bookmark_borderSinica Podcast – “liberal” Chinese Trump supporters

这个问题困扰我很久。之前我埋头看了一坨文章,然后自己写了一个心得。我的结论是,liberal 理想是很困难的,很多人没有真正接受 liberalism,出了个川普就感觉解放了,因此当他是救世主。另外 liberalism 我感觉也是个 spectrum,并不是非黑即白的,对于一些人不够 liberal 的方面,应该予以帮助,但是 cancel culture 很容易 alienate 他们。

前周的 Sinica Podcast 讨论这个问题,听得我感觉醍醐灌顶。在此记录一下节目里说的。

Yao: 中国的 liberal 支持川普现象,不是 “敌人的敌人是我朋友” 策略,因为他们支持川普的时候贸易战什么的都没开始呢。也不是 neo-liberalism affinity,你看像郭于华这样的为劳工争取权益的教授,你不能说她是 neo-liberalist。这个现象要用灯塔现象解释:

Political beaconism: 中国的自由派,以美国为榜样。他们其实是有意无意地 sanitize 了美国的情况。结果现在美国左派不给中国作榜样,尽在自我批评,这让中国自由派不能向中国人宣传民主了。所以看到川普批评美国左派他们很支持。

Civilizational beaconism: 清朝末年中国人最早接触西方的时候,和先进科技一起接受的是当时的殖民主义思想。你看梁启超的文章可以看到白人至上主义。然后经过一个世纪的战争和政治动荡,中国的人文学科没有得到发展,中国的思想界从来没有反思(甚至意识到)殖民思想的问题。因此很多中国知识分子支持西方的右派,觉得穆斯林移民到欧洲是很可怕的事情。

林垚还分析了白左这个词的用法。他以《三体》的读者推广了 “白莲花” 说法,指出中国人反对 political activism 经常是和厌女联系在一起的。白左这个词还有一个隐含的意思就是要搞这些只有白人可以。(因此在网上用来骂中国人很有效。)

我觉得他的分析太有道理了。虽然我常常看到 “白左”,我没有想得这么清楚过。另外我有时候会看见 “灯塔国” 这个说法,一直不确定它的含义和来源。“白莲花” 也是我偶尔会看到感觉是对女性不友好的词,从来没有查过是什么意思。我对网上的用语的理解一直是很脱节的,后来有了 GFW 之后我被迫不太上外网了,渐渐对一些词熟悉了一些。但是我的理解果然还是很缺乏。林垚这样又理解,又能以正常讨论的思路分析的,实在太少见了。他是怎么做到能呆在微信群里看 pro Trump 阴谋论而不和人争论然后爆炸的呢?

下面是我的……这是什么?这不是 transcription,是不够精准的 transcription,反正就是记录吧。

主持人:K – Kaiser Kuo; J – Jeremy Goldkorn. 嘉宾: Y – 林垚; I – Ian Johnson.

K: What is Liberalism in the Chinese context?

J: Liberal in the US context means a range of people from Joe Biden to Chomsky (?). But in the rest of the world it has a much limited meaning.

I: In the US, liberal often means dissidents. But simply being against the CCP doesn’t mean you are a liberal. You can be against the government for a number of reasons. It can simply be the love of freedom, and less government control, which is the classical liberalism. One of the things that unites a lot of these people is contrarianism. They are skeptical of the perceived wisdom. They want to support the person who is most troublesome. They think there is always another side to things.

Y: In Europe liberal has a more right leaning meaning than in the US. In China, ‘自由派’ basically we can define it a bit more broadly. In China, I think generally liberalism consists of a few beliefs: belief in constitutional right, belief in competitive multi-party electoral system. I think these two are shared among all Chinese liberalism. There are other particular beliefs, aversion to Mao-ist planned economy, they believe in the market economy, but still thinks some government control is necessary. Another trait of Chinese liberalism is being against narrow-minded or military Chinese nationalism, who assert that it’s China’s time to rise etc..

J: What are some egregious examples of Chinese intellectuals actively favoring Trump now? Who are some of the critics of the CCP that are in favor of Trump?

Y: For example 郭于华, a professor of Tsinghua University, who I admire very much, has supported Trump since 2015 since he announced his running for the presidency. She has been fervently critical to the CCP for many years. She isn’t someone you would describe as neo-liberalism or conservative because she has been advocating for worker’s rights, independent worker’s unions, greater transfer of wealth to the lower class for many years. Another example, Xiao Han, a legal scholar at 政法大学, who recently came out as pro-Trump. He said the turning point is the Hunber Biden hard drive, which made him think the US media is covering up things. Those are the two examples that come to my mind.

K: 郭于华 is a staunch support of 许章润, so it’s very surprising.

I: Yes I know her pretty well. I did a Q&A with her for the New York Review of Books. I was also surprised. I think in her case, there is a little bit of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. She and people like her think that at last the US is awake. Anything that deals the CCP a body blow is good. I think I sort of understand her. But also I don’t understand why she supports someone who is fundamentally anti-democratic. You can support his policies towards China, but you don’t have to support him stock and barrel. The thing that is the most troubling or perplexing is the need to go in whole and hard in support of someone.

K: May I ask a question: why does it matter that some many Chinese intellectuals disproportionally favor Trump?

I: It says something about the intellectual discourse in China, about the poverty of debate in China. Of course you have so many people support Trump in America. Many smart American also voted Trump. (K: name me one.) Maybe also it says a degree of desperation to see people like 郭于华 support Trump. There are other things. Love of conspiracy theories, and also a perverse contrarianism, in some way it’s healthy but also destructive.

Y: I think it matters at least in two ways for China and for the US. Intellectuals are important agencies for public discourses. They invent the terms, set the agendas of discussion, they legitimize certain concepts and ideas, and they steer the direction of the public’s social and political thought. In China, when public intellectuals speak in favor of such a failure, they quickly undermines liberalism in China. For example the ordinary Chinese citizen/netizens, seeing the complete failure of the handling of the pandemic, have been quick to mock the Chinese liberals who are in favor of Trump. In the future if there is opportunity of change in China, the younger generation can ask the liberals that why should we support you who support a destroyer of the US democracy?

J: A pretty good question.

Y: In the future we may face a choice of the CCP on the one hand and on the other hand the degenerated liberalism who supported Trump. For the US, I think it is also important. Part of the effect we have seen this year we have seen the Epoch Times and Apple Daily spreading misinformation. How that began can be found in the larger transformation in the Chinese public discourse. A lot of 自媒体 has internalized the misinformation and join force in report the US election this year and maybe be recruited by 郭文贵 or the Epoch Times. The effect shows. So I think the butterfly effect of the Chinese intellectuals is really huge. We may haven’t seen its full effect at this moment but a few years down the road it will be disastrous.

J: Can you talk about the various explanations you have put forward and why you find them unsatisfying? Let’s start with this, Yao, what is insufficient about the ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’? I can understand that it is satisfying to hear Trump say ‘the CCP is the devil’ when previous administrations would mince their words.

Y: It is one of the hypothesis that I rejected in my paper. I don’t think this tactical explanation is satisfying. If you look into the early endorsements by the Chinese intellectuals since 2015 and 2016, you realize that they were not talking about Trump’s attitude towards China, or the trade war which hadn’t happened yet. They were talking about political correctness, that BLM had gone too far. 孙立平 another sociology professor at Tsinghua University wrote an article comparing Trump with 邓小平 in the late 2017 or early 2018. He says there are two greatest political experiment in human history so far, one is 改革开放 which saved and revived China, the other is Trump’s anit-political correctness war, which will save and revive the US.

K: So you are saying prior to China becoming an issue at all, they were already on board with Trump. Another explanation is the neo-liberalism affinity argument – those who don’t want planned economy finds affinity with neo-liberalism. There is a really important paper by Yiqing Xu and Jennifer Pan that look at how these ideas cluster, how in China and other countries that there is a clustering of certain political values and pro-market values, which is classic neo-liberalism. Why is that not a satisfactory explanation for this pro-Trump phenomenon we are seeing?

