李登輝很早識破習近平的大野心，然而我想魔鬼藏在中國夢/世界夢的細節。6月初：
from Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program and Net Politics
China Standards 2035 and the Plan for World Domination—Don’t Believe China’s Hype Although U.S. officials have grown increasingly concerned about China's participation in technical standards bodies and its forthcoming plan, China Standards 2035, it is important to distinguish posturing and proclamations from real risks.
Blog Post by Guest Blogger for Net Politics June 3, 2020
***
昨天讀過此篇。雖然有點誇張(要角應少露面)，但很值得參考、警惕：這些極端分子也可能導致大災難。
“還得中共去收拾爛攤子”：習近平強硬政策背後的智囊團
美宣布擴大“乾淨網絡” 要除各大中國公司與平台：The five new lines of effort for the Clean Network are as follows: Clean Carrier, Clean Store, Clean Apps, Clean Cloud , Clean Cable
***
昨天讀過此篇。雖然有點誇張(要角應少露面)，但很值得參考、警惕：這些極端分子也可能導致大災難。
“還得中共去收拾爛攤子”：習近平強硬政策背後的智囊團
儲百亮2020年8月3日
支持香港新《國家安全法》的中國知識分子田飛龍在北京。他曾在一所傳統上較為自由的大學讀研究生。 GIULIA MARCHI FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
香港——田飛龍第一次來到香港時，要求自由選舉的呼聲不斷高漲，他說，這個社會似乎體現了他在北京讀研究生時所學習的自由政治理念，令他感到同情。
然後，當2014年這些呼籲升級為香港各地的抗議活動時，他開始日益贊同中國的警告：自由可能會走得太過火，威脅國家統一。他成了示威活動的強烈批評者，六年後，當中國對這個前英國殖民地實施全面的國家安全法時，他成了這項法案的堅定捍衛者。
田飛龍和許多中國學者一樣，開始反對曾在中國大學裡流行的西方思想，轉而宣揚在共產黨領導人習近平領導下興起的自豪的威權世界觀。這群中國知識分子是黨的擁護者，甚至成為官方顧問，打磨並捍衛黨的強硬政策，包括在香港推出的國安法。
訂閱“簡報”和“每日精選”新聞電郵
同意接收紐約時報中文網的產品和服務推廣郵件
查看往期電郵 隱私權聲明
“我原來弱的時候，我全是接受你的規則。我現在強了，並且我有了自信之後，我為什麼不能表達我的規則，我的價值觀，我的看法？”37歲的田飛龍在接受采訪時解釋了中國的這種普遍觀點。2014年，作為訪問學者的田飛龍在香港目睹了騷亂，他說，當時他“重新思考個人自由跟國家權威之間的關係”。
“香港還是中國的香港，”他說。“還得中共去收拾爛攤子。”
中國共產黨長期以來培養了大批學者來捍衛自己的議程，而這些威權主義思想家的突出特點是，他們毫不掩飾地鼓吹一黨專政和堅定自信的主權，並且轉而反對他們當中許多人曾經接受的自由主義思想。
去年，一個學者和專家小組在國務院新聞辦公室組織的北京新聞發布會上討論了香港問題。一代中國學者已經開始反對受西方啟發的思想。 WANG ZHAO/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
在這個意識形態競爭日益加劇的時代，他們認為自己是在增強中國的力量。他們把美國描述成一個危險的、手伸得太遠的爛攤子，在新冠病毒大流行之後更是如此。他們反對用憲法束縛共產黨的控制，認為受西方啟發的法治思想是危險的海市蜃樓，可能會阻礙黨的發展。
他們認為中國必須恢復世界強國的地位，甚至成為取代美國的新型良性帝國。他們稱讚習近平是一位歷史性的領導人，領導中國經歷一場重大變革。
這些學者有時被稱為“國家主義者”，他們當中不少人研究對港政策，那裡是中國統治下親民主人士長期反抗北京的唯一頑固飛地。他們的提議已被納入中國日益強硬的路線，包括迅速遏制了抗議和政治辯論的安全法。
“我們忽視這些聲音是有風險的，”“不列顛哥倫比亞大學(University of British Columbia)歷史學家齊慕實(Timothy Cheek)說，他幫助運營了翻譯中國思想家作品的網站Reading the China Dream（解讀中國夢） ，他說，“他們表達了一系列可能比自由思想更有影響力的中國政治思想。”
除了鄭重其事地引用習近平的講話，這些學者還借鑒了力主實施嚴政的中國古代思想家，以及自由主義政治傳統的西方批評者。傳統馬克思主義很少被引用；他們是秩序的支持者，而不是革命的支持者。
中國最高領導人習近平治下驕傲的威權世界觀的崛起，得到學者們的稱讚。 ROMAN PILIPEY/EPA, VIA SHUTTERSTOCK
