西方领导人与达赖喇嘛

评论：默克尔总理是英雄
德国总理默克尔不顾来自中国的强烈抗议和威胁，于周日（2007年9月23日）在柏林的总理府会见了西藏精神领袖达赖喇嘛。德国官方将其称为一次私人会面。这是德国总理首次在柏林的权力中心会见一位西藏的宗教领袖。德国之声中文广播部主任冯海音在其发表的评论中称默克尔是英雄，但也提出了德国人是否希望自己的总理是英雄的问题。

默克尔称得上是一个英雄。来自北京的警告和威胁都没能动摇她的决心。她将自己认为正确的决定付诸实施：在柏林的总理府会见了达赖喇嘛。但问题是在于：人们希望自己的总理是一位英雄，还只是一位长于算计的德国利益的辩护人？

不墨守陈规，敢为天下先实属英雄本色。对中国政府来说，德国总理默克尔的确做到了这一点。作为第一位德国总理，默克尔会见了北京政府视之为分裂主义分子并试图予以孤立的达赖喇嘛。为此，北京政府在自己发起的宣传战中作茧自缚。至于达赖是诺贝尔和平奖得主，是世界数百万信徒敬仰的宗教领袖，对北京政府来说无关紧要。新的官僚资本主义的出现使人们对共产党的统治产生质疑。最为重要的是，似乎只有中国共产党才能维护国家的统一。所以，一旦涉及台湾的分离企图，北京政府的反应就会异常激烈。当达赖在德国首都柏林的总理府受到总理的接见，因而有可能提升西藏自治区的地位时，北京政府同样做出了如此敏感的反应。

在对待身披红色藏袍，面带谦恭微笑的达赖事宜上，北京政府打的是年龄牌。达赖现已72岁，一旦达赖不在人世，那么谁还会对西藏反抗北京强权统治的运动感兴趣？今年春天，北京政府就成功地阻止了达赖入境比利时。现在，这个共产主义政权担心会发生多米诺效应:继默克尔会见达赖之后，其它欧洲国家的领导人也会效仿。所以，现在的中国网民得以随心所欲地大骂默克尔，而不必担心会受到任何检查限制。北京政府突然取消与德国司法部长齐普里斯的法制国家对话想必也与此有关。德国的经济界已为此颇感担忧。但望一眼日本或许会打消心中的顾虑。因为尽管北京与东京之间存在着严重的政治分歧，但两国间的经贸关系却非常密切。

受到威胁的是其它领域。8月底，当德国总理默克尔对中国进行访问时，她在中国的表现令北京领导人颇感满意。她也冷静客观地谈及了争执议题，提出了批评意见。但她始终强调中国的利益，因此她的讲话，所发出的信息能被中国领导人所接受。但如今，北京领导人觉得受到了愚弄，默克尔很有可能不再是北京政府的对话伙伴。果真如此，那将是一大憾事。因为没有中国的参与，任何世界重大议题均无法获得解决。从气候保护、伊朗和朝鲜的核争执，直至联合国的改革等。

会见达赖喇嘛是正确之举。根据价值观决定的外交政策无可指摘。但默克尔应选择一个更合适的地点进行私人会面，而不应该是总理府。这样以来，想必北京政府不会如此大动肝火－默克尔与达赖的会面也不会因此而蒙上阴影。

德国之声版权所有

转载或引用请标明出处和作者

布什亲手颁国会金质奖章予达赖喇嘛

布什颁奖给达赖喇嘛
布什颁发金质奖给达赖喇嘛

正在美国访问的西藏流亡精神领袖达赖喇嘛周三（10月17日）接受了美国国会获颁的金质奖章，这是美国国会授予平民的最高奖。

美国总统布什不顾中国的警告，在华盛顿举行的颁奖仪式上颁奖给达赖，这是第一次美国现任总统公开会见达赖。

尽管北京方面此前警告美中关系可能因此受到损害，但布什在仪式上呼吁北京与现年72岁的藏传佛教领袖达赖喇嘛举行对话。

“和解之人”

布什在颁奖典礼上说，”他们会发现这个好人，是一位和平和解之人。”

hys
西藏问题对中西方关系影响有多大？

布什表示，达赖喇嘛是”一位尊贵的精神领袖”，”和平与宽容的普世象征，信徒的保护者和人民火焰的护卫者”。

据悉，布什总统周二还在白宫私人住处而非白宫办公室会见了达赖喇嘛，这次会晤没有准许任何媒体采访。这是布什总统六年来第三次与达赖举行私人会面。

达赖喇嘛在接受颁奖的仪式上说，接受这个”伟大的荣誉”令他”深深地感动”，而美国国会颁发的金质奖章将”给西藏人民带来极大的快乐和鼓舞”。

达赖表示，”他们的福址是我不断前进的动力。”

“和平战士”

达赖强调说，他并非要寻求西藏从中国独立出去，而仅仅是要争取更多的自治。

达赖还说，”我相信，这个奖章将向那些致力于推动和平的人士发出一个强烈的信号。”