—[end of sitting one]—

Y: Yiqing is my friend and I like their work very much, but I disagree with that conclusion. Their questionnaire is designed by random netizens including myself. We put the questions to ordinary citizens, therefore that questionnaire cannot be used in analyzing intellectuals, who might have different understandings and better able to decouple different dimensions. If the conclusion is that Chinese liberals are neo-liberals, I think only some of them have the pro-market attitude from their lived experience, but it cannot be over-generalized. For example 郭于华, 孙立平 are not neo-liberals. 孙 wrote many articles advocating northern Europe model welfare system. Even for those who says we need more privatization, we need to understand how they are neo-liberals. Maybe their support for Trump is the same reason for their becoming neo-liberals.

J: Ian, let me put a question to you. It seems that the neo-liberalism argument might come from a sense that what we are seeing now with these Chinese Trump fans is a lot like what we saw in Poland and Czech Republic and then Slovakia after the cold war, where many of the liberals who enjoyed support of the US turned out to hold some surprising beliefs that did not sit so well with the notion of the golden liberals of Chapel Hill. You also saw this with some of the Russian dissidents. Ian, you were reporting from Berlin at the period. Does that strike you as similar?

I: I think it’s hard for people including us to escape the thinking we are brought up with. I think among the Chinese intellectuals, a lot of the arguments are very ad-hoc, not tested very well. What I’m saying is very unproveable hypothesis but it has a real effect on someone if they’ve never read or have a reliable benchmark information on stuff. I think it’s hard for people who even come up with a coherent argument. If you think of 郭于华, who is a very intelligent person and did some first rate work. But sometimes the lack of reliable facts at their disposal because for them everything is up in the air, open for debate. There is no real hard facts they feel they can rely on, so it leads them down these weird blind alley I find. (K: it sound like you are describing American Trump supporters.) Yes I see a huge similarity, these people don’t read newspapers, and someone tried to advance that, there is no reliable information. If you are in China, what is the reliable newspaper you are going to read? If you are in the US, well you can read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, read a couple of other things to get different points of view. Of course they are all biased, but there is some basic factual basis to them. But in China, what are you going to read? What newspaper is based in reality and decent fact? Everything is swimming in a sea of bullshit. You use intuition to figure things out, you triangulate things against your lived experience. It’s hard for [the Chinese intellectuals] to get real information, and it it leads them to this weird intellectual gymnastics.

K: Yao, your paper says it’s not tactical, it’s not the neo-liberalism affinity, it’s actually this phenomenon of ‘beaconism’. You talk about ‘川化’. You talk about two types of beaconism, the political and the civilizational. What are these and how they work at this metamorphosis?

Y: Political beaconism is the kind of psychological mechanism that grows out of Chinese liberal’s collective lived experience of Maoism and later the collective memory of it. At the time of Reforming and Opening, they had already suffered so much during the Cultural Revolution. They were opening their eyes to the western world. They internalized this black and white contrast between China and the West political regime. They intentionally or unintentionally internalized the rhetorical strategy that sanitize the actual western democracies. The US is the major contrast point. By sanitize I mean they allow small problems in the US democracy as no system is perfect, but they do not admit any major failure on the US part. So when the US self criticize, for example the systematic racism, the Chinese liberal intellectuals recoiled. Such self criticism can be taken advantaged by the CCP. How can they preach democracy to China if the US has systemic problem? Because of their experience, the Cultural Revolution is the most readily available vocabulary for them. When they see BLM tearing down the confederacy monuments, they see the CR ‘破四旧’. Political correctness is of course ‘狠斗私心一闪念’. They reconstruct the US events with their CR vocabulary, which distorted their understanding of the US politics. They are frustrated with the US intellectuals for their owning of the issues. With Xi, the Chinese intellectuals are feeling more and more suffocated. They hoped the western intellectuals would do something. But they are prioritizing self criticism. And they sided with Trump in their criticism of the western intellectuals.

K: What about civilizational beaconism?

Y: When we look at contemporary Chinese political thought, we need to go back to the late Qing Dynasty when China first encountered the western world. The Chinese intellectuals were shocked by how scientifically advanced the western world was. They wanted to learn from the west. They gobbled everything the west offered. Unfortunately it was also the time when colonialism was on the rise in the West. If you look at Chinese intellectual at the time, for example 梁启超 wrote that the white is the best, the black is the worst, the yellow people can be as great as the white people. Over the next century the development of social sciences and humanities in China has been largely stalled. There has not been the reckoning of the racist past. Fast forward to the present, the Chinese intellectuals both liberals and non-liberal nationalists still have colonial racism internalized. They think the European countries shouldn’t take muslim immigrants because that will destroy the western civilization. So MAGA really hits home for them. There is a small distinction among Chinese intellectuals between the liberals and nationalists. The Chinese liberal thinks the west is the best, but hopes that China will rise and join the west and be the best civilizations in the world, and keep the inferiors (blacks and muslims) in check. The non-liberal nationalists fantasize a moment that China could replace the west to take the top of the hierarchy. But they don’t want the west to be brought down by inferior races.

K: You don’t have to look at May Fourth era to find Chinese liberal being racists, look at 1989 He Shang you will still find it. Let’s talk about political correctness. Ian, why is political correctness such a fixation for Chinese intellectuals?

I: I think many people see this as a way to force people to have certain viewpoints that you have to do things a certain way. In China many people are told to think in a certain way. For Chinese intellectuals think this is a fundamental problem. They want to break free of these straight jackets, the correct way of thinking and doing things. For example in the American academia, you have to have a tag in your email to tell people how to refer to you. You are under pressure to do that now. It’s a typical issue when you take your own experience and apply it elsewhere.

J: Before we get into Yao’s piece, let’s talk about 白左. What does it mean? How is it used? Why is the anti-白左 congregated around 知乎? Yao could you give some background on this?

Y: 白左 is literally white lefties, I think first used on 知乎 to describe the social justice activism in the west. Those who cared about the plight of the refugees. I think the term was first popularized in 2015 during the European refugee crisis. 左 is derogatory in the Chinese context, meaning that you care about equality without any consideration of feasibily etc. 白 white has a connotation in Chinese slangs meaning pure but naive 白莲花、傻白甜. Also 白 has a racial connotation that the white people can be naive because they are white, the political agency of black and brown people is eliminated by using this term. Every social justice proposal must come from white people. However naive they are, they are the people who have the ideas and agencies, they can act, they are coming to save the black and brown people. But they save them in the wrong way. They make it worse.

K: 白 in 白左 alternatively means 白痴, a matching term by the conservative is lib-tard.

Y: I think that was later added. Before it was popularized, it means white people. Also 白莲花. If you read 三体, which popularized the image of a woman Cheng Xin, who was designated by earth people as the savior but was so naive and innocent and inadvertently destroyed the earth. The real hero was some male guy. Readers of 三体 quickly invented a term 白莲花 to describe Cheng Xin. It is obviously misogynistic. This attitude against social activism is tied to misogyny in the Chinese discourse.

K: And 白左 is no longer used to describe white people, it is now also used against people in China.

Y: Yes.

I: I wanted to add something. When I hear this criticism, it reminded me also when I was living in Europe, just after the refugee crisis, I went to the US and talked to some Trump voters who said, what a disaster this refugee crisis is, letting these refugees in. I felt it really wasn’t actually a disaster. I sensed something almost like jealousy, that you are able to do something that we are not able to do. There seems to be some parallel here.

J: Shouldn’t we talk about the piece you wrote for 澎湃思想市场? It is translated and published by David [] “Reading the China Dream”. Your piece is about the conversation in Shanghai involving four public intellectuals discussing the BLM movement. Can you give us a sense of how prevalent this is even among people who do not support Trump? [你们 show notes 怎么网站上没有啊,apple podcast 网页上也没有。]

Y: Yes. Among four professors in China who are anti-Trump, who you might call true liberals in China, they have been taking in and using the term political correctness and they have been falling prey to this way of framing public discourse. I think that is one of the defining features of the Chinese internet. People keep talking about those terms and framing discussion with them. Political correctness, cancel culture etc. despite the vast difference between the Chinese and US context. Political correctness is on top of their minds. Whenever there is and argument on the internet, one party is quick to accuse the other to use political correctness to suppress the other side’s opinion.

