孙立平:极权主义是一种人类历史上从未有过的新的统治形态

编按:原文发于2013年,已被新浪微博删除。本文转载于2021年1月20日。

高伐林:昨天发了一篇孙立平的文章,今天还是孙立平——介绍他的另一篇文章,谈极权主义的。这文章分三部分在他的微博贴出,有人在网上将之合并成一篇完成文章来转发,我做了进一步整合。其中有些部分显然有所重复,但是不妨碍阅读,也符合“重要的事情多说几遍”的俗话。

极权主义杂谈之一:

一种人类历史上从未有过的新的统治形态

极权主义无疑是20世纪留给人们的一个最大的谜。尽管此前有种种极权主义的思想和种子,但只有到了20世纪,它才真正开花结果。它是一场富有感召力的运动,又是一种令人恐怖的制度;它肇端于诱人的理想和不容质疑的正义,却酿造了无尽的罪恶;它在最大的程度上践踏着人性,其中却又夹杂着动人的故事;它是无数人的希望,又是无数人的厄运。可以说,没有极权主义,人类整个20世纪的历史将会全然不同。就在今天,它仍然在散发着巨大的诱惑力。
这是一个怎样的谜?
阿伦特在她那本著名的《极权主义的起源》中指出,极权主义是一种人类历史上从未有过的新的统治形态。因此,有人认为,可以说极权主义是现代性的一部分。著名社会学家齐格蒙·鲍曼认为,大屠杀不只是犹太人历史上的一个悲惨事件,也并非德意志民族的一次反常行为,而是现代性本身的固有可能。正是现代性的本质要素,使得像大屠杀这样灭绝人性的惨剧成为设计者、执行者和受害者密切合作的社会集体行动。从极端的理性走向极端的非理性,从高度的文明走向高度的野蛮,看似悖谬,实则有着逻辑的必然。
说极权主义是一种人类历史上从未有过的新的统治形态,是因为它具有此前任何统治都不具备的那些基本要素。
首先,极权主义是基于一种意识形态乌托邦基础上的对社会的系统改造,推进这场改造的是激昂的社会运动,结果是一套在逻辑上似乎是尽善尽美的体制。无论是其强调的意志的力量,还是精神的原子弹,深层的也许是理性的自信。
其次,极权主义打破了传统的“统治”或“治理”边界,传统专制主义的统治与治理是有限的,也就是说,再暴虐的统治也仍然在其它的非政治领域留有自由,而极权主义的统治是总体性的,弥漫于全部的社会生活。它垄断的不仅是权力,也不仅是财富,它还垄断着社会的“场所”和“空间”,换言之,它是对全部社会生活的重新组装。
再次,极权主义模糊了“统治”与“被统治”的界限,使“被统治者”成为“统治”不可缺少的要素。鲍曼注意到,纳粹大屠杀中一个不容忽视的因素,是受害人的合作。专制主义仅仅要求被统治者的“服从”,而极权主义要求的是“被统治者”发自内心的“合作”。为此,它要求对人的改造或“新人”的塑造。换言之,传统专制主义是一部由车头牵引的列车,而极权主义则是在每节车厢上都安装了发动机。

极权主义杂谈之二:

极权主义的能量来源于对社会情绪的乌托邦式系统整理

极权主义最令人惊异之处,是它的巨大诱惑力和能量。正因为如此,许多讨论极权主义的文献都使用了“极权主义的诱惑”这样的字眼,而在现实中,人们更能感受到极权主义的巨大能量。而这种诱惑和能量,最突出地体现在它能使被统治者成为营造统治关系的积极参与者,甚至使极权体制中受害最深的人成为它最忠实的拥护者和捍卫者。这样的诱惑或能量来自哪里?
对任何一个民族来说,最大的诱惑都一定是在苦难和无望中升起的灯塔。德国纳粹上台就是典型的例子。希特勒刚上台时,德国经济几乎陷于停顿状态,失业人数高达600万甚至更多,通货膨胀达到四十多亿马克兑换一个美元。构成这种灾难性现实的背景有两个。一是一战后作为战败国受到的严厉惩罚,二是席卷西方的30年代大萧条。无疑,一个能够结束这
灾难的力量,就是人们的救星。
但这样说,并不能解释极权主义为什么是一个现代现象。因为我们知道,灾难,甚至更一般意义上的苦难,都是贯穿于整个人类的历史的。那么,为什么那时候没有形成如此强有力的极权主义?这里需要注意的一个重要因素就是,沟通了天国与地气的现代乌托邦对社会情绪的系统整理。从极权主义形成的历史来看,通过意识形态对困惑、孤独、怨恨、欲望、失落、恐惧、无力感等社会情绪进行系统整理,并以跳过人性的办法形成乌托邦式的解决方案,是极权主义的诱惑和能量形成的重要因素。当然,另一个原因是现代的组织技术、信息技术等为极权主义提供了客观的条件,这个问题将另文探讨。
极权主义最容易发生在苦难深重的地方。因此,对于苦难的整理总会给社会运动以巨大的动力。希特勒在一场著名的演讲中说,“那场战争结束之后,我们这个民族的骄傲就没有了!那些战胜者们骑在我们的脖子上作威作福,他们随意践踏我们的尊严,一个欧洲大陆上最高贵的民族的尊严!你们告诉我,你们是选择像本杰明·马丁一样去做一个自由的斗士,还是一个奴隶?!”无论在个人的还是在社会的层面上,唤醒苦难的记忆,激发摆脱苦难的激情,都是最有鼓动力的。我们还记得,在文化大革命中,忆苦思甜,也成为社会动员的重要工具。这里最关键的问题是,如何将散射的自然状态的苦难转变成可以将社会动员起来的系统的苦难,这里需要的就是意识形态的框架。比如,如何将婆婆对媳妇的虐待引申到社会的框架之中。
苦难的诉说有两个指向,一是奔向消除苦难的理想主义目标,二是制造出有利于内部整合的敌人。而制造敌人依赖的就是从苦难向怨恨的很容易完成的转化。许多西方哲学家都从学理的角度对怨恨进行过探讨,甚至认为怨恨是现代性的重要因素。尼采断言,怨恨牵制着整个欧洲的现代性的颓废与虚无。舍勒则认为怨恨与现代性同构。然而,怨恨只有到了极权主义这里才发挥了其最大的潜力。因为极权主义的一个重要的特点就是需要不断地制造敌人。制造敌人的意义,一是可以在社会中制造紧张状态,为那些似乎是不符合常规的统治措施提供依据;二可以在内部制造紧张感,从而强化内部的整合。
其实极权主义进行整理的社会情绪远远不止这些。转型期人们会特有的孤独、困惑、失落、恐惧、无力感等更是富有潜力的社会情绪。达伦多夫的研究表明,极权主义诱惑的对象,往往是那些停留在新旧之间的半道上的人,那些人既丢失了旧东西,而又找不到新东西。他们在事物的一种较为陈旧的结构中失去了自己的位置,却未能在新的秩序中找到另一个位置;在这个意义上,他们是一些毫无地位的和失去根基的阶层。早期纳粹党的很多领袖出身于在社会方面(而且有时也在民族方面)无家可归的家庭。达伦多夫指出,正是由于这个原因,人们很容易掉进要把这两种世界的最好部分结合在一起的虚假承诺的圈套中。如果考察一下极权主义的许诺,就可以看出,其具体内容往往都是针对这些情绪的。

极权主义杂谈之三:

极权主义诱惑的是我们每一个人

极权主义与专制主义的一个重要区别,是其拥有广泛而深厚的社会基础。这无疑是其力量的源泉。梁文道曾经提出一个问题:纳粹人怎么可能那么成功?他认为唯一的答案就是,其实当时那个第三帝国里面的人,尤其是少数德国人是真心拥戴他们的元首,真心相信纳粹的。
而最令人感叹的是,极权主义造就了这样的一种历史奇观:它的最狂热的拥护者,最后也成了它的最深重的受害者;甚至在其成了受害者之后仍然是它的狂热的拥护者。
那么谁是极权主义的社会基础?
极权主义的基础是什么?人们最熟悉的当然是阿伦特的观点。阿伦特认为,极权主义的基础就是无结构的群众。极权主义不仅得到群众空前的支持,而且这种支持有时甚至具有无私、超功利的特点,他们不但愿意牺牲自己,而且愿意牺牲家人和朋友。当然,从极权主义垮台是过程看,群众对其的抛弃也是迅速的。按照阿伦特的分析逻辑,以利益为号召的动员只能是理性的而有结构的群体,而极权主义动员的则是缺乏自我利益意识的群众。
阿伦特认为,“群众”是这样的一些人,他们发现被自己的同胞抛弃,被社会孤立,跟其生活世界疏离,丧失了一个共同的世界,漂泊无根,甚至成为现实社会中多余的人。正因为如此,他们希望跟某种永恒的、操纵万事万物的巨大势力结合成一体,因为惟有攀住这股力量,他们才能感觉安全妥当。他们甘心为任何赋予他们在世界上以地位和“存在理由”的运动或意识形态服务,以便获得起码的“尊严”。在投身极权主义运动的时候,群众感到自己成了“主人”,自己的价值得到了承认。所以阿伦特说,群众所迫切需要的事,乃是意识形态提供给他们的最具抽象形式的胜利与成就之结局。
但社会学家达伦多夫不同意这样的分析。他认为,早期美国有着原子化的特征,但美国既不是法西斯主义的,也不是共产主义的,而且任何时候都未因为受到诱惑想成为这两种主义的国家。而革命前的俄国显然也不是原子化的。达伦多夫认为,极权主义不会诱惑这类群众,而是诱惑那些停留在新旧之间的半道上的人,那些人既丢失了旧东西,而又找不到新东西,而且也许基于这个原因,掉进了要把这两种世界的最好部分结合在一起的虚假承诺的圈套中。极权主义的混合成分是不完善的现代精神、知识分子的背叛和一个领袖的蛊惑人心的花言巧语。
达伦多夫继续分析道,成为极权主义基础的是这样的一些人:他们在一种较为陈旧的结构中失去了自己的位置,却未能在新的秩序中找到另一个位置;在这个意义上,他们是一些毫无地位的和失去根基的阶层。之所以有诱惑,是因为人们在不确定的经济前景中,希望摆脱一种不完善的资产阶级社会的弊端。早期纳粹党的很多领袖就出身于无家可归的家庭。他们的追随者来自某些特定的下层群体,它们“从未为社会所整合”,后来也来自一些小的独立职业者和小商人,这些人都为有组织的资本也同样为有组织的工人深感不安。同时,也包括这样的一些职员,他们在他们的要求和他们的地位之间被拉来拉去,摇摆不定。
而哈耶克和波普尔等人的分析,则揭示了极权主义更深层的基础。哈耶克指出,毫无疑问,不但在德国和其它地方为极权主义作准备的那些思想,而且极权主义本身的许多原则都已成为在很多其它国家里产生日益增长的吸引力的那种东西。日益崇拜国家,倾慕权力,好大喜功,热衷于使任何事情都“组织化”(我们现在把它叫作“计划”)和“不能让任何事情听命于有机发展的简单力量”这样的思维和逻辑,在很多社会中盛行。这是产生极权主义的深厚基础。对此,哈耶克甚至用了“我们中间的极权主义者”这样提法,用意在于提醒人们,极权主义就在我们的心中,就在一个正常社会里无数人的思维中。
有一位网友这样写道:有一次,我看到身边农村穷苦的人们,生了很多孩子,我心里就骂:你们养不活这些孩子,不能给这些孩子好的生活,为什么还要生他们?你们不应该生!那时候我在读大学,是个理想主义者。过后我就反思:我为什么会有这样的想法?如果我有权力,是不是就要阻止他们生孩子?我凭什么剥夺穷人生孩子的权利、剥夺穷人的天伦之乐?这个事件对我影响重大。我就是波尔布特。每个人都有可能成为波尔布特。当我看到BBC关于红色高棉的纪录片,一对中国北京情侣不远万里,历尽艰辛,投奔柬埔寨,脸上洋溢着理想与希望的光辉时,再看到那些累累白骨,从心底里我就开始试图原谅他了。其实,与其说作者在原谅极权主义的追随者,不如说是在检讨自己身上的极权主义因素。
更令人惊异的是极权主义受害者对极权主义死心塌地的拥护,以至于人们不得不将“斯德哥尔摩综合症”这个概念移用到他们身上。
1973年在瑞典斯德哥尔摩发生了一起银行抢劫案,一名劫匪在持枪抢劫银行时中了警方的埋伏,随即劫持了一男三女,将他们扣压在保管库内。匪徒提出的条件是,释放在押的同伙,保证他们安全出境,否则将人质一个个处死。经过六天的包围,警方设法钻通了保管库,用催泪瓦斯将人质和劫匪驱赶出来,狙击手同时作好了危急情况下击毙劫匪的准备。然而,接下来发生的情况大出人们的意料,离开保管库后,三名人质反而将劫持者围了起来,保护他不受警方的伤害,并拒绝提供不利于他的证词。一个女人还说她爱上了劫持者,等他获释后就嫁给他。这时候全世界都傻了,说这到底是怎么回事?这时候这个病名就产生了,叫作斯德哥尔摩综合症。
斯德哥尔摩综合症是很难进行充分解释的现象。其中依赖与认同是最基本的因素。具体说,第一,对象是能掌握你生死命运的。第二,他身上有让你能产生认同或吸引你的东西。第三,他对你有某种意义上的恩惠,特别是在可以处死你的时候没有处死你。第四,他能够控制你得到的信息。第五,现实的情境或他构建出的情境能让你觉得你们是在同生死共安危。有人将其总结为下列的心理过程:被害的弱势者在长期受到侵害他们的强势者支配之下,最后终于放弃了反抗,转而认同强势者以期获得安全感的一种心理转变。受害者尽最大的努力不去激怒或挑衅加害者;而受害者这样做的时候,也渐渐失去自我意识,直到完全接受加害者的观点。假如受害者现在用加害者的眼光来看世界,他们就不再渴望自由,结果是当救援到来时,受害人可能会抗拒营救。

TRANSLATION: THE HUNDRED CHILDLESS DAYS

Thirty years ago, Guan County, Shandong Province launched the “Hundred Childless Days” campaign under the aegis of national family planning, known in the West as the “one-child policy.” The birthplace of the “Boxers” was deemed to have too high a birth rate by the provincial government. County officials sought to correct this by ensuring that not a single baby was born between May 1 and August 10, 1991. As local accounts attest, authorities in the area went to extraordinarily inhumane lengths to be the “best” at reproducing the least.

In what some locals called “the slaughter of the lambs,” women across Guan County were rounded up for forced abortions or induction of labor; one local official claims that these “procedures” were sometimes no more than a kick in the stomach from an out-of-town mercenary. Children who did make it into the world were reportedly strangled, and their bodies tossed into open pits. The families of pregnant women were publicly shamed in reprises of the Cultural Revolution.

Under the one-child policy, local officials in China were responsible for implementing broad guidelines from the central government about family planning quotas, leaving little oversight of how localities reached their target birth rates. In some extreme cases, such as in Guan County, this led to gruesome abuses. While the “one-child policy” was loosened to a two-child policy in 2015, its lingering effects will only be felt more acutely in the coming years. As China’s population ages and may be shrinking, the economic and social repercussions wrought by a generation of curtailed births are only just beginning to sting.

These testimonies were posted by @无逸说 (Wuyishuo) to their WeChat public account on March 15, but have since been censored for “violating regulations.” The provenance of these accounts is unclear, but their details are consistent with information found elsewhere. The Phoenix TV documentary mentioned in the piece below is no longer available online but the transcript is archived. The accounts seem to date back about 20 years, but they were completely new to Wuyishuo, as the post author explained in a brief preface. The post is translated in full below:

“THE HUNDRED CHILDLESS DAYS,” GUAN COUNTY, SHANDONG, 1991

Screengrab of Phoenix TV documentary

Screengrab of Phoenix TV documentary

My first response to this documentary was that it was all a rumor. But when I started to look for refutations, lo and behold, I found none.

Perhaps, I thought, this was due to relevant departments’ habit of “refutation through deletion.” However, when I came across several audio recordings, a Phoenix TV interview with a family planning official who did not deny it, and Guan County online forum where no one refuted it (and indeed several provided first-hand evidence), I knew I had to set the record straight in the hope of providing future generations a more rigorous understanding of what really happened.

WITNESS I, PART 1

Banners filled the streets with recycled slogans: “Better to stop the family line and put the Party at ease,” “A rope to hang yourself, a bottle to drug yourself,” “Better to miscarry than to give birth,” “Be resolute in carrying out policy, absolutely no more children.”

Tents lined the thoroughfares of the county seat, and inside every tent were pregnant women about to go into labor. At the time people with a rural hukou were prohibited from having children, regardless of their individual circumstances. If word of the policy reached you late and your child was already born, it still didn’t matter. Hardly any children survived. To the west of the county hospital was a garbage dump with two wells several meters deep, practically overflowing because so many bodies were thrown in every day.

It all started on April 26 of that year during a meeting of the county Party committee. It was only my third day as secretary of my village Party committee. Just as I was about to get off work, Young Zhao, the courier, said to me: “Secretary Zhang, tomorrow morning the county Party committee will convene an all-hands meeting in the guesthouse. All village and town deputy Party secretaries and above have to go.” This was the first time since joining the government I had heard of such a thing, a meeting of every official who held real power. Maybe the new Party head was trying to shake things up a bit? But my first day on the job, the former county Party secretary had been demoted because he hadn’t done enough for the family planning program. It couldn’t be because of this!

At the guesthouse, an official explained how the county’s family planning program was going. In short, our county was in last place out of the entire province and had been put under special management. The county committee had been officially warned that if the situation did not improve, the lot would be forced to resign. The county secretary shouted himself hoarse, he was so furious: “I’ve already given the municipal committee its marching orders. If we do not go from last to first within a year, I’m willing to face the Party discipline committee without complaint. We can’t turn our county around if we keep doing the same old thing. If we are to succeed, we’ll have to make painful decisions. We must take extraordinary measures, put forth extraordinary effort, do extraordinary things, and render extraordinary service. That is to say, I don’t care what you do in your village or town, the birth rate must drop. Today is the swearing-in ceremony for this new effort. I’ll give you five minutes to think about it. You’ll have to give it your all to succeed. If you don’t think you’re up to the task, I call on you to immediately step aside and give way to those comrades who are willing to go the extra mile.”

The secretary finished speaking and the entire hall fell deathly silent. Then a chatter arose. From the podium, you couldn’t tell who was saying what.

After five minutes were up, the 22 local Party secretaries declared where they each stood. The county secretary called roll from front to back. I don’t know if it was because they weren’t prepared or what, but there were two deputy county secretaries who said they wouldn’t be able to complete the task in the time allotted. The reasons they gave were the ideological deficiencies of the masses, the sloppy work ethic of local cadres, poor-quality propaganda, concerns about unresolvable consequences, and so on. The county Party secretary replied with a snicker: “Look at you two genuine cadres, speaking so honestly! Good for you!” He then turned and yelled, “Guards!” Four guards came forth, one to each side of the unfortunate deputy secretaries. “Cuff them and lock them up!” The entire hall was mortified! The two didn’t even know what hit them as they were brought to the holding cells.

“People like them think that just because they’re the big boss back at home they can trade barbs with the county committee! We’re going to detain them for half a month, then let the Party discipline committee and the prosecutor see if they haven’t broken any rules!”

