9月9日，中国共产党的主要宣传报纸《人民日报》拒绝刊登我们在北京的泰里·布兰斯塔德大使所撰写的署名文章，并列举了一连串的不满。具有讽刺意味的是，这篇署名文章呼吁在我们两国间建立更积极的关系，并要求“通过不受限制的交往和不受审查的讨论来建立关系”。《人民日报》的回应再次暴露了中国共产党对自由言论和认真严肃的思想辩论的恐惧，以及北京方面在抱怨其他国家缺乏公平对等待遇时的虚伪。
相反，在我们有活力而自信的民主政体中，中国政府官员享有与美国人民直接对话的能力，并通过我们的自由媒体呈现了其政府的观点。光是中国驻美国大使崔天凯今年就在《华盛顿邮报》和Politico这类知名美国新闻机构发表过五篇署名文章，还接受过诸如美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）、美国哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）等媒体的专访。中国外交部以及像《环球时报》、《中国日报》这样的国有宣传机构经常畅通无阻地利用推特（Twitter）和脸书（Facebook）这类美国社交媒体平台来攻击我们的政策、我们的生活方式，以及恰恰保护着他们自由言论能力的系统。他们在其他民主国家也这样做。
如果共产主义中国真心实意地想成为一个成熟的大国并加强与自由世界的关系，那么习近平总书记的政府就会尊重西方外交官直接与中国人民对话的权利，允许外国记者回到中国，并停止恐吓和骚扰调查记者——无论是外国人还是中国人。这些记者努力坚持新兴自由媒体的诚信以服务公众利益。他们拒绝这样做，表明中国未经选举的政党精英多么害怕他们自己的人民有自由思想，害怕自由世界对中国内部治理做法的评判。
这是布兰斯塔德大使拟发表的署名文章：
基于对等重置关系
我们长期以来总说我们想要有建设性、重结果的对华关系，这个观点没有改变。有建设性的关系意味着我们不仅要对我们共同的利益诚实坦率，也要对让我们产生分歧的问题开诚布公。我们需要的不仅是不停地重申我们各自的利益，还有真正让我们的人民受益的切实成果。
从美国的角度来看，我们取得的进展少之又少。多年以来，中国领导层呼吁我们专注于合作的领域，同时搁置我们的分歧。而这些年来，美国同意了这种处理方式，期望随着时间的推移，我们也会着手解决我们的关切。但是中国领导层利用了这种处理方式。中国领导层常常坚持要求我们对分歧避而不谈，以此作为接触的前提。有时，中国领导层做出了承诺要着手解决我们的关切，但却未能跟进行动。结果就是我们的关系带来的对美国人民重要的结果越来越少。
同时，这段关系变得越来越不平衡。一个例子是对于美国公司、新闻工作者、外交官乃至公民社会来说不平等的准入机会。作为一个开放的社会，美国欢迎了中国公司进入我们的市场，向美国消费者售卖产品，进行投资和参与项目竞标，还有募集资金。我们欢迎了中国学生和研究人员来我们的大学和实验室，他们在这里获取了知识用来实现中国经济的现代化和发展。当美国新闻工作者在报道、甚至进入中国都面临限制时，中国的国家媒体工作人员却可以长久以来在美国不受限地进行报道。中华人民共和国的外交官可以不受限地进入美国社会，而我们在中国的外交官需要应对一套国家批准系统，哪怕是和中国人民进行最基本的互动。
中国政府在从我们的开放获益的同时利用了我们的开放——以一种与国际准则越来越不一致的方式。有些中国实体收购了美国公司不是为了创造工作机会，而是为了获得技术，然后拿到中国，进行开发与我们竞争。有些中国公司在我们的股票交易市场募集了资金，但拒绝接受标准的审计规则，而所有其他上市公司都被要求遵从这些规则，无论是美国公司还是外国公司。一小部分中国学生和研究人员利用进入我们的大学、研究机构和公司的机会窃取美国的知识产权。这些行动不仅损害了我们的双边关系，还让非凡而合理的经济进步——中国人民正当地为之骄傲——蒙上污点。
特朗普总统上任，发誓要让整体关系更加平衡和对等。第一阶段贸易协议和美国最近的政策行动是我们寻求为美国利益攸关方创造真正的公平竞争环境的重要一步。许多人声称，这是为了阻挠中国合理的发展愿望，为了 “遏制 “中国的崛起或者为了与中国 “脱钩”。这完全是错误的。当前美中关系紧张的根本原因，是中国长期以来的策略只选择性地与美国 “挂钩”、系统性地控制美国人进入中国社会。在我们的大学中，我们继续欢迎绝大多数的中国学生，但我们已采取行动，对那些非法获取美国知识产权和研究成果的人，或那些获取知识以便在21 世纪的前沿技术领域与我们进行不公平竞争的人拒发签证。我们还对中国公司采取了行动，其中包括像华为这样的知名公司， 这些公司窃取了美国的知识产权，规避了美国的出口管制，或对我们公民的私人数据和通讯网络安全构成了威胁。
我们是两个不同的国家，有着不同的历史。美国继续从自己的错误中吸取教训，为创造更好的未来继续前行。我们希望中国也能如此。在这一努力中， 我们需要建立相互理解和真正对等的基础。这必须从中国政府愿意解决我们对两国关系失衡的关切开始，并允许我们两国人民通过不受限制的交往和未经审查删除的讨论来建立关系。只有到那时，我才能享有与中国人民交往的自由，就像我们保证崔大使在美国所做的那样，也只有到那时，我们才能拥有真正对等和真正平衡的关系。
了解更多：
https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/zh/the-hypocrisy-of-the-prcs-propaganda-system-zh/
The Hypocrisy of the PRC’s Propaganda System
On September 9, the Chinese Communist Party’s main propaganda newspaper, the People’s Daily, refused to run an Op-ed written by our Ambassador in Beijing, Terry Branstad, citing a litany of grievances. Ironically, the Op-ed called for more positive relations between our two countries and asked to “build relationships through unrestricted engagement and uncensored discussion.” The People’s Daily’s response once again exposes the Chinese Communist Party’s fear of free speech and serious intellectual debate – as well as Beijing’s hypocrisy when it complains about lack of fair and reciprocal treatment in other countries.
