聽之任之了。強勢的意識形態灌輸進入長期被奴化的頭腦,遂使記憶和語言定型化。

思想怪傑維特根斯坦的語言哲學認為,語言絕非傳統意義上的表意工具,語言就是行為本身,選擇什麼樣的語言表達方式,就是選擇什麼樣的思維方式;選擇什麼樣的思維方式,就是選擇什麼樣的生活方式。由此引申,習慣於感恩戴德的語言表達方式,就必然造就出救世主意識,救世主意識必然導致等待自上而下恩賜的奴性生存方式,離開了救世主便惶惶不可終日,比喪家之犬還要狼狽。

國人一次次地把自上而下的政治改革希望,寄託於新上任的執政者,但是每一次皆以失望告終;荒謬的是,一次次失望,仍然沒有滅絕人們對中共主動改革的近乎於絕望的希望。為什麼?通常的回答是國情使然:有人說,偌大的國家,必須靠威權制度才能控制和治理;有人說中共過於強大,擁有的壟斷性資源太多,除非中共自我改造,否則任何其他力量無法挑戰;有人說,民間政治反對派在各方面都不如中共,他們上台,還不如中共;有人說,首先要發展經濟,之後才是政治改革,而要保持經濟高增長就必須保持社會穩定,只有中共執政才能維持穩定;有人說,大陸人口太多且素質低下、愚昧無知,只配接受精英們的恩賜性指導,只能進行自上而下的變革……所有這一切辯護,無非就是為了證明:沒有了中共或中共下台,誰能代替它有效地統治中國?海內外的民運人士和持不同政見者,不是經常遭遇這樣的質問嗎?所以,等待恩賜的幸福就是平民百姓的唯一選擇。

當國人不爭取、甚至壓根不準備自我做主之時;當爭取自身權益的鬥爭,還未真正開始就已經放棄努力之時;人們就會普遍地虛構出一個下意識的假設:離開了現行執政者,必然天下大亂。這樣的假設,既來自中共長期的強制性的意識形態灌輸,也來自國人至今不改的奴性。獨裁者有理由無視歷史事實而提出這樣的假設,因為他們的所有決策和言說的最終目的只有一個——保住絕對權力。而民眾卻沒有任何理由相信這樣的假設,因為這假設所維持的制度,恰恰是不把人當人來對待的秩序。國人一旦忘記歷史事實而相信了這樣的假設,就會心安理得地等待天上掉下餡餅,就會雖九死而猶未悔地尋找明君賢主,就會把所有自下而上的民間反對運動、爭取自身權益運動,視為幫倒忙的「添亂」,就會在執政者幹了九十九件大壞事而只作了一件微不足道的善事時,用1%的善政來為99%的惡政辯護。即便被屠殺、被餓死、被監禁、被流放、被剝奪、被歧視……獨裁者仍然「偉大光榮正確」,小民們仍然千恩萬謝。

白居易有詩云:野火燒不盡,春風吹又生。在大陸,此千古名句決不適於描述敢於挺直腰身的國人,卻是對習慣於優雅跪姿的國人的絕妙寫照。金鑾殿下,文武大臣齊刷刷跪成一片,三呼「萬歲!萬萬歲!」天安門城樓上,獨裁者一揮手,全世界最大的廣場就變成了子民向救世主歡呼的海洋。清王朝覆滅以來的國人,特別是中共執政後的國人,雖然不再像古人那樣做肉體上的跪拜,但是靈魂上的長跪不起更甚於古人!

做人的箴言云:人,生而自由、平等。導致普遍的奴役和不平等的,決不是因為統治者過於強大或過於英明,而是因為被統治者們的跪下。難道三叩九跪的皇權時代已經廢除了一百多年的今天,國人還自我作踐、找出種種理由為自己的跪姿辯護?僅僅是小康的恩惠和允許富人入黨的開恩,難道就使國人只會以下跪叩謝來顯示獨裁者的高大和恩典嗎?!