美国参议院少数党领袖麦康奈尔参议员对布什公开会见达赖表示敬意。他说：”多年以来，美国总统都曾在私下会晤达赖喇嘛，但在此之前，没有一位总统在公开场合会见过达赖”。

参议院民主党多党派领袖雷德则说，达赖喇嘛是一位”和平战士”。

针对达赖此次美国之行，中国外交部发言人刘建超发表讲话，严厉抨击美国政府粗暴干涉中国内部事务。但布什却表示，达赖此行不会损害美中关系。

中国交涉

中国外交部发言人刘建超周三早些时候说，任何企图利用达赖问题干涉中国内政的图谋都是注定要失败的。

据官方新华社报道引述刘建超的话说，”西藏是中国领土不可分割的一部分，西藏事务纯属中国内政，中方坚决反对任何国家、任何人利用达赖问题干涉中国内政”。

他表示：”达赖几十年的言行表明，他是一个打着宗教幌子，长期从事分裂祖国活动的政治流亡者”。

他指出：”美国领导人会见达赖严重违背国际关系基本准则，严重伤害中国人民的感情，是对中国内政的粗暴干涉。中方对此强烈不满，坚决反对，已就此向美方多次提出严正交涉。再次敦促美方纠正错误，停止以任何方式干涉中国内政”。

加拿大总理在国会正式会晤达赖
哈珀是首位在联邦大楼会晤达赖的加拿大总理。
哈珀是首位在联邦大楼会晤达赖的加拿大总理。

虽然北京已经提出反对，但加拿大总理哈珀星期一（10月29日）依然在国会的总理办公室接见达赖喇嘛。

哈珀在大批记者面前，把一条印有枫叶的哈达献给达赖。

哈珀是首位在联邦大楼会晤达赖喇嘛的加拿大总理。

达赖表示：”在总理办公室还是私人寓所会晤都没关系，最重要的是可以进行面对面的交流。”

参与会面的还有主管加拿大多元文化事务的内阁官员肯尼。

肯尼说：”我希望全世界都能明白：攻击一位致力争取自己人民自治的、爱好和平的72岁和尚，只会事倍功半。”

论坛讨论
新闻评论：西藏问题的未来？

北京不满

中国驻加拿大使馆星期一在哈珀与达赖会面前发表声明，对会面表示强烈不满和坚决反对。

北京认为，这次会晤违背了加拿大政府多次重申的承认西藏是中国领土不可分割的一部分的立场。

声明称，有关会面”是对中国内政的粗暴干涉，严重伤害中国人民感情，必将对中加关系造成严重影响。

声明要求加拿大”立即采取有效措施消除因加方错误行径造成的恶劣影响，停止干涉中国内政，以实际行动维护中加关系。”

2004年，当时的加拿大总理马丁为了避免引起政治影响，选择在一位天主教主教的寓所会见达赖。

本月17日，美国总统布什亲自向赖喇颁发了国会金质奖章，成为第一位公开会见达赖的美国在任总统。

该事件引起北京高度不满，中国当局在10月18日传召美国驻华大使表达抗议。

China Games

China Games

Commentary Magazine, by Arch Puddington
October 23, 2007

The “Genocide Olympics” is what Mia Farrow has called the games scheduled to open next summer in Beijing. The actress has been protesting China’s role in facilitating the slaughter in Darfur, but her efforts have not exactly generated a groundswell of support (unless one counts a single tough letter to the Chinese leaders from the director Steven Spielberg, who was perhaps making amends for the embarrassment of having previously agreed to help choreograph the opening ceremonies of the games). Thus far, despite some cosmetic gestures, Chinese policy toward the brutal regime in Sudan remains fundamentally unchanged, and the 2008 Olympics remain on track.

Nor is the Sudanese nightmare the most pressing issue arising out of the prospective games. Why, one might ask, was the People’s Republic of China awarded sponsorship of the world’s premier sporting competition in the first place? After all, it is not the only modern dictatorship to have been so honored—two earlier instances were Nazi Germany in 1936 and the Soviet Union in 1980—and one might think that history had provided plenty of warning signs to anyone who cared about the condition of free athletic competition. One would be wrong.

_____________

The 1936 Berlin games are chiefly remembered as “Hitler’s Olympics.” To be sure, Hitler had inherited them; the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had designated Berlin as the host city some years before the Nazi accession in 1933. But the German dictator was quick to recognize the value of this opportunity to showcase the ideal of Aryan superiority and the glories of the Nazi state. Becoming intimately involved in the preparations, Hitler made decisions on details ranging from ceremonial pageantry to stadium architecture to the appropriate display of Nazi uniforms and insignia.

He also made decisions concerning the tricky issue of the Olympics and the “Jewish problem.” Almost from their first day in power, the Nazis had begun issuing decrees designed to reduce the status of Jews from citizens to subjects, and thence to victims. German-Jewish athletes, even the most talented among them, were not exempt from oppression.