香港中文大學法學助理教授穆秋瑞 (Ryan Mitchell) 在最近的一篇論文中說，他們中的許多人在論文中對卡爾·施密特(Carl Schmitt)表示贊同，這位德國法學理論家為1930年代的右翼領導人和新興的納粹政權在危機時刻行使極端行政權力提供了理論依據。
“他們提供了理由和正當性，”香港大學(University of Hong Kong) 法學教授傅華伶在談到中國新的威權學者時說。“在某種程度上，卡爾·施密特正在這里大行其道。”
10年前的中國在思想上更多元，當時田飛龍在一向較為自由的北京大學讀研究生。審查比較寬鬆，大學允許在課堂上謹慎地討論自由主義思想。
包括田飛龍的論文導師張千帆在內的許多學者認為，香港堅實的司法獨立性可以激勵中國大陸採取類似的舉措。“我也是由自由主義學者培養出來的，”田飛龍說。
自習近平2012年上台以來，這些理念已經急劇退縮。他開始推動對普世人權、三權分立和其他自由主義觀念的質疑。
持不同意見的學者會在由共產黨控制的新聞媒體上受到中傷，可能導致職業前途的毀滅。清華大學法學教授許章潤撰寫了一系列文章譴責習近平領導下的黨所走的方向，許於7月被拘留並在此前被解僱。
清華大學法學教授許章潤今年7月在北京被警方拘留，並失去了工作。 THE NEW YORK TIMES
教育當局出重金讓親黨學者研究如何在香港推行安全法等課題。由於官方收緊限制，曾經支持過不那麼正統的中國學者的中外基金會都縮減了規模。
促使中國威權主義思想重新抬頭的不僅僅是恐懼和職業回報。2007年的全球金融危機，以及美國對新冠病毒大流行的蹩腳應對，都強化了中國的觀點——自由民主正在衰落，而中國則蒸蒸日上，完全違背了一黨制必將瓦解的預言。
“中國其實也在走著其實美國曾經走過的路，抓住機會，外線發展，創造一個新世界，”田飛龍說。“甚至產生一種熱望，再過30年我們要超過西方。”
中國的威權主義學者提出了徹底同化少數民族的政策。他們為習近平廢除主席任期限制辯護，為他無限期執政開闢了道路。他們認為，中國的“法治”與黨的領導是分不開的。近來在北京對香港抗議活動的鎮壓中，他們成為知識分子鬥士。
“對他們來說，法律成為了一種武器，但法律是服從於政治的，”巴黎法國社會科學高等研究院教授、研究中國中央集權思想家崛起的魏簡(Sebastian Veg)說。“我們在中國看到了這種情況，而現在在我看來，這一趨勢也來到了香港。”
對香港來說，這些學者為北京採取更多中央控制的做法提供了依據。
自1997年回歸中國後，在界定香港半自治地位的法律框架下，這一地區的許多人以為在未來幾十年裡，香港基本可以為自己的事務做主。許多人相信，香港的立法者和領導人會負責制定國家安全法，這是該框架的要求。
但習近平政府進行了反擊，要求發揮更多的影響力。了解習近平的目的和香港法律的威權主義學者就將這些要求提煉成詳盡的法律論據。
多位北京的法學教授曾為中國政府駐港辦公室擔任顧問，包括北京大學的強世功和陳端洪。他們都拒絕接受采訪。
“國家的存在是第一位的，”優先於個人權利，北京大學法學教授陳端洪寫道，他曾在中國政府駐港辦公室擔任顧問。 WANG ZHAO/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
“我認為他們不見得就是黨的路線的製定者，但他們正在幫忙塑造它，找到聰明的辦法，用語言和法律表達黨正在努力做的事，”香港中文大學教授穆秋瑞說。“這都是通過立法實現的，所以他們的想法很重要。”
強世功被普遍認為參與起草了一份2014年的中國政府文件，該文件稱北京對香港擁有“全面管治權”，駁斥了中國不應干涉的觀點。他後來表示，界定香港地位的框架是在1980年代製定的，當時中國還很弱小，受外國自由思潮的左右。
“他們把香港看作是西方世界的一部分，將西方世界當作整個世界，”強世功最近在談到香港抗議者時表示。“中國崛起並沒有像人們想像的那樣吸引香港社會對中央的信任。”
在2014年抗議者佔領香港街道之後，他和其他學者強調中國有權在香港進行國家安全立法，反對將立法權留給踟躕不定的香港當局的觀點。
“國家的存在是第一位的，憲法律必須服務於這個根本目的，”北京大學學者陳端洪在2018年寫道，他引用了德國威權主義法學家施密特的理論，證明香港需要推行安全法。
“當國家處於極端危險中，即生死存亡之時，”陳端洪寫道，領導人可以將平時的憲法律規範暫置一旁，“特別是其中的公民權利條款，而採取一切必要的措施。”
根據2018年一份北京大學的報告顯示，在中共公開宣布製定安全法計劃的一年前，陳端洪就向黨的決策者提交了一份關於為香港引入安全法的內部研究報告。
自從中國立法機構在6月底通過安全法以來，他、田飛龍和其他在同一陣線的中國學者在許多文章、訪談和新聞發布會中都積極為該法辯護。田飛龍認為，中國知識分子下一步將面對的是不斷惡化的中美關係。
“包括我們學者，我們也要選邊站隊，對吧？”他說。“對不起，現在目標不是西化，現在目標是中華民族偉大復興。”
‘Clean Up This Mess’: The Chinese Thinkers Behind Xi’s Hard Line
Chinese academics have been honing the Communist Party’s authoritarian response in Hong Kong, rejecting the liberal ideas of their youth.