自由中國的出現,與其寄希望於統治者的「新政」,遠不如寄希望於民間「新力量」的不斷擴張,民間尊嚴在觀念上和法律上得以確立之日,就是國人的人權得到制度性保障之時。
2006年1月6日於北京家中──《觀察》首發

Friday, December 25, 2009

Universal Health Care 全民醫保


Posted by Picasa


Senate approves health care reform bill
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Obama hails "real, meaningful health insurance reform"
Chamber votes 60-39 along party lines to pass health care reform bill
Measure goes to conference committee to reconcile differences with House
Washington (CNN) -- The Senate passed a historic $871 billion health care reform bill Thursday morning, handing President Obama a Christmas Eve victory on his top domestic priority.

The bill passed in a 60-39 party line vote after months of heated partisan debate. Every member of the Democratic caucus backed the measure; every Republican opposed it.

Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky -- a staunch opponent of the bill -- was the lone senator to miss Thursday's vote.

Should it become law, the measure would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. It is expected to extend insurance coverage to 30 million additional Americans.

"We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people," Obama said shortly after the vote.

"If passed, this will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s."

The bill now must be merged with a $1 trillion plan approved by the House of Representatives in November. Democrats hope to have a bill ready for Obama's signature before the president's State of the Union address early next year.

Senate Republicans failed to stop the bill despite utilizing almost every weapon in their legislative arsenal. GOP leaders have repeatedly warned the measure will raise taxes while doing little to slow spiraling health costs.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was forced to cut multiple deals in recent weeks to ensure the support of every member of his traditionally fractious caucus. Top Democrats needed the backing of all 60 members in three key procedural votes over the past four days to break a GOP filibuster.

Final passage of the measure, in contrast, only requires a bare majority in the 100-member chamber.

iReport: Share your thoughts on health care reform

An exhausted Senate adjourned for the holidays shortly after passing the measure.

The health care debate is "about life and death in America," Reid said shortly before Thursday's first vote. "It's a question of morality, of right and wrong. It's about human suffering. And given the chance to relieve this suffering, we must take this chance."

Reid ripped the Republicans for their unanimous opposition to the bill, saying he was "sorry to say that for the first time in American history, a political party has chosen to stand on the sidelines rather than participate in great -- and greatly needed -- social change."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, argued it is "clear that even many of the people who support this bill with their votes don't like it." Otherwise, he claimed, "they wouldn't be rushing it through Congress on Christmas Eve."

"There is widespread opposition to this monstrosity," he said. "This fight isn't over."

Passage of the Senate health care bill, which is projected to cut the federal deficit by $132 billion over the next decade, signaled majority agreement in both chambers of Congress on a broad range of changes affecting every American's coverage.

Among other things, the House and Senate have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They also have agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history. However, both bills allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for older customers.

Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty level, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four. The Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

Major differences between the more liberal House bill and the more conservative Senate bill will now be the focus of the conference committee that will try to merge them.

Get help with reading through the bills

One of the biggest divides is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 -- as well as families earning more than $1 million -- would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. But instead of an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, it would impose a 40 percent tax on insurance companies that provide what are called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it's one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. However, House Democrats oppose taxing such policies because it would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous health benefits.

Asked in an NPR interview Wednesday if he prefers the income tax surcharge or the tax on high-end plans, Obama predicted the final bill will probably end up with "a little bit of both."

"Cadillac plans ... don't make people healthier, but just take more money out of their pockets," he said.

The Senate bill also would hike Medicare payroll taxes on families making over $250,000; the House bill does not.

Another key sticking point is the dispute over a public option. The House plan includes a public option; the more conservative Senate plan would instead create nonprofit private plans overseen by the federal government.

Given the reality of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, however, there hasn't been much serious discussion among House leaders about pushing hard to keep the public option.

The Senate "tried to see if they had support for it. There isn't. That's the reality," a top House Democratic leadership aide told CNN. "I think a lot of people are coming to terms with that, and I don't know how productive it would be to bring it out again."

Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income, whichever is greater. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

The Senate bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

Abortion also has been a sticking point for both chambers. A late compromise with Catholic and other conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option. It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.

Senate provisions, made more conservative than initially drafted in order to satisfy Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, would allow states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.

Nelson said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version.