K: Ian, what explains the eagerness so many Chinese intellectuals use this term? When they see tearing down statues they say ah they are red guards. What strikes me is that so many of their arguments are directly from the US. They are quick to take in Jordan Peterson and American Alt-Right websites. Cultural Revolution experience isn’t sufficient to explain this.

I: Yeah, it’s always interesting what one culture takes from another. When the Chinese look at our culture, they seem to take the least convincing part of it. They don’t take the brightest from the west. Look at Ai Wei Wei, the snarky way of taking down people. Of course it is all around the world. There aren’t peer review journals or magazines where reasonable opinion makers will debate issues. It’s all in social-media-sphere now. So if you can poke someone in the eye, that’s the only way to win argument. It comes across well. It’s a cocktail party debate.

J: We’ve already talked about watching them watching us. Let’s add another layer. Ian, Yao, you must have got quite a lot of response from Chinese or Chinese Americans about your recent work on this topic. What do they say about what you said about what they say about American politics?

I: I can tell you one thing. I interviewed for my piece Li Rei’s daughter Li Nanyang before. She’s a real pro-Trumper. I’m probably the perfect example of 白左 in their eyes. White, 傻瓜 type of guy, which is probably true. 🙂 That is one reaction I got.

K: Li Rei was a long march surviver, who was quite high in the political life in China and became sort of a dissident.

I: He championed the history of China and was one of the patron saints of China through the Ages. His daughter sort of kept the flame alive. She’s living temporarily in the US but she’s a Chinese citizen. She is somewhat representative of the Chinese left thinkers.

J: What about you Yao? Because we can’t blame your whiteness.

Y: I’ve been receiving response of two kinds as you can imagine. One kind is like “thank you so much for explaining this. this has been puzzling me for years, and finally I see a convincing explanation”. The other kind is “you are a piece of shit, you are wumao sent by the CCP to defame the great Trump. When Trump is reelected, you will get deported”.

K: In your piece you said the outcome of this election will determine whether the political beaconism or the civilizational beaconism is stronger. What is your conclusion now that the election result is known?

Y: Now the pro-Trump intellectuals are falling into two camps, they are even fighting each other now. One camp says that let’s accept the lost and uphold and support American democracy. The other camp which I think is much larger still refuses to accept the lost and circulating conspiracy theories. I’m having a lot of fun as I’m in several pro-Trump groups to just observe what they are saying. They come up with a different theory every day.

K: One more question for you before we go back to Ian. You say that younger Chinese will be less persuaded by Trump. But they are more nationalistic. Did you coin that phrase ‘civilization vindictiveness’? [Y: yes] What will the balance be?

Y: I will be cautiously pessimistic. I think within the liberal camp, younger liberals is less receptive to Trump. But the liberal camp is shrinking. Not only because of the disastrous performance of the liberal camp this time, but also because of the larger environment, the indoctrination from very early on in primary schools, and censorship etc.. You can see the rise of wolf warrior generation, who are also tech savvy, and they know how to appropriate the liberal top points and turn them into backing nationalist policies and ideologies. I think in the future we will see less this bizarre liberal supporting Trump phenomenon but a strong illiberal camp firmly against liberalism in China.

K: You are absolutely right about the appropriation. Cui Zhiyuan did that.

J: Ian, a big question for the future, what will dissident intellectuals do now given that their support for Trump will not endear them to the Biden’s team. Do you think they will change with the change of the political administration?

I: I don’t think they will change. Trump may fade in a year or two, but they are too … to change. That poses a question for the Biden administration, who they are going to help? Obviously there are victims of human rights violations in China, the Uighurs etc.. Some of the affinity is no longer there.

K: It’s going to be 滕彪 and 滕彪 and 滕彪. He’s the only one there now. That’s not true. There are still others. Like Yao for example.

K: Thank you both for this conversation.

Yao’s recommendation: book by Chen Yinghong, racism in China (correspond to my civilizational beaconism). Antonin Scalia and American Constitutionalism. How American conservatism used legal rhetorics to advance their partisan goals.

Ian’s recommendation, an article in Vanity Fair about political elite with Clinton, the corruption that explains the rise of Trump. Forbidden Memory, Tibetan during the Cultural Revolution, photos accompanied by long essays.

Lin Yao’s podcast 时差.

bookmark_borderHTTPS explained (by an amateur)

厄,斯诺登传记的笔记还是没有写好。先再写一篇HTTPS的解释,因为我想实行一下费曼学习法:learn by explaining!


加密这件事,其中算法的数学我不了解。我就先理解为一个把数据打成乱码的规则。需要一个key来加密,一个key来解密(把加密数据还原成原始信息)。加密和解密的key是同一个的话,就是对称加密。另外还有一种非对称加密,public key和private key成对,用其中之一加密的可以用另一个解密。而public key是公开的,private key必须保密。






另一个要解决的问题是网站身份认证。如果你假装是亚马逊,然后用户就把信用卡信息填好发给你了,那么用户就完蛋了。在我自己搞HTTPS的时候我本来不理解为什么要把身份认证和加密打包在一起,因为我本来只有加密的需求。我还是觉得可以把加密和身份认证分开。当浏览器访问一个网站的时候,提醒客户这个网站只有加密没有身份认证就可以了。现在是,只有http的话浏览器会让你访问,但是有self sign(自己生成key,只有加密没有认证)的话,浏览器会不让你访问。我觉得这个是不是不太合理?(一定是我还没完全理解吧。。)如果我没有身份认证,然后我在冒充亚马逊想要套取客户的信用卡信息,那么客户可以提高警觉;但是我是一个个人博客,没有向客户索取信息,那么我完全可以不完成身份认证,客户可以随便来看看,并且知道我们交互的内容不会被ISP截取?



加密HTTP内容是这样进行的:client端(浏览器)先获取server的public key,然后自己生成一个key用server的public key加密送给server。接下来双方的对话就用刚才送过去的key对称加密对话了。这样做的原因是非对称加密performance差,所以仅用它来交换接下来要用来对称加密的key。



具体的做法是:全球有几家顶级担保机构CA (Certification Authority)(大部分是收费的;Let’s Encrypt是一家非营利机构,他们的担保服务是免费的),CA认证过网站的身份后,就开具一张证明,证明内容用CA的private key加密,而世界上任何人都可以用CA的public key解密。因为CA的private key只有CA有,所以能解密就说明这是CA开具的合法证明,就可以相信持有这个证书的网站了。

也就是说,如果想要给一个人发送绝密信息,可以用ta的public key加密,因为只有ta可以解密;如果想要全世界知道一个信息是我说的,可以用我的private key加密,把信息和public key公开,因为只有我持有我的private key,那么全世界都可以知道那个信息只有我可以写。所以private key是一个绝好的签名。

那么CA是怎么担保的呢?付费的CA我不太清楚了,他们可能有更严格的流程和定期audit什么的。Let’s Encrypt据说是要在server目录下生成什么文件,以显示你对server有权限。我操作的时候是在server上执行他们的命令,估计包括在里面了。执行的时候需要填写domain name。我可以把server配成亚马逊,不知道Let’s Encrypt会不会认证,但即使认证了,我的实际域名并不是亚马逊,我想也不会有用的。


得到了Let’s Encrypt的key之后,还要给server配置一下,这是Apache的配置

WordPress还需要(?)一个插件。其实我不是很明白它是干嘛用的:Really Simple SSL


在研究这个问题的时候看到了一个博客我觉得写得很好。How does HTTPS actually workHTTPS in the real world 这两篇文章写得很好(个人博客比维基好看多了)。我特别喜欢他说,In cryptography, trust is mathematically provable. Everything else is just faith. 然后看了他描述的revoke key的问题我意识到,revoke这件事没有一个mathematical solution,所以比较麻烦。(这个问题是,CA给了你证书,然后,你的private key被人盗取了。CA证书和public key是一起发给客户端的,谁都可以截取。那么盗取你private key的人就可以拿着证书和private key冒充你了,实际上客户不该再相信这张证书。然而因为证书可以用CA的pub key解密验证的,这就没办法收回了。现行solution在文章中有,就是加入了revocation list和提供这个list的服务器。(真的没有更简单的办法了吗?)