Tian Feilong, a Chinese intellectual in favor of Hong Kong’s new national security law, in Beijing. As a graduate student, he attended a traditionally more liberal university.Credit...Giulia Marchi for The New York Times
By Chris Buckley
Aug. 2, 2020
Share unlocked article
254
阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版
HONG KONG — When Tian Feilong first arrived in Hong Kong as demands for free elections were on the rise, he said he felt sympathetic toward a society that seemed to reflect the liberal political ideas he had studied as a graduate student in Beijing.
Then, as the calls escalated into protests across Hong Kong in 2014, he increasingly embraced Chinese warnings that freedom could go too far, threatening national unity. He became an ardent critic of the demonstrations, and six years later he is a staunch defender of the sweeping national security law that China has imposed on the former British colony.
Mr. Tian has joined a tide of Chinese scholars who have turned against Western-inspired ideas that once flowed in China’s universities, instead promoting the proudly authoritarian worldview ascendant under Xi Jinping, the Communist Party leader. This cadre of Chinese intellectuals serve as champions, even official advisers, defending and honing the party’s hardening policies, including the rollout of the security law in Hong Kong.
“Back when I was weak, I had to totally play by your rules. Now I’m strong and have confidence, so why can’t I lay down my own rules and values and ideas?” Mr. Tian, 37, said in an interview, explaining the prevailing outlook in China. Witnessing the tumult as a visiting scholar in Hong Kong in 2014, Mr. Tian said, he “rethought the relationship between individual freedom and state authority.”
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
“Hong Kong is, after all, China’s Hong Kong,” he said. “It’s up to the Communist Party to clean up this mess.”
While China’s Communist Party has long nurtured legions of academics to defend its agenda, these authoritarian thinkers stand out for their unabashed, often flashily erudite advocacy of one-party rule and assertive sovereignty, and their turn against the liberal ideas that many of them once embraced.
ImageA panel of scholars and experts discussed Hong Kong last year during a briefing in Beijing organized by the State Council Information Office. A generation of Chinese academics has turned against Western-inspired ideas.Credit...Wang Zhao/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
They portray themselves as fortifying China for an era of deepening ideological rivalry. They describe the United States as a dangerous, overreaching shambles, even more so in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. They oppose constitutional fetters on Communist Party control, arguing that Western-inspired ideas of the rule of law are a dangerous mirage that could hobble the party.
They argue that China must reclaim its status as a world power, even as a new kind of benign empire displacing the United States. They extol Mr. Xi as a historic leader, guiding China through a momentous transformation.
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
A number of these scholars, sometimes called “statists,” have worked on policy toward Hong Kong, the sole territory under Chinese rule that has been a stubborn enclave for pro-democracy defiance of Beijing. Their proposals have fed into China’s increasingly uncompromising line, including the security law, which has swiftly curbed protests and political debate.
“We ignore these voices at our own risk,” said Timothy Cheek, a historian at the University of British Columbia who helps run Reading the China Dream, a website that translates works by Chinese thinkers. “They give voice to a stream of Chinese political thought that is probably more influential than liberal thought.”
As well as earnestly citing Mr. Xi’s speeches, these academics draw on ancient Chinese thinkers who counseled stern rulership, along with Western critics of liberal political traditions. Traditional Marxism is rarely cited; they are proponents of order, not revolution.
Editors’ Picks
The Anonymous Professor Who Wasn’t
How to Think Like an Epidemiologist
Two People in One Small Studio? This Couple Figured They Could Manage
Continue reading the main story
Image
The scholars extol the proudly authoritarian worldview ascendant under Xi Jinping, China’s top leader.Credit...Roman Pilipey/EPA, via Shutterstock
Many of them make respectful nods in their papers to Carl Schmitt, the German legal theorist who supplied rightist leaders in the 1930s and the emerging Nazi regime with arguments for extreme executive power in times of crisis, Ryan Mitchell, an assistant professor of law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, documented in a recent paper.
