旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（四）

Chaney:

缅甸的存在和朝鲜一样，都是冷战时期留下的特定产物。不能说是中国一手造成的，但是和中国有莫大的关系。

我觉得中国政府是这样考虑的。目前中国主要的精力都在抓经济建设上，可能需要打的仗有一场，那就是台湾问题；除此之外，中国不希望有其他地方牵制自己的有限兵力。在这样的背景下，中国才希望缅甸、朝鲜这样可以拉拢的极权政府的存在。

二 十一世纪就是中国和美国的较量，这点可以从美国和中国在满世界找油就可以看出些端倪来。其实相对美国，中国漫长的陆地国境本就是个潜在的威胁，这正是中国 需要扶植亲中国的政党来控制某些国家（尤其是周边）的原因。这种肮脏的手法，美国用过，前苏联用过，无非都是为了自己的利益。

我反对这种处理方式，毕竟那是冷战的思维，所以觉得真正该反对的还是中国政府的支持。至于缅甸军政府，只是中国的傀儡而已，不足为dao。


YoL：

推荐2个录像

A. 《缅甸最新形势与东南亚民主进程》

B. 《缅甸形势对中国未来有何启示》


殷守甫：

“亚洲除了中国（政府）以外，所有国家都支持缅甸人民。”
——梵蒂冈官网，可是很遗憾，这次不是造谣了。

缅甸的背后是中国。
——一个签名的美国少年在bbs上留言，可是很遗憾，我是一个中国X年。

当以西方为首的不少国家借政局频频向缅甸施压之时，鲜有人注意到，缅甸政府正与邻国全力打击边境地区的各种犯罪，其中包括在中缅边境的赌场。
——今日（10月10日）新浪，我说什么呢

军 阀混战的时候，龙云、卢汉有事都是退到缅甸的，因为对于他们来说，国境线以外却不是势力范围以外。这样的事情在西方，似乎《威斯特伐利亚条约》之后就不常 见了。可是在亚洲的这一端，现代民族国家的边界还没有来得及崛起。第二次世界大战，蒋介石同志突然获得了一个职务，中缅印战区总司令。民国报界对此很是看 重，因为在这片西方殖民者的势力范围上，中国领导人再次承担起了区域领袖的责任。蒋介石说：“让中国军队来独立防守缅甸”。知识界又以为民族霸气。于是一 支支英雄的部队出征了。（其中一位随军记者叫黄仁宇，途中写下处女作；其中一位汽车兵叫殷海光，战争结束也没学会开车。）当然后来，中国易帜了。

汤因比戏谑：重要的年代都是连在一起的。58年国民党最后一次大规模支援盘踞缅甸的云南光复军；同年奈温将军崛起，出任看守政府；60年，中缅边境勘界警卫作战展开，人民解放军入缅。61年结束，收兵。62年3月奈温政变，三个月后中印边境自卫反击战在不远处打响。

伯 里克利不是为了推销自己的整体才把舰队派到Corfu，雅典人已经望见西西里了。国共各自派兵是否也有着伯里克利的计划，就不得而知了。只是我听人说过一 段“野史”：蒋介石担任中缅印战区司令时就知道了奈温，知道他反共，于是想拉拢他建立反共基地。须知此时国民政府昂山（昂山素季的父亲）已经通过联合国和 美国对台施加压力，要求其撤兵缅北。奈温确实与国民党过从甚密，只是个中细节不得而知。但这个反共分子却是马基雅维里的好学生，最后导向中共，邀解放军入 境，勘界剿匪。奈温是高明的，他在中缅边境问题上拿到了现实的好处，并且找到了一个可以依靠的大国。实地，外势通吃，已经是秀策的境界了。