This posed a dilemma for the IOC. While some of its leaders were made uneasy by Nazi conduct, the organization’s consistent position was that a host country’s political system was a matter of no concern: the Olympic movement stood above politics. Thus, neither the general climate of militarism and thuggery in Germany nor the restrictive measures placed on Jews and on Jewish athletes ever led the IOC to consider a change of venue.

Still, the right of athletes to compete regardless of race, religion, or creed lay at the heart of the Olympic ideal, and the committee could not simply ignore the issue of whether Jews would be allowed to participate on the German team. Questioned on this matter by the IOC, the Nazis invariably replied that any German citizen who met the qualifying standards would be permitted to take part. This was a lie, if one that IOC officials were happy to swallow. One of the German dictatorship’s first actions had been to bar Jews from membership in sport clubs and the use of training facilities, effectively denying them an opportunity to enter the tryouts.

To the willful naïveté of some in the IOC must be added the rank anti-Semitism of others. “There are not a dozen Jews in the world of Olympic caliber” was the succinct formulation of one official, evidently basing himself on the canard that Jews were not an athletic people. Such instinctive antipathy was exacerbated within the IOC by the growing call for an American boycott of the Berlin Olympics.

Proponents of a boycott ranged across the religious and political spectrum. But to Avery Brundage, a leading American sports official who would eventually come to serve as IOC president, the boycott was an alien and un-American idea, part of a malevolent scheme to politicize the Olympics. “[C]ertain Jews,” he warned, “had better understand that they cannot use these games as weapons in their boycott against the Nazis.” As criticism of the IOC mounted, it sought a way to defuse the pressure by concocting what might be called the “one Jew” solution.

In a personal meeting with Hitler, Charles Sherrill, an American IOC representative, urged the addition of a single token Jew to the German team. Hitler adopted a variant of this proposal: Gretel Bergman, a world-class high-jumper, was invited to return home from exile in England to compete for a position. For as long as the boycott remained a threat, she was treated as a contender—only to be dropped when the movement collapsed in 1935. With the exception of a partly Jewish female fencer, the German team had no Jewish participants.

That still left open the racial composition of the American team, which did include a number of Jews. As it happens, the 1936 Olympics are remembered in large measure for the superb performance of America’s black athletes, especially the sprinter Jesse Owens, who took home four gold medals. Certainly Hitler was repelled by the presence of blacks on the victory podium—he had privately expressed the wish that they be banned from the competition altogether—but this was one aspect he was unable to control.

Nevertheless, the Nazi dictator could only have been delighted by the results on the playing fields, where German athletes racked up 33 gold medals, nine more than the second-place United States. With fascist Italy finishing third, and Britain and France lagging dismally behind, Hitler was not the only observer to conclude that the 1936 Olympics certified the decline of the democracies and the coming ascendancy of the Reich. Nor could he have been dissatisfied with the IOC’s complicity in the outcome.

_____________

If the award of the 1936 Olympics to Germany was tragedy, the IOC’s decision to give the 1980 Olympics to the USSR was farce—of a particularly grisly kind. In 1974, when the decision was taken, Moscow was the nerve center of a global empire of cruelty that encompassed not only the vast territory of the Soviet Union but also the countries of Eastern Europe and a growing handful of outposts in the developing world. As recently as 1968, when the Red Army invaded Czechoslovakia, the Kremlin had made it clear that efforts to achieve a measure of freedom in its sphere of influence would be crushed by force. Though the mass arrests and executions of Stalin’s terror had long since abated, dissident writers, intellectuals, and human-rights campaigners were still routinely being packed off to the Gulag.

In designating Moscow as the Olympic host, the IOC was thus repeating its error of the 1930’s. It was also impugning its own athletic principles. Like their totalitarian brethren in Nazi Germany, the Soviets treated with contempt the IOC’s cherished concept that sport should be independent of politics. To the Soviets, such independence was an ideological absurdity. They had long recognized the propaganda value of athletic prowess, and the Olympics represented just another skirmish in the international class struggle.

Like all other institutions in Communist society, organized athletics in the USSR were thoroughly controlled by the ruling Communist party. Over a period of decades, the State Committee on Physical Culture and Sport had established a powerful, officially financed juggernaut whose overarching purpose was to prove Soviet athletic superiority to the world. Accumulating gold medals in Olympic competition was one of its major points of focus. Since the Soviet model was duly copied by other Communist countries, international sports had evolved into two very different systems: a Western one that carefully preserved an athlete’s status as an amateur and a Communist one in which athletes, amateurs in name only, were trained and treated as professionals.

Given the stakes as they saw them, it was no accident that the Soviets became notorious for flouting the basic rules of sport. At a moment when other countries were establishing testing regimens for performance-enhancing drugs like steroids, Moscow moved in the opposite direction, employing its state-run athletic and medical infrastructure to develop ever more powerful substances and ever more refined methods for eluding their detection. IOC officials, well aware of the practice, closed their eyes to it, as they did to the Soviet penchant for rigging results in other ways. In preceding Olympics and in a long string of other international competitions, the bias of judges from the Soviet Union and allied Communist states had become an open secret.