bookmark_borderEcon Talk – Alchemy

今晚听了前几周的一期Econ Talk。Alchemy也是嘉宾的书的标题。如果这个标题是想引起我们的兴趣去看为什么有人正经在说炼金术,那么对我而言是失败了,我下好了那一期之后就一直没听,直到今晚我没动我的播放列表就让它自己播放了。听了以后才发现里面有不少有趣的主意。但是我现在只记得一个地方。


Are markets partly intelligent because human decision-making is messy, and markets can then aggregate preferences from a whole bunch of people who’ve come up with problems from a different angle? When you actually make choice uniform by dint of forcing everybody to go through the same set of questions in the same order, do you actually make markets stupider–because the distortions of the question-asking process become more and more widespread?


bookmark_borderPodcast 记录 UPenn Contemporary China Study EP17 Yasheng Huang


标题是Diagnosing China’s State-led Capitalism。嘉宾是一个口音听起来就是中国人,但是表达非常自如的教授——黄亚生。维基百科的页面上似乎看不出年龄。但是他87年到89年是Wold Bank的consultant,还是密歇根大学的教授。我觉得他的口音听起来像是在国内呆了半辈子的人,但是那个年代是美国大学的教授,说明他应该没有在国内经历文革?或者也有可能是80年第一批出国?以上是我看到这个年龄的中国人的简单疑问和猜测。




更加meta一些的问题:黄亚生说,他在美国算是略偏左的知识分子,在中国是完全的右派。他说他不是无条件支持市场经济的,彻底的市场经济是lunacy(他真的说了吗?写下来后感觉有点怀疑了,但又不高兴求证)。他说国家经济在过渡时期是绝对必要的(也许这是他的意思:国家发展时期不能完全市场经济?)。他举例韩国和台湾说他们发展的时候也是国家经济,但体现在private sector上。我听了好几遍前半小时的节目,其实我不明白private sector上的企业为什么算国家资本主义。但是节目的最后他提到了安邦集团,也许这是他的“私企国家资本主义”意思,安邦集团是私企但有很强的政府连接。


bookmark_border记一个碎片关于Sinica podcast w\ 查建英 – activism in China

我觉得这一期节目很引人入胜。主要是因为这是我关心的话题吧!他们提到的moderate liberals(你直接说无能懦弱liberal好了),其实就是我和我的朋友们。这个华裔记者& activist家属的角度,就和以前那堆学者外交官什么的很不一样了,不再讨论美国应该怎样怎样(engage?decouple?)。对我来说这个角度挺惊喜的。

我就想记一个细节:他们提到了海外华人dissident内部吵架这么厉害。Kaiser还说最凶的吵架就是这些人里的了。这个问题一直困扰我,也没什么人可以讨论。查建英回答说,you are the mirror image of your enemy. 她说这句话的一瞬间我好像忽然明白了。感觉这个问题她显然有很深的了解(这种人我毕竟一个也不认识)。她说,在集权主义下的人,出来后自己也带有集权主义的味道,对人不信任和尽量去理解,看事情非黑即白,默认接受权力hierarchy等等。她说得很spontaneous,感觉她一定是个很好的作者(惭愧从来没看过她写的东西,她哥哥的名字听说过,但我没仔细了解过,就是因为以为是那种好斗但无用的dissident)。然后Kaiser说了一堆也很有道理,(但第一次觉得Kaiser说话的spontaneity被比下去了:))他说他听说就是这个制度下会真的表态反对,一般都是性格有这种倾向:egoistic或者好斗的之类的。查还说,在美国的华人有很多川普支持者呢!很多人自己是移民,却不同情穆斯林,甚至受不了metoo。我也第一次意识到,这种现象和“反华华裔移民爱内部吵架”是相关的现象。


“Well, [I respond] never in anger, as my mother told me. That would’ve be self-defeating. Always as an opportunity to teach. I did see myself as a kind of kindergarten teacher in those days. Because the judges didn’t think sex discrimination existed.”


bookmark_borderpodcast 记录 U Penn Susan Shirk lecture




这位嘉宾说到新疆的时候说,她71年作为尼克松的先头部队访问过中国,见过“五七干校”,那不仅是惩罚,更是洗脑。the fact that they still think it works is perplexing。我好想跟她说,你越是觉得这种办法行不通,就越需要扩展你的想象力,想象一下它试图取得效果的过程会发展得多么极端。。。

bookmark_borderSinica Podcast – trade talks







bookmark_borderSinica 两位大使的采访


Jorge Guajardo在2007到2013年期间担任墨西哥驻华大使。David Mulroney在2009到2012年期间担任加拿大驻华大使,此前他有很丰富的和东亚打交道的经历。

关于态度改变。Guajardo大使说,他会出席一些记者招待会,一般都是很友好的soft ball question。那种招待会最后,总是会问他,你觉得中国能向墨西哥学习什么。他会回答,没有什么,我们是来增进贸易的,不是来授课的。在他任期的最后几年,他注意到这个最后的问题变成了:“你觉得墨西哥可以向中国学习什么?”他的回答还是,没有什么,我们不是来学习的。Mulroney大使说,有时候发生了什么摩擦,公开场合下,官员们会跟你讲party line,但是结束后他们往往会单独送你上车,这段路上会私下说几句客气话。但是也是在他的任期的最后一阵子,这个送你上车时的客气话没有了。

Guajardo说了一句别人说的话:Trump is not the President America deserves, but he’s the President China deserves. 他说他不赞成川普做的大多数事情,但是他觉得对中国的态度是有作用的。他不赞成美国退出巴黎公约,但是以前中国会说,你看你需要我们和你们在气候问题上合作;他不赞成美国直接和朝鲜谈判,但是现在在这件事上不需要看中国脸色也蛮好的。他还说中美贸易受阻后,其实对墨西哥是有好处的。在对中国的问题方面,别的国家都是采取投机态度,希望别人出头。如果英国和中国吵架,法国会想办法从中获利(换成别的国家亦然)。大家并不团结起来。而川普显然也不是build coalition的类型。


记完上面这些,再去看了一下官网的highlight,发现我的注意点和highlight重复率挺低的。这里面提到的我前面忘了提的我觉得有意思的只有墨西哥大使说,在川普之前,好像一直有一种默认的规则是墨西哥会和美国一起抵制华为。川普上任后墨西哥忽然不再抵制华为了。墨西哥本来就不认为自己的安全收到威胁。但是我觉得podcast里他并没有分析为什么。那么作为一个layman我想很可能是川普对墨西哥的态度(and the rest of the world except North Korea)让墨西哥觉得没必要配合美国了吧!这么说来,川普对中国的强硬态度得到的一点点成效也被在墨西哥的效果抵消了。

bookmark_borderSinica – Chas Freeman interview part1


podcast released on 8/17/18

仍然不是完整的transcribe。连着三星期听完后,觉得很有必要记录一下。这位嘉宾Chas W. Freeman的背景和经历也是非常丰富。听他说事情非常受益。当然他说的东西是out of depths of me。要记录对我挺有难度的。Kaiser和Jeremy讲到的很多东西我也都不知道。。


他的汉语讲得非常流利。在1972尼克松访华的历史性事件里,他是主要翻译员。中美恢复外交关系之后的1979年到1981年,他是State Department的director of Chinese affairs。然后81到84年他在美国驻华大使馆工作;93到93年是(国防部工作);他后来出任美国驻沙特阿拉伯大使,他的任期内萨达姆侵略了科威特。在奥巴马第一个任期时,他被提名担任Director of Intelligence Council,但是由于他坚持出版Mearsheimer的关于在美国的以色列lobby的影响力的书,早到了很多亲以色列的人士的反对,不得不退出,而这件事正好说明亲以色列派系在美国政治中很有影响力。Freeman大使目前是Senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institution for international and public affairs。他写了很多关于美国、中东的书,当然还有关于中国的书。