After a lull, the Party secretary continued in a more relaxed tone. “Some say I’m arbitrary, that I do as I please, that I like to play the despot. But if I don’t, how will our work ever get done? I was born to a military family, and I know by heart that “it takes a thousand days to raise an army and only an instant to use it.” Why has the nation invested so much in us cadres? It is because we are here to solve her problems and take on her burdens. What is family planning? It is national policy. What are national policies? They are the most fundamental policies of our country. Our county has utterly failed in carrying out this policy. Otherwise, why would we be sitting here now? If you hide from problems and shirk your duty, what use are you as a Party member and official?”

I thought that this campaign wouldn’t be too difficult, since we had the backing of the county Party committee. But I was in for a surprise. I was the first to start getting my fellow cadres in line, since nothing could get done without them. But when I imitated the county secretary in a meeting by asking who was up for the job, about half of my cadres immediately asked to be transfered! Despite making arrangements with the police, when I called on them to detain two troublemakers among my ranks, they laughed and nervously dragged their feet. I was so angry that I abruptly adjourned the meeting, admonishing everyone to go home and think about whether they could get with the program.

Later, I called the police chief into my office to ask why they hadn’t detained the two troublemakers. But before I could open my mouth, he scurried over and hurriedly explained: “Our work here in the village is different from the county. We’re all locals here, so you can’t really expect us to stir the pot. In fact, arbitrarily detaining this or that person is illegal, so it would be hypocritical for us to break the law we’re sworn to uphold! What you should do is detain only key people. With them out of the way, your work will be a whole lot easier.” This guy was telling me how to do my job, and it was obvious he was trying to intimidate me, the new Party secretary. If I couldn’t even get the police to cooperate, it would only be an uphill battle ahead.

Our county secretary, now there was someone who could sympathize with his subordinates! He knew I was a novice and that I would be vexed by the magnitude of my task. Before I could even report back to him about the mobilization meeting, he already knew the situation in my village like it was his own! The next day, he personally came to reassign the entire panel of local leaders, demoting that arrogant police chief to officer and moving him to another village. Serves him right! Did he really think he could embarrass me and get away with it?

And so with utmost ferver the village set out to address illegal births. Ultimate responsibility rested with me, as it did with the secretary of every village and town. In our village we lead by example: We started with ourselves, our own households, the people around us, our own families. Without exception, anyone who was pregnant had to have an abortion, and all pregnancy permits were annulled.

WITNESS I, PART 2

If the Chinese Revolution has taught us anything, it’s that political power—stable political power— grows out of the barrel of a gun. For every grassroot cadre, this principle holds the same, even in times of peace. You have to have a “gun” of your own, and you have to hold it steady in your own hand. The military belongs to the Party, so we couldn’t use it even if we wanted to. But a local Party secretary should have the people’s militias and the local police. To get something done and to get it done right, you have to have the people’s militias and police obey you. If you don’t have force backing you up, you don’t deserve to be Party secretary. You’ll get nothing done.

In accordance with County Secretary Zeng’s order, cadres serving in the police force, family planning office, and village committees were screened to root out anyone who might affect the success of the campaign. The overarching goal for our village remained the same: to not hold the county back by ensuring that no child was born for the hundred days between May 1 and August 10.

In a meeting with the village cadres, I parroted my prepared notes: “To complete the family planning work assigned to us by the county committee, we must ensure that, within the hundred days between May 1 and August 10, not one child is born in our village ….” I had just finished speaking when the entire audience erupted, with a few shocked individuals standing up to blurt out: “So if a child is born, what are we supposed to do?” Never before had I seen such uncouth cadres as these. What could we do? What the hell could I even do? These are county orders, and they dare ask me what can be done. Fortunately, my assistant was able to reply faster than I was: “If a child is born then strangle it to death!” And with those few words the entire hall went silent.

My secretary and I had both been political cadres in the military, so we went over everything thoroughly before presenting it at village meetings. But let’s talk about how I got things done. I ingeniously used Deng’s famous “White Cat, Black Cat” theory to indicate that what makes a good comrade is one who ensures the success of our family planning campaign. Only they would be promoted to positions of power, where they could make full use of their talents. Regardless of background or experience, regardless of whatever unscrupulous things you got up to, if you had talent, you’d get the position. However, I realized this approach simply wouldn’t work for the campaign, because everyone was from the same village—if someone wasn’t a family member, they were at least a relative. They’d be looking out for each other, and then there’d be nothing I could do.

Our great County Secretary Zeng, now there was someone who knew how to get things done. He foresaw the hurdles we would encounter. When faced with a task of major importance, such as demolishing homes or arresting people, he’d seldom use armed force, instead bringing in outsiders from other counties. Outsiders don’t know anybody local and don’t get caught up in nepotism, and so in our case they did their work with brutal efficiency. They had no qualms about kicking you right in the stomach—they were saving you the trouble of that abortion you were so reluctant to get. One fell swoop and the floor would be covered in blood. Ha ha! And that’s how we got things done. There were slim chances to save the baby—and even if we wanted to, if you arrived at the county hospital, they would induce you. Who would dare do a personal favor during such a delicate political campaign as this?

As for my hardworking family planning enforcement team, I did all in my power to make things easier for them. A weapon was needed for this kind of work, so they were given two-meter-long ropes and 1.4-meter-long poles. I even had them wear matching police uniforms, which other villages didn’t even provide. It really struck awe into people when they saw them coming. Salaries were of course pretty good. Each person made ten yuan a day. You may think ten yuan is nothing, but in 1991 ten yuan was like 100 yuan today. A village level Party secretary made 130 yuan a month at most. Informers all received a commission of 5%, meaning they could earn over 100 yuan for every person they informed on. You can’t beat that! As for political reward, I instituted a quota system: if someone did a good job, they would be prioritized for Party membership and promotion to village-level cadre. With these measures in place there wasn’t a single person who wouldn’t work their ass off for me, ha ha!

My job got a lot easier once everything was in place. Unlike other village secretaries, I didn’t have to brave the front lines and appeal directly to the masses. Whenever something came up, I simply said the word, and my cadres got to it! Not only did I avoid the firing line of public anger, but in an instant I became one of the best cadres in the county. In those days I was often entreated by other officials to share my experience and expertise. But in truth what expertise did I have? I was simply implementing the great ideas of our county secretary!Induce it, abort it, just don't have it!

Induce it, abort it, just don’t have it!

WITNESS II

I was talking about it again on Monday on the bus to Guan County. It was the Year of the Sheep, and among the locals the campaign was called “the slaughter of the lambs.” I’m afraid there is no one from Guan County today above the age of 40 who doesn’t know about it!

The actual name of that brutal, heartless campaign was the “Hundred Childless Days.” I was in middle school at the time, and from the way my politics teacher described it, it was horrifying.

1991 was the Year of the Sheep, of the lamb, and I had just started elementary school. I can remember seeing a lot of peasants who had had a birth in the family being paraded around on tractors. They were tied up and had signs hanging around their necks. Though I was little at the time and didn’t really read the signs, the tractors had speakers broadcasting the family planning policies, and it sounded so severe.

During the “Hundred Childless Days,” it didn’t matter if your pregnancy was planned or not, if it was your first child or not, or if you had only just been able to have a child after struggling with infertility. Women were rounded up and forced to have an abortion. After being detained by the family planning unit they were sent to an abortion center, and I heard that if anyone gave birth on the way (I suspect those pregnant with their first child), the child would simply be strangled to death ….

I also heard that there were quite a few shacks built along Spring Road in Guanyi to detain women and abort their pregnancies or induce labor. Many were sent to hospitals in neighboring counties, as our county hospital couldn’t handle all of the operations. Some said that children born in those shacks were strangled to death. The county dug massive holes to bury them. All those innocent little lives didn’t get to enjoy even one day of happiness. They were just discarded in those wretched holes.

What a tragedy. A lot of people who were carrying their first child were left barren.

It was the Year of the Lamb, and yet in Guan County the children were so few! If you try to find people who were born in Guan County in 1991, there are hardly any compared to other years!

The old folks say that the campaign took place when the corn was growing. With nowhere else to run, some women hid in the corn to give birth. Then they’d move to a shack and never come out, and only just escape capture! The county secretary, Zeng Zhaoqi, was quickly promoted, trampling on countless lonely infant spirits on his way to the top.

WITNESS III

In 1991, Guan and Xin counties launched the “Hundred Childless Days” campaign. Guan County Secretary Zeng Zhaoqi issued the order that no children were to be born between May 1 and August 10. Because it was the Year of the Sheep, locals referred to the campaign as the “slaughter of the lambs.” Family planning was national policy, and we all had to abide by it. But the “Hundred Childless Days” campaign flew in the face of national policy! It was horrendous!

The first time I saw a trending post about Guan County, my old home, was when the internet cafes there were forced to close [in 2009] as punishment for some issues with the family planning program. When I returned this November to visit family, I almost couldn’t recognize my hometown. It’s changed beyond belief. Guan County today is still strict about family planning. I suppose this is how the local government is doing “good deeds” for the country. As I think back on what happened over ten years ago, it was a very Leftist operation. I think it was called the “year without children.” I was studying outside the province and so didn’t see the campaign unfold with my own eyes. But in summer … no, probably in winter, when I returned home for vacation, every one of my friends and relatives was talking about the campaign. No matter how many months pregnant you were, as long as you hadn’t yet given birth, you were induced. The cruelty with which this national policy was executed in my hometown was simply unprecedented.