中共这 样选择，有其无奈。但是这却是一个无奈的宏大计划，一言蔽之：夹击印度。中国的智囊们绝不是像我一样意淫，实在也是不得已而为之。50年代末，西南边境的 危机也是酝酿已久。1958年，中共在西藏废除农奴制，西藏起事（台湾的说法是，中共在西藏搞“大跃进”），达赖流亡，次年放弃“十七条协议”，开始漫长 的西藏独立斗争，而第一方案，就是正常人类理智都会想到的，借兵印度。当年申包胥这样想于是成功了。到了60年代初，实是多事之秋。外与苏联交恶，内有三 年饥馑。尼赫鲁蠢蠢欲动了。中共要稳定西南，就要联合巴基斯坦，尼泊尔，控制缅北，稳定西藏，如此才能力拒印度。上兵伐谋，其次伐交。那时，中共是没有力 量把大量战略物资运往西南的，只有在当地寻找力量。大唐的策略，苏定方的杰作。于是中共决定选择与这个奈温合作。

62年，反共者奈温开始了缅甸特 色的社会主义，高明的政治家总是见风使舵（据个人考证，这个当地特色最早是法共搞出来的）。如果奈温更加高明，也许我们会像记住穆沙拉夫一样记住他。（经 验统计表明，支持军政府往往是饮鸩止渴，后患无穷。美国支持萨达姆就是一例。中国幸运地遇上了巴基斯坦，已经是奇迹了，于是有了现在奇迹般的中巴合作。事 实上这个国家的民主运动同样声势浩大。只是少了些鲜血，少了些西方记者，而我们也就稍稍淡漠些罢了。）但是88年他失策了。虽然他推出了一个继承者丹瑞。 他们应该知道，要控制政局就不能开选举，既然开选举就必须拿下，既然选举失败，即便改政体、去总理也不应相信暴力。不是因为暴力不善，而是因为暴力给西方 世界以借口。这是政治。我是站在他们的幕僚的角度这样说的。

现在我要回到中国智囊了，因为从前沈丁力先生说，这是中国人的责任。穆沙拉夫刚刚赢 了。似乎中国的这个盟友还能在危机中继续坚挺。只是缅甸岌岌可危了。中国需要缅甸。对于可能的南藏冲突来说，缅北是一个重要屏障和基地。对于未来石油战略 来说，缅甸提供了中国海军进入印度洋的可能性。须知，印度的舰队就在安德曼群岛，而缅甸南部领土的延伸环绕着这个岛。中国的舰队总有一天是要进入印度洋 的，因为中国的石油生命线依赖印度洋。于是必须力挺缅甸政局稳定，所谓稳定就是在西藏问题上对达赖的回复：“现状无需改变。”也许这个军政府坚持不了多 久，但是，哪怕坚持到丹瑞政治生命自然结束（再过10年），也就为发展赢得了时间。

可是我也知道，我们今天是作为一个人带着一颗良心来关注缅甸 的，而不是作为一个谋士带着计略来寻找买家的。我们作为一个人能做什么。公共知识分子首先不是收音机知识分子，时刻摘抄正在进行的不公正，也不是作秀知识 分子，对每一不正义表现愤慨。在这一意义上，我是一个康德主义者：让我的思考我的哲学能替所有人恢复其为人的共有的权利。在具体的态度上，我不得不承认， 我充满犹疑。他国内政在以下情况下应当可以干涉：即大规模人道主义危机出现的时候。这是沈丁力先生的原话，他还说，有一点，只要这样的情况发生，我们中国 也应该去干涉。只是，好一个“大规模”的限定。似乎生命在数量面前又黯然失色了。

（我的身体在颤抖，我写不下去了，我需要调整和喘息。有机会再续。）


一格：

《煲呔為“民主與文革”論解畫》
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/071012/60/2hhw6.html

guys, please check out this site. Can't believe Donald Tsang said so, but it may also be brought to your salon discussion!