Kaiser: 我们今天当然就是来讲中国的。Freeman大使在这方面发表过很多。在我看来,对中国的最理想的态度是”informed empathy”。没有人比Freeman大使更embody我的这个理想。

Kaiser & Jeremy: 一般我们只和我们的嘉宾深入讨论一个话题,但是你的经历那么丰富,我们想要覆盖更多,我们这次录的节目会分两期播放。我们第一部分会讲如今的态势,中美双边关系。第二部分来讲讲你早起和中国的关系,特别是你在台湾的经历,你参与尼克松访华的事情,还有接下来两国建交时期的事情。

Kaiser: 让我们从我脑中第一个话题开始说起:美国对如今中国的崛起的反应让人担忧。你在今年2月的演讲中,说到美国针对中国的”strategy deficit”。你能不能解释一下你说缺乏战略是什么意思,你觉得美国针对中国应该要有什么战略?

Chas W. Freeman jr. : 战略是clear statement of objectives,然后可以针对这些目标来调度手里所有的资源,比如经济上的、军事上的、外交上的、信息上的各种资源。美国如今缺乏这个目标,所以美国国家的这么多资源现在完全没有协调。历史上中美关系转折很多。我们曾经发展出了非常互相依赖的经济;政治上我们一直还能相处,尽管本质上有很大的不同;文化上我们虽然大不相同,但互相都对对方有好奇;军事上出了80年代,两国关系非常差(80年代两国有过好几次军事合作,美国帮助人民解放军现代化,在阿富汗一起和入侵的苏联作战,中国也帮助美国更了解苏联的模式和技术以帮助美国提防苏联)。

Kaiser: 那么没有战略,是不是只有ad-hoc的行动?

Chas W. Freeman jr. : 不幸的是,现在每个方面两国都是互相有敌意的。政治上,美国对中国有敌意,原因可能是美国还没准备好不再是无可争议的最大国家;经济上,本来的互相依赖现在变成了贸易战争,而且是美国发起的,而且执行起来也非常没有重点,不给中国信号说美国想要什么,美国自己也看起来没有明确的目标;军事上两国还是互相敌对,都在备战,我并不是说战争就要开打了,而是两国互相有深深的猜忌。

Jeremy: 这个缺乏战略的问题,是川普独有的吗?我猜不是?有过不少人批评奥巴马和布什对中国也没有战略,他们注意力都在反恐上面了。

Chas: 我认为自从冷战结束之后,美国对中国的外交战略就开始随波逐流了。首先在冷战时期,我们有Kennan的containment策略。在这个策略上,美国的所有外交和别的行动,都致力于孤立围堵苏联,知道苏联解体。这个策略我们执行了四十几年,所以在不需要它了之后,我们已经不会有策略地思考了。冷战之后,我们的外交就变成discretionary的活动了,你想engage就engage,不想就不想,自己判断。所以做什么决定就被各种不同的意识形态的影响左右了。我们开始不太注重人权了,只要觉得不会被批就可以放松。我们发现在亚洲的影响力渐渐被中国夺走了而感到警觉。中国改开以来,我们的策略一直是想办法让中国融入到国际社会(注:应该意思是和中国交好是为了制衡苏联),后来我们没有新的策略。各部门的合作变得ad-hoc。所以在我看来川普上任时,中美关系并不是很好,当然他上台后加速了美国的国际地位下降,包括对中国的关系。

Kaiser: 奥巴马时期对中国提出过re-pivot策略。这不够成为战略是吗?(注:我大概基本没听懂问题)而且中国看来好像这策略就是一种containment。

Chas: 我觉得re-pivot有好几个问题。首先,中国带来的挑战是经济上的而不是军事上的。我们自从很久很久以前开始就在军事上把守亚洲。然而中国强大后,他们想要自己维护边境。这第一个问题是,我们用军事手法去应对经济挑战。其次,我们把守亚洲,并没有得到非常significant的资源。假如说60%的美国海军驻守在亚洲,这个priority到底是否有效?最后,和你提到的一样,美国这样做等于在给中国发送敌对信号,好像美国不想看到中国复兴。所以总结一下问题就是:军事投入太多,priority不对,还给中国发送不合适的敌对信号。

Kaiser: 那么中国做得如何?中国的战略是什么?有的人说中国只想建设小康社会,另一个极端是说中国想重新成为天朝。

Chas: 中国的文化一直强调谋略。我的经历来看中国人都更是谋略家,而不是tacticians。他们虽然很有战略,但是执行层面经常犯错。所以我认为中国是有战略的。我不觉得是称霸全球。我觉得中国目前在国际上地位上升,一部分是因为美国的退缩留下的余地,这一点多于中国的predatory instinct。一带一路就是战略,它的目标是把亚欧大陆连接起来。我认为中国人是在认为由于自己是最大的国家,所以一带一路建成后会在其中起关键作用。所以我的回答是,中国一方面想建设小康社会,另一方面又很想保卫自己。我觉得南海态势有很多保卫领土的意思。(注:我一直觉得南海问题是霸权。可能因为在我眼里国家就长着无赖的脸。)

Jeremy: 能不能请问一下,你觉得美国对中国的战略应该是怎样的,或者起码你觉得不应该是怎样的?

Chas: 考虑到如今的政治环境,双边关系已经取代了多边关系。在这个环境下,现实一点地说,选择范围很小。我认为二战之后美国建立起来的国际多边关系,给美国带来了不小的经济上的帮助。中国也是多边关系战略的产物。我觉得我们的战略应该是想办法使中国继续按照这个我们建立起来的多边关系的规则来运作。但是川普已经放弃了多边关系玩法。二战后美国取代了日本成为了东亚的军事力量。然而这种状况如今正在结束。从日本、南北韩、印尼、印度、越南这些国家的军事力量都发达起来了。二战后东亚的军事格局有空白,所以美国填补了。但如今美国应该像奥巴马说的那样,从背后来引导。这个地区的国家自己可以保卫自己、制衡中国这样的predatory力量。最后我还想说,如今世界的大问题:气候变暖问题、难民问题、国际秩序等等,这些事情都需要中美合作。没有中美合作这些事情都做不到。(注:忽然又想到我的阴谋论了:即使我的阴谋论不对,世界上的退步势力看到让川普这样的人当选可以造成多少退步、中美两个大国不合作等等,现在他们也应该知道支持川普对全世界的退步势力是多么有帮助)。所以我觉得尊重中国,让中国进入国际秩序的领导层,是非常有用的。我刚才说的这些够不够格算是一种战略我不确定。但目前的现实是我们没有战略没有计划,因此造成了很多负面的变化。(注:啊用尊重的态度来引导中国会不会有用?我现在很怀疑。)

Kaiser: 我觉得现在美国对中国的敌对,有很大一部分是针对中国的技术进步。现在的贸易战争在我看来不是针对钢铝,而是针对“中国制造2025”。我们有很多针对中国技术的负面报道,大数据不尊重隐私、在新疆采集生物信息等等等等。美国现在还要减少对某些科技领域的留学生签证。想想两三年前我们还很看不起中国的技术,认为都是抄袭。你觉得我们如今对中国的技术如此警觉有道理吗?如果没有你觉得我们为什么会这样反应过激?

