Monday, October 10, 2016

華夏史觀改革

十月一日、十月十日,兩個國慶都被《香港城邦論》顛覆了。香港城邦論系列為何可以震撼華人世界,成為中央黨官必讀之作?因為《香港城邦論(初集)》顛覆了中共的歷史觀,中共將近代中國的起點定位鴉片戰爭(中英貿易與鴉片之戰)將中國視為歐美列強欺侮的國家,這是毛澤東的共產革命史觀。由於香港就是這段恥辱歷史見證之地,故此鄧小平必須收回香港主權,昭雪國恥。陳雲的《香港城邦論(初集)》引用馬克思主義史觀,認為英國殖民統治是解放舊世界(馬克思是論證英國統治印度的例子),開拓現代化,故此中共必須在收回香港主權之後,保存香港,推動香港自治,借助香港漢化的西洋制度來為中國無痛地文化殖民(所謂華夏復興),使中國可以借助香港來進行不損害民族尊嚴的現代化。為了中共自己的利益和民族尊嚴,中共將樂見陳雲倡導香港城邦自治,華夏文化復興,乃至於默許陳雲用永續基本法的方式來實踐中港邦聯建國。

《香港城邦論(二集)》是顛覆孫中山的民國史觀,陳雲認為王朝中國勝於中華民國,也勝於共產中國。英國在香港的統治,由於顧忌華夏,保存了華夏的王朝格局天下觀念,故此香港可以成為振興華夏天下的起點,可以在此地建立華夏邦聯,逐漸在中國本部建立聯邦體制。這是顛覆孫中山的史觀。

革命來自史觀、世界觀的顛覆,所謂revolution(英文的意思是建立新的旋轉中心和新的世界觀),必須建基於深厚的歷史研究和勇猛的史觀改變。毛澤東改變了近代史觀,他將中國積弱的歷史由中日甲午戰爭改變為中英鴉片戰爭,將模仿日本的改良主義變成模仿蘇聯的革命主義。孫中山採用晚明遺民王夫之、顧炎武等人的漢族天下論、帝力隱退論(以帝王為寇讎),於是締造了民國的國民神聖的觀念,也利用反清復明的民間歷史演義傳統,集合了廣東的宗族(本地、客家)、幫會(洪門及太平天國餘部)和海外客家華僑的支持,建立了打不死的革命子弟兵。

《香港城邦論》是從中國史觀的改變而來的,並不是從香港民族建立而來的。故此,香港城邦論不單止改變香港,也會改變中國及華夏文化傳播的區域。城邦論的目的不是香港民族獨立,而是在香港重構整個華夏的政治秩序。故此,香港建國是在華夏邦聯的基礎上做的,不是單方面宣布民族獨立建國。這個,共產黨好清楚。台灣也好清楚。美國好清楚。他們三邊都沒有反對城邦論,而中共是默許城邦論的執行,這令香港建國的過程順利好多——不論是香港人主導的Plan A還是共產黨主導的Plan B。至於美國主導的Plan C,則會由香港、台灣、日本、韓國的海洋華夏(maritime China)開始用文化和貿易來圍堵中國

陳雲的史觀來自幾十年讀書與官場實踐,陳雲的膽力從何而來的呢?一九九〇年,我在德國遊學,與一位六四天安門廣場的學運人士在弗萊堡的森林和草原漫遊了大半日,談及學運、人生、家園、愛情。我問她:「為什麼你們不來一個廣場制憲,宣布革命?你們有幾十萬校園精英,你們的學運有趙紫陽、太子黨,有軍隊支持的啊。」「哎呀,雲根,告訴你啊,老天沒生我們這個膽!」

#我的革命來歷。共產黨可以批評港獨、打擊香港民族論,但沒有一個共產黨的黨官,夠膽公開評論《香港城邦論》的,他們沒有這個膽。

Source: 陳雲

https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10154530809567225

https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10158587332402225

Tuesday, September 06, 2016

建立國體失敗,改為國民建設

稍後,我會講出牧養香港選民(the selected people)的大業。永續基本法、獨立建國的方法不成功,即是建立國體的路(state building)失敗了,要改行國民建設的路(nation building),由建設香港國民做起。這次選舉,城邦派被共產黨及泛民聯手勾結打敗,國體獨立的路行不通了,要回去國民建設的路,從歷史學習、文化培養和心靈道德做起。我們將全面撤出社運及一切牌面可見的政治鬥爭活動,議會的、街頭的,我們全部撤出,回到國民文化及心靈建設的路上。

議會留給那群幫助中共維穩的泛民和左膠議員身上,街頭鬥爭留給左膠團體。我們城邦派必須全部撤出,因為這次他們用議會選舉將我們的社運成果搶奪,下一步,他們就會用警察力量和司法力量,消滅我們在街頭社運出現的肉身。故此,必須全面撤退,躲藏於九地之下,退回神壇和學社之內。

這次選舉對城邦派的打擊,猶如台灣的二二八屠殺。大家要小心,必須全部撤離社運及議會鬥爭否則共產黨會下殺手,我們出一個,死一個

我們要保存精銳。從國體建設返回國民建設,香港的建國運動就不限於香港的國土。香港建國運動在有香港人的地方,在香港,也在海外港僑身上。

我在等待聖靈的感召。我自己也不限於要身在香港。

(警告:請勿在這個貼文或轉載的貼文下留下惡性攻擊的留言,否則皇天必會擊殺。不要試探。)

Source: 陳雲

https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10154435216162225

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

會考與人生

睡醒之後,早上就是DSE中學文憑試放榜之日。有些同學的中學階段結束了,有些同學是大學的開始。以我這個已經度過五十歲而讀了博士、做過高官的人來說,回顧三十幾年前中學會考,覺得良好的會考成績,只是鋪好了一條簡單易行的路,令我疏懶地應付人生,結果吃了很多苦頭中學期間的辛勤向學,換來的是日後的精神怠惰,要好努力才補回那些在大學校園和官場以外的人世歷練和街頭智慧。得失與禍福,總是如影隨形。不要以為考得好、路容易行,就以為成功在望,那是令人精神怠惰、道德虛偽的路,不真實的路。行上那條學院的路,思維會得到很好的鍛煉,但其他的感性和知識,必須自己在校園之外學回來。

更何況,香港在九七之後,因為《基本法》的五十年期限,令中國在九七之後部署二次接管香港,不斷赤化此地、人口殖民此地,香港人即使讀完大學,也沒有以前的路好行,畢業之後也只是浮浮沉沉,半死不活,輸給那些有身世和人脈的大陸學生或海歸派。我的永續《基本法》的議程,令香港產生本土政府的議程,中學畢業的同學是沒法投票支持的,但我會默默將它做好。

文憑試考得差,不要怨恨自己,那是自己暗中為自己鋪了另外的路而已。請面對真實的自己,體驗真實的人生。二十歲之前做的事,那些所謂成就,到了你五十歲的時候,便知道是一場空,不屑一顧。

人生的苦頭,總是要吃的會考成績好,路行得順,是將苦頭延後成績不好,是及早把苦頭吃了。這兩條人生路,哪一條比較好?我也說不准。我只能說,在青年的獨身時代多吃苦,比起有家室之後吃苦要好,不會累及家人。至於吃苦之後是否有甜,我也說不準。你自己去找。

Source: 陳雲
https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10154276260062225

垃圾徵費計劃,其實是戶口調查

垃圾徵費計劃,其實是戶口調查,所有灰色住戶(公屋寄居者、臨時屋、工廈隱藏者……),將會無所遁形,購買官方垃圾袋的數據會被政府用來做長期分析,例如政府會知道你在那段時間有人寄居在你家、同居之類,即是住戶人數增加,也會依照條碼抽樣掃描垃圾。各位千萬不要當它是環保計劃,這個其實是情報偵查計劃,而且要你付款。不過,立法會的議員會大比數通過。除非陳雲及其盟友在議會裡面。

我的原則:任何公民數據,都不要交給政府,即使那個是憲政民主的政府。一有公民數據在手,政府會忍不住分析和控制。你的自由,會以各種良善的原因(環保、安全、效率...)而消失。貧民、游離者、犯罪者,本來是隱形的,但垃圾袋的跟踪數據甚至條碼系統,會將這些人暴露出來。這是新自由主義控制人類的陷阱。

Source: 陳雲

https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/pfbid0e3pK284DyWw8e67at6jmT3vekTs5uejSu8BxomPcMxiqAFJeWa6GxReDNpU7NvAhl

Sunday, July 10, 2016

政治詞彙華夏化

有語言和文化知識的,都知道不必刻意去中國化。是自己的東西,為什麼要交還給中共,由中共獨佔呢?我們要做的,是在適當時候放棄使用「中國」一詞的現代用語。

古語的中國,是中原,甚至是京城、京畿。「中」這個詞,有自居為中心的傲氣。王朝時代的中國有時是指華夏王朝的領土全境,但通常是指中原一帶京畿之地首善之區,自稱中國之人,有上國之人的自豪感。

中華民國立國初年廣泛使用「中國」一詞來講述領土全境。中華民國由於建立民族國家,將華夏王朝傳統的都賦予「國」字「國」字在古文常有格局偏狹的意思,指諸侯國或京畿之地,並非天下

故此在言文時,要避免「中國」一詞的現代用法。在文化,我們用華夏,如華夏文明、華夏經典、華夏風俗,華夏是讚美自己文明禮教之詞,華是美,夏是大,是自我期許;地理是中國大陸(這個我們統治不到,名稱由得他);族裔是華人(唐人也可以);語文是華文(漢文、唐文也可以,中文可以沿用一段時間)。至於中華,可以沿用,也可以改稱華夏。將來華夏邦聯成立,中國大陸地區文化復興,再用「中華」二字也不遲。到時的「中」,就是中正、中和的中,以華夏正道治國。

我們用「華夏」概念,中共自己用「中國」概念,這樣就可以互相辨認了。

筆者以前曾編寫「共黨中文與香港中文對照表」,見《急救中文》附錄,花千樹出版有限公司,2012,頁265至281。此附表以政治詞彙為主,左欄是中共匪語或民國詞彙,右欄是香港雅言或傳統漢文用語。