_____________

Only an accident of timing prevented the Kremlin’s success in securing the 1980 Olympics from being capped by an undiluted propaganda triumph. Toward the end of 1979, Communist rule in neighboring Afghanistan had begun to unravel, and in December the USSR marched in to rescue the situation. American passivity in the decade of détente, especially in evidence under Jimmy Carter, had led Moscow to conclude it could act with impunity. But a stunned Carter responded to the invasion with a package of sanctions whose most important item was a boycott of the forthcoming Moscow games.

Carter’s boycott decision was met with a hailstorm of opposition, both by some in the U.S. who saw it as too weak and by many others who saw it as too strong. The IOC rejected out of hand a proposal to find an alternative venue for the games; echoing the pieties of his predecessors in the 1930’s, the IOC president, Lord Killanin, grandly declared that “the Olympics should not be used for political purposes.” Carter even found it difficult to persuade the U.S. Olympic Committee to adhere voluntarily to his policy; at one point, he was compelled to threaten legal sanctions if American athletes chose to defy him.

The boycott faced even greater opposition from America’s allies abroad. In particular, the refusal of Europe to participate in it led many observers to conclude that Carter’s initiative had failed. Indeed it had, in its own terms: the USSR did not withdraw from Afghanistan, and the games went on just as they had in Berlin in 1936. But now there was a difference: China, the USSR’s bitter adversary, joined with the United States in staying away, and so did most of the Muslim world out of solidarity with the Islamic victims of Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. In the end, the absence of some 40 to 50 countries, not to mention of American television networks, delivered a bruising blow to Soviet morale.

True, the USSR collected a huge number of gold medals. But if the Kremlin had hoped to present a global audience with the image of a confident, efficient, and forward-looking superpower, the Moscow games became linked instead to the invasion of a small and defenseless country. This time around, the IOC would seem to have been taught a clear and painful lesson about the cost of placing its faith in a dictatorship.

_____________

Evidently not, however. Although Jacques Rogge, the current chairman of the IOC, has at least tacitly acknowledged that next summer’s host country is a closed society, he has predicted confidently that the games will “open up China.” He also seems to be hoping that the People’s Republic cannot meaningfully be compared with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

About this he is right—up to a point. China today has peaceful relations with its neighbors (Taiwan partially excepted), boasts one of the world’s most dynamic economies, and is a far freer place than it was in the heyday of Chairman Mao. A new and more politically aware middle class is emerging. To many observers, progress toward greater freedom is all but inevitable. The Olympics themselves, as the Bush administration contended in supporting Beijing’s bid, could prove a “powerful but intangible incentive” for democratic change.

Unfortunately, China seems to have grasped from the outset of the selection process that its political system would not be an issue of overriding importance or stand as an insuperable obstacle to its Olympic plans. It had reason to think this. In 1993, a mere four years after the massacre in Tiananmen Square, China was only narrowly defeated in its attempt to gain the 2000 games.

During the run-up to the IOC decision in that earlier instance, the Chinese had maneuvered to soften their image by releasing several high-profile political prisoners. This time they did not bother. To the contrary: at the very moment when the IOC was entering its final deliberations, Beijing stepped up its persecution of both the Falun Gong religious sect and independent journalists.

As the Chinese may have foreseen, the IOC was far more preoccupied with Beijing’s environmental deficiencies than with its repressive politics. There were fears that the heavy cloud of soot and smog that perpetually hangs over the capital city would weaken performance on the field and irritate spectators. And here was an issue on which the Chinese were prepared to respond with alacrity.

As part of its formal bid, Beijing laid out an elaborate “action plan” to create “a new image of Beijing.” This grand scheme centered on a drastic improvement in air quality, sweeping changes in the character of the city’s neighborhoods, and major upgrades in its transportation system. Specific steps for accomplishing these goals were carefully spelled out. Some 200 high-pollution factories would be relocated to sites outside the city; “green zones” would be established throughout Beijing; the sand storms that regularly blow in during the summer would be reduced through a massive project to reverse soil erosion in surrounding regions; the subway system would be expanded to cut automobile exhaust fumes and traffic congestion; clean natural gas would replace dirty coal as the city’s primary heating fuel.

We have already had some inkling as to how these undertakings are to be met—and at what human cost. In February 2001, during a visit to Beijing by an IOC inspection team, the Chinese authorities placed an ad-hoc moratorium on the use of coal to heat apartment buildings, producing a temporary improvement in air quality and no doubt impressing the IOC with China’s ability to act decisively—while also leaving millions of residents without heat in the dead of winter.

This was but a prelude to more far-reaching and permanent measures to modernize Beijing, including especially the massive destruction of older housing. Already it is estimated that over a million residents have been forcibly evicted, with an undetermined percentage of them left homeless. Those subject to “relocation”—primarily the poor and migrant workers from the provinces—enjoy no right of appeal or protest concerning the level of compensation set by the state, and those who do object risk imprisonment. The displacement has taken place in an information vacuum, with virtually no coverage by the controlled domestic media and very little by the international press.