Chas: 首先,中国的社会诚信系统,对于任何一个liberal的人来说都是非常可怕的事情。我认为中国想要做的事情是借鉴了李光耀在新加坡的成功:李光耀把一群完全符合孙中山说的“一盘散沙”的人转变成了一群有道德、有纪律、基本上很诚信、不腐败和富裕的社会。要把这种成功事迹在中国大陆这么大的范围内复制几乎不可能。但用大数据技术也许有希望。这个手段可能很可怕,但目标大概是可以的。(注:我再一次完全不同意。诚信系统只是想要更多手段监控你罢了。还可以看看哪里可以更多地压榨一下。)这个先放一边不说。问题是:我们应该对中国的技术水平感到紧张吗?我觉得是的。这个国家有1.6bl的人口,以后在技术领域工作的人数会比OECD国家的总和还多。我们可以质疑中国的教育质量。但是人口基数那么大,肯定有很多创业点子,是催生创新的温床。(注:最近出来的打击民企的政策他没料到吧?)美国总觉得中国的任何创新一定是哪里抄来的,这种想法很pathetic啊。中国历史上很长时期是创新的龙头,再次回到领头的宝座不是不可能。(注:又想起之前那篇文章里说,是时候比拼中央集权和分布式竞争哪个能在科技创新竞争中领先了。)那么剩下的问题是,为什么我们对此感到concerned。很简单,这是个地位的问题。自从1875年左右开始,美国就是世界最大经济体。我们在perchasing power parity这一项上我们已经输给了中国。更说明问题的是,如果你看实体工业产出,中国已经是美国的1.6倍。金融行业会误导人(原话是the currency translations are misleading)。保险bureaucrats、financial engineers、华尔街的各种各样的寄生虫,这些方面中国还没追上我们。在经济竞争中,后者帮助不大。financial engineering does not trump real engineering. 抱歉用了trump这个词。所以我们在说的是地位问题。中国是更大的经济体,以后更是如此。中国可以自主创新,包括在军事领域上。他们唯一没有创新的领域是政治领域。然而我们正在自毁我们在政治上的先进优势,所以中国还是很占便宜。我觉得我们感到担忧不是没有道理的。(其实我一开始想记录这个podcast是因为他随口提了说金融工程(在经济竞争中?)是没用的。有趣。然后没想到这个采访那么长啊啊啊。)

Jeremy: 你对中国制造2025的想法很特别。你能说说你觉得我们应该怎样应对中国制造2025吗?

Chas: 反正绝对不是关税。关税不会帮助我们的工业。限制签证也没用。关于签证,创新是在合作中产生的,而不是中国人说的“闭门造车”能达到的。限制中国留学生研究员对美国没好处。美国的长处一直是对外国人的openness。我们一直是脑力进口者。所以我觉得针对“中国制造2025”,我觉得正确的做法是研究这个政策,想办法和中国谈判达成一个合理的竞争机制。在这件事上,欧洲、日本、印度和我们有共同的利益。所以这又是个需要多边合作的问题,而不是单纯的中美双边关系。我们要接受没有什么能阻止中国成为一个更加创新的国家。

Kaiser: 我感觉吧,现在大家对中国科技发展这么反应过激,原因就如你在Interesting Times里描述的:大家把“科技进步以及市场经济运作和言论自由联系在一起了”。这其实是两个点,一个是集权国家居然也能有市场经济,另一个点是科技和言论自由,似乎如果你不知道8964事件你就不能写好程序。我们总是觉得我们的创新能力是我们得到的自由赋予的,你觉得这样有道理吗?

Chas: 就像说“大黄蜂不会飞”但实际上它们会一样,中国给我们带来的问题是挑战了我们的意识形态。我们认为自由是创新和经济发展的前提。这种想法显然是不符合历史的。纳粹德国、苏联、俄国就很创新【K:这几个例子的经济都不好吧?前两者被击败了,俄国现在在对抗中。】。只要科技交流的自由还在,就会有创新。在这方面我觉得中国正在犯错,比如说过分监管网络。另一些方面中国有优势,比如说在美国科技发展我们越来越受到宗教势力的阻碍。但是现在任何在中国做任何研究的人会发现,网络监管几乎无法突破,而且越来越受到更强大的管制。所以在中国做研究基本上是在不同的星球了。这对中国来说没好处。

Jeremy: Chas,你用词精准,这一点我很钦佩,特别是考虑到你是外交官。比如你今年在committee of 100上面说的话,毫不客气地说这届政府是被xenophobia、地方保护主义者、好战的军方,和chicken hawk militarists主导的【K:我乱翻然后跳过一些不了解的了就。。】。我特别喜欢这句话:To appease American (m-?) and to deal with a wealthy and powerful China, President Trump is experimenting with economic theories that appear to have been crow-sourced to right-wing talk radio and to know-nothing TV. 然而,你一定发现现在中国威胁论不仅是右派的观点,越来越是两党共识了?右派敌视中国很可以理解。你觉得民主党为什么也开始讨厌中国了?是不是和中国在国际上越来越霸道、在国内越来越集权有关?

Chas: 中国的确在国际上越来越assertive,或者我觉得应该说truculence。在国内越来越集权。我曾经观察了台湾社会的现代化过程,也是进进退退很不一帆风顺的。所以我觉得目前的illiberal趋势不是不可逆转的。我觉得还是可以希望中国的正在壮大的中产阶级能够扛住,抵抗这个趋势。我还是抱着希望,希望中国能发展得和我们的价值观更加compatible一些。【K:过十年发现,美国变成中国现在这个样子了!】都说每个不幸的家庭都有不一样的故事,每个美国的政治观点都有不同的敌对中国的原因。中国的人权状态,中国对待少数民族的做法。民主党当然有各种反对中国的理由。另外不要忘记,一直到最近,美国的labor movement一直是反对贸易、保护本国工作岗位的。而这个运动是民主党主导的,所以这也可以是民主党讨厌中国的理由。所以我们既有政治动力,又有意识形态信仰来讨厌中国。不仅是elites,如果你看民意调查会发现,对中国的反对大部分来自商业。比如知识产权问题等等。。。但我觉得一个主要的问题是,现在国防问题越来越烫手,美国的企业本来是可以为了商业利益来为中国说话的,但现在他们越来越不愿意介入国防问题。

Kaiser: Jeremy刚才提到了Christopher Wray提到的国防问题。你觉得,在中国越来越大力施加的影响力,和美国的应对这两者里,哪一个造成的破坏更严重?

Chas: 坦白地说,我觉得我们又走入了一个phase,和一战时期的Palmer Raids、二战时期对日本后裔的控制一样。在美国的华裔将会越来越受到歧视。这不是历史上的首例,但这很糟糕。关于中国施加影响力,我觉得这里有几个大家搞不清楚的地方。一个是统战工作,这个是针对中国人而不是外国人的,让这些中国人能够支持中国并且neturalize反对中国的(中国)人,不管ta在中国还是外国。另外还有一种针对外国人的influence operation,我觉得在这方面中国人做得非常差,影响力非常糟糕。他们正在进步。比如China Daily的确发布中国视角的文章,但他们根本没有什么影响力。我觉得大家在担心这个问题的原因,一方面是反对中国的言论总是会找一些内容,另一方面是在澳大利亚发生的事情,一些中国学生显然受到了统战工作的影响,越过了一些界线。我没看到这在美国发生。在美国的孔子学院基本上是语言学习机构,大部分学校也不允许它们参与学术。所以我一点也不担心被中国洗脑。比较有问题的是美国的过激反应。

Jeremy: 一个相关的问题:你觉得中国有没有在有意识地对外输出一个政治理念?如果有的话,你觉得这值得警惕吗?

Chas: 哦我觉得对外输出意识形态很正常,每个国家都是这样的。特别是美国,已经对外输出了两百年了。然而我并不觉得中国在试图对外输出他们的模式。我觉得“中国特色社会主义”非常中国特色,没办法加到别的国家上去。中国是个civilization state,而不仅是个nation state。也许中国取得的经济发展很吸引人,但是他们的手段真的没人能学。有趣的是,你要是问中国人,他们更喜欢新加坡的模式。

Kaiser: 哈哈。之前有个人对我说,美国和中国同样自大。美国认为自己的模式是最好的,大家都应该学他们;中国认为自己的模式是最独特的,没人能学。

Chas: 他说得没错。另外中国还有一个自大的点是,中国人认为只有自己是文明人,别人都是野蛮人。

Kaiser: 你在那个百人会上的讲话里有说:The administration’s indifference to China’s anxieties is a reminder that the greatest vulnerability of any nation are the blind spots that its arrogance creates. 我觉得你是apostle of informed empathy,就是这个意思。美国两党对对方的anxieties的indifference,我个人觉得,是造成我们糟糕的现状原因。中美关系走下坡路我觉得是从08,09年开始的。你能不能说说当时的状况?