I heard from relatives that several pregnant women in our village were sent to shacks built by the side of the county hospital. They described one woman who was very pregnant who went screaming and crying. There was also a college student in Xinji Village who didn’t accept what was happening and had a breakdown, cursing the program. She was strung up on an electricity pole for all the village to see (according to my relatives in Xinji). A lot of families that were about to have a child fled. But, as they say, the monk can’t outrun the monastery. Their homes were destroyed and their relatives captured in retaliation. I know for a fact that my wife’s sister-in-law ran away and hid with a relative. Then her entire family went into hiding. Her uncle was captured and paraded around town. It almost felt like they wanted to wipe out her entire family.

That campaign is one for the history books. Like the Great Leap Forward, it spawned a series of enduring institutions and practices: for example, the rule that once a family gives birth to a male son then they can’t have another child. Or if the first born is a female, you’re allowed to have a second child, but then you can’t give birth ever again, regardless of the sex. At the time, extreme measures were explained by social exigency. But so many years later, we’re still taking extreme measures. [Chinese]

上海女訪民被當局迫害致死 夫曝曾遭打毒針

大紀元2021年04月27日訊】(大紀元記者李熙採訪報導)上海普陀區訪民周靜智,今年兩會前被政府關在崇明橫沙島的「黑牢」迫害21天,送回家不久去世。其夫曝周靜智在黑監獄中被施打毒針,街道辦官員曾揚言要折磨她到死為止。

兩會前周靜智被綁架關黑監獄。(受訪者提供)

關黑監獄小黑屋迫害致精神失常

周靜智是在2月18日要去父母親家接兩老到醫院治病,剛出門就在其居住小區門口被蹲坑的政法委書記尹天雨等人綁架到崇明橫沙島關黑監獄21天。

期間她因擔心年近9旬老父親的腳腫血栓不及時用藥,血栓到心臟肺部會導致死亡。於是她以絕食、割腕等方式抗爭。3月3日,她絕食的第7天,她再次打電話、傳短信給信訪辦主任季亞明,說明她心急如焚要回家照顧老父親,但季亞明置之不理。

周靜智的丈夫浦榮祥告訴大紀元記者,「3月10日下午,周靜智被萬里街道綜治辦主任顧科押送回家中,人已奄奄一息無法站立。自回家之日起,周靜智夜夜噩夢無法入睡,每日念叨著『他們要把我關到小黑屋裡弄死我』。尹天雨曾當面告訴周靜智,要折磨她到死為止才會離開。」

浦榮祥因妻子的離世過於傷心,採訪一度中斷。

記者撥打上海市普陀區街道辦事處電話找政法委書記尹天雨,接線人員說尹書記外出不在。記者詢問有關周靜智被綁架到黑監獄的相關問題,她要記者撥打分機5857找信訪辦詢問。

記者多次撥打該分機號,但都無人應答。

周靜智打電話、傳短信給信訪辦主任季亞明,但都沒得到回應。(受訪者提供)
周靜智因擔心父親病重以絕食、割腕等方式抗議當局關黑監獄。(受訪者提供)

官員未給說法 催促遺體火化

浦榮祥的姪女告訴大紀元記者,「周靜智被送回來後已經瘦得不成人樣,精神已經不正常了。政府沒有給家屬任何說法,只是說要趕快把遺體火化,他們(政府)才能來關懷。」

周靜智因其母親沈惠珍18年前被刑事傷害侵權而走上維權之路。她上訪18年被行政拘留5次,刑事拘留2次,無數次被關黑監獄,軟禁。2021年4月11日,周靜智被迫害冤屈而亡。

周靜智離世後,上海韋開珍、王永鳳等十幾位訪民朋友前往弔唁,但在地鐵站就被上海市治安總隊警察全部押上警車送往府村路500號,後由各個所屬派出所押回各個派出所。

上海當局設黑牢 66訪民曾連署控告

上海民告官自願者宋嘉鴻向大紀元記者表示,「黑牢的打手都是政府首長或者政法書記用高價收買的。在黑牢被打『毒針』早就聽說,今天周靜智是又一個受害者。」

有鑒於上海當局針對訪民的黑牢越來越嚴重,宋嘉鴻曾在十九大前先後向王岐山、趙樂際寫控告信,建議對上海市長楊雄和應勇追責。該信函為66位訪民「連署信」,非但不了了之,而且還把第一個支持簽名的閔行區訪民邵鑠蘭,綁架至江蘇海門一農戶人家關黑牢80天。宋嘉鴻說,「誰為正義呼喚,誰就遭報復!」

宋嘉鴻舉了幾例訪民在黑牢中遭遇迫害較突出的,如松江區的王蘭英,在黑牢被女看守用鞋底板打頭部造成眼底出血致殘;嘉定的李琴,在黑牢被幾個黑社會扒掉全身衣服侮辱,此事在閔行區法院打官司;虹口區的馬春英,被關在黑牢時黑社會人員對她動手動腳,她跳窗逃生時摔地,送醫院搶救腰椎裝了四根鋼釘。

宋嘉鴻還表示,「2020年12月14日,原本將『連署信』寄中央第四巡視組趙鳳桐組長,竟然還是轉到保護傘(地方政府)的手上。此信網路上公開後,沒幾天就被屏蔽了。」

責任編輯:李沐恩#

洛城援港47人 圣莫妮卡海滩47分钟游行

2021年3月7日,洛杉矶香港人在圣莫妮卡海滩举办快闪游行,声援遭港府政治迫害的泛民主派47人,活动历时47分钟。(徐绣惠/大纪元)

洛城援港47人 圣莫妮卡海滩47分钟游行

【大纪元2021年03月08日讯】(大纪元记者徐绣惠圣莫妮卡市报导)为声援遭港府政治迫害按“国安法”颠覆国家政权罪被起诉的47名香港泛民主派人士,洛杉矶港人于7日(周日)下午两点在洛城旅游胜地圣莫妮卡海滩举办快闪游行活动,引发游客与当地民众关注。

2021年3月7日,洛杉矶香港人圣莫妮卡海滩举办快闪游行,声援遭港府政治迫害的泛民主派47人,活动历时47分钟。(徐绣惠/大纪元)

逾百名洛杉矶香港人身着黑衣、戴黄色口罩,手持“光复香港 时代革命”的旗帜游行,队伍从圣莫妮卡广场(Santa Monica Place)第三街游行至海滩,海外港人在海边拍摄了支持香港的大合照,希望鼓励香港手足,告诉他们:香港人一点也不孤单。

2021年3月7日,逾百位洛杉矶民众身着黑衣、戴黄色口罩参与游行支持香港。(徐绣惠/大纪元)

游行活动过程历时47分钟,以此铭记受香港政府、中共迫害的47人。协办此次活动的洛杉矶香港论坛成员林先生表示,全球共有十几个城市分别举行声援香港47人,除了美国,在欧洲、澳洲、加拿大等地都有活动,大多是在下午两点到三点以不同的形式进行,美西是时间最晚的一批。

2021年3月7日,洛杉矶香港论坛成员林先生呼吁香港、北京政府尽快释放47人。(新唐人电视台提供)

此次游行主要目的是针对香港、北京政府,要求港府停止逮捕行动,尽快释放所有的香港政治犯,更呼吁北京政府尊重香港“自治”,恢复当时所签订的原则,让香港社会重回正轨。同时也敦促美国政府可以给予香港人保护,让香港人可以寻求合法途径进入美国。

林先生表示,目前洛杉矶疫情仍未受控制,人们还不能在室内用餐,但仍有这么多旅洛港人愿意站出来支持,所以倍受鼓舞。他说:“虽然内心很沉重,但还是很受鼓舞。”他期待美国两党取得共识合作,对北京政府施予压力,同时联合世界其他盟友向北京政府施压,也提醒美国政府需留意2022年北京举办冬季奥运的相关问题。

周末圣莫妮卡海滩的游客众多,不少人遇到声援香港的游行队伍都停下脚步、拿出手机拍照。附近居民卡拉·冈萨雷斯(Carla Gonzalez)特别停下脚踏车,驻足拍摄游行队伍。她说:“中共政府不应以法规去限制人民的言论自由,这是人们最基本的权利。”冈萨雷斯很高兴看到美国的香港人可以上街游行,用行动捍卫自己权利,她表示会继续支持香港人,上网搜寻、了解香港发生的事情,她说:“我和香港站在一起。”

2021年3月7日,圣莫妮卡海滩附近居民卡拉·冈萨雷斯(Carla Gonzalez)表示自己与香港站在一起。(新唐人电视台提供)

台湾人公共事务会(FAPA)洛杉矶分会会长李贤群也特地参与此活动,他同时也是全美台湾人权协会会长,长年关注人权议题。李贤群说:“香港是台湾的兄弟,今天香港遭受中共迫害,台湾也在遭受中共的威胁,我们应该要将遭受中共迫害的小国家团结起来,中共真的是世界的祸源。”

2021年3月7日,台湾人公共事务会(FAPA)洛杉矶分会会长李贤群认为中共对世界完全没有贡献,只有破坏世界。(新唐人电视台提供)

李贤群发现其实不只有香港人、台湾人来参加这个声援活动,在人群中还有来自中国的反共人士。他说:“西藏、维吾尔族人都应该来参加。将来亚洲甚至全世界反对共产党的民族都一起来对抗中共。”

李贤群认为,此次全球疫情中共难辞其咎,他用《白蛇传》中放毒、卖药赚钱的桥段来比喻中共:“放毒的是它(中共),解毒的也是它(中共)”。李贤群说:“中共在这个疫情上据说赚了一百亿美元,这是一个可恶的国家,对世界完全没有贡献,只有破坏世界。”

前往声援香港的中国维权人士界立建当众撕毁中共五星旗,他的行动引发观众喝采。一名声援香港的西人受鼓舞,也上前动手撕旗,随即又有一位香港移民参与,三人联手将中共五星旗撕成碎片。

洛杉矶香港论坛成员龙哥说:“这47人被政府无理逮捕,这是不公平、不合理也不合法的,我们不知道走出来能不能帮他们,但希望出来发声,让更多美国人知道中共怎么迫害香港。”