Free Liu Xiaobo 釋放劉曉波


Posted by Picasa


Chinese court sentences dissident to 11 years in jail
By Cara Anna, Associated Press | December 25, 2009

BEIJING - A Chinese court sentenced a prominent dissident to 11 years in jail today on subversion charges after he called for sweeping political reforms and an end to Communist Party dominance.

The sentencing of Liu Xiaobo comes despite international appeals for his release, which China sternly rejected as interference in its internal affairs.

Liu was the co-author of an unusually direct appeal for political liberalization in China called Charter 08. He was detained just before it was released last December. More than 300 people, including some of China’s top intellectuals, signed it.

The verdict was issued at the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court in Beijing after a two-hour trial Wednesday where prosecutors accused Liu of “serious’’ crimes.

The vaguely worded charge of inciting to subvert state power is routinely used to jail dissidents. Liu could have been sentenced for up to 15 years in prison under the charge.

Liu is the only person to have been arrested for organizing the Charter 08 appeal, but others who signed it have reported being harassed.

Abolishing the law on inciting to subvert state power is among the reforms advocated in Charter 08. “We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes,’’ the petition says. The United States and European Union have urged Beijing to free Liu.

“We continue to call on the government of China to release him immediately,’’ Gregory May, first secretary with the US Embassy, told reporters outside the courthouse today. May was one of a dozen diplomats stopped by authorities from attending the trial and sentencing.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters this week that statements from embassies calling for Liu’s release were “a gross interference of China’s internal affairs.’’

Thursday, December 24, 2009

釋放劉曉波 Release Liu Xiaobo


Posted by Picasa






中國人權嚴冬 The Dark Ages of China's Human Rights


Posted by Picasa


中國人權寒冬 Xmas 09 Ecard

http://www.rebuildhk.com/xmas09/

中國異議人士劉曉波被控「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」一案星期三(12月23日)在北京第一中級法院審結。劉曉波的親屬稱,法院將在周五聖誕節當天宣判。

劉曉波的妻子劉霞因為被公訴方列為「證人」, 當天無法參加旁聽。劉曉波的弟弟劉曉暄與劉霞的弟弟則獲准進入法院聽審。

劉曉暄與劉曉波的辯護律師丁錫奎向分別BBC中文網證實,法院將在星期五(25日)對劉曉波做出宣判。

法院門外早上有一些民眾聚集聲援劉曉波,也有來自美國、加拿大等國家的使館代表試圖入內旁聽,但都被拒絕。

劉曉暄向BBC中文網透露,庭審過程尚算正常,但是聽審的人太少。

美聯社則引劉霞的弟弟說,庭審持續了兩個小時,檢察官指控劉曉波犯有「嚴重」罪行。

美國駐華大使館二等秘書梅儒瑞(Gregory May)在被拒絕進入法庭後在法院外宣讀聲明,促請中國當局公平、公開地審理劉曉波案。

阻止旁聽

53歲的劉曉波曾參與起草倡導政治改革的《零八憲章》。他在一年前遭到拘押,本月初被控「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」。

美聯社引劉曉波的好友——維權律師騰彪說:「除了劉曉波之外,之前也有很多記者作家因言獲罪。我覺得一個社會不管它怎麼樣,最重要最重要的就是公民的表達自由。」

有觀察人士認為,中國當局選擇在聖誕節期間庭審劉曉波,是為了盡可能地減少此案的國際影響。

據報道,天安門母親代表人士丁子霖,以及中共前總書記趙紫陽的秘書鮑彤等知名異見人士也都被當局告知不要去旁聽審判。

劉曉波的妻子劉霞在接受路透社採訪時說,在中國要做有尊嚴的知識分子「必須付出代價」,因此劉曉波即時身陷牢獄也是值得。

劉霞說:「我們倆都跟律師說,我們不打算上訴,因為這根本不是一個講理的地方,並不表示我們認可這個罪名。我覺得跟一個不講理的政府、沒有原則的政府,就沒什麼好說的了。」

資料來源:BBC中文網 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/trad/china/2009/12/091223_china_liu_trial.shtml)

Monday, December 21, 2009

A Message from the President 總統的話


Posted by Picasa


pkchanboston,

Early this morning, the Senate made history and health reform cleared its most important hurdle yet -- garnering the 60 votes needed to move toward a final vote in that chamber later this week.