“They’ve provided the reasoning and justification,” Fu Hualing, a professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, said of China’s new authoritarian scholars. “In a way, it’s the Carl Schmitt moment here.”
China’s ideological landscape was more varied a decade ago, when Mr. Tian was a graduate student at Peking University, a traditionally more liberal campus. Censorship was lighter, and universities tolerated guarded discussion of liberal ideas in classrooms.
Many scholars, including Mr. Tian’s dissertation adviser, Zhang Qianfan, argued that Hong Kong, with its robust judicial independence, could inspire similar steps in mainland China. “I had also been nurtured by liberal scholars.” Mr. Tian said.
Such ideas have gone into sharp retreat since Mr. Xi took power in 2012. He began a drive to discredit ideas like universal human rights, separation of powers and other liberal concepts.
Dissenting academics are maligned in the party-run news media and risk professional ruin. Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, was detained in July and dismissed from his job after writing a stream of essays condemning the party’s direction under Mr. Xi.
Image
Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at Tsinghua University, was detained by the police in Beijing in July and lost his job.Credit...The New York Times
The education authorities generously fund pro-party scholars for topics such as how to introduce security laws in Hong Kong. Chinese and foreign foundations that once supported less orthodox Chinese scholars have retrenched because of tightening official restrictions.
More than fear and career rewards have driven this resurgence of authoritarian ideas in China. The global financial crisis of 2007, and the United States’ floundering response to the coronavirus pandemic, have reinforced Chinese views that liberal democracies are decaying, while China has prospered, defying predictions of the collapse of one-party rule.
“China is actually also following a path that the United States took, seizing opportunities, developing outward, creating a new world,” Mr. Tian said. “There is even a fervent hope that we’ll overtake the West in another 30 years.”
China’s authoritarian academics have proposed policies to assimilate ethnic minorities thoroughly. They have defended Mr. Xi’s abolition of a term limit on the presidency, opening the way for him to stay in power indefinitely. They have argued that Chinese-style “rule by law” is inseparable from rule by the Communist Party. And more recently they have served as intellectual warriors in Beijing’s efforts to subdue protest in Hong Kong.
“For them, law becomes a weapon, but it’s law that’s subordinated to politics,” said Sebastian Veg, a professor at the School of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences in Paris who has studied the rise of China’s statist thinkers. “We’ve seen that at work in China, and now it seems to me we’re seeing it come to Hong Kong.”
For Hong Kong, these scholars have supplied arguments advancing Beijing’s drive for greater central control.
Under the legal framework that defined Hong Kong’s semi-autonomy after its return to China in 1997, many in the territory assumed that it would mostly manage its own affairs for decades. Many believed that Hong Kong lawmakers and leaders would be left to develop national security legislation, which was required by that framework.
But Mr. Xi’s government has pushed back, demanding greater influence. The authoritarian scholars, familiar with both Mr. Xi’s agenda and Hong Kong law, have distilled those demands into elaborate legal arguments.
Several Beijing law professors earlier served as advisers to the Chinese government’s office in Hong Kong, including Jiang Shigong and Chen Duanhong, both of Peking University. They declined to be interviewed.
Image
“The survival of the state comes first,” over individual rights, wrote Chen Duanhong, professor of law at Peking University, who served as an adviser to the Chinese government’s office in Hong Kong.Credit...Wang Zhao/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
“I don’t think they’re necessarily setting the party line, but they’re helping to shape it, finding clever ways to put into words and laws what the party is trying to do,” said Mr. Mitchell, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “This is all happening through legislation, so their ideas matter.”
A Chinese government paper in 2014, which Professor Jiang is widely credited with helping write, asserted that Beijing had “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong, dismissing the idea that China should stay hands off. The framework that defined Hong Kong’s status was written in the 1980s, when China was still weak and under the sway of foreign liberal ideas, he later said.
“They treat Hong Kong as if it were part of the West, and they treat the West as if it were the entire world.” Professor Jiang recently said of Hong Kong’s protesters. “China’s rise has not, as some imagined, drawn Hong Kong society to trust the central authorities.”
After protesters occupied Hong Kong streets in 2014, he and other scholars pressed the case that China had the power to impose national security legislation there, rejecting the idea that such legislation should be left in the hands of the reluctant Hong Kong authorities.
“The survival of the state comes first, and constitutional law must serve this fundamental objective,” Professor Chen, the Peking University academic, wrote in 2018, citing Mr. Schmitt, the authoritarian German jurist, to make the case for a security law in Hong Kong.
“When the state is in dire peril,” Professor Chen wrote, leaders could set aside the usual constitutional norms, “in particular provisions for civic rights, and take all necessary measures.”