Like much else in post-Mao China, media censorship has been modernized to suit the needs of a country now extensively involved with the outside world. Editors of Chinese newspapers have been instructed to stress the social benefits that will accompany the Olympics, and to avoid anything that might raise questions about the price being paid by the Chinese people. This is the same system that has successfully suppressed news about the defective merchandise produced in China for both domestic and foreign consumption and the spread of contagious agricultural and human diseases like SARS.

In dealing with the media, the authorities prefer to rely on a sophisticated regime of regulations designed to encourage self-censorship. But, when necessary, they are also prepared to use an iron fist. Today’s China leads the world in the number of imprisoned journalists and the number of individuals charged with criminal offenses for “misusing” the Internet. Nor is it shy about intimidating foreign newsmen or native Chinese working for foreign outlets. Shortly after the IOC voted to approve Beijing’s bid, the authorities arrested Zhao Yan, an employee of the New York Times’s Beijing bureau, on charges of violating state secrets. The charges, later reduced to fraud, appeared to be baseless, and this September, after serving a full three-year sentence, he was released.

A major focus of Chinese concern has been the possibility of spontaneous or organized street demonstrations during the games themselves. Protests of this kind occurred prior to the Seoul games of 1988 and are widely regarded as having played a pivotal role in bringing about the collapse of South Korea’s military dictatorship. The Chinese are determined to avoid even a hint of the Korean experience. In their Olympic action plan, they promised “tight but friendly and peaceful security measures”; since then, as a preemptive measure, they have instituted policies that are neither friendly nor peaceful. In line with the clear predilection of the regime for avoiding unseemly publicity, officials have increasingly made use of house arrests and detention without trial as a means of silencing dissidents who might otherwise be emboldened to air their grievances to the foreign press. At the same time, lengthy prison terms for expressing “subversive” views are far from uncommon.

The Chinese have also been developing a strategy to deflect or control potential protests by foreigners. China’s intelligence services have launched an extensive information-gathering operation to pinpoint foreign organizations that might cause trouble during the games. “Trouble,” of course, means peaceful picketing, demonstrations, marches, press conferences, and the like—the sorts of actions that are perfectly legal in democratic settings. The IOC, for its part, has already indicated where its sympathies lie; an official has described plans for citizen protests at the Olympics as “regrettable.”

_____________

How will things play out? It is hard to know in advance. Some members of Congress, spurred on by Chinese dissidents, have begun calling for a Western boycott even as President Bush has accepted an invitation to attend. Wherever such foreign factors might or might not lead, there is no escaping the fact that today’s China is an exceptionally complicated society with subterranean currents that we can hardly discern. The Chinese authorities themselves might well be in the dark about what the Olympics finally portend and, as their recent clampdown suggests, may indeed have begun to fear adverse repercussions. In August, American newspapers were full of stories about a swine virus, the blue-ear pig disease, that had spread to 25 of China’s 33 provinces, killing off a large fraction of one of the country’s most important herds. Characteristically, the government kept its own public and the rest of the world officially unapprised of the nature and extent of the disease, leaving it to private journalists and foreign sources to ferret out what they could.

If the past is any guide, it is the most sinister and shocking features of a dictatorship that are the likeliest to emerge when it hosts the Olympics. For Germany in 1936, it was anti-Semitism and militarism; for the Soviet Union in 1980, it was imperial aggression. Whatever happens in China in 2008, there is no evidence that democracy will be enhanced, human rights will be improved, or the suffering of the Chinese people will be alleviated. As for the International Olympic Committee, it seems to have learned little or nothing from its own past mistakes. In fact, with the news in July of the IOC’s decision to award the 2014 winter games to Putin’s Russia, it seems bent on repeating them.

Arch Puddington is director of research at Freedom House.

RFA: 专家称美国市场上的中国玩具来自血汗工厂

RFA: 专家称美国市场上的中国玩具来自血汗工厂

Chris Smith

Chris Smith

美众议院委员会通过在线自由议案

VOA记者： 叶兵
华盛顿
2007年10月24日

雅虎等因特网
针对一些因特网服务提供商向专制国家政府交出批评人士上网信息的现象，美国国会众议院外交事务委员会通过了由两党议员提出的“全球在线自由议案”。

这项由共和党众议员克里斯托弗.史密斯在2006年2月起草的法案将禁止美国因特网行业的公司与任何国家压制人民的政府合作。提案一旦成为生效的法律，就将对任何有类似雅虎公司做法的美国因特网公司实行高达200万美元的罚款。

*记者无国界盼尽快在众院表决*

保护记者权益的记者无国界表示，这项法案在美国众议院外交委员会获得通过，是一项很好的进展。记者无国界还表示，希望众议院的能源和商务委员会也能迅速认可这个法案，以便此案尽快在众议院付诸表决。

这个倡导媒体自由的团体指出，由于总部在美国的雅虎公司向中国当局提交了个人上网信息，至少有师涛、王小宁等4名网上异议人士在中国被定罪坐牢。

一位为网络新闻撰写商业和科技新闻的编辑表示，雅虎公司把中国记者兼异议作家师涛的电子邮件信息提交给了中国政府，导致他被捕并被判刑10年。

*会对美国公司起到约束作用*

美国乔治亚理工大学国际事务学院的高龙江(John Garver)教授说，美国在几年前通过了禁止美国企业在海外向外国官员行贿以换取商业合同或者非法商业利益的法律，以美国的法律尺度来规范美国公司在海外的商业活动。