YoL：

回应格格《香港特首就文革和民主的言论道歉》
http://www1.chinesenewsnet.com/gb/MainNews/SinoNews/Hongkong/2007_10_13_14_42_0_957.html

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（一）

Yol:

我们能做什么

Dear wavers,
已经好多天了。缅甸已然成为一方让全世界都揪心的地方。
我每天都在不同的朋友们的博客上看到对那个国度的关注。只是到今天，终于从旧浪潮这一整个礼拜的批判或者说调整中抽离出来的时候，在胡坤那里（也是第一个这样做的waver）看到声援entry的时候，看到格格留言说她和周书正讨论过这件事的时候，才感觉到特别的难过。 "关注现实"的旧浪潮，是不是过于忙于内部批判，而忘了抬头看世界。
旧浪潮强调政治中立，但这已然不仅仅是一个政治问题。正如同我作为一个基督徒，依然为那些僧侣祷告。
我也不知道我们能做什么。但是似乎我们不应保持沉默，抑或冷漠。


Gill:

thx for the reminder. well...I guess one thing we are in an excellent position to appreciate is, as EU put it, this: "China is the puppet-master of Burma. The Olympics is the only real lever we have to make China act." But bear in mind that EU's interests in Burma are no comparison to those of China.
The source of the statement: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7018285.stm. (Additional comment: Though a piece of journalism it is, i think it nevertheless says a little truth -- about realpolitik, sth much more real than many other politics. And, if i may add, the Good would never profit very much from fighting a plain Evil because it is by nature inclined to fancy that every Evil is as plain as the present one that it recognises so mindlessly and dismisses so effortlessly.)

周书：

可以做的事情还是有的。
http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/index.html
这个网站上的what you can do和student & community action提供了很多灵感。
即便我们没有办法改变什么，至少我们可以通过这些事情教育一下自己。
可以以"旧浪潮"的名义群发邮件，鼓励大家到上面那个网站和http://www.actionburma.com签字。

Cho:

Dear All,

I used to favor the Kantian view that, putting aside the intertwined interests embedded in international politics, benevolent intervention might seem too demanding a rule for states to comply with. Besides, there is also this notion of state sovereignty, which turns out to be too popular an excuse for political expediency.

However, the incident of Saffron Revolution is really compelling me to abandon this position. Perhaps the analogy cannot be recklessly drawn from personal autonomy to state sovereignty. One may reasonably retain a libertarian view on individual freedom, whereas in the case of state, which is more a community for its people than an entity in itself, a more paternalistic approach is needed. After all, human right is more justifiable to trump other weighty political considerations. In the realm of international politics, if we only admit states as actors, we may run the risk of creating an illusion of justice while turning a blind eye to the conspiracy of some states against their citizens.

But once the precedent has been established, it is also troublesome to notice that, since state sovereignty may be all-or-nothing, the concern for human right is vulnerable to contamination. Not to our surprise, it is already a sadly common phenomenon. Nevertheless, I suppose a paternalistic overreaction always does less harm than an indifferent connivance.

Yol:

十分感谢周书的分享
我自己会尽快整理并发在自己的各个博客/校内/facebook上
建议下次内部沙龙以此为主题

Gill:

looks like I have to make my point a bit more explicit --

1. Wherever ones signs his name, as a protest against the Burmese Government, this is, as a matter of fact, useless. And useless he who signs his name knows it to be. A tyrant as good as any, the Burmese Govt won't care a damn; but it will probably thank you for the reminder of how important it is to wash the blood away asap.

2. There is however one thing that we, Chinese, can do, and that is not entirely hopeless: Protest against the Chinese Government. China's interference, if it does interfere, may or may not make a great difference; but surely it is one of the most persuasive intermediater the world is counting upon and, until now, vainly. And indeed, Burma is neither the first nor the last call for China's action: there is the on-going Darfur conflict, in which China is believed to be trading human rights for oil. Not to mention the incidents that are classified as our "internal affairs," only the number of which will make an average Burma campaigner bored.

3. I have no objection to joining a US campaign or whatsoever. But given 1 and 2 above, I would feel most uneasy if I were to channel my protest against the crime to a loudspeaker faraway, abroad, while My Govt at home is aiding the criminal by inaction. Ture, that if we stand up we may make a difference, if only to ourselves. But how we stand up makes a difference also. Standing up against Rangoon, you achieve absolutely nothing. Against Beijing, however, you are still highly likely to lose, but the chance of winning is not zero: Beijing, experienced, and having survived in peace, is more reasonable than its terrified Burmese counterpart; besides, it's a critical time for Beijing to give a positive impression to the world, having regard to the coming Party's Congress and the Olympic games. No matter what the chance, I suggest to you that a consistent campaigner should be against both.