Professor Chen submitted an internal study to the party’s policymakers on introducing security legislation for Hong Kong, according to a Peking University report in 2018, over a year before the party publicly announced plans for such a law.
Since China’s legislature passed the security law in late June, he, Mr. Tian and allied Chinese scholars have energetically defended it in dozens of articles, interviews and news conferences. Chinese intellectuals, Mr. Tian suggested, will next confront worsening relations with the United States.
“We have to choose what side we’re on, including us scholars, right?” he said. “Sorry, the goal now is not Westernization; it’s the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
Amber Wang contributed research from Beijing.
支持香港新《國家安全法》的中國知識分子田飛龍在北京。他曾在一所傳統上較為自由的大學讀研究生。 GIULIA MARCHI FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES香港——田飛龍第一次來到香港時，要求自由選舉的呼聲不斷高漲，他說，這個社會似乎體現了他在北京讀研究生時所學習的自由政治理念，令他感到同情。
然後，當2014年這些呼籲升級為香港各地的抗議活動時，他開始日益贊同中國的警告：自由可能會走得太過火，威脅國家統一。他成了示威活動的強烈批評者，六年後，當中國對這個前英國殖民地實施全面的國家安全法時，他成了這項法案的堅定捍衛者。
田飛龍和許多中國學者一樣，開始反對曾在中國大學裡流行的西方思想，轉而宣揚在共產黨領導人習近平領導下興起的自豪的威權世界觀。這群中國知識分子是黨的擁護者，甚至成為官方顧問，打磨並捍衛黨的強硬政策，包括在香港推出的國安法。
訂閱“簡報”和“每日精選”新聞電郵
同意接收紐約時報中文網的產品和服務推廣郵件
查看往期電郵 隱私權聲明
“我原來弱的時候，我全是接受你的規則。我現在強了，並且我有了自信之後，我為什麼不能表達我的規則，我的價值觀，我的看法？”37歲的田飛龍在接受采訪時解釋了中國的這種普遍觀點。2014年，作為訪問學者的田飛龍在香港目睹了騷亂，他說，當時他“重新思考個人自由跟國家權威之間的關係”。
“香港還是中國的香港，”他說。“還得中共去收拾爛攤子。”
中國共產黨長期以來培養了大批學者來捍衛自己的議程，而這些威權主義思想家的突出特點是，他們毫不掩飾地鼓吹一黨專政和堅定自信的主權，並且轉而反對他們當中許多人曾經接受的自由主義思想。
去年，一個學者和專家小組在國務院新聞辦公室組織的北京新聞發布會上討論了香港問題。一代中國學者已經開始反對受西方啟發的思想。 WANG ZHAO/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
在這個意識形態競爭日益加劇的時代，他們認為自己是在增強中國的力量。他們把美國描述成一個危險的、手伸得太遠的爛攤子，在新冠病毒大流行之後更是如此。他們反對用憲法束縛共產黨的控制，認為受西方啟發的法治思想是危險的海市蜃樓，可能會阻礙黨的發展。
他們認為中國必須恢復世界強國的地位，甚至成為取代美國的新型良性帝國。他們稱讚習近平是一位歷史性的領導人，領導中國經歷一場重大變革。
這些學者有時被稱為“國家主義者”，他們當中不少人研究對港政策，那裡是中國統治下親民主人士長期反抗北京的唯一頑固飛地。他們的提議已被納入中國日益強硬的路線，包括迅速遏制了抗議和政治辯論的安全法。
“我們忽視這些聲音是有風險的，”“不列顛哥倫比亞大學(University of British Columbia)歷史學家齊慕實(Timothy Cheek)說，他幫助運營了翻譯中國思想家作品的網站Reading the China Dream（解讀中國夢） ，他說，“他們表達了一系列可能比自由思想更有影響力的中國政治思想。”
除了鄭重其事地引用習近平的講話，這些學者還借鑒了力主實施嚴政的中國古代思想家，以及自由主義政治傳統的西方批評者。傳統馬克思主義很少被引用；他們是秩序的支持者，而不是革命的支持者。
中國最高領導人習近平治下驕傲的威權世界觀的崛起，得到學者們的稱讚。 ROMAN PILIPEY/EPA, VIA SHUTTERSTOCK