中共或民國政治詞彙
香港詞彙或華夏雅言
中國
中共(政權)
中國大陸(地理)
華夏(文化)
中國(古語中的中原一帶)
契丹(未國的北面是契丹,契丹是頗多歐洲及中亞語言對中國的稱呼)
後清
(按︰後兩者乃輕蔑語)
中國人
華人(中國境外)
華裔(中國境外)
唐人(中國境外)
大陸人(中國境內)
中共國人(中國境內)
北方蠻夷(中國境內)
(按︰最後者乃輕蔑語)
中國文化
華夏文化
中文
中文
華文
漢文
唐文
國文
中文
華文
漢文
唐文
國語、普通話
北方官話
北方普通話
胡語
(按︰「胡語」乃輕蔑語,要慎用。北方普通話有若干蒙古語及滿洲語成分,但仍是華夏語言。)
中國古代漢語
古文(文言)
古代漢語(古代口語或語音)
中國現代漢語
白話文
中醫、中國傳統醫學
漢醫
唐醫
華夏傳統醫學
中樂
漢樂
華樂(按︰此名待定)
國術、中國武術
華夏武藝
華夏技擊
功夫(一般指南派的嶺南拳術)
國學
漢學(現代意義的漢學。古語中的漢學是漢代經典義理之經學)
春節
新年
夏曆新年
農曆新年
中央、中央政府
中共政府
北京政府
北京政權
(按︰最後者乃輕蔑用語)
港英政府
英治政府
英殖政府
香港特區政府
香港特區政府
香港政府
港府
港共政府
(按︰最後者乃輕蔑用語)
英國佔領時期、英佔時期
英國託管時期
托庇英國時期
英治時期
回歸祖國
香港主權移交中共
香港政權易手
香港赤化
香港淪陷
(按︰後兩者為輕蔑用語)
國慶
中共建政日(中共,十月一日)
辛亥革命紀念日(中華民國,十月十日)
(按︰中華民國的開國紀念日是一月一日)
香港回歸紀念日
香港特別行政區成立紀念日
(按︰此乃香港官方用語)
國父孫中山
孫中山先生(以思想乃功績而言)
孫文(以個人而言)
日本天皇、天皇
日本皇帝(略為跟隨日本人的說法)
(略為跟隨日本人的說法)
日本國王(華人的說法)
(華人的說法)
(按︰舊日王朝時代,稱日皇為日本國主而已。中共楊尚昆曾經當面稱呼日本皇帝為天皇,喪權辱國。戰後日本喪失海外屬土,琉球亦改稱沖繩縣,日本不再是帝國一國之主曰王,故此日本皇帝應該正名為日本國王。)
英皇、英女皇
英王
英女王
英皇
英女皇
(按︰英國國君只是在英屬印度殖民地稱為皇帝。戰後,大英帝國喪失大部分海外屬土,至今僅存若干小島,帝國沒落,可正名為英王英女王。然而,由於英國仍有小量屬土,英國君主在名義上仍是英聯邦國家如澳洲和加拿大等的國家元首,故亦可沿用英皇英女皇之稱號。英國維多利亞女王在位時,稱號維多利亞女王、大不顛及愛爾蘭聯會王國女王、印度女皇Victoria, Queen of England, Empress of India)。

Source: 陳雲《香港人手冊》73-79頁

如何令自己配稱為香港人?

如何令自己配稱為香港人?不會被人誤認為大陸人?How to behave yourself more like a Hongkonger?

一、身份澄清

人家問︰你來自哪裏?你是哪國人?
要答自己是香港人。I am from Hong Kong.

人家問︰你是中國人嗎?Are you Chinese?
回答︰I am a Hongkonger / Hongkongese.
不要理會是否Chinese的問題。不屑去糾纏。就好像一個法國人被人詢問是否德國人一樣,他不會去解釋和跟人家糾纏。

二、港中關係

人家問︰Is Hong Kong part of China?
要答︰No.  Hong Kong was a former British colony and now a separate autonomous city-state.  We have our own passport and currency.  Chinese coming to Hong Kong need to show a passport with entry visa.

三、衣著品味

衣服不一定要穿名牌,混搭不同布料、花紋、色彩,配搭有層次感,選色協調,用配件增添趣味,就能穿出自我風格。

不要把名牌全堆在身上。即使是名牌服飾,也要穿得夠舊,才能流露古著風味和經典貴氣。尤其是手錶,簇新的黃金外殼閃閃發光,只有暴發大款的刺眼俗氣。起角的小平頭、短裙配露出襪頭的短絲襪、十指戴滿誇張的配飾之類,當然不要模仿。

在酒店、住宿的地方,即使不必盛裝,也要衣著得體,不要穿著睡衣在大堂、走廊來回踱步。

四、飲食儀態

食飯時不要一邊咀嚼一邊說話,也不要玩遊戲或手機、讀報或看漫畫。

餸菜多汁液或醬料,夾菜時要用湯匙盛著,以免醬汁滴下,弄污餐桌。

珍惜食物,按食量點菜,點了的飯菜、飲品要食光,不要叫得酒肉滿桌,最後每碟只食一兩口,就叫侍應收回。

禮貌對待餐廳侍應,不必言謝時,就用微笑和點頭代替。

五、坐立有相

在公共場合,坐姿要端莊。尤其女子,切忌兩腿張開,好像等待分娩的樣子。男子也不要抖腳,或把腳擱在座位上。寬敞的大沙發椅,當然可以坐得放鬆一點。

站立要正,不要縮頸聳肩,好像沒腰骨似的。

所謂坐有坐相,站有站相,正直端莊,給人健康挺拔、精神飽滿的好印象。

六、購物禮儀

在商店見到價格相宜的商品,不要驚呼叫囂,也不要爭先恐後搶購。香港人有百幾年的採購經驗,不會對價錢大驚小怪。

真打算購買,才好請店員拿貨品樣版來,不要每件貨品都勞煩人家拿來樣版,左看右看,純粹觀賞。

人多擠逼時,要提防扒手,但也不要經常神經質地大動作摸自己的錢包。要檢查錢包是否仍在,用隱秘的手勢,不要令人覺得你是大鄉里出城。

七、社會道德

輪候服務要排隊,不要推擠,也不要用身體緊貼前面的人,要和人家保持適當距離。遇到有人要穿越隊伍,要自動讓路,不必擔心人家會乘機插隊。

下車時不要推人,上車時不要搶座。

在公眾地方,言談要輕。用手機玩遊戲或看影片時,要調至靜音。在街上遇到朋友,切忌大庭廣眾高呼對方名字,也不要邊叫邊跑過去,令對方尷尬。要慢慢走近朋友身邊,才好講話,或者打手勢呼喚對方。

修養心靈貞靜自持不莽撞不擾人

八、貴族風範

記住discretion(細緻而有分寸)reservation(有商有量而不唐突他人)tolerance(容納異見、寬恕小錯、有大氣度),but quick to offer help(勇於助人)。這是紳士淑女之風。

做到上述三至八點,你大概會被誤會是日本人吧。日本人正是將本土文化、華夏文明及西洋文明融合得恰到好處的民族。

Source: 陳雲《香港人手冊》67-71頁

香港化,Hongkongise

香港足球代表隊的韓裔教練金判坤在2015年9月說︰「相對於韓國,香港更讓我有家鄉的感覺。」對於香港這個新家鄉,他滿懷感慨︰「香港是有夢想的地方,我本身已無望再成為球員,但香港給了我機會,又讓我成為教練,……信任我、鼓勵我,我可以為香港而死。」他的話有點重,但香港確實有感召外來歸化入籍的能耐。

香港人並不是一個群族,而是一套以現代華夏文化為主體的文明體系。香港是小中華,也是新中華。香港華夏,是同一套東西來的,彼此都是文明體系都可以同化異族,只是香港是小的、是新的,華夏是大的、是古老的。華夏是漢化,香港是香港化;漢化是sinicise,香港化是Hongkongise。華夏可以漢化邊陲地區,例如朝鮮、日本、百越(即廣東廣西一帶,亦稱百粵)、安南等,成為華夏文化流播區。香港可以將歐亞混血兒、歐洲人、南洋人、南亞裔人、中國難民、中國新移民等外來人香港化,變成香港人。

華夏是什麼回事?華夏是周朝的文王周公孔子等聖者,將夏朝和商朝的天帝信仰理性化將人從恐怖不可測的天帝及鬼神崇拜之中解放出來,教導人內修德行外立功業以德配天開物成務,所謂內聖而外王,這樣就可以顯示得到天帝的寵愛,不必以奢華的祭祀和繁瑣的儀式來取悅神靈,也不必通過祭司來通靈。這是人的解放,周朝聖者做的事,與西洋的馬丁路德的新教改宗的做法一樣,都是將人導向文明理性。故此周朝的華夏之教容易流播到鄰近的泛神崇拜的地區,如日本、朝鮮、百越等,令這些地區文明開化,分享榮譽,但又不影響本土文化繼承。百越就是這樣漢化的,阻力很少。

再談香港。香港的文化是怎麼來的?香港的文化及制度,是由一群漢化的殖民官(金文泰、黎敦義等),一群懂得中西古代經典與禮教的歐洲統治者,與一群懂得西洋文明的華人,即所謂高等華人買辦世家(伍廷芳、周壽臣、鄧肇堅等),共同為華人創建的。香港是有高等華夏文明及西方現代文明的社會,香港的主體是現代化的華夏社會。香港以其文化實踐(宗法改革、廢除奴僕、推行西洋現代的一夫一妻制等等)、社會改造(中產核心家庭、廉政、公屋倫理等等)及政治實踐(高行政效率、諮詢式民主,以及言論、集會、示威、抗議政府的自由等等),形成香港的文明體系,成為華人社群裡面最高的辦事效率、最優雅及寬容的文化生活,以及最合理的公民秩序的典範。