Chas: 首先我觉得08年的一个大事情是deflation of the American model. 这之前中国以美国为榜样来发展,虽然不是直接借用美国的模式,因为邓小平有自己的设计。邓小平说的“黑猫白猫抓到老鼠就是好猫”,他强调“实事求是”,这些都说很实用主义的,而不是照着任何一个模式发展。这么做也是否决的像刘少奇那样的人想要借用苏联模式。邓小平认为中国有能力自己选择使用别人模式里的部件,而不是照抄别人的模式。然而08金融危机之后,中国人发现自己经济还不错。美国的榜样作用忽然影响力小了很多。中国加大了基建,经济开始通货膨胀,来应对世界的状态。我一直在想,中国人总是说中国不会称霸,这是什么意思?我觉得大概和美国在19世纪的时候说的“我们这么特殊,我们永远不会变成(殖民)帝国”。然而这么说的同时,美国占领了一个大洲,赶走土著,解散夏威夷土著,还把势力延伸到了菲律宾。实际上就是在做帝国的事情。

Kaiser: 那么再过了几年呢?阿拉伯之春对中国的影响?他们可能意识到美国从来没有真正把single party power完全当作合法政权。他们也许并不担心美国迫使中国regeme change,但他们一定很担心soft power影响?

Chas: 你知道,像CCP这样的一个“枪杆子打下江山”的政权,几十年后会感觉到当权的legitimacy有动摇,这种现象很自然。09年左右发生的各种颜色革命。被西方媒体叫做阿拉伯之春的革命,其实做的事情和西方媒体报道的很不一样【K:这里不是很确定我听懂了】。我记得当年我在台湾的时候(69年到71年),我记得听到无数的对国民党的抱怨,那时国民党是个列宁主义的政党,当时的台湾政治是集权的。那时候我作为一个无知的外国人,问他们,如果你们这么讨厌这个政权,为什么不想办法赶走这个政权呢?人们会惊惧地看着我说,总是得有人当官啊,如果我们起来反抗,很可能会被杀。反正生活质量在变好。这种对话在大陆也不知道重复了多少遍。如果说政权合法性是基于经济状况的,2008年的时候经济危机,如果中国经济因为什么过失而萧条,如果反腐把私营经济逼死了,那么那个时候国家会担心自己的政权合法性。回想一下天安门事件。学生们不是在崇拜民主,他们有别的诉求。现在的CCP高层应该还记得这个事件。我觉得这些担心还是有影响的。


Kaiser: 我记得你在哪里还说过,(经济发展以外的)另一个政权合法性的基石是国际地位。你好像说川普现在在做的事情是打击经济(trade war)。你能不能再解释一下,北京方面可能是怎样看待川普在对中国做什么?

Chas: 至少川普没有对习用别称和侮辱的语言。我觉得国际地位是关乎脸面的事情。脸面是通过别人的尊重得到自我尊重【K:哇!我从来没想到过】。脸面不是光是中国的概念,当然中国人的表达很特别。所以,国际地位有两部分组成。第一是对国土外的力量。第二是脸面,是外国人对你的尊重。我觉得中国官方目前的一个目标是得到尊重,我还不觉得可以称之为战略。

Jeremy: Chas, 目前在美国的中国圈子里,有一个流行的观点是以前的合作(engagement)战略需要停止。Kaiser最近和Kurt Campbell聊的时候,Kurt说他还是支持engagement。但是读他最近发表在FP上的文章,我觉得很明显他仍然觉得engagement的方式需要修改。James Mann的书The China Fantasy是这方面的代表,而现在越来越被更多人接受了。对这些批评engagement的观点,你怎么回应?你觉不觉得批评engagement观点的人,对支持这一观点的人对engagement的expectation的理解有误?【K:我去,这个问题用英语这么轻松就说出来了。中文环境里辩论好像很难说清楚啊!Do you think it’s been fair how critics of engagement have characterized the expectations set by its proponents?】当年尼克松时代,和中国建立关系的时候,你们是期待通过互动可以影响中国变成民主国家吗?特别是在短时期内?

Chas: 当时我们没有期待中国能在短时期内变成民主国家。那之后我们的政策也一直没有这样期待。唯一的例外是克林顿总统上任的前两年,那时所有的事情都跟人权挂钩。那个政策失败了,也被放弃了。但是,希望改变中国,是根深蒂固存在于美国精神里的。你也许能记得这件事,一个美国议员(我一下子想不起来名字),有一次在上海的一个活动上,举杯祝酒辞的一部分是,with God’s help, we will lift Shanghai up until it is just Kansas City。这种传教的热情,是美国人根深蒂固的观念。这么多年来也有很多人希望这种传教真的进入美国对中国的政策。但是它并没有被当作政策。相反的,中美关系的奠基文件《中美联合公报》中【K:好像是指这个,不考证了】明确说到,尽管我们双方的社会经济结构不同,但是我们还是会合作。意思就是我们不会继续打意识形态战争。我觉得现在大家回头看美国的中国政策的时候,一方面他们会把自己的意图代入其中;另一方面他们也是在之前人做过的事情里寻找哪里做错了。我觉得这些批评是历史修正主义,基于史实的成分很少。


Kaiser: 我们来说一说一带一路吧!你觉得华盛顿方面对它足够重视吗?我觉得似乎很多人很不以为然,有的人似乎觉得不去想它,它就会消失;有的人仅在有时候失败的项目爆出来之后笑一笑。也有人对它非常敌意。但是不管是川普政府内还是外,似乎没有一个人觉得我们应该加入合作。

Chas: 美国企业肯定会想参与的,因为里面有钱赚。对于美国政府来说,一带一路的问题是,它不是一个项目,而是一个战略。还有一个问题是我们没钱参与,我们的钱都花在了军队上,而我们打的每个仗都失败了。我们没钱造成本土的基建落后,不管是物质的基础还是人力的基础都在慢慢腐烂。我们没有在本土投资。更不用说在国外投资,不管是和一带一路合作还是竞争。第二个问题是,这是一个经济战略,它基于国际关系、投资建设。但是我们看待它的时候主要觉得是军事战略,我觉得这里的军事成分很不重要。对这个问题的最后的一个评论是,当然一带一路下的项目会失败。我也做过生意,我知道项目十有八九会失败。你知道的,如果你不冒险,就得不到回报。中国人在学着做项目。我觉得这方面最有意思的一个项目是中国巴基斯坦经济走廊项目。说实话,能在巴基斯坦做成一丁点事情的人都是很了不起的了。我觉得中国人做这些非常大胆(也许有点无知者无畏),我不知道结果会怎样。但是肯定会有些项目挂掉。我也觉得在巴基斯坦和其他国家,都会有nationalist backlash。比如斯里兰卡的港口:那是上一个总统(是个专政者)的家乡,他让中国人做的,10%是欠中国人的钱,其余是来自市场,或者日本或者其他国家。有种说法说中国人故意逼斯里兰卡欠债,然后可以把自己的大船完全占领这个港口,这种说法说实话很荒谬。中国人是擅长战略,但还没擅长到这个地步。

Jeremy: 所以说,那种说一带一路的目标是death trap diplomacy,最终中国会得到遍布世界的港口,然后可以用以军事目的的说法,你是完全否定的咯?你是觉得这种说法是paranoid fantasy?【K:我的个人经验:祖国可以治好我的受迫害妄想症,因为这些妄想都会变成非妄想。】