香港中文大學法學助理教授穆秋瑞 (Ryan Mitchell) 在最近的一篇論文中說，他們中的許多人在論文中對卡爾·施密特(Carl Schmitt)表示贊同，這位德國法學理論家為1930年代的右翼領導人和新興的納粹政權在危機時刻行使極端行政權力提供了理論依據。
“他們提供了理由和正當性，”香港大學(University of Hong Kong) 法學教授傅華伶在談到中國新的威權學者時說。“在某種程度上，卡爾·施密特正在這里大行其道。”
10年前的中國在思想上更多元，當時田飛龍在一向較為自由的北京大學讀研究生。審查比較寬鬆，大學允許在課堂上謹慎地討論自由主義思想。
包括田飛龍的論文導師張千帆在內的許多學者認為，香港堅實的司法獨立性可以激勵中國大陸採取類似的舉措。“我也是由自由主義學者培養出來的，”田飛龍說。
自習近平2012年上台以來，這些理念已經急劇退縮。他開始推動對普世人權、三權分立和其他自由主義觀念的質疑。
持不同意見的學者會在由共產黨控制的新聞媒體上受到中傷，可能導致職業前途的毀滅。清華大學法學教授許章潤撰寫了一系列文章譴責習近平領導下的黨所走的方向，許於7月被拘留並在此前被解僱。
清華大學法學教授許章潤今年7月在北京被警方拘留，並失去了工作。 THE NEW YORK TIMES教育當局出重金讓親黨學者研究如何在香港推行安全法等課題。由於官方收緊限制，曾經支持過不那麼正統的中國學者的中外基金會都縮減了規模。
促使中國威權主義思想重新抬頭的不僅僅是恐懼和職業回報。2007年的全球金融危機，以及美國對新冠病毒大流行的蹩腳應對，都強化了中國的觀點——自由民主正在衰落，而中國則蒸蒸日上，完全違背了一黨制必將瓦解的預言。
“中國其實也在走著其實美國曾經走過的路，抓住機會，外線發展，創造一個新世界，”田飛龍說。“甚至產生一種熱望，再過30年我們要超過西方。”
中國的威權主義學者提出了徹底同化少數民族的政策。他們為習近平廢除主席任期限制辯護，為他無限期執政開闢了道路。他們認為，中國的“法治”與黨的領導是分不開的。近來在北京對香港抗議活動的鎮壓中，他們成為知識分子鬥士。
“對他們來說，法律成為了一種武器，但法律是服從於政治的，”巴黎法國社會科學高等研究院教授、研究中國中央集權思想家崛起的魏簡(Sebastian Veg)說。“我們在中國看到了這種情況，而現在在我看來，這一趨勢也來到了香港。”
對香港來說，這些學者為北京採取更多中央控制的做法提供了依據。
自1997年回歸中國後，在界定香港半自治地位的法律框架下，這一地區的許多人以為在未來幾十年裡，香港基本可以為自己的事務做主。許多人相信，香港的立法者和領導人會負責制定國家安全法，這是該框架的要求。
但習近平政府進行了反擊，要求發揮更多的影響力。了解習近平的目的和香港法律的威權主義學者就將這些要求提煉成詳盡的法律論據。
多位北京的法學教授曾為中國政府駐港辦公室擔任顧問，包括北京大學的強世功和陳端洪。他們都拒絕接受采訪。
“國家的存在是第一位的，”優先於個人權利，北京大學法學教授陳端洪寫道，他曾在中國政府駐港辦公室擔任顧問。 WANG ZHAO/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES“我認為他們不見得就是黨的路線的製定者，但他們正在幫忙塑造它，找到聰明的辦法，用語言和法律表達黨正在努力做的事，”香港中文大學教授穆秋瑞說。“這都是通過立法實現的，所以他們的想法很重要。”
強世功被普遍認為參與起草了一份2014年的中國政府文件，該文件稱北京對香港擁有“全面管治權”，駁斥了中國不應干涉的觀點。他後來表示，界定香港地位的框架是在1980年代製定的，當時中國還很弱小，受外國自由思潮的左右。
“他們把香港看作是西方世界的一部分，將西方世界當作整個世界，”強世功最近在談到香港抗議者時表示。“中國崛起並沒有像人們想像的那樣吸引香港社會對中央的信任。”
在2014年抗議者佔領香港街道之後，他和其他學者強調中國有權在香港進行國家安全立法，反對將立法權留給踟躕不定的香港當局的觀點。
“國家的存在是第一位的，憲法律必須服務於這個根本目的，”北京大學學者陳端洪在2018年寫道，他引用了德國威權主義法學家施密特的理論，證明香港需要推行安全法。
“當國家處於極端危險中，即生死存亡之時，”陳端洪寫道，領導人可以將平時的憲法律規範暫置一旁，“特別是其中的公民權利條款，而採取一切必要的措施。”
根據2018年一份北京大學的報告顯示，在中共公開宣布製定安全法計劃的一年前，陳端洪就向黨的決策者提交了一份關於為香港引入安全法的內部研究報告。
自從中國立法機構在6月底通過安全法以來，他、田飛龍和其他在同一陣線的中國學者在許多文章、訪談和新聞發布會中都積極為該法辯護。田飛龍認為，中國知識分子下一步將面對的是不斷惡化的中美關係。
“包括我們學者，我們也要選邊站隊，對吧？”他說。“對不起，現在目標不是西化，現在目標是中華民族偉大復興。”
‘Clean Up This Mess’: The Chinese Thinkers Behind Xi’s Hard Line
Chinese academics have been honing the Communist Party’s authoritarian response in Hong Kong, rejecting the liberal ideas of their youth.