This marks the first time in our nation's history that comprehensive health reform has come to this point. And it appears that the American people will soon realize the genuine reform that offers security to those who have health insurance and affordable options to those who do not.

I'm grateful to Senator Harry Reid and every senator who's been working around the clock to make this happen. And I'm grateful to you, and every member of the Organizing for America community, for all the work you have done to make this progress possible.

After a nearly century-long struggle, we are now on the cusp of making health insurance reform a reality in the United States of America.

As with any legislation, compromise is part of the process. But I'm pleased that recently added provisions have made this landmark bill even stronger. Between the time when the bill passes and the time when the insurance exchanges get up and running, insurance companies that try to jack up their rates do so at their own peril. Those who hike their prices may be barred from selling plans on the exchanges.

And while insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions once the exchanges are open, in the meantime there will be a high-risk pool where people with pre-existing conditions can purchase affordable coverage.

A recent amendment has made these protections even stronger. Insurance companies will now be prohibited from denying coverage to children immediately after this bill passes. There's also explicit language in this bill that will protect a patient's choice of doctor. And small businesses will get additional assistance as well.

These protections are in addition to the ones we've been talking about for some time. No longer will insurance companies be able to drop your coverage if you become sick and no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for treatments that you need.

Under this bill families will save on their premiums; businesses that would see their costs rise if we don't act will save money now and in the future. This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. Because it's paid for and gets rid of waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.

Finally, this reform will extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who don't have it.

These are not small changes. These are big changes. They're fundamental reforms. They will save money. They will save lives.

And your passion, your work, your organizing helped make all of this possible. Now it's time to finish the job.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Derail the High-Speed Rail 反高鐵


Posted by Picasa



文︰陳景輝
《經濟》,2009年12月18日

近年的城市發展爭論中,政府都愛把反對者說成是無理製造事端之徒︰為甚麼最後一刻才來反對?就如立法會鐵路事宜小組主席、功能組別議員劉健儀在《城市論壇》說溜了嘴般的一番抱怨︰我們立法會和政府官員已討論了許多年,你們為甚麼今天才來反對?然而,在公眾的感知裡,高鐵及其問題真正走進公共世界的一刻,倒是08年11月政府刊憲之後,而且是菜園村運動鍥而不捨地抗議霸道拆遷所引發的。於此,政治世界分裂成兩端︰一邊是立法會大門或政府部門內一股經年累月的政治時間意識;另一邊廂則是距今只一年多卻匆匆上馬的速度之暴政。

也許,立法會亦非鐵版一塊,那股經年之感其實只屬於部份議員。自從事件離開了真空而接觸空氣之後,密室般的議會寧靜便告吹翻。那些非保皇的民選議員也迅即回應輿論,而且接駁了社會諸種質疑之聲至議事堂︰成本效益、菜園村的地方生活權利、替代方案和公帑浪費等。且在09年5月辦了首場立法會公聽會。然而,在此一真空爆破的過程中,某些功能組別議員卻好像穿上了盔甲,忙不迭於身上漆上所謂內部經年討論的保護色。彷彿他們忘記了議事和行政之辨︰議員是由公眾授權而進行思辯討論的,而非純粹強調既存程序之有效執行的官僚;彷彿他們忘記了,至少就程序來説,一天未到撥款的時刻,也該存在修正的空間。

但另存一類更為不肖的功能組別議員,如文化體育界的霍震霆先生。眾所週知,這位先生於考勤方面長期以來劣跡斑斑︰經常缺席會議,既不提也不修訂任何議案,更遑論接見市民。但在十二月三號工務小組的撥款審議—即大會最後撥款之前的階段,他卻突然現身投票。尷尬的是,生疏於議會的霍先生竟連自己的正確位置也辨認不出而坐錯位。荒誕地,高鐵巨額的撥款和菜園村的去留竟由如斯沒靈魂不問責的舉手機器決定。諷刺的是,若僅以立法會內民選議員的票數較量的話,現高鐵政府方案必被否決。推遠一點詰問︰高鐵撥款豈會是孤例?於過去和未來,到底還有多少不明不白而獲得通過的議案?