他说：“首先，各大公司都不愿意被看作是犯法的公司。如果被当成犯法的公司，它们遇到的不仅是法律上的案子，而且还有其他麻烦，在美国消费者当中有了坏名声。我感觉，一旦这个全球在线自由法案成为法律，就会对这些美国公司起到约束作用，一旦违法，它们就要付出商业上的沉重代价。”

*违反美国基本人权价值观*

对于谷歌、微软和雅虎等因特网巨头在中国配合当局压制言论自由的做法，以及思科公司向中国出售监控网上活动的技术等，研究中国问题的美国学者高龙江教授表示，美国企业以牺牲言论自由和新闻自由的代价，交换在中国经商的现实利益，严重违反了美国的基本价值观。

高龙江说：“言论自由和新闻表达自由是美国公众信仰的核心价值。美国人民深信这些基本自由，将其视为神圣的权利。大多数美国人都相信，这些自由是最基本的人权。”

今年5月29日，被中国法院判刑10年的师涛的亲属在王小宁的亲属的帮助下，在美国加利福尼亚州一个法院共同起诉雅虎公司。在师涛案发后，雅虎曾发表声明否认向中国当局提供资料。

中国人为何继续与诺贝尔奖无缘？

中国人为何继续与诺贝尔奖无缘？
记者： 东方
华盛顿
2007年10月23日

金秋10月，地处北美和东北亚的美国和中国，各出了两条足以和绚丽多彩的红叶相比美的令国人自豪的新闻，值得对比介绍。

中国的新闻当推中共10月15号到22号在北京举行的为期一周的十七大。中国官方媒体使用了《喜迎十七大，党旗更鲜艳》这样的标题。人民日报发表社论，高度评价中共十七大。社论说：“这是一次团结的大会、胜利的大会、奋进的大会。

“中国特色社会主义前景灿烂辉煌，科学发展、社会和谐蓝图激荡人心。幸福的明天，属于人民；美好的未来，要靠奋斗。让我们高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜，更加紧密地团结在党中央周围，万众一心，开拓奋进，为夺取全面建设小康社会新胜利、谱写人民美好生活新篇章而努力奋斗。”

就在中共召开十七大之际，很多美国人欣喜地获悉又有6名美国人分别获得2007年诺贝尔奖，诺贝尔奖从10月8号开始陆续公布获奖者名单，到15号结束，也是历时一周。

8号首次公布的生理学/医学奖的获得者为两位美国科学家，马里奥.卡佩奇和奥利弗.史密西斯和一名英国科学家马丁.埃文斯，表彰他们在干细胞研究方面所作的贡献。

在随后的一周中，瑞典皇家科学院诺贝尔奖委员会陆续公布了物理学奖、化学奖、文学奖，以及和平奖。

10月15号，也就是中共十七大召开的当天，诺贝尔奖委员会公布了6个奖项中的最后一项：2007年诺贝尔经济学奖。3位美国经济学家，明尼苏达大学的赫维茨、芝加哥大学的罗杰.B.迈尔森，以及美国普林斯顿高等研究中心的马斯金，分享了2007年诺贝尔经济学奖的1000万瑞典克朗(约合154万美元)的奖金。

对分别发生在中国和美国的两条大新闻，海内外媒体既有冷思，也有热评。对比人民日报社论对十七大的高度赞扬，美国主流媒体华盛顿邮报在10月20号也发表了一篇社论，题目是《原地踏步：中国共产主义领导人将在今后的5年继续不进行政治改革》。

华盛顿邮报的社论说：“中国领导人胡锦涛在本周对中共十七大发表的讲话中，用了60多次民主这个词汇。听上去令人印象深刻，然而，使胡锦涛相形见绌的是江泽民在2002年十六大的讲话中使用民主的频率更高。从那之后，尽管胡锦涛上台的时候曾给人们带来了期望，而随后中国的极权政治系统并没有任何改变。如果说这个星期在北京的十七大透露出任何迹象的话，那就是在今后的若干年中将不会发生任何变化。胡锦涛连任中国国家主席和党的总书记5年。他的两名可能的继任者，上海的习近平和辽宁的李克强，本周在外国记者面前短暂地亮相，然而他们仅仅重复了胡锦涛的科学发展的口号。”

华盛顿邮报的社论接着说：“这些口号并非完全是空洞的。在中国经济继续飞速增长的同时，胡锦涛谈论著需要解决社会分化和环境污染等增长的副产品。当中国沿海城市的居民享受繁荣的同时，很多中国内陆地区的城乡居民被遗忘在后面。北京和中国其他大城市被烟尘所窒息，很多河流中充斥着有毒化学品。腐败已经成为党内外和政府的流行病。