Chas: 【K:一开始说Djibouti的部分怎么也听不懂,大致好像说到:】19世纪末,还没有开始利用石油的时候,各国在Djibouti建造[当时的船的相当于加油的设备],俄国的海军被日本打败之前在这里加油。These were just depos【K:OK就是这个关键的词不认识,试图google assistance语音,也认不出我念的】。但是中国人现在在做的比这个聪明。They have built a hinderland【K:要命的是这个词也听不出来是什么】。所以现在Djibouti和快速发展的Ethiopia之间的贸易很多。在Ethiopia又很多中国投资,很多正在发展的工业,都是围绕着中国帮忙建造的通往Djibouti的铁路。所以我觉得即使他们真的有军事目的,他们还是把经济可行性放在第一位。【K:厄那当然啊,如果没有经济利益,人家怎么会待见你呢?】很多年前,我和中国国防部长关于中国的太空计划有过一次交流。那是在中国第一批宇航员升空后。我问他,你们花在太空计划的经费有多少?他的回答是累计300亿美元。那是个小数目,我问他怎么做到的?他说,每个阶段我们都试图赚钱。我觉得太空计划反映了中国人的一种放眼长期可持续的习惯。他们做的和普林斯顿大学教授Gerard O’Neill说的模型【K:具体描述也没完全听懂】。这个计划需要50年,中国人能在这个时间跨度上做计划很厉害了。同时我也觉得一个需要50年来实行的计划,要fail的机会可能是很多的。他们能不能成功我觉得也是个问题。【K:我觉得这里没有正面回答Jeremy的提问。但可以推测说,他认为可能是有军事计划的,但中国人更看重经济。我觉得Chas一直觉得军事没有那么重要。另外我也觉得,拿经济来握住对方,岂不是比军事更强有力的bully吗?】

Jeremy: 让我们再来说一说台湾。你在台湾住了好多年,你写了很多关于台湾的文章,特别是1995到1996的海峡危机,最终在1996年3月双方face off了。川普政府好像是想要把台湾拉回舞台上的。他当选后第一时间提到了和蔡英文的电话。很多人说1996年达成的东西现在都被扔了。你觉得现在和当年有什么区别?还有海峡两岸的关系正在怎样发展?

Chas: 很多东西都不一样了。比如台湾的执政党是偏向独立的TPP。台湾这么多年来吸取了很多教训。他们现在不追求武力达到独立。它知道必须和大陆达成某种政治合约。和古巴一样,台湾无法在和临近的大国敌对的情况下繁荣。台湾现在没有在向美国要求买更多的武器。他们自己也在研制军备,比如潜艇、新式航空,如果瑞典可以做到,他们当然也可以。但是他们并没有在军事方面逼得很紧。但是川普政府继承了很多希望和台湾交好的人,他们有些是因为意识形态而支持台湾,有些是觉得战略上台湾可以牵制中国。所以现在主要是美国在紧逼。美国人当然也喜欢卖武器。我觉得现在的情况太不一样了,和以前很难相比。最后我还想说一句,美国的最大特征是失忆,我们从来不记住任何事情,每天都是新的一天。人们错误引用台湾关系的文件,而我非常熟悉因为起草的时候法律方面的工作是我做的。他们引用《联合公报》但是他们并不知道美国在里面承诺了什么。所以关于台湾的方面,我们的是political fantasy,非常失真。川普政府只是把这个趋势加强加大了。

Kaiser: 很多人说台湾未来的走向可以从香港的当前看出来。现在占中运动已经过去四年了,香港的情况每况愈下。你觉得香港的问题在哪里?北京可以怎么做让情况变好?美国可以做点什么?

Chas: 关于香港我觉得出了好几个问题。首先香港是六四运动连带伤害到最大的受害者了。中英商量97年回归的时候,英国虽然有100年的时间,却没有在香港建立民主制度,当时中英商量的结果是,中国会给香港民主制度。天安门事件后,英国忽然想在回归前建立民主。这个的结果表面上是港人治港,但实际上是fat cats rule Hong Kong,统治香港的是中国寡头。这些寡头虽然并没有直接问北京的意图,但是他们推测出来了,然后按照这些意图来行事。所以结果是有一代港人挑战中国统一。他们做的事情引起了中央的重视,引来了中央的overreact。冲突升级后的结果就是,香港本来是一国两制的模范,现在已经不能成为台湾会觉得有吸引力的结果。【K:Chas说的样子,好像应该怪英国100年来都没有民主化,最后十年里这么做了,造成了分裂的一代。这个话题上我难道偏激了?但是我觉得真的不能accommodate中央一点点啊!这样的政府什么都做得出来。北京和香港年轻一代的冲突,可能英国的做法让它快速发生了,但总是会发生的。我还期望发生在大陆呢。占中运动开始,就希望香港不要沦陷。现在情况这么糟糕,就希望台湾不要沦陷了。虽然和我都没有直接关系,但是看到它们还在,就感觉还有点希望。当然不和中国合作就很可能经济难以发展。但拿更大的经济去要挟,这是bully,这是原则。还有真tmd讨厌为什么我们经济这么夸张,政策这么愚蠢,大家都没保障,却还是经济力量这么强大?】

Kaiser: Is there a way back from this?

Chas: 一方面香港人要更加现实一些。我很遗憾地说,那些在占中运动中非常prominent的人,将无法参与香港的未来,北京会限制他们的。【K:WTF? you sound like you are blaming them.】香港可以变得民主的,但情况和伊朗一样,在伊朗你不能质疑伊斯兰教。在中国也一样,你不能质疑中国统一。如果你质疑,你就完了。如果你不质疑,你还是有很多别的事情可以说的。【K:WTF,能说的已经越来越少了。这一段听得我要发火了。】

Kaiser: 如今对中美关系要乐观越来越难了。比如term limit的去除、新疆的事情等等,都显示中国和我们越来越不一样了。而且川普有这么奇葩。你似乎觉得这还是会过去的。如今你从哪里来找到乐观?

Chas: 我觉得从历史来看我们还是有理由乐观的。中美建交的时候,我们希望改变中国对外的behavior,我们从没想要改变他们的internal behavior。这些发生了,中国加入了世界,加入了对苏联的containment,后来,中国内部也改革了。邓小平的“去毛化”很有效的。最近的四十年总体是进步的,虽然其中也有退步的事情。你说到的那些事情都很可怕,但我不觉得它们改变了整个trend line。我觉得中国内部有改变的动力,中国人出来见世面的人群也越来越多了。中国人也有自尊心,我觉得肯定有很多中国人也觉得你说的事情很可怕。我觉得irrational behavior迟早会变成现实,然后需要被纠正。我觉得现在这些糟糕的事情,很多是特别糟糕,但很多其实一直是这样。比如security forces一直是中国很丑恶的部分【K:这里指新疆?】。我想,in order to be disillusioned you have to have illusions. I think we shouldn’t have illusions about China. It’s a very different place, different values, moving in its own pace. But I don’t think it’s exempt from the basic social economic forces that have shaped the rest of human society. 【K:我理解为,他这么平和的态度是因为他本来就没有过高期待。他说的靠中国人来改变中国我也是非常同意。那就是我啊?可是?】

Kaiser: 美国人就是这样,先设立高期待,失望后又觉得很委屈。

Chas: 我已经见过好几波了。我小时候1950s,美国人觉得中国是land of blue ants;1960年代,是疯狂的文革;1970年代,保守派发现中国的学生在课堂上坐得笔直,都剪短发,in every respect the admirable reactionaries;1980年代,我们发现中国在发展,他们就要和我们一样了,忽然1989年事件发生了。我看到了这些不切实际的印象从一个极端到另一个极端摇摆,希望未来我们能更加平衡地看待中国。

Jeremy: 我们第一部分谈话结束前,我想问问你,因为我们说了这么多我们搞错关于中国的事情,你能不能推荐什么文章或者书把搞对了?

Chas: 我觉得美国的学术界因为liberal ideology而很少有搞对的。我好像推荐不出来。当然你可以读我写的书:Interesting Times: China, America and the Shifting Balance of Prestige。这本书还是比较recent的。

Kaiser: 我们的正式推荐栏目会在下一集节目里。但我想推荐Chas Freeman an Oral History。