In contrast, in our vibrant and confident democracy, Chinese government officials have enjoyed the ability to talk directly to the American people and provided its government’s views through our free media. China’s Ambassador to the U.S. Cui Tiankai alone has published five Op-eds this year in prominent U.S. news outlets such as the Washington Post and Politico, and given exclusive interviews to the likes of CNN and CBS. China’s Foreign Ministry and state-owned propaganda organs like the Global Times and China Daily regularly use free access to American social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to attack our policies, our way of life, and the very system that protects their ability to speak freely. They do this in other democratic countries, too.
If Communist China is sincere about becoming a mature power and strengthening relations with the free world, General Secretary Xi Jinping’s government would respect the right for Western diplomats to speak directly to the Chinese people, allow foreign journalists back into China, and stop the intimidation and harassment of investigative journalists, foreign and Chinese, who strive to uphold the integrity of the fifth estate to serve the public good. Their refusal to do so shows just how much China’s unelected Party elites fear their own people’s free-thinking and the free world’s judgment about their governance practices inside China.
This is Ambassador Branstad’s proposed op-ed:
Resetting the Relationship Based on Reciprocity
by The Honorable Terry Branstad, U.S. Ambassador to China
We have long said we want a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China, and that view has not changed. A constructive relationship means that we are honest and candid not only about our shared interests, but also about the issues that divide us. We need not just endless reaffirmations of our respective interests, but concrete outcomes that truly benefit our peoples.
From a U.S. perspective, we have made too little progress. For years, the Chinese leadership has urged us to focus on areas of cooperation while setting aside our differences, and for years, the United States had agreed to that approach in the expectation that, over time, we would address our concerns as well. But the Chinese leadership has exploited this approach. Often it has insisted we sweep differences under the table as a prerequisite for engagement. Sometimes it made promises to address our concerns yet failed to follow up. As a result, our relationship has delivered fewer and fewer of the results that matter to the American people.
At the same time, the relationship became increasingly imbalanced. An example is unequal access for U.S. companies, journalists, diplomats, and even civil society. As an open society, the United States has welcomed Chinese companies into our markets to sell products to American consumers, to invest and bid on projects, and to raise capital. We have welcomed Chinese students and researchers into our universities and laboratories, where they have acquired knowledge to modernize and develop China’s economy. While U.S. journalists face restrictions on reporting and even entering China, Chinese state media workers have long enjoyed open access in the United States. PRC diplomats have open access to American society, while our diplomats in China are required to navigate a state approval system for even the most basic engagements with the Chinese people.
The Chinese government, while benefiting from our openness, has exploited it – in a way that is increasingly inconsistent with international norms. Some Chinese entities have purchased American companies not to create jobs, but to acquire technology that is then taken back to China and developed to compete against us. Some Chinese companies have raised money on our stock exchanges yet refused to subject themselves to the standard auditing rules required by all other listed companies, U.S. or foreign. A small number of Chinese students and researchers use access to our universities, research facilities and companies to steal American intellectual property. These actions have not only harmed our bilateral relations but also tarnished the remarkable legitimate economic progress that the Chinese people are rightfully proud of.
President Trump came to office vowing to make the overall relationship more balanced and reciprocal. The phase one trade deal and recent U.S. policy actions are an important step in our quest to create a genuine level playing field for American stakeholders. Many claim this is an effort to thwart China’s legitimate development aspirations, to “contain” China’s rise, or to “decouple” from China. This is categorically false. The root cause of the current tensions in the relationship is China’s longstanding strategy of only selectively “coupling” with the United States and systematically controlling the access of Americans to Chinese society. At our universities, we continue to welcome the vast majority of Chinese students, but we have taken action to deny visas to those who illegally acquire U.S. intellectual property and research results, or who gain knowledge in order to compete unfairly with us in the cutting edge technologies of the 21st century. We have also taken action against Chinese companies, including well known ones like Huawei, that have stolen U.S. intellectual property, circumvented U.S. export controls, or posed a threat to the security of our citizens’ private data and our communication networks.
We are two different nations with different pasts. The United States continues to learn from its mistakes and push forward to forge a better future. We hope that China can do the same. In this endeavor, we will need to build a foundation for understanding and true reciprocity. It must start with the Chinese government being willing to address our concerns about the imbalance in the relationship and allowing our two peoples to build relationships through unrestricted engagement and uncensored discussion. Only then will I enjoy the freedoms to engage the Chinese people that we guarantee Ambassador Cui in the United States, and only then will we have genuine reciprocity and a genuinely balanced relationship.
Read more here:
https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/zh/the-hypocrisy-of-the-prcs-propaganda-system-zh/
No comments:
Post a Comment