目前香港人已无法再上街头发声,因为只要做一点小小的动作,就可能被港警以《国安法》抓捕,但龙哥认为全球各国都会支持争取民主的国家。他以这次中共禁止台湾凤梨出口为例,最后反倒让凤梨在日本卖得很好,因为有些日本人就是宁愿买贵一点的台湾凤梨,以表示对中共的抵制。他认为只要勇敢站出来发声,必然会有更多人支持,获取应有的关注,一点也不需要畏惧中共的威胁。

洛杉矶各界人士纪念李文亮 举办多种形式活动

今年2月7日,是中国新冠疫情“吹哨人”李文亮去世一周年的日子。美国洛杉矶各界不少民主活动人士和艺术家举办了形式各异的活动,对李文亮进行悼念,并对中国当局表达了他们的抗议。

2020年2月7日,中国武汉市中心医院眼科医生李文亮因感染新冠肺炎去世。李文亮在去世前,曾因在网上揭露疫情而被当地派出所“提出警示和训诫”。此后,他被人称为新冠疫情的“吹哨人”。今年2月上旬,在李文亮去世一周年之际,洛杉矶各界人士举行了一系列活动,对李文亮表达悼念之情,并向中国政府表达抗议。

2月6日,洛杉矶“视觉艺术家协会”(The Visual Artists Guild)在油管(YouTube)上公布了一段时长19分钟的英文视频,题为《李文亮医生逝世周年纪念》(Anniversary of Dr Li Wenliang Passing)。在视频中,“视觉艺术家协会”成员呼吁,在武汉的世界卫生组织成员应在李文亮去世一周年之际,对相关医院、实验室的所有记录进行研究,并采访当地的一线医护人员,从而使全世界能够找到真正战胜新冠疫情的办法。此外,“视觉艺术家协会”在视频中也呼吁中国政府释放独立调查武汉疫情的张展、陈秋实、方斌等公民记者。

“视觉艺术家协会”会长刘雅雅表示:“我们认为,中国政府应该让世卫的人,亲自和武汉的所有工作人员查病毒的来源,并亲自去看武汉的实验室。”

2月7日,约三十人在下午3时聚集在中国驻洛杉矶领事馆门前,进行了纪念李文亮及要求中国当局释放香港壹传媒创办人黎智英的示威活动,整个活动持续时间约为一小时。该活动由两名中国民主党成员发起,参加者包括来自中国大陆及香港的各界人士。活动参加者手持写有“纪念李文亮医生”、“纪念李文亮,释放黎智英”、“释放公民记者张展”、“释放公民记者方斌”、“光复香港,时代革命”等字样的标语,呼喊口号,并发表多篇现场演说。

本次活动发起人之一闫涛向记者介绍了活动的用意:“2月7号是李文亮逝世一周年,我们想抗议中国政府打压‘吹哨人’,这是其中一个目的。另外一个就是马上要过春节了,香港的民主人士,尤其是像黎智英这种年事已高的,我们想要求中国政府马上把他们释放,让他们回家过年。”

活动的另一位发起人刘佳鑫则表示:“这个活动大概有三十人左右参加,因为是疫情期间嘛,所以没有邀请那么多人来,都是自愿原则。”

现居洛杉矶的香港民主派政党“人民力量”成员陈先生也参加了本次集会。在介绍他参加本次活动的目的时,他说:“最主要,我们要给大陆施加一点压力,逼使他们释放香港所有政治犯,黎智英、黄之锋、周庭、谭德志。因为在这次运动中,共产党在秋后算账,逼得香港人现在移民的移民、逃亡的逃亡。我们一定要给中共施加多一点压力。”

除上述活动外,“视觉艺术家”还在近日对旅英作家马建进行专访,听他分析了《武汉日记》作者方方持续遭到人身攻击的原因。在访谈中,马建表示,方方在一年以来不断遭受攻击,与中国当局鼓吹民族主义有关:“攻击方方的其实是民族仇恨。习近平的中国梦是建立在八国联军打败了中国的耻辱之上的,就像纳粹的崛起起源于一战失败的耻辱一样。当巴黎有人抗议在北京举办奥运时,那些中国画家如王广义等等,就成群结队地站出来痛诉西方文明世界,拒绝去法国参展。”

自由亚洲电台特约记者孙诚旧金山报道 责编:嘉远 网编:瑞哲

2020回顾:新冠疫情是最敏感词

多灾多难的2020年终于过去了。由于新冠疫情仍然肆虐全球,知道大家的心情和以前的新年并不一样。

今天的《网络博弈》节目我们给大家回顾一下过去一年《网络博弈》节目的重要内容。

2020年从中国打压李文亮吹哨开始

相信大家还记得2020年新年是怎样开始的。2020年的新年是在湖北武汉中心医院眼科医生李文亮有关新冠疫情的吹哨被武汉警方定为是“谣言”受到训诫开始。

李文亮最早于2019年12月30号在大学医学校友微信群里披露发现不明肺炎,提醒大家小心。几天之内,李文亮被单位领导谈话、被武汉警方训诫。2020年2月7号,34岁的李文亮因感染新冠疫情去世,引发全球悼念。

李文亮去世之后,迫于民间压力,中国国家监察委调查组3月19号发表调查报告,要求武汉警方撤销对李文亮的训诫。美国时事评论人吴建民在3月25号的《网络博弈》节目中分析了网友为何对中国这个官方报告非常不满。

多少个“李文亮”被整肃

中国各地采取严厉措施,打压网上有关新冠疫情的信息,因发布疫情受打压的何止李文亮一个人。很多在微博微信上无意中议论新冠疫情的普通民众也遭到整肃。

2020年2月5号,我制作的《网络博弈》题为《疫情当前,公安处置了多少个李文亮》。在这期节目里,跟踪中国网络审查情况的王先生透露,据他根据中国官媒报道、官方网站和私下渠道了解到的信息,新冠疫情在中国爆发刚刚几个星期,各地因在社媒和网络平台因谈论疫情被公安处置的案例已经超过200多个。

据王先生的统计,2020年前6个月,中国至少有546人因谈论新冠疫情遭到惩罚,受惩罚方式有拘留、判刑、传唤、失去工作等。王先生把每个案例当事人的名字和消息来源都发布在美国推特网上。

这其中除了李文亮、北京律师陈秋实和武汉公民方斌、原央视主持人李泽华以外,多数都是无名之辈。被捕的原因多数是因为在社媒上随便议论了新冠疫情,结果祸从口出,被司法机关指责为“散布谣言”、“寻衅滋事”。王先生在8月19号的《网络博弈》节目中表示,这些案例其实都是因言获罪的案子。

任志强批“一尊”入狱获刑18年

2020年的《网络博弈》我们重点报道了一些备受舆论关注的因网络文章而入狱的个案。

一个是中国网络大V、已经退休的原北京市华远集团董事长任志强案。任志强2020年3月中旬失踪后,他的名字在中国网络上成为网络删帖的敏感词。一篇作者署名为“任志强”、批评中国领导人处理新冠病毒肺炎疫情反应的文章在中国全网删除。这篇文章标题为《剥光衣服坚持当皇帝的小丑》,它猛烈抨击中国隐瞒新冠病毒肺炎疫情、官媒虚假宣传吹捧中国领导人、打压民间吹哨人言论,并暗指中国领导人习近平为“剥光了衣服坚持当皇帝的小丑”。

《网络博弈》节目详细报道了这篇文章的内容。2020年9月22日,任志强被以“贪污罪、受贿罪、挪用公款罪、国有公司人员滥用职权罪”获刑18年。

一位旅居美国洛杉矶、笔名为“一剑飘尘”的华人企业家、作家和时事评论人士3月底在推特网上参与联名呼吁中国释放任志强的活动。他在4月1号的《网络博弈》节目中谈到了他为什么支持任志强这样中国体制内的一个知名企业家。

许章润被抓数日,罪名令人哗然

另一个是清华大学法学教授许章润7月6号在北京被捕事件。北京抓许章润的理由是涉嫌“嫖娼”,引起舆论哗然。我们《网络博弈》节目7月8号报道,中国微博、微信和百度上将许章润消息封锁屏蔽。

海外舆论普遍认为,许章润被抓是因为他最近两三年写多篇激烈批评习近平倒行逆施的文章,包括2020年5月21日发表的文章《世界文明大洋上的中国孤舟——全球体系背景下新冠疫情的政治观与文明论》。这篇文章犀利指出新冠疫情使中国在全球处于孤立局面,呼吁中国进行制度改革。这些文章在中国网络上都遭到封禁。许章润7月12号获释。

旅美分析人士秦鹏在2020年7月8号的《网络博弈》节目中表示,中国以“嫖娼”罪名诬陷一个有良心的知识分子,实在令人吃惊。

质疑良心企业家孙大午案评论遭删除

2020年11月11号,中国知名私营企业家、大午农牧集团创办人孙大午被抓,中国社媒上有质疑孙大午公司被警方控制属违法的声音。11月18号,《网络博弈》报道,中国社媒上这类质疑微博遭删除。官方指控大午集团孙大午等人涉嫌寻衅滋事、破坏生产经营等违法犯罪。外界分析,孙大午被抓显示,中国打压有良心的企业家。

《网络博弈》报道了孙大午的被禁文章《面对恐怖你能怎样》一文的内容。把这篇文章翻译成英文的美国的改变中国网站创办人曹雅学女士在《网络博弈》节目中表示,孙大午是中国罕见的、在自己的企业里试图推行民主宪政理念的人,这次被抓部分原因也是因言获罪。

女公民记者张展获刑4年

去年我们的节目还关注了上海女公民记者张展一案。来自陕西、在上海工作的女公民记者张展于5月14号被捕,12月28号在上海被以“寻衅滋事”的罪名判处4年刑期,原因是她在今年2月至5月期间,在遭到中国封禁的美国油管网上发视频,批评武汉隐瞒疫情信息。张展在被关押期间,绝食数月,显示不屈服、不认罪的倔强。