香港化的程度可以深可以淺可以從華人文化入手,也可以從西洋現代文化入手,各適其適,這就是文明體系的特色。香港城邦論是以城邦生活的civic nationalism(共同生活經驗的公民所形成的國族)為建國基礎的,而且向外擴張為香港大城邦,將來主導締結華夏邦聯

目前中共要做的,是de-hongkongnise香港人,去香港化。香港城邦論就是高舉香港,要將香港重新香港化,也要將香港鄰近的大陸地區香港化,大家以現代精神繼承華夏及西洋傳統,邁向文明開化,締造新時代的華夏文藝復興。

Source: 陳雲《香港人手冊》63-66頁

香港近代史(1842年至2016年6月)

影響香港自主權及本土意識之大事,可作如下分類︰

一、香港領地與人口與中國大陸之區隔
  ──英國殖民政權之成立及兩地邊防管制

二、財政自主及獨立之香港貨幣
  ──港幣不再與英鎊掛鉤

三、人口普查及身份證制度
  ──香港的人口規劃及身份意識

四、自治制度及自治思想
  ──市政局、區議會、立法局;
  ──楊慕琦的香港自治計劃;
  ──馬文輝的香港自治論;
  ──陳雲的香港城邦論

五、香港以獨立成員國身份加入國際組織
  ──關稅暨貿易總協定(GATT)
  ──世界貿易組織(WTO)
  ──亞洲太平洋經濟合作會議(APEC)

六、新移民與香港族群之衝擊
  ──雙非人
  ──一簽多行
  ──中共殖民干預香港

七、公投及制憲思想之鼓吹
  ──五區總辭、變相公投


香港人意識的形成

1951年羅湖邊境封閉、阻隔中港兩地人民自由來往。在此之前,來自中國大陸或南洋華埠的華人,即使在英國殖民統治的香港居住,也無滋長香港人的意識。香港人意識的形成,由幾個歷史條件造成︰

一、香港的自治發展

英國殖民統治的法治、自由和公共服務,保護了香港華人在本地的財產、生計及個人發展,令華人得以避過晚清、民國初年及共產中國的不良統治。香港的正常,成為中國的例外

由於香港地位特殊,英國放手推進香港自治。香港財政預算案獨立編定而不須英國審批港幣與英磅脫鉤,成為獨立貨幣;香港有獨立的出口配額;香港是獨立的郵政區,有自己的國際直撥電話國家代碼;香港是世界童軍運動組織、國際奧委會及國際足協的成員國,也是關稅暨貿易總協定(GATT)的成員國;香港的大學學位及專業地位獲得英聯邦承認等等。這些累積的經歷,令香港人感到香港是與中國大陸區別開來的地方。

二、東西方冷戰的政治區隔

二次大戰之後,前蘇聯在歐洲和亞洲擴大影響,輸出革命,英美自由陣營與前蘇聯極權陣營展開長期鬥爭,稱為冷戰(Cold War)。中國共產黨在蘇聯的協助之下,於中國大陸地區建立政權,為了防範西方透過香港對中國進行滲透和干預,中共於1951年宣布封閉羅湖邊境,設立出入境管制,令香港居民的人數、工作地點和居住地點變得穩定,雖然在開頭幾年農民可以跨境耕種,但普通百姓不能跨境居住中產也不能好像以前的伍廷芳那樣,在香港培養,在清廷做大官,參與洋務運動。中港之間,因為冷戰的關係而區隔。共產中國走向赤化的野蠻統治,香港殖民政府因為冷戰,要香港成為示範區,因而採取開明的懷柔統治

三、香港的文化區隔

上世紀20年代中葉的省港大罷工,香港工人在廣州公會的號召下,紛紛北上聲援,令香港企業失去勞動力,生產力下降,之後廣州當局向香港實施貿易禁運,打擊香港的轉口業。港督金文泰有見及此,在香港大學設立中文學院,推行古文運動,在香港保存古雅中文,與大陸的白話文區隔。上世紀50年代之後,頗多廣東省以外的難民湧入香港,港府其後陸續在香港電台取消其他漢語語種(例如滬語、潮語、客語)的廣播,令廣東話成為香港華人的交流語,以廣東話同化外省人,也令到香港與中國大陸、民進黨執政之前台灣,以及新加坡截然不同——其他地方用普通話(華語、國語)為中文交流語,香港用廣東話為中文交流語。此外,香港是華人社會內唯一中英並重的雙語社會,香港青年人的英語合乎國際交流標準,令他們可以閱讀英文和到英語國家留學及工作,國際視野大增。香港文化的東西薈萃及新舊並存,自由而繁華,令此地有東方之珠(Pearl of the Orient)的美譽,遊客及電影拍攝者對香港趨之若鶩。

四、經濟轉型及繁榮帶來的香港本土歸屬感和自信心

共產中國成立之後,採取鎖國政策經濟以內銷為主,只有少量外銷香港等地,套取外匯。香港以前在南洋及中國沿岸的南北轉口貿易大幅減少,被迫加強工業化,「香港製造」的優良輕工業產品,令香港自信心大增。港府亦推行公民教育,增加香港人的歸屬感。上世紀七十年代之後的本土影視文化產品暢銷於南洋及歐美華埠。香港之名,海外華人津津樂道。

五、九七之後中國殖民激化香港人意識

九七之後,由於《基本法》的五十年期限,令中國在香港部署二次接收,要在2047年之前將香港完全赤化。中共在香港的明顯政治干預(港澳辦主任、中聯辦主任在香港指點江山)、大舉殖民(新移民不經香港審批而不斷湧入)、資本入侵(紅色資本家)、專業入侵(教師、醫生等)、行業獨佔(如跨境基建)、文化侵略(普教中、簡體字),令香港民眾感受威脅,發展本土、建國及獨立等自保運動。然而,中共以港獨、分離主義的藉口來誣衊各種港人自保行動,激化香港人的身份危機。

政府統計處資料顯示,1997年至2015年底,有近88萬人持單程證來港。「輸入內地人才計劃」自2003年推出,至2016年初,約有八萬四千宗獲批。「優秀人才入境計劃」自2006年推出,至2016年初,有3000宗獲批,約九成為大陸人。「非本地畢業生留港/回港就業安排」自2008年推出,至2016年初,約有五萬二千人獲批,約九成為大陸人。至於2003年推出、2015年停止的「資本投資者入境計劃」,共有四萬零四百七十八名中國公民獲批來港。單程證加上其他移民途徑,在九七之後的18年間,共有超過100萬名大陸人移入香港。大陸人移民香港的單程證及來港旅遊的簽證,是大陸部門簽發的證件,其受理、審批及簽發屬大陸當局的職權範圍。然而,《基本法》第22條規定︰「中國其他地區的人進入香港特別行政區須辦理批准手續,其中進入香港特別行政區定居的人數由中央人民政府主管部門徵求香港特別行政區政府的意見後確定。」惟香港特別行政區至今並未取回基本法承諾的參與決定權

如此龐大的移民數字,令大陸人佔香港人口超過七分之一。大陸人口在香港龐大比例,加上每年來港購物自由行旅客及日常的走私賊、特區政府偏袒大陸人的行政方式,令香港本土人無法將大陸人融合或同化。大陸人亦會保持其語言及習慣,在香港形成大陸族群,與香港本土人對立。

華人屬於文明體系(如自稱唐人)、地域觀念(如廣東人)、語言群體觀念(如客家人、潮州人、河洛人)多於血緣傳承,以華人為主的香港人的族群意識是在九七之後與大陸人的對立及衝突之中衍生的。與此同時,香港的政府部門、大學及傳媒的民意調查也不斷以香港人、中國人的身份認同來催逼香港人回答,不斷公佈的數字,顯示香港人身份認同節節上升,推波助瀾之下,也令香港人意識不斷高漲。當中,以青少年的香港人身份認同最高。香港特區政府中央政策組在2016年3月31日發表了「香港青少年對中國內地的觀感研究」報告。受委託的香港中文大學亞太研究所,於2015年5至6月期間,訪問了1000名15至35歲的香港青年,調查顯示當中有44.4%的受訪者自認為「香港人」,39.1%自認為「香港人,但都是中國人」,10.8%自認「中國人,但都是香港人」,而只有4.2%自認是「中國人」。顯示香港青年人對香港有強烈歸屬感,認為自己的唯一或首要身份是「香港人」者佔大多數。

Source: 陳雲《香港人手冊》23-28頁

香港特別行政區的實然主權內容

香港雖無國家之名,卻有國家之實,香港是中國轄下的特別行政區。大陸人、外國人來到香港,先視香港為特殊的國際城市,然後慢慢經覺,從憲法、貨幣、金融儲備量、福利、語言、文化,乃至行車方向到治外法權(extra-territoriality)國際條約簽署權領事豁免權,香港都有一個國家的實質內容,可以稱之為城邦(city-state)

憲法

一、香港有自己的憲法《基本法》,由政府行使,司法部門監察。構思一國兩制時,香港的憲法採用德國(西德)《基本法》(德文Grundgesetz)的概念,有憲法之實,無憲法之名。

二、《基本法》之實施,受主權移交國英國根據《中英聯合聲明》監察,該聲明受《維也納條約法公約》約束。繼承滿清王朝的是中華民國,惟英國將香港移交中共,成為中共擁有香港主權的法理基礎。然而,《基本法》將香港大部分的主權,以實然主權的方式,交放香港特區政府,中國只是名義上擁有香港的宗主權。大部分的國家權力,由全國人大授予香港。全國人大以下的中央人民政府及其部門不得干預香港內政。香港至今可以完全獨立對外行使國家行為,不需借助中國的外交代表權及軍事保護權。

三、香港是另外一個獨立的司法體系,中國法律不在香港實施。香港有法治(rule of law),沿用普通法制度。香港有立法權、司法權及終審權。大陸用大陸法。中共只能在香港發生動亂,宣布進入緊急狀態時,在香港行使中國法律。「莊豐源案」顯示,香港終審法院有權根據《基本法)的條文推翻全國人大詮釋《基本法》的附件,顯示香港的獨立司法管轄權不受全國人大影響。