“胡锦涛先生有权提到这些问题，但是他解决这些问题的方法却缺了在世界上其他国家被证实行之有效的方式，那就是建立一个民主的社会制度。挣脱锁链的新闻媒体可以揭露腐败，但是胡先生在他的任期内却发动了对中国媒体的压制。通过选举的形式竞争党和政府的职位可以提高政府的问责，但是胡先生放弃了向那个方向的跨出的脚步。这次党的代表大会本身象征着中国领导人将继续致力于自我封闭和墨守陈规的过去的做法。秘密和木纳的表演充斥大会的日程。在十七大召开之前，持不同政见者受到清洗，报纸在几个星期之前就被命令只能报道正面新闻。”

华盛顿邮报的社论说：“出于这些原因，我们觉得很多普通中国人可能会感激美国国会和总统布什作出的在中国十七大正在举行之际，向西藏精神领袖达赖喇嘛发奖的决定。北京对隆重的发奖仪式感到极端地愤怒，但是，在白宫会见达赖喇嘛以及国会向他颁发金质奖章将提醒胡锦涛，他将无法在不付出任何代价的情况下，忽视对人权和政治自由的合理要求。从某种意义上说，中国政府幸运的是，达赖喇嘛以及香港的民主派反对党和北京的政治异议人士，都是温和而寻求妥协的。不过，如果中国共产党继续无视经济改革的同时需要政治改革，未来面临的挑战也许不那么和平与理性。”

刚才对比介绍的是华盛顿邮报关于十七大的社论和人民日报的社论。接下来我们对比一下在十七大召开的同时，6名美国人获得诺贝尔奖引发的不同分析和评论。

美国人获诺贝尔奖已经不是什么新闻。据有关资料显示，历年来获得诺贝尔奖的各国科学家中，美国人大约占70%。今年的诺贝尔得主共有11名个人和一个组织，美国人约占一半左右。然而，这次诺贝尔奖获得者中，再次没有中国本土科学家，仍然在中国产生震撼并引发热烈讨论。

中国大陆以言论大胆的《南方周末》发表文章说：“眼见得发也白了、牙也缺了，就是不见金灿灿的诺贝尔奖。眼见‘实在对诺贝尔奖没有期待’的美国9旬老头儿捧回奖章，我们心头怎能不五味翻涌？没有期待，诺贝尔奖偏偏意外降临；望眼欲穿，却始终与诺贝尔奖天人相隔。这看起来似乎偶然的一个现象，其实正好揭示了我们的思维盲区。”

南方周末的文章呼应了华盛顿邮报关于中共十七大的社论中的观点，那就是不能只推行经济改革，而不推行政治体制改革。南方周末认为，中国再次和诺贝尔奖无缘说明，中国不能只学西方的科学技术，不学先进的民主体制。

南方周末的文章承认了正是美国的民主体制培养了造就了科学家自由探索精神，吸引了世界各国的科学家聚集在这个新大陆上，探索人类和自然的奥秘。

中国从上个世纪80年代开始打开国门，对外开放，选派留学生出国留学，学习美国等西方的先进科学技术，但是，邓小平的改革和开放，并没有逃出清末张之洞“中学为体，西学为用”的窠臼。中国试图只学物理、化学、生物、医学，不学西方的自由民主，结果只能是一条腿走路，走不快也走不远。

南方周末注意到诺贝尔奖不仅有物理、化学、生物、医学，也有和平奖、文学奖和经济学奖。诺贝尔奖的诸奖项覆盖了人类文明的3个领域：科技文明、精神文明和政治文明。

另外，近年来，中国社会出现的物欲横流的现象，也污染被称为象牙宝塔尖的高教和科研领域。南方周末指出，很多学术与科研单位习惯于“定计划、下指标、给任务、作指示，举国以克之”，这种做法“适用于捞一把就走的机会主义，却断断乎对不上诺奖的胃口，更是对自由创造精神的扼杀”。

南方周末对如今的中国学术文化圈子走上这条不归路感到痛心疾首。南方周末举例说，被称为中国最高学府，曾经滋生过近代中国思想解放运动的中国最高学府，“热心于修筑5星级酒店，它的教学楼却出了名的破烂不堪，可想而知，呆在那里的学生们会构思出什么样的东西来”。

南方周末援引中国教育专家的话警告中国大学急速官僚化的颓势说：“学术GDP固然是蒸蒸日上，精神自主却岌岌乎殆哉。人们被驱赶着、禁锢着，匍匐在各色权威脚下，内心为偶像所蛊惑，无法轻装上阵。如此这般，怎么还会有人倔强地坚持精神探索呢？温家宝总理去年在同文学艺术家谈心时，清醒地发出锥心之问：中国为什么出不了大师？一语刺破虚假繁荣包裹着的脓疮。”

南方周末在回答温家宝总理所问的那个“中国为什么出不了大师”的问题时指出，原因“就是中国人的精神是否自由的问题”。南方周末的文章说：“谁都明白，大师只是精神自由活动的产物，所有大师都善于学习，但都不善于学习循规蹈矩，因为他们个个性格独特，不可复制。”