Yet there is also this difference: Standing up against the Burmese Govt we are absolutely safe; while against the Chinese Govt, it seems we'd have to run a certain risk. And this risk I prefer to avoid. Having realised that, I almost cannot, in accusing the principal evil, get rid of the feeling that the decision of letting the accessory walk free is an decision unwittingly, unfortunately, and even ignobly, calculated.

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（二）

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（二）

周书：

Ok, i don't see why we always have to complicate what is simple. There are situations where actions might turn out useless, yet the very belief that they are RIGHT should make us feel obliged to do something.

Clarifications:
1. the reason why i put down the us campaign website here is simply because i haven't found any other campaign sites online except a British one
2. the overseas campaigns at the present stage are indeed against the Chinese Government. Other than joining the international protest, i don't know how we can pressure our gov. through domestic politics

To be honest, already angry with my own powerlessness, seeing people talk and talk without coming down to the practical only made me angrier. And do we really have to use English among us? Especially with such long paragraphs, is it just me or this at least to some degree looks alienating and condescending?

Gill and Cho, I have to apologize for my fury. You know I mean no harm. I'm sorry if my words seem too strong. I just feel obliged to speak out my true feelings. And for others, I won't write to you in English again I promise.

Gill:

be calm, Miss Zhou
And may you grant me the opportunity to repeat myself: Nowhere did I suggest that one shouldn't do anything (especially when the "RIGHT" KIND of things to do becomes so obvious); nor that one should not "feel obliged" to do so -- let alone by reason of uselessness! I said this, that I myself feel uneasy, and just this, without implying anyone else does, or should, feel the same way.

To make myself understood I perhaps have to draw a distinction, which I hope you will see in the following (though, in order to make it sharp, the difference is inevitably exaggerated a bit): All that I'm unhappy about the campaigns of the "humanitarian" kind is that they do more good to the campaigners than to their objects; that apart from providing the strong conscience (by which I mean the conscience that is simply offended rather than feeling obliged to be so) with a means to cry out its anger, they also lend to a weak conscience (which feels it should, and hence pretends to be more concerned than it really is) the comfort that "After all I have done something," which it is not, in my opinion, entitled to.

So, if I'm complicating what you believe to be simple, this is because a weak conscience is usually more complicated than a strong one. And also because human suffering is such a mirror that if an underground man peers into it he will see not the splendor of humanitarianism but the shabbiness of a human being, of he himself. The strong conscience I have always admired (and I guess you've probably got one); but as for the weak ones like mine, I'm prepared to deprive them of all their comfort.

Then why writing in English? Well, why not -- for its subordinate clauses that can be as convoluted as one's feelings, for the extra effort one has to make in composing even a single sentence by which process one sharpens one's thoughts, for the smaller risk one runs of sacrificing logic knowingly or unknowingly to aesthetic concerns, for all these that are conducive to my present purpose? To the charge of condescension I plead not guilty.

Lastly, I wonder why you addressed your apology to "Gill and Cho"; obviously Cho is on your side. I like strong words, btw.

Sapientia:

Sorry for being absent from the discussion for couples of weeks. Well, I do think Burma demonstration is caused by non-political factors but turns out to be politics-oriented. For the countries like Burma where politics, if we understand it as participation of public affairs, is purposely to be separated from the public, discontent for non-political stuff might be good channel for the public, or the monasteries in Burma to demand beyond what they can expect from the ruling leadership.

the outbreak of mass demonstration in Burma has caused 200 casualties and it seems more strict order to strike down the protest is en route. Yol said Burma's event has gone beyond a political matter and could be transformed to a talk of what we must hold for truth. This seems to me so far still uncertain, and therefore I suggest we continue to keep an eye on the development of Burma's demonstration. Our talk over the issue could be the best way to show our concern.

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（三）

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（三）

Sapientia:

[To Cho:]
Your comment inspires me of the talk between moral relativism and objectivism. if we hold a libertarian position and claim for state non-interference with private area, surely we assume there is a place that we call private area where state influence must be mitigated to the least level, and this private area might include fundamental freedoms of citizens that are or are not prescribed in the state constitution.