四、香港特別行政區的立法議會與中國全國人大互不隸屬,各自獨立。人大常委會在2014年8月31日頒佈《關於香港特首普選問題和2016年立法會產生辦法的決定》,香港立法會在2015年6月18日表決《行政長官產生辦法決議案》時,否決了人大常委的決定。其後,中共派出國務院外交部來評論此事。

五、香港有自己的國籍法,與中國不同。香港永久居民可持有外國護照,享有雙重國籍。

六、香港有國際駐軍。中國在香港駐軍,不向香港特區收取軍費,亦不參與香港內政(例如救災),可以視為與香港無關的國際駐軍。

金融

七、香港有自己的貨幣及香港儲備的外匯發鈔保證。港元自由兌換幣值自主,港元通行世界。香港具備國家級數的儲備金。根據香港金融管理局2016年6月7日公布,香港於2016年5月底的官方外匯儲備資產為3,603億美元,達到GDP的110%至120%,能應付龐大的金融交易,是維持一個金融活躍的國家的儲備數量。

八、香港財政獨立。香港不向中國納稅。

九、香港在中國的投資,視為境外投資大陸公司在香港註冊或上市,視為外資企業

國民福利

十、香港保護人權及公民權利。

十一、香港有頗佳的國民福利制度。

語言文化

十二、香港有自己的語言政策。香港以中文和英文為法定語文,雙語並重。英文慣用帶點古雅的英式英文;中文則以古文雅言優雅白話為本。香港書寫正體漢字,公共文書一般採用較古雅的中文,日常口語以廣東話為主,但會容納其他漢語語種,如客家話、水上話、潮州華、福建話、上海並存。

十三、香港有獨特的本土文化。香港文化長期結合了華夏文化和西方文化,華夏祖源百越土風西洋文化三者並存,互有融合及創造。

國際關係

十四、香港有領土疆界和國家級別的邊防管制。香港與中國大陸的陸地相接,以深圳河為邊界。中國公民進入香港領土,必須持有中國發出的護照,經香港海關檢查入境,不能用身份證、居民證之類的證件。香港人進入中國領土必須出示回鄉證。

十五、香港有自己的特區護照。有別於一般中國護照,香港特區護照由中華人民共和國香港特別行政區簽發,而非中華人民共和國。香港特區護照比中國護照享有更多免簽證及落地簽證待遇,這些優待乃香港獨有,一般中國護照並無此優待。

十六、中共將香港當作境外地區處理。中共的對港辭令,視香港為中國一部分,但國家行政將香港當作境外地區處理。香港有自己的飛機航班與海港管理,香港到中國的飛機和輪船,視為國際航班。香港人不能在大陸享有戶籍福利、入黨、服役、出任公務員。香港足球員進入大陸工作,視為外籍人士、外援。香港學者在中國的大學享有若干外籍人員的待遇。來香港求學的中國大學生視為國際生,中國當局並不反對。

十七、香港享有治外法權。香港在中國大陸境內的深圳灣西部通道設置海關租期由2006年起,50年租約,跨越《基本法》的2046年的期限。該地行使香港法律,享有治外法權。

十八、香港的優惠地位,即是以香港自治權為本的政治情況,受到美國國會《美國——香港政策法》監督。此法案一般稱為《美港關係法》,容許美國政府在香港實施較中國優待及寬鬆的政策與待遇。美國政府的有關部門需要恢復在1992年實施的《美國——香港國際法》(United States-Hong Kong Policy Act)第301條款,該項規定行政部門需要每年向美國國會遞交有關香港狀況的報告。當中國不斷企圖干預與操控香港內部事務,尤其是增加干預香港政治制度發展,同時自由度出現萎縮,行政部門和國會要決定,美國政府是否需要繼續將香港與中國分開,在法律與政治上做出單獨對待。2014年11月13日,美國民主、共和兩黨國會議員在美國國會及行政部門中國問題委員會(Congressional-Executive Commission on China),聯合提出《香港人權及民主法案》Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act),建議修訂《美港關係法》加入在香港實施與中國待遇不同的新法律或協議前,總統要先確定香港有足夠自治,並且可以基於國家安全而取消協議。法案亦重申,保障人權是香港維持經濟繁榮的基礎,促請中國政府履行承諾,實踐港人治港、高度自治,確保香港人普選特首和立法會。美國國會於2014年11月20日就此法案舉行聽證會,出席者包括香港最後一任港督彭定康。雖然這是美國的內部法案,但這是美國以一拍兩散的方式來保護香港的自由地位

十九、香港是頗多跨國組織的國家成員國。從世界貿易組織(WTO)、國際貨幣基金組織(IMF),到國際足球協會及世界童軍運動組織,香港參與的歷史比中國更悠久。香港以國家成員國身份,參與其他東南亞國家的組織。成員國的會議有時在香港舉行,香港和中國的席位並列。

二十、香港駐外機構——香港經濟貿易辦事處,享有《維也納公約》所賦予的領事豁免權。只有國家級別的政治實體的代表,才享有領事豁免權。英國於1996年頒佈《香港經濟貿易辦事處條例》(Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996),賦予香港經貿辦享有國家級別的領事豁免權。2014年7月14日,香港駐倫敦經齊貿易辦事處處長(Director-General of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office)吳敏麗,致函英國國會的相關委員會,籲請英國不要干預香港內政,函件從無提及中國政府,並且與中國駐英國大使的函件並列,互不從屬。

二十一、香港居民在海外出事,由香港入境處照顧,不由中國大使館照顧。

二十二、香港是獨立的郵政區,有自己的國際電話直撥(IDD)國家代碼(852)。

國民歸屬

二十三、香港人愛香港之心強烈,遠遠超過中國人愛中國之心。

總結

香港與中國的關係,政治修辭一國兩制客觀事實兩國兩制,是特殊的國與國的關係,也可以勉強說成是宗主國與宗主國授權自治的附屬國的關係。政治制度形成國家,香港與中國政治制度不同,就是兩個國家。研究政治的人都知道,一地擁有治外法權、領事保護權,就是擁有實然主權的國家。香港很多地方與中國區隔,文化截然不同。香港國,不是孤立國,而是從制度上、從文化上領導中國的國。說是一國,只是免傷和氣,大家胡混過去。真的要將中、港關係說是一國兩制,那是一國,是邦聯國(confederation),而不是單一體制的共和國

我們香港人只要努力實現一個國家人民應有的尊嚴,一個文化體系成員應有的能力,就可以充實香港的國家內涵,對外宣傳香港是一個城邦附屬國(protectorate),享有實然主權,與中國是邦聯關係,當然名義上仍是宗主國與附屬國的關係,但中國這個宗主國在香港附屬國並無直接權力。城邦這個名號,省卻我們遊說的時間。

然而,由於《基本法》只有50年期限,2047年之後的憲政安排,並無著落。香港淪為香港特區政府無法行使主權的地方中聯辦部署在2047年之前就啟動二次收回香港自主權的各種行動,在香港大肆赤化,用移民人口、紅色資本、議會及專業公會的議席佔領等方法,奪取香港的控制權。

我們選擇中國面臨經濟蕭條的時機,用永續《基本法》來奠定香港的自主權,並會聯合香港商界及國際商會,在國際社會廣泛遊說取得支持,令香港的法治和制度得到永久保障,終止中聯辦的赤化行動,恢復香港的自主權。復興香港,再見輝煌。

Source: 陳雲《香港人手冊》13-21頁

《香港人手冊》序言

去年,我在台灣接過一位主張台獨的老人的宣傳品,他自己編寫和印刷一本小冊子,以年表方式,講述台灣歷史及台灣人身份的形成過程。他用閔南腔的國語,和我談台灣與香港的問題,談了好久。

這位八十幾歲的老人,帶著一個布袋,裝著自己的小冊子和台獨盟友的傳單,每逢有台灣的政治研討會,就親自去派,逐個來客去遊說和交談。台灣建國,是無數這些平凡人,用畢生的精力奉獻做出來的。台獨運動,投入的政客、學者、企業家、基督教會、宗親會、地方里長,數量和毅力驚人。在香港,大概只有我們幾百個人在做,而且都沒什麼錢和勢力。

愛拼才會贏,不拼註定輸。我默默在學習台灣的東西。我看到台灣的本土運動宣傳,都採用了編年史的方法。二二八事件、日治時代、萬國年代、民進黨、政黨開放、政黨輪替等,對形式台灣的本土意識很重要。香港要汲取台灣的經驗,努力整理自己的歷史。編寫香港歷史年表,可以顯示香港主權及香港人意識的形成過程。

香港何時有獨立貨幣,何時有市政局選舉,何時是有身份證,何時有回鄉證,何時發出簽證等,這些在過去都沒怎樣有詳細和組織的記述。香港人身份,是很意外地出現的。一路累積下來,就變成現在的香港。《香港人手冊》正是以編年史的方式,講述香港自主權及香港人意識的形成過程,令香港人了解自己,了解本土。

陳雲
中華民國一百零五年夏曆丙申年六月七日
西元2016年7月10日

Source: 陳雲《香港人手冊》5-6頁

Monday, June 06, 2016

《九七後的教育問題》(城邦公民政治講座第二回節錄)(謄抄)

之前羅范椒芬在位時,有教師跳樓自殺,結果教師遊行,羅范椒芬道歉。教師自殺之後很快就有政治反應,工作條件略為改善,皆因教師有工會(如教協、教聯)做政治平衡。

在現代社會,一旦沒有職業身份,沒有勞動,就沒有社會地位。現代社會是按照有報酬的勞動來區分社會地位,從而得到社會權利。如果某種勞動本身沒有報酬(例如學生在學校勞動、家庭主婦在家工作),那勞動者就會沒有勞工身份,沒有勞工身份就會沒有政治地位。故此,學生自殺與教師自殺,社會是會有不同反應的。


九七之後香港的教育發生了什麼事?


九七之後第一件事就是教育改革。教育改革表面上是進步的,彷彿對文化回歸或本土化有些幫助。


(一)母語教學


第一項教育改革是「母語教學」,名為「教育語言改革」,實為以廣東話教授其他科目,其道理是以母語教學最為有效,所有學生都能到同等教育效益,因為有些學生接受英語教學時的教育效果是不好的。這一點在教育的道理上是對的,但母語教學問題出在哪裡?