在高鐵撥款議案中,由於涉及巨額撥款和工程,功能組別的傾斜角色猶為刺眼。例如,工程界何鍾泰議員已因為身兼某建築公司的非執行董事而涉嫌利益衝突,故不能再擔任工務小組主席,而且不可投票。但與其說這只是特殊個例,倒不如説它蘊含了更普遍的問題。如果商界、地產界和工程界等議員可能會在涉及巨額工程撥款之議案中獲得潛在的利益—工程合同愈多愈好,那末在好大喜「工」之外,城市的諸種價值,如可持續發展、地方保存和城市資源再分配等,又怎可能得到議會内公平理性的審議呢?準此,功能組別所保護的已不僅是一些人之選票多於另一些人的問題,而是某種完全過時、但可以養肥某些界別的都市發展邏輯。

到了此一關鍵時刻,我們愈加明白,為什麼政府面對非議之際,常常藉口政策已由立法會審議而換取正當性。因為立法會有一群功能組別怪獸,他們或把議會視作密室般的會議廳、或把自己視作舉手機器,甚至將議會用作滿足特別界別利益的場所。說到底,上述畸形狀況下獲得匆匆通過的議案,蘊藏的不是民主,而是慾望;其完成之快,更像是立會民主化之前的一種結構性「早洩」吧。

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Do you hear the people sing


















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_V0NXFpSSA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgQgzKVX9jc&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y55O0LYmaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4mfGKVeE9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsI2rFdcJI&feature=player_embedded

這是人民之歌
也是英文歌劇,談到1871年巴黎的窮人起義爭取自由民主的"孤星淚"中的一首歌

人民之歌
(Do you hear the People Sing)
詞:金佩瑋

看吧!人民在挽手
爭取正義和自由
歌聲裡群情似火
滿溢激昂震撼著四週

捍衛人權護眾生
不分社會還是個人
方可叫無限理想
每日每天漸近

人民意願求實踐
自由的風不怕遏止
每刻也願勇敢
背負這革命旗幟
忘記畏懼勇踏前
正面迎接歷史

Do you hear the people sing?
人群的歌聲高騰
Singing a song of angry men?
難道你竟充耳不聞
It is the music of a people
歌聲裡群情激憤
Who will not be slaves again!
只為不願再沈默為奴
When the beating of your heart
軍鼓的速度急遽
Echoes the beating of the drums
激盪了心跳的韻律
There is a life about to start
呼喚著著新時代將至
When tomorrow comes! 就在明日


Will you join in our crusade?
加入神聖的抗爭
Who will be strong and stand with me? 一起來堅強地獻身
Beyond the barricade
你看柵欄的彼方
Is there a world you long to see? 世界充滿了希望
Then join in the fight
快加入對敵
That will give you the right to be free! 爭取自己的自由權利

Do you hear the people sing?
人群的歌聲高騰
Singing a song of angry men?
難道你竟充耳不聞
It is the music of a people
歌聲裡群情激憤
Who will not be slaves again!
只為不願再沈默為奴

When the beating of your heart
軍鼓的速度急遽
Echoes the beating of the drums
激盪了心跳的韻律
There is a life about to start
呼喚著新時代將至
When tomorrow comes! 就在明日

Will you give all you can give
放下你所有一切
So that our banner may advance
奮力讓這旗幟往前
Some will fall and some will live
就算有人會倒地
Will you stand up and take your chance?
站出來不要退避
The blood of the martyrs
先烈的血液
Will water the meadows of France! 才是滋潤土地的清溪

Do you hear the people sing?
人群的歌聲高騰
Singing a song of angry men?
難道你竟充耳不聞
It is the music of a people
歌聲裡群情激憤
Who will not be slaves again!
只為不願再沈默為奴
When the beating of your heart
軍鼓的速度急遽
Echoes the beating of the drums
激盪了心跳的韻律
There is a life about to start
呼喚著呼喚著新時代將至
When tomorrow comes! 就在明日