一些中国高教分析人士指出，在目前中国的教育体制和科研体制中，美国的诺贝尔奖获得者到了中国的大学和科研机构工作，会被看成是“一段段扭曲的人性之材，必欲去之而后快”。

中国的培养人才和选拔人才的机制僵硬，容不得那些有独立思维，有个性的学者和知识分子，相反，中国的学术界和官场一样，盛行中国独立知识分子刘晓波说说的“逆淘汰”法则。也如南方周末所说，“淘汰优秀、提举平庸，甚至高捧顽劣。难道能拿这种人去竞争诺贝尔奖吗”？

南方周末在分析为什么这么多美国人获得诺贝尔奖的现象时指出：“频频获得诺贝尔奖，是一个社会文明进步的自然流露。获奖是无为而为、无心之得。所以拥有高度文明的美国人成了诺奖竞赛的大赢家。据说武功的最高境界是无招胜有招。在创新这件事上，是不是无奖也胜有奖？”

而新华网最近发表一篇文章，对诺贝尔奖距离中国到底有多远提出了不同的看法。新华社的结论是，“应该说，已经不远了”。据新华社援引近日中国科技部提交的中国科实力报告的各种数据表明，中国已成为名副其实的科技人力资源大国。新华社报道说，目前中国的科技人力资源总量约为3500万人，居世界第一位；2006年中国研究开发人员总量为142万人，仅次于美国，居世界第2位。科技投入规模不断增长，投入强度持续提高，已经成为全球研发投入的一支重要力量。2006年，全社会科技支出经费总额4500亿元，全社会研究开发支出总额 3003.1亿元，居世界第5位；研究开发投入强度达到1.42%。

新华社的报道说：“这一组闪亮的数据，揭示了近年来中国科技实力的强劲增长。也正是从这一意义上说，中国与诺贝尔奖的距离，也应当是日益接近。”

海外中文网站新雨丝网站刊登的一篇文章，援引目前居住在北美的以学术打假而著称的海外学人方舟子的文章，轻轻捅破了这个本来根本无须一个象他这样受过严格的学术训练和有着东、西方文化背景的生物学博士也一眼就能看出破绽的巨大的科技肥皂泡。

方舟子说：“在庞大的科技、开发队伍中，有多少是真正合格、尽职的？科研资金的增多固然令人欣慰，但其中又有多少是真正用在了有价值的科研上，而不是被浪费甚至腐败掉？在数量众多的发明专利中，有多少是有实用价值并实现产业化的？发表的国际论文中又有多少是具有影响力的？还是只是一堆所谓的‘垃圾专利’、‘垃圾论文’？甚至只是用一稿多发、剽窃、抄袭的手段制造出来的虚假繁荣？”

方舟子指出，中国国际论文总数名列世界前茅，但中国单篇论文的平均引用数排名却是第117位，大多属于没有什么价值、没有什么影响力(无人引用)的“垃圾论文”。 他对用数字游戏来完成科技“大跃进”感到悲观。

中国财经门户网站“和讯网”刊登了对著名经济学家梁小民的专访。梁教授说：“转型时代就是浮躁的时代，利益的追求要远远高于对真理的追求。所以，我理解温总理所说的仰望星空，就是中国要有一批人仰望天空看着未来，而要脱离现在城市的喧嚣。很多的喧嚣很正常，也不应该指责，但是一定要有少数人关注天空。”

在回答记者为什么诺贝尔奖总是在美国， 为什么美国获得诺贝尔奖的人数，占到全部诺贝尔奖的70%以上，为什么美国的创新精神会高于其他国家这一问题时，曾经在美国留学的梁小民教授高度评价了宗教自由在美国言论自由、出版自由和思想自由方面的重要作用。

他说：“在美国刚开始建国的时候，就形成了一个很好的习惯。精英们都是英国来的清教徒，他们来了以后有各种不同的宗派信仰，所以允许信仰自由，你信仰你的，我信仰我的，互相尊敬。其实这是一个合作，就是思想自由，你可以自由自在的想。应该说这是最重要的。”

另外，梁教授还高度评价美国大学里面实行的终生教授雇佣制，认为这是保证学术自由的基础。在美国，如果一个教授想创立自己的一套体系，一套思想，但是学校要解雇你，终身教授雇用制就保证了学校无法解雇这名教授。再者，美国宪法也保证了美国的信仰自由以及表达自己的自由。

对比中国，在中国最高学府北大教授新闻学和大众传播学的焦国标教授，就因为观点与当局不同而遭到解聘。 这样的事，在美国任何一所大学都是根本不可能发生的。

BBC 中文网 | 中国报道 | 分析:17大对媒体发出含混的信息

BBC 中文网 | 中国报道 | 分析:17大对媒体发出含混的信息

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China communists ‘falling short’

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China communists ‘falling short’

China doesn’t own the future – Los Angeles Times

China doesn’t own the future – Los Angeles Times

Indian immigrants’ son new La. governor – Yahoo! News

Indian immigrants’ son new La. governor – Yahoo! News