母語教學問題有兩個︰

一、去英語化

以往殖民地時代,我們的國家語言其實是英語,儘管中文是合法化,是官方語言,也是民間的交流語,但是在重大場合(如政治演說、在立法會發言、在法院辯論、在上流社會交流)都是以英文作為交流語。故此,母語教學其實是去英語化,將以前英國建立的國家texture拆解,這是很惡毒的。

當時的華人(九七時還是華人身份的人)覺得沒有問題,但其實這是去國家化,與新自由主義的去國家化一樣,是去英國化。

二、去本土化

母語是廣東話,但當時廣東話並未形成本土的主體性。我們口中的「中文」,只是個模糊的概念,那個「中文」的文化主體,繼承自王朝中國,或者是民國、共產中國,整體上是個模糊的「中文」觀念。由於我們沒有很強的廣東話的主體性去捍衛母語教學,所以母語教學很快就會變成一個低質素、反國際化、反社會上升的教學,接著就會走向一個「廣東話教學是低級的」狀態。要令其升級,就要用普通話教學。普通話教學起碼可以便利日後與中國做生意、在大陸創業、北上之類。九七之後,本土運動、廣東話本土的主體性未夠強,是捍衛不了母語教學的,「母語教學」很快就變質成為「普教中」,甚至演變成用普通話教授其他科目,接著中共就進入香港的教育體系。

中共進入,並不代表香港再次國家化,因為中共並沒有國家主體,它只是一個黨政系統,沒有國家精神,所以香港式的普教中並沒有建立一個國家,只是增強了國際化。(香港的普教中,與台灣的國語運動、消滅閩南話運動不同,台灣那個國語運動,是一個建國運動,儘管建立的是一個由北方人主導建立的中華民國。)

在這個沒有國家主體的背景下,香港家長的心態並非「因為回歸中國,所以要學普通話這個國家語言」,而是覺得「既然英語學不好,那就學普通話,起碼多一種技能」。「母語教學」轉向「普教中」,就是在這種很詭異的狀態進行,家長沒想過要子女學習大中華人民共和國的語言,只不過是覺得廣東話本來就曉得,倒不如學普通話,多學一種技能。母語教學就是在這種狀態下,很快轉移至「普教中」,將我們的重心轉移至中國。這就是何以母語教學能夠消滅香港文化的原因。


(二)課程拆解


除了改革教學語言這個最重要的元素外,另一項教育改革就是將過去有系統知識傳授的課程拆解,將地理、經濟、社會、歷史、中史等科目拆解,變成一個綜合的通識教育科,美其名是培養全人教育和通才,用幾種主題將人類歷史、國際知識、生活上遇到的問題集合在幾個大主題之下,聲稱學生透過了解這些主題就能夠發現世界是怎樣的。

聽去不錯,但只要你具備簡單邏輯,就會發覺像地理、經濟、中史那些有系統的知識能否拆解成五、六個知識單元,將那些知識重新組合是否就能夠了解一系列的知識?

一方面在數學上已是不可能的。原本豐富的內容如何能夠用五、六個主題組織在一起?勉強組織在一起,亦只不過是了解這幾種知識在這個組織的nexus(交匯點)如何interwork,來自中史、地理、經濟、自然科學的知識如何在交集處運行。這其實是跨學科研究,但你必須先知道那些知識本身從何而來、本身運作過程為何,才能知道他們如何交集。然而,通識教育就是只學習那交集的狀態,由西周而來的狀態,由海恩斯而來的狀態,你不需要理會,你只需要理會它們在這一刻全球化和本土衝突時的狀態是怎樣的、它們是如何撞擊的,那麼你就會得到一種「學習能力」,而這種「學習能力」就能夠令你終身解難。這是我用一個邏輯的方式將以往羅范椒芬所宣傳的內容說出來,內容是相同的,但你會看到荒謬之處。不過羅范椒芬不會說出荒謬之處,只會告訴你不用讀那麼多,只讀這一部分,精彩地解決問題,學生就會充滿解決問題的能力,具備終身學習的本領,可以面對各種困難,可以成為出色的僱員獲國際公司聘用。

另一方面,把課程拆其實是將過去有系統的知識碎片化。學生只能夠掌握到碎片的拼圖,但不知道每一塊碎片從何而來、如何製造,只有拼圖的能力,甚至連那拼圖能力也是老師和家長教的。


由於那種能力本身其實是很艱難的,所以為了遷就學生程度、為了令合格率能去到一個可以接受的水準,考試難度就會降低,結果學生表面上彷彿具備很強的能力。當你要遷就能力降低的學生而令他們感覺良好,你就要需要多開辦一些次級大學,或是將原本不是大學的升格成為大學,將這批能力次級的中學生融入去次級的大學,結果大學體系膨脹。

大學體系膨脹,本應能產生很多人才,人才本應可以邁向中級中產或高級中產,但由於次級大學的學生來源本來就是能力差,而且中級中產和高級中產只會佔整個經濟結構中頂部的一個三角形,增加推入三角形的人數並不會令三角形裡的職位增加,只會令這些人擠出三角形之下,或者令三角形裡的職位碎片化。

舉個例子,原本只是一個教師職位,但由於出現能力較差的大學生,所以這教師需要一些教學助理去招呼這些較差的大學生;當一個主要教師職位有幾個教學助理,這位教師的生計就會受到挑戰,受到那幾個教學助理的內部挑戰、內部鬥爭,教師的生活會變得辛苦,為了證明自己比那幾個學歷相同甚至具備更多學歷的教學助理優勝,就要繼續讀書,原本好端端教學經驗豐富、一直指導學生功課的老師,被逼去讀教學的碩士,甚至沒緣由而要讀博士,結果只會疲於奔命,而且生存和自信經常受到威脅。


新自由主義就是這樣進入學校的︰

一方面令學生掌握知識差,令老師受到挑戰,把差勁的高中生送進大學,將大學高中化、將大學降格。

另一方面設立資歷架構之類的規格,將本來不在學術體系的人拉進學術體系,結果整個社會充滿持有學士學歷的人,社會亦趨向「一切都在UGC和考評局的監控之下」的狀態。原本的社會有很多leeway、很多漏洞,例如工業學院、學徒之類,均不在正規監控之下,都是灰色經濟和其他社會活力的來源,那些不願意進入主流的人有空間走動,可是一旦大學膨脹,社區學院推出副學士,再加上資歷架構,所有人都納入政府監視和控制之下,社會就會失去自由,失去「我不想與政府有任何關係,只想學習技能餬口,只想得到行家和顧客認同,令自己滿意」的空間,所有人都必須與政府扯上關係,一定要通過考核評審。

1997至200年間,整個社會對這些並沒有警戒心,一味推崇「你做化妝小姐之類也可以透過讀書考核變成持有學士資歷」的觀念,但問題是︰為何要去考取學士資歷?我又不是要當政務官,原本就是無須理會學術也能好好生活的。

一旦所有人都進入這系統,而這系統是充滿壓迫和監視的時候,它一定會令你不及格,令你要不斷購買它的教育服務。這時候會衍生很多職位,但最大問題是,考評局和政府會監視整個就業狀態和就業資格,而這就形成一個監控的社會。新自由主義恐怖的地方,就是透過衍生很多服務,使政府或政府外判的服務供應商,能夠控制很多事情,能夠取得很多資訊,我們難以逃出它的控制範圍而生活。

這就是我們常說要有所警惕的原因。當政府向你提供服務,你要曉得拒絕,或者曉得問這些服務是否我應該需要有的。如果甚麼都照單全收,就很容易落入服務提供者的陷阱,因為服務並非免費的,你要交學費,要考試,要拿取某個資格,不跟從的話就會發現難以就業。

漢醫(中醫)的規管方法,就反映出這一點。開辦學士課程供你修讀,但這做法卻會令到另類中醫或者堅持傳統醫學的中醫(不以實證醫學或西醫理論去學中醫的人)生存不了,因為他們考不了試,無法完成課程。

舉凡將一個民間行之有效的事情拿去規管,或者給予考試、資格認定等,都是危險的,除非一開始就是如此,例如西醫一開始就有醫學院,要考牌,就沒有問題,但其他中醫、正骨、另類醫療等,為什麼要跟從?根本沒有這種必要,因為有一般的刑事法可以監管,用藥不當的醫療行為可以索償,或者中醫不准用西藥之類,何須強制將之納入系統?

雖說新自由主義鼓吹deregulation(非規管化),但最終它是規管化的,只不過規管並非來自簡單的規管,而是極之複雜的規管,人民要付錢購買他的服務來規管自己,付錢後得到某種資格認可或執業認可,才可以工作。

舉個例子,以往未有領匯前,開舖做生意是不用學習工商管理的,有了領匯之後,領匯會教你如何做生意,有課程供你修讀,告訴你門面不夠靚,教你要在每位顧客進入店舖時講「歡迎光臨」。講「歡迎光臨」根本是種滋擾,而且是有幾種功能的,其中一個功能是令顧客知道自己受到監視,「你不要偷竊,不要在我的店舖亂逛,我知道你在這裏亂逛,我知道你沒有幫襯」;另一個功能是監視員工,員工要不斷說「歡迎光臨」以證明他是清醒的,有攝錄機拍攝監視,即使在低頭執貨也要對每位顧客說「歡迎光臨」,不然連鎖店的特許經營商就會質疑員工是否在偷懶、是否招致偷竊之類。這些就是社會紀律(social discipline),對員工、對顧客都是監控。顧客本來就是要閒逛才會購物的,故此這種監控根本是反商業的,但就是為了防止店舖偷竊,而採用這種negative的管理方法。一旦沒有強迫消費(即是人們不一定要去你的舖頭幫襯時),這些行為就會變成趕客,是 anti-productivity的。香港的商人如此囂張,就是因為連鎖店與商地產商勾結,即使他不斷趕客,你也要幫襯,但當自由行離去,消費力低,連鎖店現在就叫苦連天,甚至倒閉,道理很簡單,因為你根本不是在做生意,你是在趕客,管理方法是負面的。一個原本曉得做生意、有數十年經營小舖和行業經驗的店主,在房委會的公屋商場做得好端端的,不用學習就能賺錢生活,在領匯收購後,卻要上課程學習管理方法,這就是新自由主義。

新自由主義表面上是deregulate某些東西,但一旦握有權力,就會去規管,要有discipline,要regulate,將不跟從規管的人踢走,例如不上課程就不能開舖之類,或者用其他方法懲罰,直至對方依從為止。

過去香港數十年在市面上討論或宣傳的,實際上是剛好相反的。這就是新自由主義。


Source: 陳雲

Friday, May 20, 2016

美國在東亞的concern(關注利益)

香港人要認識美國。美國在東亞的concern(關注利益)是什麼?首先是區域安全(regional security),其次是自由貿易(free trade),最好是順便可以促進全球經濟增長(global economic growth)。中國在近年已經令美國煩厭,因為中國破壞了第一項,障礙第二項,丟失第三項。故此,在美國的盤算中,中共必須死。

#你毋須讀什麼國際關係。這是常識。

Source: 陳雲
https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10154141530797225
https://www.facebook.com/589657224/posts/10158226049962225/

Monday, April 25, 2016

你層樓,隨時變成領匯持有!