Friday, December 18, 2009

環球同此涼熱 Copenhagen 2009


Posted by Picasa


環球同此涼熱

在74年前,毛澤東以無比的革命氣慨,步念奴嬌詞排,填了氣勢滂薄《崑崙 》這首詞﹕橫空出世,莽崑崙,閱盡人間春色。 飛起玉龍三百萬,攪得周天寒徹。 夏日消溶,江河橫溢,人或為魚鱉。 千秋功罪,誰人曾與評說? 而今我謂崑崙:不要這高,不要這多雪。 安得倚天抽寶劍,把汝裁為三截? 一截遺歐,一截贈美,一截還東國。 太平世界,環球同此涼熱。

詩人胸懷祖國河山,放眼人類世界。可是祖國河山大川,已不能容納奔騰的氣魄,勢必向外溢瀉,涵蓋環宇,淹沒八荒。在作者腦海中的主題思想,當然是反對帝國主義,這已不用多說了,而在全球發動無產階級革命、實現共產黨主義,就是最終的目標。可是事與願違,歷史的客觀現實,並沒有因詩人的主觀意志而轉移,在四份之三個世紀之後,帝國主義換了莊家,共產主義卻以新的形式出現,被人類普世核心價值所取代。 在全球氣候改變,工業染污,過份開發坎伐的今天,崑崙山上的林海早已消失,北國的雪原、冰川早已消溶,無論江河湖水氾濫成災或乾旱枯竭,人或魚鱉的生存已受威脅,遺禍延年。

在瑞典哥本哈根全球氣候會議中,成千上萬不同膚色、不同民族的示威者,垮越國界,保衛地球,在這國際舞台上,爭奪評說歷史的權利,無懼武裝警察的電棒及摧淚毒氣,就是要貪婪無厭的資本家、無良的政府,負擔起這千秋的罪孽,要他們向地球村民盡責,履行全世界義務。 “遺歐、贈美、還東國” 的不是中國革命經驗或毛澤東思想,而是對全人類的承擔。在抽出倚天寶劍,斬斷貧困窮根的同時,也得要砍掉全球暖化的絞龍。“風景這邊獨好”已不復再,全球同涼熱、共存亡,已成拯救全人類的普世大同理想。

目前,中美兩國共佔全球溫室二氧化碳氣體總排放百份之40,在享受到經濟增長成果的同時,成為嚴重破壞地球生態環境的源頭,直接導致世界氣候改變。無論如何,中國代表在國際談判桌上態度傲僈,堅持己見的作風,已經不能以第三世界國家盟友視之。在全球氣候會議召開之前,中美兩大國均釋出善意,宣佈在2020年的減排指標,中國答允是在2005年的基礎上,減少百份之40至45,而美國是百份之17。單從數字上看,中國的承諾看來比美國積極,可是人們不要忘記,所謂減排百份比是與國民總收益GDP掛鉤的,換言之,除著經濟成長,這些減排數字會變得全無意義。

在2012年期滿結束前,“京都協定”還是有約束力的,美國在布殊的年代,拒絕把協定提交美國國會批准,很不得人心,反之奧巴馬總統促請各國作進一步的承擔,努力在哥本哈根會議達成協議,使人對美國的誠意是有一定的期待。可是問題的關鍵,在於由誰去資助第三世界及落後地區改善民生、對抗全球暖化及補償因氣候變化而產生的災害。

出席聯合國國際氣候會議團長,中國外交部副部長何亞非在本月13日,接受倫敦《金融時報》訪問時說﹕中國減排不需要發達國家資助,來自富裕國家的資金,應該流向更貧窮的國家,對發展中國家(抗擊氣候變化)的努力,提供財力資源是一項法律義務,這並不意味著中國會拿走一部份——大概不會, 我們沒有期望來自美國、英國(和其他國家)的資金會流向中國。觀察家認為這是中國首次作出明顯讓步,十分得體。