12月30号的《网络博弈》节目以《张展,你好好活着》为题,报道了国际社会对这位37岁的女公民记者的关注,播出了张展2020年2月至5月期间在美国油管网上发出的视频片段。

特朗普致WHO公开信遭微博百分之百删除

中国不仅在网络和社媒上试图消除中国人所写的批评政府的声音,也封锁屏蔽美国政要发表的涉及中国或者针对中国的言论。

美国总统特朗普5月18号发表致世界卫生组织总干事谭德塞的公开信,批评世界卫生组织在新冠疫情信息发布上没有表现出脱离中国影响的独立性,在中国对疫情信息不透明度情况下还表扬中国透明。

《网络博弈》节目6月3号报道,据美国一家舆情公司研究发现,特朗普这封公开信在中国社媒新浪微博上百分之百遭到删除,即网友转发一次,就删除一次。《网络博弈》节目报道了特朗普这篇公开信的全文。《网络博弈》节目还播出了美国一家生物医学信息公司创办人陈贤丰博士关于中国为何删除特朗普总统这封公开信原因的分析。

美国国安官员中文演讲遭删

202年5月4号,中文名字叫“博明”的美国白宫副国家安全顾问马修.波廷格先生在一所大学网络视频研讨会上发表中文视频演讲,谈五四运动的意义和美中关系。介绍这个视频的网友文章在中国微博微信上被封禁。

这个视频在全球华人圈引起轰动,因为他以全新角度谈到五四运动的意义,特别是中国历史书从来不提的中国外交官张鹏春对起草《世界人权宣言》所做出的贡献,令全球华人耳目一新。5月6号的《网络博弈》播出了博明中文演讲片段。

中国是囚禁记者最大监狱

过去一年,《网络博弈》节目及时追踪中国民众翻墙到海外网站表达跟中国官方论调不同观点的情况,包括中国家喻户晓的原央视《实话实说》节目主持人崔永元在中国沉寂1年多之后,于5月初在美国推特网和油管网视频中现身,评论时事,支持出版《方方日记》的方方。

最后,在圣诞节前夕,《网络博弈》节目报道了为什么美国纽约非政府组织保护记者委员会再次把中国称为囚禁记者的最大监狱。经过这个非政府组织证实,截至2020年12月,中国有47位新闻工作者被关押。

监管自由亚洲电台的美国全球媒体总署CEO迈克尔.帕克先生在接受我的采访时表示,中国出现这种情况,并不令人感到吃惊。他鼓励自由亚洲电台听众继续收听我们的节目。

好的,听众朋友,今天的《网络博弈》节目为您总结了过去一年我们播出的节目内容,这些内容是过去一年中国封锁网络和社媒言论审查的记录。

新的一年,我们继续监督中国网络审查状况。

祝各位新年快乐!

Photos: Hong Kong Protesters Return to the Streets

PostBy: 殷楚楚-chuchu yin

Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens filled the city’s streets for a second weekend of protest against a controversial extradition bill that would allow authorities to send suspected criminals to China. The demonstration took place despite an earlier statement from Chief Executive Carrie Lam indicating that the proposed bill would be suspended indefinitely. Marchers were calling for Hong Kong’s leadership to step down and for a full withdrawal of the extradition bill. Organizers claim that more than 2 million people took part in the march in Hong Kong on Sunday.

A protester clenches his fist as hundreds of thousands of people march on the streets to stage a protest against the unpopular extradition bill in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

People pay their respects at the site where a man fell from a scaffolding at the Pacific Place complex while protesting against a proposed extradition bill, in Hong Kong, on June 16, 2019.

A man takes a selfie with a protest poster before sticking it to the wall of a walkway near the Legislative Council ahead of a speech by Chief Executive Carrie Lam on June 14, 2019.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, holds a press conference in Hong Kong on June 15, 2019. Lam said she will suspend a proposed extradition bill indefinitely in response to widespread public unhappiness over the measure, which would enable authorities to send some suspects to stand trial in mainland courts.

This general view shows thousands of protesters gathered ahead of the start of a new rally against a controversial extradition-law proposal in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Protesters in a subway station, photographed on their way to the rally in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019

Protesters hold placards as they attend a demonstration demanding that Hong Kong’s leaders step down and withdraw the extradition bill, on June 16, 2019.

A large banner protesting against the extradition bill that reads “Fight for HK,” hung by pro-democracy protesters above Hong Kong on June 16, 2019

Protesters march on the streets against an extradition bill in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Protesters hold placards as they prepare to demonstrate against the now suspended extradition bill on June 16, 2019.

A woman takes pictures from a rooftop as protesters march on a street below on June 16, 2019. 

An overhead view shows thousands of protesters marching through the street in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Marchers continue to protest an extradition bill on June 16, 2019.

Protesters march through the streets of Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Protesters hold banners and shout slogans as they fill the streets of Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Protesters dressed in black take part in a new rally against a controversial extradition-law proposal in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Protesters march in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Demonstrators gather along a police barricade on June 16, 2019.

A protester with a mask gathers with others near the Legislative Council as they continue protesting against the unpopular extradition bill in Hong Kong early on June 17, 2019.

A protester holds a flag of Hong Kong between police and demonstrators outside the Office of the Chief Executive in Hong Kong on June 16, 2019.

Mourners hold candles during a vigil for a protester who died the previous night during a rally in Hong Kong, on June 17, 2019.

Protesters gather along a road after taking part in a march and rally on June 16, 2019. 

A helmet and messages of support for the protest against a proposed extradition bill are seen displayed in the early morning in Hong Kong on June 17, 2019.

Barricades, placed in an underground tunnel by protesters, photographed after a demonstration against the now suspended extradition bill on June 17, 2019

Hong Kong Is on the Frontlines of a Global Battle For Freedom

PostBy: 殷楚楚-chuchu yin

Protesters throw back a tear gas canister fired by police during a rally against an extradition law proposal outside the government headquarters in Hong Kong on June 12.

Hong Kong Is on the Frontlines of a Global Battle For Freedom

By Feliz SolomonJune 12, 2019 9:00 PM EDT

The crowds weren’t just equipped for a storm, they were counting on one. When rain started to fall on the tens of thousands of mostly young people amassed around Hong Kong’s legislature on the morning of June 12, umbrellas popped open with loud shouts of “Ga yau!” — a Cantonese cheer meaning “Add oil,” as to a fire. Within hours, the flimsy canopies were flipped sideways and turned into makeshift shields against tear gas and pepper spray fired by local police. They proved less reliable against rubber bullets, however, and might offer no protection at all against the authoritarian forces that loom over the entire island.

But the point was to try.

The protests were hardly the first in the former British colony since it was handed over to China in 1997. The specter of greater control by communist authorities on the mainland had driven Hong Kongers onto the streets in 2003, 2012 and 2014. But this time, the numbers were greater than ever before and the escalation carried at least the sense of a showdown.Photograph by Kin Cheung—AP

The specific issue at hand was a bill that would allow the extradition of fugitives to stand trial in mainland China. The legislation, fast-tracked by the city’s leadership, is widely seen as a threat to the unique freedoms this city of 7 million enjoys. Under the terms of the handover, Hong Kong has operated under a customized model called “one country, two systems,” which gave it a 50-year period of effective self-rule, even though it is part of China. Its history as a lucrative colonial port town left a liberal legacy unique in the People’s Republic.

Hong Kongers have long lived a freer, more cosmopolitan lifestyle than most Chinese, and prejudice against mainlanders is pervasive. Free speech and an independent press are enshrined in the Basic Law that has governed the city since the handover. They’re proud of their distinct cuisine and language, speaking Cantonese rather than the Mandarin more common in greater China.

But critics fear that China’s encroachment may bring an end to all that. Beijing might use the law to nab opponents and submit them to its notoriously opaque justice system, they say. The risk could extend beyond residents, even to visitors who pass through the city’s transit hub. “If Hong Kong’s extradition bill becomes law,” says Sean King, a former U.S. diplomat in Asia and currently senior vice president for the consultancy firm Park Strategies, “I’d think very carefully about visiting again anytime soon.”

In other words, the contest for Hong Kong reflects the stakes for the larger world that China seeks to lead.

The rise of Beijing has been the major global story of the new century. But the very breadth of that ascent and the bland labels of the areas where it has edged toward dominance — trade, infrastructure, finance, tech — have served to mask the nature of the system China brings with it. That system is control.

On the mainland, the system appears to go unchallenged, because control is almost total and cast as conformity. Along with a surveillance state, China’s Communist Party has worked to impose a singular vision of Chinese identity in territories where diversity once thrived. In the far western province of Xinjiang, authorities have detained more than a million ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in concentration camps where they are forced to adopt secular Chinese customs. In Tibet, the party is systematically erasing a rich Buddhist heritage. President Xi Jinping has revived nationalism as a unifying force, in step with a rising tide of authoritarians around the globe that U.S. President Donald Trump has in many cases embraced.A police officer pepper-sprays demonstrators during a protest against the extradition law proposal on June 10.A police officer pepper-sprays demonstrators during a protest against the extradition law proposal on June 10. Lam Yik Fei—The New York Times/ReduxDemonstrators overturn metal barriers on June 10, as protests against the extradition law turn violent.Demonstrators overturn metal barriers on June 10, as protests against the extradition law turn violent. Lam Yik Fei—The New York Times/Redux

Now it appears to be Hong Kong’s turn to feel the heat of a greater power forcing it into conformity — but China’s freest city won’t give in without a fight. Hong Kong has a long history of mass demonstrations. Significantly, just days before the protests erupted, it was host to one of the largest-ever vigils for the victims of Beijing’s bloody 1989 crackdown on democracy activists at Tiananmen Square. It’s the only place on Chinese soil where the massacre is openly commemorated, while government censors try to wipe it from mainland memory. The spirit of the protests snuffed out 30 years before helped inflame the demonstrations seen in Hong Kong.