Tian Feilong, a Chinese intellectual in favor of Hong Kong’s new national security law, in Beijing. As a graduate student, he attended a traditionally more liberal university.Credit...Giulia Marchi for The New York Times
By Chris Buckley
Aug. 2, 2020
Share unlocked article
254
阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版
HONG KONG — When Tian Feilong first arrived in Hong Kong as demands for free elections were on the rise, he said he felt sympathetic toward a society that seemed to reflect the liberal political ideas he had studied as a graduate student in Beijing.
Then, as the calls escalated into protests across Hong Kong in 2014, he increasingly embraced Chinese warnings that freedom could go too far, threatening national unity. He became an ardent critic of the demonstrations, and six years later he is a staunch defender of the sweeping national security law that China has imposed on the former British colony.
Mr. Tian has joined a tide of Chinese scholars who have turned against Western-inspired ideas that once flowed in China’s universities, instead promoting the proudly authoritarian worldview ascendant under Xi Jinping, the Communist Party leader. This cadre of Chinese intellectuals serve as champions, even official advisers, defending and honing the party’s hardening policies, including the rollout of the security law in Hong Kong.
“Back when I was weak, I had to totally play by your rules. Now I’m strong and have confidence, so why can’t I lay down my own rules and values and ideas?” Mr. Tian, 37, said in an interview, explaining the prevailing outlook in China. Witnessing the tumult as a visiting scholar in Hong Kong in 2014, Mr. Tian said, he “rethought the relationship between individual freedom and state authority.”
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
“Hong Kong is, after all, China’s Hong Kong,” he said. “It’s up to the Communist Party to clean up this mess.”
While China’s Communist Party has long nurtured legions of academics to defend its agenda, these authoritarian thinkers stand out for their unabashed, often flashily erudite advocacy of one-party rule and assertive sovereignty, and their turn against the liberal ideas that many of them once embraced.
ImageA panel of scholars and experts discussed Hong Kong last year during a briefing in Beijing organized by the State Council Information Office. A generation of Chinese academics has turned against Western-inspired ideas.Credit...Wang Zhao/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
They portray themselves as fortifying China for an era of deepening ideological rivalry. They describe the United States as a dangerous, overreaching shambles, even more so in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. They oppose constitutional fetters on Communist Party control, arguing that Western-inspired ideas of the rule of law are a dangerous mirage that could hobble the party.
They argue that China must reclaim its status as a world power, even as a new kind of benign empire displacing the United States. They extol Mr. Xi as a historic leader, guiding China through a momentous transformation.
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
A number of these scholars, sometimes called “statists,” have worked on policy toward Hong Kong, the sole territory under Chinese rule that has been a stubborn enclave for pro-democracy defiance of Beijing. Their proposals have fed into China’s increasingly uncompromising line, including the security law, which has swiftly curbed protests and political debate.
“We ignore these voices at our own risk,” said Timothy Cheek, a historian at the University of British Columbia who helps run Reading the China Dream, a website that translates works by Chinese thinkers. “They give voice to a stream of Chinese political thought that is probably more influential than liberal thought.”
As well as earnestly citing Mr. Xi’s speeches, these academics draw on ancient Chinese thinkers who counseled stern rulership, along with Western critics of liberal political traditions. Traditional Marxism is rarely cited; they are proponents of order, not revolution.
Editors’ Picks
The Anonymous Professor Who Wasn’t
How to Think Like an Epidemiologist
Two People in One Small Studio? This Couple Figured They Could Manage
Continue reading the main story
Image
The scholars extol the proudly authoritarian worldview ascendant under Xi Jinping, China’s top leader.Credit...Roman Pilipey/EPA, via ShutterstockMany of them make respectful nods in their papers to Carl Schmitt, the German legal theorist who supplied rightist leaders in the 1930s and the emerging Nazi regime with arguments for extreme executive power in times of crisis, Ryan Mitchell, an assistant professor of law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, documented in a recent paper.
“They’ve provided the reasoning and justification,” Fu Hualing, a professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, said of China’s new authoritarian scholars. “In a way, it’s the Carl Schmitt moment here.”
China’s ideological landscape was more varied a decade ago, when Mr. Tian was a graduate student at Peking University, a traditionally more liberal campus. Censorship was lighter, and universities tolerated guarded discussion of liberal ideas in classrooms.