你層樓,隨時變成領匯(現改名為領展)持有。為什麼城邦派今年要入立法會?我透露少少國際密議給大家知道。如果不修改《基本法》,永續自治權,香港到了二O 四七年,香港人的樓房地產會被中國國土局收回,持續抽重稅中國國庫空虛的時候,甚至抵押變賣用領匯房地產信託的方式,將香港人的血汗錢供回來的樓,變成債券抵押,在國際拋售,以香港樓房地產的地租收入做信貸抵押,將香港地租收入在國際上證券化,取回龐大外匯救國到時你層樓的地權,隨時變了巴拿馬的離岸公司持有,而不是香港特區政府持有,因為到時無咗特區政府。至於你交不起國土局的昂貴地租,結局更加簡單,你層樓會被中國扣押和變賣,成為支付地租的抵押品。

各位可以不相信。但領匯變了領展,公屋商場拆件出售及外判,各位估到嗎?我暫時透露少少,遲些在公民政治講座詳談。我講得出,自然有方法解救,不過要我自己親手做,否則這種國際交易的天價利益,大到無議員會幫你做事。

中國國土局是否要等到二O 四七年才可以狂加香港地租,並且將地租收入證券化,在國際上市呢?答案:未必啊,其實不必等到二O 四七年,香港人的樓房土地就會領匯化。中共一旦國庫空虛,等錢救急,二O 一七年(三十年按揭的限期)就可以將二O 四七年的地租收入當作是國家的預期收入,以此做國家舉債或發行證券的抵押,只是價格會壓低一點而已(因為要將來才兌現,但必定兌現的)。

明年,二O 一七年,如果我們不能入立法會發動《基本法》永續,取消二O 四七的五十年大限,令國土局不能在二O 四七年擁有香港所有樓房土地,各位請自作打算。

二O 一七年打後,中共國庫空虛,會向外公佈,二O 四七年收回香港土地,中國國土局徵收地租中共為了可以在三十年前預先收到地租,可以成立香港土地基金之類的公司,用預期的地租收入來舉債和集資。到時,大家估計一下,包銷債券或股票的國家是哪一個?而因為有這個國家合作,一切會順利進行。 二O 四七年中國將香港樓房土地領匯化、中國在香港的地租收入證券化,是天價大茶飯議會中人,個個有着數,香港目前絕對無議員願意發動修改《基本法》來反對,除了熱普城聯盟的候選人。原因?因為我地唔想移民,我地要在香港城邦建國,世代久享。新泛民個個講十年之後發動港人自決獨立,但他們絕對不敢講即刻在立法會發動修改《基本法》第五條,廢除五十年大限,各位就知道箇中秘密。 上世紀八十年代,《基本法》剛草擬好,香港最敢言的馬評家董驃叔叔說:「有錢有辦法,無錢基本法。」有錢的人靠香港這個租界撈錢走人,無錢的人要靠基本法保護。我現在做的,就是為無錢的人修改基本法。當然,有層樓做小小安家的中產,也保護到。至於靠香港這塊五十年期限的無主之地來謀財的國際大財團,他們會視陳雲為眼中釘,會出盡辦法打擊

Source: 陳雲
http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/04-25-2016/30100
https://www.facebook.com/passiontimes/posts/1099174070145759

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Only China Could Go to Nixon

"Ally with Wu in the east to oppose Wei in the north."
-The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, AD 200
「聯吳抗魏」
《三國演義》
Quoted in Memo to Chairman Mao, 1969

One of the great lessons of history Americans have been taught over the years is that President Richard Nixon's opening of U.S. relations with the People's Republic of China in 1971 was an act of sheer brilliance. The ever-strategic Nixon, along with his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, believed that such an alliance would bolster America's position against the country it saw as the far greater threat to U.S. interests: the Soviet Union. History has presented Americans with the image of Nixon the chess player, seeing many moves into the future while playing nations off against other nations.

There was, to be sure, an element of brilliance in America's opening to China. And there were legitimate reasons to broker such an alliance at the height of the Cold War. But many have forgotten—if they ever even knew that the opening was not actually initiated by Nixon or by Kissinger. During their first months in office, their focus was on improving relations with the Soviet Union. They had no desire to provoke the Soviets' ire by dallying with China. Indeed, in many ways, it was not Nixon
who went to China, but China that went to Nixon.

In the case of each American president, Beijing's strategy seems to have been a product of brilliant improvisation—constant tactical shifts combined with shrewd assessments of the internal differences among the main players in Washington debates. In their assessment of shi (勢) vis-à-vis the United States, China's leaders benefited from something considered to be of critical importance during the Warring States period: a well-placed spy in the enemy's ranks.

A forty-year employee of the CIA, Larry Wu-Tai Chin (金無怠), was accused in 1985 of engaging in decades of espionage on behalf of China. Chin was accused of providing countless classified U.S. documents regarding China to the Chinese government, charges to which Chin pled guilty in 1986. While confessing to a judge, Chin declared that he acted as he did to promote reconciliation between the United States and China. Shortly thereafter, he was found by a guard asphyxiated in his prison cell. Larry Chin seemed to admit to the judge he revealed our planning and weaknesses to the Chinese government so Beijing could have been highly effective in getting all it wanted.

America, in contrast, has not had similarly placed informants to provide direct insight into Chinese strategic thinking. Because we also lack access to internal Chinese policy documents, this chapter attempts to unearth the motivations of China's leaders during the time of renewed relations with the United States through the end of the Reagan administration by examining U.S. accounts of what appeared to be driving China, as well as other open-source information that has emerged since.

Unlike the United States, China has not released, nor is it likely to ever release, official internal records showing how Chinese leaders were able to obtain essentially all of the major economic, military, and diplomatic-political assistance it sought from the last eight U.S. presidents, from Richard Nixon through Barack Obama. However, there do appear to be consistent strategic approaches followed by Beijing that have been acknowledged in general terms in interviews of and articles by Chinese scholars. The nine elements of Chinese strategy (introduced in chapter 2) help us to better make sense of China's past and prospective actions. The use of deception, shi, patience, and avoiding encirclement by the Soviet Union are all apparent. In particular, the nine key elements
of Chinese strategy have guided China throughout its decades-long campaign to obtain support from the United States to increase China's strength.

There is wide agreement that in the late 1960s, with their outsize ambitions exposed to the Soviets, with whom they were on the brink of military confrontation, China sought out a new benefactor. For ideas about how to make America a friend—or, to be more precise, a temporary ally—Mao turned to the military rather than to his diplomats.

Many Americans discounted the influence of China's hawks. They were surprised to learn that the military secretly designed China's opening to America. In the spring of 1969, Mao summoned four hawkish army marshals who wanted to end China's decade of passivity and instead to stand up to the threat of the Soviet Union—Chen Yi (陳毅), Nie Rongzhen (聶榮臻), Xu Xiangqian (徐向前), and Ye Jianying (葉劍英). These marshals summed up the American strategy toward the Soviet Union and China in a Chinese proverb of "sitting on top of the mountain to watch a fight between two tigers." In other words, they believed America was waiting for one Communist country to devour the other, and they thought in terms of ancient lessons from the Warring States period.

In May 1969, Mao asked them for further recommendations. According to Kissinger, the marshals' private secretary recorded that the group discussed "whether, from a strategic perspective, China should play the American card in case of a large-scale Soviet attack on China." Marshal Chen Yi suggested that the group study the example of Stalin's nonaggression pact with Hitler in 1939.

Another marshal, Ye Jianying, cited the "Red Cliff strategy" pursued by Zhuge Liang (諸葛亮), the southern commandeer who outwitted Cao Cao (曹操): "We can consult the example of Zhuge Liang's strategic guiding principle when the three states of Wei (魏), Shu (蜀), and Wu (吳) confronted each other: 'Ally with Wu in the east to oppose Wei in the north.' (聯吳抗魏)"

In the marshals' view, America feared a Soviet conquest of China: "The last thing the U.S. imperialists are willing to see is a victory by the Soviet revisionists in a Sino-Soviet war, as this would [allow the Soviets] to build up a big empire more powerful than the American empire in resources and manpower."

Chen Yi pointed out that the new president, Richard Nixon, seemed eager "to win over China." He proposed what he called "wild ideas" to elevate the United States–China dialogue to the ministerial level, or even higher. Most revolutionary, according to Kissinger, was Chen Yi's proposal that the People's Republic drop its long-held precondition that Taiwan be returned to mainland China. Chen Yi argued:

First, when the meetings in Warsaw [the ambassadorial talks] are resumed, we may take the initiative in proposing to hold Sino-American talks at the ministerial or even higher levels, so that basic and related problems in Sino-American relations can be solved. ...
Second, a Sino-American meeting at higher levels holds strategic significance. We should not raise any prerequisite. ... The Taiwan question can be gradually solved by talks at higher levels. Furthermore, we may discuss with the Americans other questions of strategic significance.

