在我看来，今天的中国对世界民主构成了最大的威胁。 它不断增长的力量和好战的行为令西方的大多数政治领导人和政策专家感到惊讶，他们一直设想经济增长和融入全球经济将促进中国的自由化，就像韩国和台湾一样。但是，事实上，中国的强大加强了北京政权对其国家主导的经济模式的合法性和优越性的信念。 增长而积累的财富使其能够在国际上扮演更加坚定而自信的角色。
一个对中国崛起的危险后果不抱幻想的人，就是去年在狱中去世的中国知识分子和诺贝尔奖获得者刘晓波。 他担心中国崛起为一个独裁政权，并指出在过去崛起的其他独裁政权像希特勒的德国，明治天皇的日本和斯大林的苏联一样，“最终都崩溃了，在这个过程中给人类文明带来了灾难。” 他警告说，如果中国也走同样的道路，结果“不仅是中国人民的又一次大灾难，也可能是世界自由民主传播的灾难”。
几周前，我参加了由一家华盛顿重要的智库组织的，关于如何重建和捍卫世界秩序的会议。 会议的一位重要人士说，没有中国，我们就无法建立世界秩序，说中国的“一带一路”倡议正在发挥第二次世界大战后马歇尔计划的影响力。 我回答说，如果刘晓波坐在这次会议上，他会说没有“民主”的中国在，我们就不能建立真正的世界秩序。 极权主义的中国是对这种秩序的威胁。
当刘晓波在2006年写下他的预言时，没有人听从他的警告，因为当时的传统智慧认为，随着中国经济现代化，用世界银行前总统罗伯特.佐利克的话来说，它最终会在全球经济和自由世界秩序中成为“负责任的股东”。 事实上，恰恰相反。 随着中国经济的增长，北京远远地加大了镇压，逮捕持不同政见者和独立律师，摧毁宗教自由，为新疆维吾尔族穆斯林创建大规模集中营，并使用面部识别技术和其他数字工具，来建立让人一提起来就有不祥之感的“监视状态”。
尽管2015年对奥巴马政府承诺将结束网络黑客攻击，但中国还是大规模地进行了“网络盗窃”。 就在昨天，“华尔街日报”报道，本周联邦检察官预计将对与中国政府有关的黑客实施刑事指控，这些黑客入侵美国技术服务提供商，危害数十万家公司。 美国官员称中国的网络盗窃活动“是历史上最大的财富转移”。
所以这是我的第二个关键点：美国需要一个整体的系统性的两党政策来应对中国造成的多重挑战。这种政策的基本元素正在开始出现。到目前为止，对中国的强烈抵制 – 加上彭斯的讲话以及随之而来的与中国的贸易和关税冲突 – 引发了大量反对和遏制中国扩张主义的建议，涉及的范围从平衡中国南海军事力量和其他潜在的冲突地区的努力，到要求与中国打交道时采取“对等”政策。对等意味着以中国对待其他国家的方式来对待中国。例如，将对这些投资进行筛选，以阻止那些拒绝美国公司的中国企业进入美国。
我认为建立这样一个联盟是可能的。 南希·佩洛西（Nancy Pelosi）是众议院的下一任议长，她对中国人权事业的贡献源远流长。 她对达赖喇嘛特使洛迪嘉日逝世的发自内心的发言强调，“两党的国会议员都受益于洛迪的洞察力和智慧。”佩洛西女士可以成为建立两党国会议员对新的中国政策共同支持的重要盟友。
长期支持民主发展需要成为全面的新中国政策的核心要素。 这样的政策还需要我们在亚洲的民主朋友的支持。 这其中没有比印度更重要的了，因为印度对中国崛起的力量和美国一样感到担忧。 这种共同的关注，就是当今印度与美国之间日益增长的战略趋同的主要原因。
民主援助中，对中国少数民族权利的保护尤为重要。 洛迪嘉日希望能够根据达赖喇嘛的中间路线与中国谈判达成协议，该方法在中国现有的国家政体和宪法框架内寻求西藏人民的真正自治。 他继续相信西藏“在任何意义上都是被占领的国家，残酷占领。”但他相信达赖喇嘛的自治愿景提供了一种非暴力的方式来保护西藏人民的宗教，文化，语言和身份。 他受到邓小平和胡耀邦改革时期80年代在中国举行的探索性会谈的影响。 但鲍彤的命运说明了谈判最终失败的原因。
正如刘晓波在2008年拉萨起义后写的那样，“中国的每个人都是同一个独裁制度的囚犯”，“只要汉人生活在独裁统治之下，西藏人想在此之前获得自由之前就是不可想象的…… 这就是为什么”他说，“西藏问题的解决从根本上取决于中国将来会有的政府形式的问题。 中国全民的民主化是解决西藏问题的必要条件，无论其解决的方式如何。”
有些人放弃了中国的民主前景。 这是一个严重的错误。 我最近与一位在中国作自由撰稿人的朋友通信，他写信给我说：“我们将继续为伟大的中国即将到来的转型而奋斗。”
即将到来的转型：这是一个充满希望的目标。 我们在中国的朋友没有放弃，我们也不应该放弃。 我们的目标应该是支持他们，因为我们这样就是支持我们自己的未来— 一个更加民主和平的世界前景。
KEYNOTE SPEECH BY CARL GERSHMAN TO THE THIRTEENTH INTERETHNIC INTERFAITH LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
Responding to China in the New Era
The United States Congress, December 10, 2018
It is great to be here this morning with you. I see many many friends, including Louisa Greve who served so long on NED, did such terrific work for China and for democracy. And I want to congratulate Yang Jianli, for what I think it’s a very important initiative of bringing together the people who represent the different parts of the population.
The first and most important point I want to convey to you this morning is that we are now in an entirely new period in relations between the United States and China.