中國代表摘地有聲的話剛剛說過,兩天後中國外交部發言人姜瑜說﹕英國媒體斷章取義,誤讀中國立場,有意炒作中國減排不要資助。就氣候問題,中國依然堅持自己的原則和立場,要求先進國家向發展中國家提供新的、額外的、足夠的、可預見的資金,並支持最不發達國家、小島國、非洲等國家。中國一方面說不需要發達國家資助,因中國立足國內自身資源,採取了大量積極、有效的應對氣候變化的政策舉措,也取得了明顯成效,另外則堅持發達國家,應該向發展中國家提供資金和技術,提高發展中國家應對氣候變化的能力,這無疑是自打嘴巴,欺騙世人,失信天下。

中國外派代表在外國媒體訪問中泛泛而談,濫開空投支票,顯然是妄顧黨紀。而中央的態度前後反複,沒有給予官員明確指示,政策很不一致。其實既然何亞非副部長已有言在先,何不在國際面前,表現諾諾大方,把先進國家的減排資助,轉贈予發展落後地區、貧困島國,這樣的做法,當然會取悅於第三世界,而詩人的宏願,亦得以實現,從此不是天下太平嗎!

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

戰爭與和平 War and Peace


Posted by Picasa


戰爭與和平

在挪威奧斯陸的國際舞台上,諾貝爾和平獎的桂冠,終於加在上任未到一年的美國總統奧巴馬,令這位青年的總統,在頭上增添了一度燦爛的光環。吊詭的是,就在這歷史時刻倒數前8 天,正正是奧巴馬在美國西點軍校,宣佈在阿富汗增兵3萬,對塔利班戰爭升級之時。在伊拉克戰爭撤軍已成定局,但持續了8年的阿富汗戰爭,卻遙遙無了期,一個戰時總統、美國3軍總司令,把這個世界和平榮譽接過來,雖然,這成了爭論的開始,但也希望能以和平告終。

作為一個天生的演說家,奧巴馬當然沒有錯過這機會,站在歷史的講台上,雄辯滔滔地,去闡明對戰爭與和平的看法。有評論員說,在他的45分鐘的演講中,有44次談及戰爭,其他有意被人去忽略的事實是,他亦以差不多相同的次數,提及對和平的看法與實踐。

若然說奧巴馬西點軍校的增兵演說,是承認美國已踏進“後帝國主義”的階段,由於國力所限,已無法對 “布殊主義” 加以延續,放棄了“先發制人”的軍事戰略,而維持美國實力的框架下,繼續承擔起捍衛世界和平的責任,並願與地區國家及盟友,去分擔這個國際警察的角色,這就是“奧巴馬主義”的精神所在了。

在奧巴馬之前,無數領取諾貝爾和平獎的,均屬主張非暴力的重量級人物,如馬丁路德金博士、德蘭修女、達賴喇嘛、昂山素姬、曼德拉等,都是在維護公義、促進世界或地區和平,有不可磨滅的貢獻,而不見得奧巴馬在這方面有任何功績,唯一可以期待的是,奧巴馬以謙卑的心,接受了這和平獎,會帶給人們對和平的新希望與憧憬。但是在這裏,卻看不出奧巴馬有意向世人展示出構建和平的藍圖。

奧巴馬談到這個世界是存在著『邪惡』的。但是倒要問,當任何宗教與道德力量,都無法去消滅『邪惡』的時刻,人們是否要用戰爭的手段,用『邪惡』去對抗用『邪惡』呢?作為3軍總司令的奧巴馬,當然不能示弱,而面對聽眾席上的歐洲王孫權貴,更加要表現出『鷹派』的作風,難怪乎奧巴馬的奧斯陸演說,深得美國保守共和國黨政客的讚賞。

奧巴馬也提到科威特戰爭,不單對自衛反擊戰爭合理化,而且是認同老布殊的有限度戰爭的做法。但是不要忘記,發生在印度孟買的恐怖襲擊,一小撮狂徒便會令整個城市陷入紛亂與恐慌之中,同樣的事情,也有可能發生在世界每一個角落。戰爭只能散下更多仇恨的種籽,戰爭亦無法避免濫殺無辜,制造更多的苦難與破壞。希望和平獎的靈光,能給予領獎人所需的智慧,去打破人類『怨怨相報』的厄運。