China still called the United States its enemy, describing a possible visit by Nixon as an instance of China "utilizing contradictions, dividing up enemies, and enhancing ourselves." In other words, the United States was merely a useful tool for China, not a long-term ally. Operating on this principle, Beijing sent a secret message to Nixon and Kissinger: since President Nixon had already visited Belgrade and Bucharest—capitals of other Communist countries—he would also be welcome in BeijingThe message contained no hint of trust or future cooperation.

China has not released internal documents to substantiate the reasons for the decision to reach out to America, but several Chinese generals have told me that Mao's subtle approach to the Nixon administration was a striking example of identifying and harnessing shi, with some telling me that there was one moment that caused Mao to redouble his efforts: a major battle at the border of Xinjiang in northwestern China on August 28, 1969. Beijing mobilized Chinese military units along China's borders. By then, Kissinger concludes, resuming contact with the United States had become a "strategic necessity." At the United Nations in New York, I heard the Soviet version of their attack and quickly passed it to Peter and Agent Smith to inform the contentious NSC debate about the
risks of reaching out to China.

In 1969, Mao was able to assess correctly the shi that was driving China out of the Soviet orbit and toward a new alliance with the West. Mao had taken two actions to accelerate this shift. The first was his invitation of Nixon to Beijing. The second was to test two massive hydrogen bombs without warning within days of each other near the Soviet border. The act served both as a show of force and as a signal to America that China sought to move away from the Soviet orbit.

Realizing the Americans still weren't quite getting the message, Mao did something on October 1, 1970, quite unusual for the committed and anti-Western Communist: he invited the well-known American journalist and author Edgar Snow to stand with him on the Tiananmen reviewing stage, and arranged for a photograph of both of them to be taken for all of China to see. Mao gave his guest a message: President Nixon was welcome to visit China. This was an astonishing invitation—the latest of several overtures by the Chinese government. Kissinger admits that Washington still did not get the message, or at the very least did not appreciate its sincerity. The U.S. government was too preoccupied with its own interests and strategies to care about China's. Thus the history of normalized Sino-American relations started off with a myth. Nixon did not first reach out to China; instead, China, in the person of Mao, first reached out to Nixon. The Americans just didn't realize it. Nor did Washington yet know that Chinese documents called America the enemy and likened it to Hitler.



As Nixon and Kissinger considered their grand strategic approach to China, I was playing a much smaller role in this drama. In the autumn of 1969, my interlocutors within the intelligence agencies, Peter and Agent Smith, requested that I brief Kissinger's staff about the information I had gathered while working as an intelligence asset at the United Nations. In my meetings with Kissinger's top advisers, I detected a sharp split on China. Two National Security Council staffers, John Holdridge and Helmut Sonnenfeldt, wrote memos that seemed to favor an overture, with neither fearing a Soviet overreaction. But two others, Roger Morris and Bill Hyland, were opposed. Morris and Hyland feared that any U.S.-China alliance would needlessly provoke Moscow and severely damage the administration's emerging policy of détente with the Soviet Union. Four senior American ambassadors had already met in person with Nixon to warn him that Moscow would respond to any U.S. opening to China by halting movement toward détente and arms control. These clashing memos help to explain why Nixon and Kissinger delayed the opening to China by two years. They had to be prodded by China, and by my own reports from the Soviets at the United Nations that Moscow would not call off détente and actually expected America to accept China's deceptive offers of an alignment. Shevchenko and Kutovoy had said exactly this to me.

My evidence seemed to play a modest role in breaking this deadlock. I relayed what I had gathered so far: that the Sino-Soviet split was in fact genuine and that the Soviets expected us to open relations with the Chinese. I reported, and others verified, that senior diplomats such as Arkady Shevchenko already assumed that Nixon would improve relations with China to some degree. Their fear was only that he would go “too far" and establish military ties—something that was not then on the table. I was a strong—and, I hoped, persuasive—advocate for a Sino-American alliance. Kissinger even sent me a thank-you note later.

But there were additional factors at work that persuaded Kissinger and ultimately President Nixon to move toward Beijing. While Kissinger was still attempting to discern Chinese intentions, Senator Ted Kennedy was seeking to visit China. The Chinese even mentioned this possibility to Kissinger during his secret trip to Beijing in July 1971, consistent with Warring States concepts about manipulating hawks and doves. Nixon reacted as anticipated and instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to invite no other U.S. political figure to visit China before Nixon. Nixon believed, with good reason, that Kennedy was attempting to steal his thunder and become the first American politician to travel to Beijing. Raising the possibility in public speeches of renewed relations with Communist China, Kennedy was putting together what looked to be a foreign policy platform for the 1972 presidential election.

Another factor was China's involvement in the Vietnam War. Beginning in the 1950s, China had been supplying North Vietnam with weapons, supplies, and military advice. China had recently reduced military aid to North Vietnam and had even drastically reduced Soviet shipments through China, which further persuaded the Nixon administration to side with the pro-China camp. The Americans would receive reassurance on this front during Nixon's visit to Beijing when Mao told the president that he was eager to remove any threat from China to the United States:

At the present time, the question of aggression from the United States or aggression from China is relatively small; that is, it could be said that this is not a major issue, because the present situation is one in which a state of war does not exist between our two countries. You want to withdraw some of your troops back on your soil; ours do not go abroad.

Kissinger asserts that this sentence indicating that Chinese troops would not go abroad reduced the U.S. concern that China would intervene in Vietnam, as it had done in Korea in 1950. Mao correctly recognized that this fear featured prominently in American thinking and wanted to induce complacency.



In July 1971, Kissinger made his historic secret visit to China, the first tangible realization of Mao's long-held plans. The Chinese were coy about the Soviet threat that had driven them to reach out to the Americans. Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai (周恩來) referred only obliquely to "our northern neighbor" and "the other superpower." Nor did the Chinese side initiate any further discussion on the issue of the Soviet threat. Were they really so terrified of an attack?

During Kissinger's subsequent trip to Beijing, in October, Zhou placed the Soviet Union on a list of six key issues on the substantive agenda, although he listed it last. After the Chinese declared that they were not opposed to improvements in American-Soviet relations, Kissinger concluded that they were displaying bravado and concealing their fear of the Soviet threat. Kissinger warned Zhou of Moscow's "desire to free itself in Europe so it can concentrate on other areas." "Other areas" meant the People's Republic of China.

But there were glimpses even then that the Chinese saw the United States not as an ally but as an obstacle. Referring to the United States, Zhou offered a hint of how the Chinese really felt about their new prospective friend.
"America is the ba (霸)," Zhou told Kissinger's interpreter, Ambassador Ji Chaozhu (冀朝鑄) of China's Foreign Ministry, repeating a term that would be frequently used by Chairman Mao and his successor, Deng Xiaoping.

U.S. government officials who understand Mandarin—a small but growing group—have long known that many Chinese and English terms cannot be fully translated between the two languages. Choices must often be made by the interpreters about what each side really means. Kissinger's translator told Kissinger that Zhou's statement meant, "America is the leader." This seemed to be an innocuous remark, and when taken in the context of the Cold War even a compliment. But that is not what the word ba means in Mandarin—at least that is not its full context.

Ba has a specific historical meaning from China's Warring States period, where the ba provided military order to the known world and used force to wipe out its rivals, until the ba itself was brought down by force. The ba is more accurately translated as "tyrant." In the Warring States period, there were at least five different ba. They rose and fell, as each new national challenger outfoxed the old ba in a contest of wits lasting decades or even a hundred years. One wonders how U.S. policy toward China might have shifted had Kissinger been told that day that the Chinese saw Americans not as leaders, but as wrongdoers and tyrants. To this day we still have to sort out and live with the consequences of that key mistranslation.

Some years later, I had the privilege of talking to Ambassador Ji Chaozhu. He omitted any discussion of how he translated the concept of ba to Kissinger in his otherwise chatty memoir The Man on Mao's Right, which provides a rare insider's account of how China's Foreign Ministry viewed the opening to the United States. I asked if the word "leader" he used in English had originally been the Chinese word ba.

"Did you tell Dr. Kissinger what a ba was?" I asked.
"No," he replied.
"Why?"
"It would have upset him."

If Kissinger had realized what Zhou meant by ba—if he had realized how China really viewed the United States—the Nixon administration might not have been so generous with China. Instead, the administration soon made numerous offers of covert military assistance to China—all based on the false assumption that it was building a permanent, cooperative relationship with China, rather than being united for only a few years by the flux of shi. Perhaps if U.S. analysts had gained access to views of the anti-American hawks, China's perception of America as a tyrannical ba would have alerted Washington. A RAND study in 1977 warned of evidence since 1968 that there was a strong anti-American group within the Chinese leadership that used proverbs such as America can "never
put down a butcher's knife and turn into a Buddha." (放下屠刀,立地成佛)

Two months after Zhou's conversation with Kissinger, with Nixon's visit just around the corner, Kissinger made the first of many covert offers to the Chinese. Unbeknownst to a public that would have been shocked to see the United States aiding and abetting the People's Liberation Army, Kissinger gave China detailed classified information about Indian troop movements against Pakistan, as well as America's "approval of Chinese support for Pakistan, including diversionary troop movements." In return, Kissinger asked for Chinese troop movements on the Indian border to distract India from its efforts to invade and then dismember eastern Pakistan. China's troops did not move, but that did not dampen American expectations.

In January 1972, Nixon authorized Kissinger's deputy Alexander Haig to make another covert offer to China. Heading an advance team to China just a month before Nixon's historic visit, Haig promised substantial cooperation with China against the Soviet Union. Haig told Zhou that during the crisis between India and Pakistan, the United States would attempt to "neutralize" Soviet threats along China's borders and "deter threats against [China]." As far as covert deals go, these first two offers by
Kissinger and Haig were tactical. But they represented a sharp turn after two decades of a complete American embargo on China. And, most significantly, they were a sign of larger offers to come.