In my view, China today poses the greatest threat to democracy in the world. Its growing power and bellicose behavior have surprised most political leaders and policy specialists in the West, who have assumed that economic growth and integration into the global economy would promote China’s liberalization, as happened in South Korea and Taiwan. In fact, though, China’s growth has reinforced the Beijing regime’s belief in the legitimacy and superiority of its own state-driven economic model. And the wealth it has amassed as a result of the growth has enabled it to play a much more assertive role internationally.
One person who had no illusions about the dangerous consequences of China’s rise was the Chinese intellectual and Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, who died last year in prison. He worried about China rising as a dictatorship and noted that other rising dictatorial powers in the past -like Hitler’s Germany, the Meiji Emperor’s Japan, and Stalin’s Soviet Union – “all eventually collapsed, and in doing so brought disaster to human civilization.” If China followed the same path, he warned, the result would “not only be another catastrophe for the Chinese people but likely also a disaster for the spread of liberal democracy in the world.”
A couple of weeks ago I attended a meeting organized by a major Washington think tank about how to rebuild and defend the world order. An important person at the meeting said that we can’t build a world order without China, saying that China’s Belt and Road Initiative is having an impact as great as that of the Marshall Plan after World War II. I replied by saying that if Liu Xiaobo were sitting at this meeting, he would say that we can’t build a real world order with a democratic China. A totalitarian China is a threat to that order.
No one heeded Liu’s warning when he wrote his prophetic words in 2006 because the conventional wisdom at the time assumed that as China modernized economically, it would eventually become, in the words of Robert Zoellick, the former President of the World Bank, “a responsible stakeholder” in the global economy and the liberal world order. In fact, exactly the opposite has happened. As China has risen economically, Beijing has become far more repressive, arresting dissidents and independent lawyers, crushing religious freedom, creating mass concentration camps for Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province, and using facial-recognition technology and other digital tools to establish what has ominously been called the “surveillance state.”
Internationally, it has militarized the South China Sea, despite President Xi Jinping’s pledge not to take such action made in the Rose Garden in 2015. China’s military buildup has been described in a Pentagon study as “perhaps the most ambitious grand strategy undertaken by a single nation-state in modern times.”