歷史上無數戰爭販子,都會把醜惡的戰爭說成是正義的。要在戰爭中取得勝利,用盡人類的聰明與才智,去發明及改進殺人的武器,而不是將精力放在促進世界和平之上。兩次世界大戰的結束,給西歐有喘息的機會,但是戰火依然在亞洲、非洲、中東,甚至在東歐燃燒。人們要銘記的不單是死難者的名字、戰爭的艱苦的歲月,更重要的是對和平的期待。戰爭當然不能被歌頌、美化,真正要頌讚的是反對戰爭的聲音,非暴力的鬥士。

倘若在奧巴馬任內,把目前的戰爭局限在數個地區,無論如何不刻意去擴大戰爭的規模,人們還會對和平仍有一線曙光的期望。沒有人會懷疑,伊朗是在支持巴勒斯坦好戰份子,在約旦河西及加薩地帶,對以色列進行恐怖及飛彈襲擊,也沒有人會無視北韓在朝鮮半島的軍事動向,只有美國既不祝福、默許或坐視以色列對伊朗的反擊行動,運用中國在亞太地區的影響力,逼令北韓重返6方會談,2010年將會是一個和平的良好開端。手執著諾貝爾和平獎的奧巴馬,臉上才會有令人信服的容光,在白宮門前那棵聖誕樹,才會顯得光輝、璀燦。

Sunday, December 13, 2009

The Linden Tree




















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEYkLhof8io&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cfn-OdGuTo&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf9gIf0rVUk

Am Brunnen vor dem Tore
Da steht ein Lindenbaum
Ich träumt in seinem Schatten
So manchen süßen Traum
Ich schnitt in seine Rinde
So manches liebe Wort
Es zog in Freud und Leide
Zu ihm mich immer fort

Ich musst auch heute wandern
Vorbei in tiefer Nacht
Da hab ich noch im Dunkeln
Die Augen zugemacht
Und seine Zweige rauschten
Als riefen sie mir zu
Komm her zu mir Geselle
Hier find'st du deine Ruh

Die kalten Winde bliesen
Mir grad ins Angesicht
Der Hut flog mir vom Kopfe
Ich wendete mich nicht
Nun bin ich manche Stunde
Entfernt von jenem Ort
Und immer hör ich's rauschen
Du fändest Ruhe dort
Du fändest Ruhe dort

作詞:繆勒詩 作曲:舒伯特 
井旁邊大門前面 有一顆菩堤樹
我曾在樹蔭底下 做過甜夢無數
我曾在樹皮上面 刻過寵句無數
歡樂和痛苦時候 常常走近這樹
常常走近這樹
彷彿像今天一樣 我流浪到深更
我在黑暗中經過 什麼都看不清
依稀聽到那樹枝 對我簌簌作聲
朋友來到我這裡 你來找求安靜
你來找求安靜
冷風呼呼地吹來 正對著我的臉
頭上的帽被吹落 不忍轉身回看
遠離開了那地方 依舊念念不忘
我常聽見簌簌聲 你會找到安靜
你會找到安靜

By the fountain, near the gate,
There stands a linden tree;
I have dreamt in its shadows
So many sweet dreams.
I carved on its bark
So many loving words;
I was always drawn to it,
Whether in joy or in sorrow.


Today, too, I had to pass it
In the dead of night.
And even in the darkness
I had to close my eyes.
And its branches rustled
As if calling to me:
"Come here, to me, friend,
Here you will find your peace!"



The frigid wind blew
Straight in my face,
My hat flew from my head,
I did not turn back.

Now I am many hours
Away from that spot,
And still I hear the rustling:
There you would have found peace!


Thursday, December 10, 2009

War and Peace 戰爭與和平


Posted by Picasa




Full text of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech
Remarks of the U.S. president in Oslo
msnbc.com
updated 9:15 a.m. ET, Thurs., Dec . 10, 2009
OSLO, Norway - Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations - that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations - total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations - an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize - America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations - strong and weak alike - must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention - no matter how justified.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries - and other friends and allies - demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant - the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior - for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma - there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point - the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists - a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests - nor the world's -are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable - and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights - it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people - or nations educate their children and care for the sick - is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action - it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more - and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities - their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint - no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith - for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached - their faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
© 2009 msnbc.com Reprints