Many scholars, including Mr. Tian’s dissertation adviser, Zhang Qianfan, argued that Hong Kong, with its robust judicial independence, could inspire similar steps in mainland China. “I had also been nurtured by liberal scholars.” Mr. Tian said.
Such ideas have gone into sharp retreat since Mr. Xi took power in 2012. He began a drive to discredit ideas like universal human rights, separation of powers and other liberal concepts.
Dissenting academics are maligned in the party-run news media and risk professional ruin. Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, was detained in July and dismissed from his job after writing a stream of essays condemning the party’s direction under Mr. Xi.
Image
Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at Tsinghua University, was detained by the police in Beijing in July and lost his job.Credit...The New York TimesThe education authorities generously fund pro-party scholars for topics such as how to introduce security laws in Hong Kong. Chinese and foreign foundations that once supported less orthodox Chinese scholars have retrenched because of tightening official restrictions.
More than fear and career rewards have driven this resurgence of authoritarian ideas in China. The global financial crisis of 2007, and the United States’ floundering response to the coronavirus pandemic, have reinforced Chinese views that liberal democracies are decaying, while China has prospered, defying predictions of the collapse of one-party rule.
“China is actually also following a path that the United States took, seizing opportunities, developing outward, creating a new world,” Mr. Tian said. “There is even a fervent hope that we’ll overtake the West in another 30 years.”
China’s authoritarian academics have proposed policies to assimilate ethnic minorities thoroughly. They have defended Mr. Xi’s abolition of a term limit on the presidency, opening the way for him to stay in power indefinitely. They have argued that Chinese-style “rule by law” is inseparable from rule by the Communist Party. And more recently they have served as intellectual warriors in Beijing’s efforts to subdue protest in Hong Kong.
“For them, law becomes a weapon, but it’s law that’s subordinated to politics,” said Sebastian Veg, a professor at the School of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences in Paris who has studied the rise of China’s statist thinkers. “We’ve seen that at work in China, and now it seems to me we’re seeing it come to Hong Kong.”
For Hong Kong, these scholars have supplied arguments advancing Beijing’s drive for greater central control.
Under the legal framework that defined Hong Kong’s semi-autonomy after its return to China in 1997, many in the territory assumed that it would mostly manage its own affairs for decades. Many believed that Hong Kong lawmakers and leaders would be left to develop national security legislation, which was required by that framework.
But Mr. Xi’s government has pushed back, demanding greater influence. The authoritarian scholars, familiar with both Mr. Xi’s agenda and Hong Kong law, have distilled those demands into elaborate legal arguments.
Several Beijing law professors earlier served as advisers to the Chinese government’s office in Hong Kong, including Jiang Shigong and Chen Duanhong, both of Peking University. They declined to be interviewed.
Image
“The survival of the state comes first,” over individual rights, wrote Chen Duanhong, professor of law at Peking University, who served as an adviser to the Chinese government’s office in Hong Kong.Credit...Wang Zhao/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“I don’t think they’re necessarily setting the party line, but they’re helping to shape it, finding clever ways to put into words and laws what the party is trying to do,” said Mr. Mitchell, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “This is all happening through legislation, so their ideas matter.”
A Chinese government paper in 2014, which Professor Jiang is widely credited with helping write, asserted that Beijing had “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong, dismissing the idea that China should stay hands off. The framework that defined Hong Kong’s status was written in the 1980s, when China was still weak and under the sway of foreign liberal ideas, he later said.
“They treat Hong Kong as if it were part of the West, and they treat the West as if it were the entire world.” Professor Jiang recently said of Hong Kong’s protesters. “China’s rise has not, as some imagined, drawn Hong Kong society to trust the central authorities.”
After protesters occupied Hong Kong streets in 2014, he and other scholars pressed the case that China had the power to impose national security legislation there, rejecting the idea that such legislation should be left in the hands of the reluctant Hong Kong authorities.
“The survival of the state comes first, and constitutional law must serve this fundamental objective,” Professor Chen, the Peking University academic, wrote in 2018, citing Mr. Schmitt, the authoritarian German jurist, to make the case for a security law in Hong Kong.
“When the state is in dire peril,” Professor Chen wrote, leaders could set aside the usual constitutional norms, “in particular provisions for civic rights, and take all necessary measures.”
Professor Chen submitted an internal study to the party’s policymakers on introducing security legislation for Hong Kong, according to a Peking University report in 2018, over a year before the party publicly announced plans for such a law.
Since China’s legislature passed the security law in late June, he, Mr. Tian and allied Chinese scholars have energetically defended it in dozens of articles, interviews and news conferences. Chinese intellectuals, Mr. Tian suggested, will next confront worsening relations with the United States.
“We have to choose what side we’re on, including us scholars, right?” he said. “Sorry, the goal now is not Westernization; it’s the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
Amber Wang contributed research from Beijing.
沒有留言:
張貼留言