Moral relativism would say: wait a minute, you are too quick to assume this private area is a matter of fact in every society, though I will pay respect to the society where this private area is very much under respect by the state's sovereignty. Moral relativism reject any truth-value statements of moral judgment, for them it is not meaningful to talk about whether abortion is right or wrong objectively. they tends to believe moral judgment is very much regional or agent determined. An possible objection to moral relativism would be moral skepticism, which criticize there is no talk of moral truth in relativist position. Potentially, moral relativism would be challenged for indifference or incapacity to reprimand holocaust or great artificial famine. I used to prove that neither tolerance nor interference is justifiable according to the moral relativism.

So, a moral relativist might be rather withdrawn from emotive condemnation of mass crackdown of demonstration in Burma: I understand Burma's people demand for democracy and respect the choice made by the protesters.

How about moral objectivism? Might be better in case of Burma demonstration. They might argue some moral statement such as "human right is intuitively needed by a rational citizen" or "crackdown is by no means justifiable". the problem with moral objectivism is the question of normatively, since every objective statement of morality always assume some kinds of normative value are more desirable or acceptable, so it is crucial to know where these favored norms come from and why they are more superior than others. Can we find consistence among all of those normative values? If yes, what makes them consistent? If not, how we can be sure any statement of morality is objective?

The reason of human right abuse is what we think justifiable for interference with Burma's crisis, and personally, if I do not confuse myself with those philosophical talk, I think we can do something to show our concern, such as what Yol has suggested. I do not mean to challenge any of your argument, this is merely a bit of reflection.

刘畅：

各位：

大家的意见有的让我大受启发，有的让我迷惑不明。所以，在Yol的提议下，我有在READING WEEK其中（最好是靠前）的某日为此开一个沙龙交流的打算，主题、地点、时间一切待定。期待大家回复发表意见，最终完善我们的沙龙规划：）
以下是我希望在沙龙中涉及的内容：

"知识窗"（实在不知怎么归纳，想了个这词儿）
1、关于缅甸本身，我希望在这方面有了解和认识的同学做一个"常识性普及"教育。这个本身，包括缅甸最近一百年政治、经济、文化和宗教的变迁史。——因为我觉得对于我们分析问题很有必要。补充谈了解和认识。
2、谈谈我们所了解亚洲相关国家和相似国家的民生、政治和人权状况，说说他们的潜在问题，他们是否也存在发生这样事情的可能性，例如柬埔寨、斯里兰卡、马来西亚等等等等。

"我们"
1、关于我们的国家的态度，看法。关于人权和主权、大国外交伦理的问题。
2、我们应该以怎么样的行动声援。。。因为我目前只想到AWARENESS，所以才想了"知识窗"。

"文化"
受《明报》启发，它对僧人为什么成为这场运动的主角做了分析，引出了"入世僧人"的概念，这给我们提出了一个问题：宽范一点就是处于社会不同角色的人以如何不同的姿态为民生争取普世价值的问题。从僧人的举动,联系到当年甘地在印度有印度教哲学风采的不抵抗运动,联系到中国古代的士文化和出世文化(老庄等人.不知道我是不是曲解了 )....对我们来说都是很现实的.这个话题,有助于让一些觉得自己"不关心政治"的人参与起来,发挥作用。

我本人希望这是一个发于缅甸而不拘泥于缅甸的沙龙，它可以带给我们的除了愤慨和谴责，还可以是思考分析得到的血淋淋的现实和认识，也可能是希望和乐观的发现。因此，我希望它是开放式的，可以信马由缰地乱侃。
我也希望它是一个出于声援而不仅是声援的沙龙，因为这样的事今天可能在这个国家发生，也随时可能在具备同样情况下的任何地方发生。我不知道"知道"可以帮些什么，只是希望我能睁着眼睛面对。

以上是我初步的想法，随时接受指正、删减和添加。然而面对的问题是：沙龙的话题可能沉闷而枯燥，而我不希望愤懑成为人们参加沙龙的动力。而沙龙的形式、分工都还需要大家的建议。