“We’re furious, we’re angry, some of us are afraid — but we’re here anyway,” says Laurie Wen, a 48-year-old writer who joined this month’s protests. “The thing that infuriates us the most is pointing to the sky during the day and calling it night.”

Read more: ‘I’m in Prison Because I Fought For My City’s Freedom. Hong Kong’s Extradition Law Would be a Victory for Authoritarianism Everywhere’

Hong Kong’s fresh wave of civil disobedience began with a murder. In February 2018, a pregnant 20-year-old woman from Hong Kong was killed by her boyfriend during a trip to Taiwan. The suspect, Chan Tong-kai, then 19, flew back to Hong Kong and has since been jailed for lesser crimes. Unable to prosecute the Hong Kong resident for a murder beyond the city’s jurisdiction and without legal grounds to send him to Taiwan, the city’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, pushed for a bill that would allow Chan to be extradited.

But the legislation raised alarm bells. Hong Kong’s courts and Lam would have the authority to transfer suspects to jurisdictions with which the territory has no extradition agreement — not just Taiwan but also mainland China. This presents a threat not just to criminals but potentially to anyone whose behavior offends the Communist Party leadership, from human-rights advocates to business executives.Police officers stand guard during a protest on June 12.Police officers stand guard during a protest on June 12. Billy H.C. Kwok—Getty Images

That helps explain why an unusually diverse assemblage of lawyers, students, stay-at-home moms, business-people and others joined the protests against what they see as an existential assault on their rights. On Sunday, June 9, a two-mile stretch of a central avenue was filled with column after column of protesters in a uniform of plain white T-shirts. From above, the mass of slow-moving city dwellers looked like a giant snake sliding through a forest of skyscrapers and wrapping its jaws around Hong Kong’s legislative headquarters.

If the estimates are even close to accurate, the march was the largest protest in the city’s history; organizers say more than a million people — one-seventh of the population — flooded the streets with chants of “No extradition to China!” and “Carrie Lam, step down!”

The reality is, China already feels empowered to grab its adversaries from Hong Kong soil. In 2015, five book-sellers peddling salacious volumes about mainland politics disappeared; all five eventually resurfaced in China. In 2017, a Chinese tycoon was abducted by secret police from one of the city’s luxury hotels. But the extradition bill would render what are now noteworthy exceptions into something entirely routine; if the option to legally extradite people is on the table, Beijing will use it, critics say.Tear gas is released during a protest on June 12.Tear gas is released during a protest on June 12. Billy H.C. Kwok—Getty ImagesProtesters raise their hands during a protest on June 12.Protesters raise their hands during a protest on June 12. Billy H.C. Kwok—Getty Images

Chinese officials have spoken out in full support of the legislation, but Lam steadfastly denies that the amendments were Beijing’s idea. “This bill was not initiated by the central people’s government. I have not received any instruction or mandate from Beijing,” Lam told reporters at a press conference on June 10. “We were doing it, and we are still doing it, out of our clear conscience and our commitment to Hong Kong.”

Though Lam’s critics describe her as a “puppet” of the mainland, her protests illustrate the importance of maintaining at least the pretense of independence. The Hong Kong government is still haunted by the massive protests of 2003, which forced it to back down on national-security legislation outlawing sedition and criticism of the Chinese government. Scrapping the bill was perceived as an admission that the government knew it was wrong, and Lam is fearful a repeat would destroy both Beijing’s trust in her loyalty and her legitimacy at home. The last time Hong Kongers took to the street in great numbers, in the 2014 student-led occupation of the financial district that became known as the Umbrella Movement, the authorities here and in Beijing refused to grant concessions. Many student leaders were jailed, and some remain behind bars. If Lam gives in now, Hong Kong will have proved that throngs in the street still have currency in the final free enclave of China.Protesters walk through a cloud of tear gas on June 12.Protesters walk through a cloud of tear gas on June 12. Billy H.C. Kwok—Getty Images

This time, unlike in 2014, the protests have taken on a more violent tenor. On the streets, clashes broke out after some demonstrators hurled bricks and bottles at police. The first clouds of tear gas exploded into the crowds just before 4 p.m. on June 12, sending panicked protesters and journalists fleeing for the safety of malls and parking garages. But the demonstrators are defiant, vowing to defy the government until the legislation is dead in the water.

The business and diplomatic communities have answered the call to support them. More than 100 local businesses committed to joining a labor strike on June 12 — an extremely rare event in Hong Kong — fearing the law could even endanger investors and government employees transiting through Hong Kong.

The government has already shown itself willing to punish private companies for offending Beijing; last year, Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet was denied a working visa after chairing a talk by a pro-independence activist.

Protest leaders have shown no sign of backing down. “We ask everyone to continue staying here to support the demonstration,” Claudia Mo, a lawmaker with the pro-democracy Civic Party yelled to cheering crowds shortly before they were dispersed. “During Occupy Central in 2014, we said, ‘We will be back.’ Today, we say, ‘We are back!’”

Read more: ‘Hong Kong Was My Refuge, Now Its Freedom Is at Stake’Police advance toward protesters outside the government headquarters on June 12.Police advance toward protesters outside the government headquarters on June 12. Dale De La Rey—AFP/Getty ImagesDemonstrators transport bricks at a protest site on June 12. Police said some protesters threw bricks at officers.Demonstrators transport bricks at a protest site on June 12. Police said some protesters threw bricks at officers. Lucien Lung—Riva Press/Redux

The rift between Beijing and Hong Kong has now been widening for 22 years, and every attempt by the central government to bring Hong Kong further into its fold has triggered panic and protest. This in turn has deepened Beijing’s distrust of Hong Kong, which it sees as disloyal and subject to foreign interference.

News about the latest protests is being heavily censored in China, where state-controlled newspapers have blamed the unrest on “foreign forces” meddling in Hong Kong’s affairs — but experts say it is China’s own interference that may be further alienating its rogue territory.

“By forcing the issue in such an aggressive and abrupt way,” says James Millward, a professor of history at Georgetown University, “China can actually be creating a population in Hong Kong that will dig in and actually redefine itself in opposition to the mainland even more than it has so far.”Protesters shout after police fired tear gas on June 12.Protesters shout after police fired tear gas on June 12. Anthony Wallace—AFP/Getty Images

That risks putting the two sides on a more overt collision course. At best, more sustained opposition to Beijing will lead to political deadlock. At worst, it could lead to punishment in whatever form it deems fit.

Beijing’s tolerance of Hong Kong ultimately comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, and the city may be becoming more trouble than it’s worth. In 1993, four years before the handover, the coastal enclave was China’s cash cow — a financial gateway between East and West. At the time, the city accounted for roughly 27% of China’s GDP. But 26 years later, the mainland is awash in mercantile centers made in its own image and Hong Kong accounts for only about 2.9% of the Chinese economy.

“Uncomfortably for Hong Kongers, and everyone who loves Hong Kong, the city finds itself on the front lines of a global battle between a resurgent Chinese Communist Party and a world that adheres to liberal democratic values,” says Ben Bland, director of the Southeast Asia Project at the Lowy Institute and author of Generation HK: Seeking Identity in China’s Shadow. “The systems maintained by these two blocs are incompatible when pressed up against each other.”Police rest on a street during a rally near the government headquarters on June 12.Police rest on a street during a rally near the government headquarters on June 12. Dale De La Rey—AFP/Getty Images

Hong Kong’s freedoms currently allow it to fight back in ways that other parts of China can’t, but for how long? The state is becoming only more pervasive. -Xinjiang is seen by many as a laboratory for wider application of invasive surveillance. Human-rights groups have reported police methods for harvesting data from Xinjiang residents from phones and ID cards and using it to track and detain supposed threats to public order. “Many people think that Hong Kong may be the next place where it gets rolled out,” says Millward of Georgetown. In the meantime, the memory of Tiananmen — where public protest was ultimately met with tanks and fusillades — is as vivid as it is chilling in Hong Kong.

Like many youths who joined the latest protests, high school student Rachel Liu grew up in a political state scheduled to expire within her lifetime. At 15 years old, she’s tasted the freedom that Hong Kong offers and is afraid of the change an increasingly authoritarian Beijing will bring to the only home she knows. “There are so many officials in China, and they have so much power,” she said. “Even if this amendment doesn’t pass, there will be other amendments, other laws in the future that will bring Hong Kong more and more under China’s control. There’s nothing more important than this movement right now.” — With reporting by Laignee Barron, Aria Chen, Amy Gunia, Abhishyant Kidangoor and Hillary Leung/Hong Kong and Charlie Campbell/Shanghai

六四「最後的秘密」 香港出版中共機密文件再揭權力內幕

PostBy: 殷楚楚-chuchu yin

「六四」資料照片

1989年6月3日深夜至4日凌晨, 中共下令軍隊鎮壓學生民主運動,用武力驅趕佔領北京天安門廣場的大學生,造成至少數百人傷亡。

如何收拾殘局和中共有關「六四」問題的決策內幕一直是中共的最高政治秘密,民間對事件真相追求的努力一直沒有停止,黨內文件不斷以各種渠道公布出來。

「六四」30週年之際,香港新世紀出版社出版《最後的秘密——中共十三屆四中「六四」結論文檔》,公布關於「六四」事件的又一批黨內機密文件,展現「六四」鎮壓後,中共「統一思想」的過程,揭露高層權力運作的機制。

6月19日至21日中共中央政治局擴大會議在北京召開,多位中共元老在會上做了講話或書面發言,隨後,中共十三屆四中全會在西郊賓館召開,489名中共黨內元老和最高級別官員出席。政治局擴大會議上產生的文件,以中央文件的形式下發。這是中共最後一次、也是唯一一次以中央全會的形式對「六四」事件定下結論。