It has engaged in “cyber theft on a massive scale,” despite promising the Obama Administration in 2015 that it would end cyber-hacking. Just yesterday The Wall Street Journal reported that this week federal prosecutors are expected to unseal criminal charges against hackers linked to the Chinese government who have broken into US technology service providers, compromising hundreds of thousands of companies. US officials have called the Chinese cyber-theft campaign “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”
In addition, through its $1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative Beijing targets more than sixty countries in an effort to advance its economic and military goals, including securing access to strategic ports. It has also launched an ideological offensive against democracy, involving the investment of $10-15 billion in so-called Sharp Power information tools to manipulate target populations and promote its own preferred authoritarian ideas, norms, and models of governance.
Such threatening behavior has provoked an international backlash that The Economist magazine has called “the starkest reversal in modern geopolitics.” An example of this reversal was the harsh speech given by Vice-President Mike Pence last month at the Hudson Institute, which criticized all of China’s repressive and aggressive actions that I have noted and added the charge of meddling in American politics to all the other alarming Chinese actions.
Some observers have seen this speech as a portent of a new Cold War. But one shot across the Chinese bow is not a coherent policy response to the greatest international challenge now facing the United States.
So this is my second key point: The United States needs a coherent and bipartisan policy to address the multiple challenges that China presents. Elements of such a policy are beginning to emerge. So far, the backlash against China – in addition to the Pence speech and the accompanying trade and tariff conflicts with China – has triggered a proliferation of proposals to counter and contain China’s expansionism, ranging from efforts to balance China militarily in the South China Sea and other potential conflict zones to demands for a policy of “reciprocity” in dealing with China. Reciprocity means treating China the way it treats other countries. For example, investments would be screened in order to block access to Chinese companies that is denied to U.S. companies in China. Congressman McGovern’s Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act is another example of the application of the principal of reciprocity in dealing with China. In addition, cultural programs like Confucius Institutes would be monitored to ensure that they are not used as tools of political intervention, and the U.S. would insist that American cultural centers in China have equal access to universities and other institutions.
I think a bipartisan policy on China is possible because China has not become a partisan issue in American politics; and because prominent people in both parties are strong defenders of human rights in China, including the defense of political rights and religious freedom for Han Chinese, and also the defense of the rights of the Tibetan and Uyghur minorities, as well as the defense of the freedoms promised to the people of Hong Kong in the 1997 agreement.
An immediate goal is to build a bipartisan coalition in the Congress in support of a new China policy that would include promoting human rights and democracy in addition to defending US security and economic interests and countering China’s Sharp Power campaign in the arena of information.
Building such a coalition is possible, I think. Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive next Speaker of the House, has a long record of devotion to the cause of human rights in China. Her heartfelt statement on the passing of Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama’s Special Envoy, emphasized that “Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle benefitted from Lodi’s insight and wisdom.” Ms. Pelosi could be an important ally in building bipartisan congressional support for a new China policy.
Support for the development of democracy over the long term needs to be a core element of a comprehensive new China policy. Such a policy will also need the support of our democratic friends in Asia. None is more important than India, which shares the U.S. concern about the rising power of China. This shared concern is the principal reason that there is today a growing strategic convergence between India and the United States.
Aiding democracy is especially important in dealing with the protection of the rights of minorities in China. Lodi Gyari hoped that it would be possible to negotiate an agreement with China based on the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach, which seeks genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the framework of the existing Chinese state and constitution. He continued to believe that Tibet is “in every sense an occupied nation, brutally occupied.” But he became persuaded that the Dalai Lama’s vision of autonomy offered a nonviolent way to preserve the Tibetan people’s religion, culture, language, and identity. He was influenced by exploratory talks he held in China in the 1980s during the period of reform under Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang. But the fate of Bao Tong shows why the negotiations ultimately failed.
As Liu Xiaobo wrote after the Lhasa uprising in 2008, “everyone in China is prisoner to the same dictatorial system,” and “So long as Han people live under dictatorship, it will be unthinkable that Tibetans precede them in gaining freedom…. That is why,” he said, that “the resolution of the Tibet question depends fundamentally on the question of the form of government that China will have in the future. Democratization for all of China is the necessary condition for any solution, whatever its form, of the Tibet issue.”