「最後的秘密」

「六四」軍隊開槍20天後,於6月23-24日召開的此次中央全會的主要議題是支持鄧小平的開槍決定,用中央全會的形式,撤銷趙紫陽的總書記職務, 強化 「4.26 社論」對「八九學運」的定性,並集體「學習」鄧小平關於「六四」事件的數個講話和時任總理李鵬關於撤消趙紫陽職務的報告。

數天前舉行的中共政治局擴大會議上的元老講話和高官發言以機密文件的形式發給參會官員,在會議結束時全面回收以確保對外保密。

《最後的秘密》一書收錄了十三屆四中全會下發的27份文件, 共209頁。包括陳雲、楊尚昆、李先念、薄一波、王震、聶榮臻、萬里、彭真、胡啟立、芮杏文等17名中共元老和高官口頭講話和書面表態會議記錄。

鄧小平5月31日和6月16日與高級領導人的談話記錄,以及北京市委李錫銘、市長陳希同和公安部長王芳的報告也在新書文件中。

這些從未公開的內部資料揭露了中共高層政治內幕。深入分析這批珍貴史料,可有助了解中共政權面臨合法性危機時,身處中國最高權力小圈子的中共官員,如何主動或被迫懺悔、站隊和表態,支持鄧小平,批判趙紫陽。

《最後的秘密》

「冒險」出版過程與真實性核實

銅鑼灣書店事件之後,香港的政治類圖書出版業幾乎停滯,獨立出版人面臨極大政治和生存壓力。

在嚴格保密的情況下,新世紀出版社耗時數月對《最後的秘密》一書中披露的文件來源做了考證和說明, 表示本書中的文件由27份文本組成,共209頁,全部來自「六四」天安門事件之後兩次中共高層會議,即北京市委第六屆全體擴大會議和中共十三屆四中全會。但從文件編號缺失5份可看出,本書涵蓋文件並非十三屆四中全會文件的全部。目前估計,缺少中共政治局常委喬石、田紀雲和姚依林的講話。

出版人鮑樸對BBC中文說:「稿件接收時中間人和最終來源為了安全,保密身份,因此來源不能作為出版的條件。是否決定出版最重要的是看稿件的內容,材料必須經過考證和認證,確認文件的真實性。」

出版社稱除了對原始圖像做了少許技術處理,「沒有對文本進行任何選擇、刪除或更改」。身份未知的中間人向出版社的編輯提供了USB數字存儲裝置,原始文件中文字的缺陷沒有加以修復,但出版社編輯發現,這些文件已經做了一些數字處理,比如刪去了文件的編號和絶密標記。

據了解,文件被中共黨內姓名不詳的某高級官員複製並保存了多年,所有文件通過中介人提供,「沒有附加或口頭傳達任何解釋或說明」。

但BBC中文無法獨立對文件進行核實。

此書的重要意義在於可為之前面世的自傳文獻和其他官方文本,形成相互佐證,揭示在中共如何克服黨章程序上的限制,強行罷免趙紫陽,合法化武力鎮壓學生運動,並在開槍後統一思想,為接下來中共的權力體系布局。

本書也成為《改革歷程》和《李鵬六四日記》之後,民間獲得的解讀中共權力幕後高層運作的又一重要歷史文獻。

陳雲講話

高官發言:「國內外敵人——該殺的殺,該判刑的判刑」

引人注目的是,在黨內資歷高於鄧小平的元老陳雲未出席會議,以書面的形式提交兩句話:「一、趙紫陽同志辜負了黨對他的期望。二、我同意中央對趙紫陽同志的處理」。陳雲並未明確表示支持鄧小平使用軍隊鎮壓的決定。

87歲的退休元帥徐向前說,學運的根本目的是「妄圖推翻中國共產黨的領導,顛覆社會主義的中華人民共和國,建立一個反共反社會主義的、完全附庸於西方大國的資產階級共和國」。

對於如何處理「敵人」,81歲的前軍人和國家副主席王震言辭最為激烈,如果「鎮壓反革命暴亂就此完結,我很不贊成」。似乎沒說過癮,王震又提交了一份書面講話(王震是唯一有兩份發言稿的人),細數具體措施:「該殺的殺,該判刑的判刑,勞改、勞教一大批……戴了帽子的,勞改勞教的,一律吊銷城鎮戶口,送到偏遠地區,強制勞動。」

王震強調,「這次我們的方針是,一個不放過,一個不擴大。否則,不足以顯示人民民主專政的威力。」

王震將趙紫陽重用或支持的改革派稱為「像(注:原文)林彪那樣的大小艦隊」。他說這些人「控制一大批輿論工具,到處搞政治性沙龍、演講和集會,甚至鑽進黨和國家的核心部門,佔居重要崗位」。

王震用語強硬,接連兩個四字詞語和一連串並列短語描述他認為的嚴峻形勢:「(他們)上下勾連,內外串通,長期以來進行思想的、輿論的、組織的凖備和精心策劃……發動利用社會上的流氓政治團伙和地主官僚、封建軍閥反動階級殘餘及社會渣滓,企圖以動亂直至暴亂,達到推翻中國共產黨(的目的)。」

針對「國外敵人」,宋平說:「美國多方插手,『美國之音』每天造謠、煽動,唯恐中國不亂。」王震逐個列出了他所認為的海外勢力如何影響學運:金錢收買、思想文化滲透、派遣特務、盜竊情報、製造謠言、挑起動亂、扶植內部敵對勢力等,「除了直接出兵,什麼都用上了」。

被鄧小平臨時授命,取代趙紫陽的江澤民, 以總書記的身份發言,借著對其上任起關鍵作用的《世界經濟導報》事件,指責趙紫陽「採取資產階級政客的態度」。

江澤民含糊了鄧小平和保守派之間的分歧,向鄧效忠,為自己在黨內權力之路獲得平衡。 他的講話文件中表示,「鄧小平同志等老一代革命家健在,一般的工作,我們絶不打擾他們, 但是遇到重大問題,我們還是可以隨時向小平同志請教,聽取其他老一輩革命家的意見」。

趙紫陽
圖像加註文字,實質上已被軟禁的趙紫陽參加了政治局擴大會議,但沒有被安排發言(趙紫陽資料照片)。

實質上已被軟禁的趙紫陽參加了政治局擴大會議,但沒有被安排發言。兩天的會議時間,主要請所有參加會議的黨內元老和中共最高官員逐一發言,表態批判。 鄧小平只在第二天出席。 

據趙紫陽在其《改革歷程》一書中記錄,他堅持在最後進行自辯發言,發言時,與會者「面部緊張,急躁不安」。

正式表決時,據趙回憶,鄧小平說,「到會的人,不管是不是政治局成員,都有權參加表決」。 黨內元老李先念接著說,「這是李鵬給大家的權利(因為李鵬是會議主持人)」。

在趙紫陽看來,這些十分「滑稽」的程序卻意在「以勢壓人」。除趙之外,全體舉手贊成。這場看似合法,但實際無視《黨章》的會議,試圖使中共鎮壓八九學運合法化。

。

被迫認錯:「輿論失控」因趙而起

《最後的秘密》涵蓋的機密文件還包括因反對鎮壓而遭到撤職的政治局常委胡啟立,以及主管宣傳的芮杏文和統戰部部長閻明復。他們承認,在危機時執行了趙紫陽的指示。這暴露出黨內80年代對新聞與文藝自由的不同路線。但不少「六四」研究者認為,他們的認錯是迫不得已。

閻明復在講話中說,自己在「八九」學運期間經歷了從「比較清醒」到「嚴重模糊、矛盾重重」的過程。但5月19日戒嚴大會後,聽了彭真、楊尚昆、李鵬、喬石的談話,「特別是聽了傳達小平同志重要講話,才又重新有了比較清醒認識」。

「八九」學運期間,5月20日北京戒嚴前,中國的新聞工作者爭取到了極為短暫的新聞自由。在刊發黨內宣傳講話的間隙,得以客觀、公正地報道學運。

胡啟立的講話為此提供了事實依據。他說,「十二日,我按照紫陽同志的批示,向首都各大新聞單位主編傳達了他的講話」。他被迫承認,這次傳達是「向新聞界燒了一把火」,令「錯誤的輿論導向」出現。

芮杏文也表示,他向首都新聞單位負責人傳達了趙紫陽的批示,因而「給新聞單位負責人鬆了綁,使新聞宣傳決了口,輿論失控越來越嚴重,直至完全失控」。

文藝思想上,芮杏文提到趙紫陽與鄧小平的不同政策。他說,鄧小平的出發點是,「黨對文藝工作要按照文藝創作規律來管,不要亂管,不要亂干涉」。而趙紫陽則認為「少管、不管」。

揭秘的意義

基於此套機密文件和其他資料,對本書做了深入史料考證的「六四」親歷者和旅美作家吳禹論接受BBC獨家採訪時說:「新書完整呈現了一套罕見的歷史資料,揭示了中共高層運作機制。在危機時刻,正是這種機制,完全無視任何事實、意識形態、一切法律或規章制度, 而確保獨一無二的最高領袖掌握權力。這是中共執政的法寶。」

另一位為此書做了導言的美國政治學者黎安友評價:「本書所刊登的文件闡述了中共官方對鄧小平10年改革,1989年危機以及之後黨的方針的看法。 這一立場在其後三十年基本上保持不變, 並是現今習近平領導的共產黨的指導思想。」

「這些黨內學習材料對了解和研究中國黨內高層政治規則,1980年代高層嚴重政策分歧導致幾近崩潰的困境、以及今天仍然面臨的問題,提供了十分難得的機會。這些文件也為了解習近平治下當今共產黨領導心態提供了獨特的視角」。