And, of course, the same can be said regarding the resolution of the Uyghur issue, or the Hong Kong issue, and also of the issue of Taiwan, which threatens China because it is successful democracy. Indeed, Taiwan is a democratic model for China since it shows that Confucian culture does not pose an obstacle to democracy.
There are some people who have given up on the prospect for democracy in China. This is a serious mistake. I recently had a correspondence with a friend in China, a liberal writer, who wrote to me that “We will continue to labor for the coming transition in Greater China.”
The coming transition: that’s a hopeful goal. Our friends in China have not given up, and nor should we. Our goal should be to support them, because in so doing we support our own future – and the prospect for a more democratic and peaceful world.
鲍彤是20世纪80年代，胡耀邦时期和邓小平早期改革时期的重要改革者。 他曾担任中共中央政治改革办公室主任，是1980年至1987年任总理、1987年至1989年任总书记的赵紫阳的政策秘书。 他还是十三大的起草委员会主任，该委员会在邓小平领导下开启了市场改革开放。
但真正的政治改革被共产党阻止，而鲍彤于1989年6月4日天安门大屠杀前被捕。我们现在即将迎来这起令人震惊的事件的三十周年。 赵紫阳在其余生中被软禁，鲍彤于1992年因为“泄露国家机密和反革命宣传”而被审判定罪。他是因动乱被判刑的最高级别的政府官员。 他被监禁了五年，之后一直受到安全部门的监视和控制。
PRESENTATION OF THE CITIZEN POWER AWARD TO BAO TONG
The United States Capitol, December 10, 2018
I’m proud to present the Citizen Power Award of the Thirteenth Interethnic Interfaith Leadership Conference to Bao Tong.
Bao Tong is an important reformer from the 1980s, the reform period of Hu Yaobang and the early Deng Xiaoping. He was the Director of the Office of Political Reform of the Communist Party’s Central Committee and Policy Secretary of Zhao Ziyang, the Premier from 1980-87 and the party General Secretary from 1987-89. He was also the Director of the Drafting Committee for the 13th Party Congress, which launched the market reform opening under Deng Xiaoping.
But real political reform was blocked by the Communist Party and Bao Tong was arrested just before the Tiananmen massacre on June 4, 1989. We are now approaching 30th anniversary of that shattering event. Zhao was held under house arrest for the rest of his life, and Bao Tong was convicted in a show trial in 1992 for “revealing state secrets and counter-revolutionary propagandizing.” He was the highest government official charged in connection with the uprising. He was imprisoned for five years, after which he was constantly guarded and controlled by security.
He appealed for the restoration of Zhao Ziyang’s political rights from 1998 until Zhao’s death in 2005. And he was instrumental in the publication of Zhao Ziyang’s memoir based on audiotapes he made secretly while under house arrest and discovered only after his death.
He was also a signatory of Charter 08 and called for the release from prison of the Charter’s main author, the Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo. Today he continues to write articles and speak critically of the government and its policies, including calling for political reform in China and real democracy in Hong Kong, as promised by the 1997 Sino-British Joint Declaration that promised “One Country, two systems.”
Bao Tong and his wife were attacked by twenty plainclothes security agents when they tried to leave their home to pay their respects to the family of Zhao Ziyang after his death on January 17, 2005. They were injured but were told that they would not receive medical attention if he did not remove the white flower that was pinned to his vest as a traditional symbol of mourning. Of course he refused to remove the flower.
In mourning Zhao Ziyang, Bao Tong said that “His life formed part of a heroic and mighty task, that of pioneering the protection of human rights and democracy for the Chinese people….To mourn Zhao is to defend human rights. To mourn Zhao is to pursue democracy and the rule of law.”
To honor Bao Tong now is also to defend human rights in China, and to pursue democracy and the rule of law. This is our obligation, and we do so not just to defend the rights of the people of China but also the cause of world peace that China now threatens. We honor him for our freedom and for his and for our common future.