----------

China played its role to perfection once Mao sat face-to-face with Nixon in February 1972. Mao assumed the same role with the Americans that he had early on with the Soviets—portraying China as a harmless, vulnerable supplicant desperate for aid and protection. "They are concerned about me?" Mao once asked, referring to the Americans. "That is like the cat weeping over the dead mouse!" Mao even put the Americans on the defensive by claiming that they were standing on China's shoulders to get at Moscow.

Years later, Kissinger reflected on the palpable uncertainty he perceived when coordinating with Chinese officials:

Was America's commitment to "anti-hegemony" a ruse, and once China let its guard down, would Washington and Moscow collude in Beijing's destruction? Was the West deceiving China, or was the West deceiving itself? In either case, the practical consequence could be to push the "ill waters of the Soviet Union" eastward toward China.

To counter these possible perceptions, Nixon promised Mao that the United States would oppose any Soviet "aggressive action" against China. He stated that if China "took measures to protect its security," his administration would "oppose any effort of others to interfere with the PRC."

On the same day Nixon met other leaders in Beijing, Kissinger briefed Marshal Ye Jianying (葉劍英), the vice chairman of the military commission, and Qiao Guanhua (喬冠華), the vice minister of foreign affairs, about the deployment of Soviet forces along the Sino-Soviet border. As Yale Professor Paul Bracken first pointed out in a 2012 book, The Second Nuclear Age, China was given nuclear targeting information in the briefing, which Marshal Ye considered "an indication of your wish to improve our relationship." Discussion during the briefing included details about Soviet ground forces, aircraft, missiles, and nuclear forces. Winston Lord, Kissinger's key aide on China, knew that the White House assumed that the Soviets might well "get to hear of" this exchange of information." Indeed, Moscow soon did.

Mao asserted that the United States and China should cooperate in dealing with the Soviet "bastard" and urged that Washington should work more closely with its allies, particularly to maintain NATO unity. Mao also urged the United States to create an anti-Soviet axis that would include Europe, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Japan. A counterencirclement of the Soviet hegemon was a classic Warring States approach. What the Americans missed was that it was not a permanent Chinese policy preference, but only expedient cooperation among two Warring States. Mao's calculations in 1972 were not clarified until the Chinese released a memoir two decades later.

This played well with Kissinger, who told Nixon "with the exception of the UK, the PRC might well be the closest to us in its global perceptions." There seemed to be little suspicion of China's strategy.

Yet the Chinese remained suspicious of the United States. They did not share Kissinger's view that the Shanghai Communiqué, the document of understanding that was signed at the end of the summit, suggested that "a tacit alliance to block Soviet expansionism in Asia was coming into being." The communiqué stated:

Neither [the United States nor China] should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region, and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.



If the Nixon administration wanted a quasi alliance with China, China's message seemed to be that the Americans needed to offer more. Thus the Nixon administration's next covert offer of support came in a February 1973 meeting in Beijing. It also included an explicit security promise, based on finding a way that the United States and China could cooperate that would at best deter Moscow and at least get the Soviets' attention. Kissinger told the Chinese that Nixon wanted "enough of a relationship with [China] so that it is plausible that an attack on [China] involves a substantial American interest." This is the concept of a symbolic trip wire, as used in U.S. troop deployments in South Korea and previously in West Germany to demonstrate that the United States has a "substantial national interest" in a given contingency. Kissinger was not promising a permanent deployment of U.S. troops to China's northern border, but he wanted something that would make a splash. This is what Mao's generals had proposed he seek from Nixon in 1969: a conspicuous gesture to Moscow.

Kissinger even provided a timeline for this strategy. "The period of greatest danger" for China, he told Huang Hua (黃華), China's ambassador to the United Nations, would be in the period from 1974 to 1976, when the Soviet Union would have completed the "pacification" of the West through détente
and disarmament, the shifting of its military forces, and the development of its offensive nuclear capabilities. Kissinger wanted the trip wire in place by then.

The next covert offer—the fourth since Nixon's first meeting with Mao and the sixth since Kissinger's first trip to China—promised to offer China any deal America offered to the Soviet Union. In the run-up to the summit meeting between Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (布里茲尼夫) in June 1973, Kissinger reaffirmed that "anything we are prepared to do with the Soviet Union, we are prepared to do with the People's Republic." In fact, the United States was willing to offer China deals even better than those made with the Soviets: "We may be prepared," said Kissinger, "to do things with the People's Republic that we are not prepared to do with the Soviet Union."

At about this time, Nixon sent a note stating "in no case will the United States participate in a joint move together with the Soviet Union under [the Prevention of Nuclear War] agreement with respect to conflicts where the PRC is a party." At the same time, he decided to circumvent U.S. law and regulations by providing technology to China through the British.

The seventh covert offer was the most sensitive one, and would not be revealed for three decades, even to the CIA. It grew out of an internal debate I witnessed in October 1973 about whether to back up America's vague promises to Beijing and do something tangible to strengthen China, or to stay at the level of mere words and gestures. The United States could establish a "more concrete security understanding" with the Chinese, or instead merely promise significant progress in the diplomatic normalization of bilateral relations. There was a strong case for each option.

That year, I was working at the RAND Corporation, where as a China expert I had been given top-secret access to Kissinger's conversations with Chinese leaders by Richard Moorsteen, a RAND colleague close to Kissinger. Andy Marshall and Fred Iklé had hired me at RAND, the latter of whom soon left RAND after Nixon appointed him director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Iklé invited me to see him at his agency's offices several times in 1973 to discuss my analysis of China, and to draft a proposal to Kissinger of secret cooperation of intelligence and warning technology.

I shared Ikle's support for tangible U.S. covert cooperation with China. Though Iklé told Kissinger that a "formal relationship" (that is, a formal alliance) was not desirable, Washington could unilaterally provide help of a "technical nature". The United States could set up a "hotline" arrangement that would provide a cover for Washington to give Beijing secret early-warning information about Soviet military actions directed against China. "Given that a large portion of the Chinese strategic forces will continue to consist of bombers, hours of advance warning could be used by them to reduce the vulnerability of their forces significantly," Iklé and I wrote in one memo. "The fact that the hotline might enable us to transmit warning of a possible Soviet attack could be a powerful argument." We also advocated Washington's selling to Beijing hardware and technology to alert the Chinese if the Soviets were about to attack, and we supported providing America's superior high-resolution satellite images to heighten the accuracy of Chinese targeting of Soviet sites.

Kissinger agreed with our proposal. Only a few knew that he proposed tangible U.S. covert cooperation with China. On a trip to Beijing in November 1973, Kissinger told the Chinese that in the event of a Soviet attack the United States could supply "equipment and other services." America, Kissinger said, could help improve communications between Beijing and the various Chinese bomber bases "under some guise." He also offered to provide the technology for "certain kinds of radars" that
the Chinese could build. In other words, Kissinger secretly offered aid to the People's Liberation Army. He was proposing the beginnings of a military supply relationship, both in peacetime and in the event of a Soviet attack.

To my surprise, the Chinese initially balked at the seventh offer, asking for time to study the proposals before responding further. They said that American cooperation with early warning would be "intelligence of great assistance," but this had to be done in a manner "so that no one feels we are allies." With a mentality straight out of the Warring States era of ruthlessness and shifting alliances, China's leaders were suspicious that Kissinger's offer was an attempt to embroil China in a war with
Moscow.

The Chinese perhaps did not recognize the risk Nixon and Kissinger had taken to make this offer. Kissinger's closet adviser on China, Winston Lord, had argued strongly against this step in a memo to Kissinger, saying that it would potentially be unconstitutional (not to mention widely opposed) and would inflame the Russians. Kissinger had overruled Lord's objections, though Lord himself was a strong supporter of improving relations with China.



Sino-American relations went through their biggest improvement in the late 1970s, as Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) took on increasing power and became the public face for China's PR offensive with the United States. To Westerners, Deng was the ideal Chinese leader: a moderate, reform-minded man with a tranquil, grandfatherly demeanor. He was, in short, the kind of figure Westerners wanted to see.

But Deng was no docile grandfather. In private meetings within the Politburo, he raged at aides and advisers over China's lack of progress against the West. He believed that under Mao and his questionable "reform" practices, China had lost thirty years in its campaign to surpass the American ba.

Deng was enthusiastic about a partnership with the Americans, but for a key reason not meant for public consumption. He had rightly deduced that by following the Soviet economic model, China had backed the wrong horse and was now paying the price. Internal Chinese documents, which came into the hands of U.S. intelligence officials long after the fact, showed that Chinese leaders concluded that they had failed to extract all they could from their now-faltering Soviet alliance. Deng would not make the same mistake with the Americans. He saw that the real way for China to make progress in the Marathon was to obtain knowledge and skills from the United States. In other words, China would come from behind and win the Marathon by stealthily drawing most of its energy from the complacent American front-runner.

Within the Politburo, Deng was known for referencing a favorite admonition from the Warring States, tao guang yang hui (韜光養晦) (hide your ambitions and build your capability). Deng, too, sent opponents messages through seemingly oblique and harmless stories. During his first meeting with President Gerald Ford in December 1975, he referred to a story from the classic Chinese book The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (《三國演義》) to make what in retrospect was an important point, one completely lost on Ford. The story again involves Cao Cao (曹操), discussed in the previous chapter, considered in Chinese literature to be one of history's greatest tyrants. Cao Cao, in fact, probably best exemplifies the concept of a ba in ancient Chinese literature.

In the particular vignette Deng told Ford, Cao Cao defeats Liu Bei (劉備), a rival challenger, and remains the ba. After their war, the challenger offers to work for Cao Cao, but Cao Cao remains suspicious of Liu Bei's loyalty. Deng cited to President Ford Cao Cao's famous quote "Liu Bei is like an eagle, which when it is hungry will work for you, but when it is well fed, will fly away." Ostensibly, the "eagle" in Deng's story was the Soviet Union. American attempts to accommodate the Soviets, Deng warned, would fail. Once they had what they wanted, the Soviets, like Liu Bei, would pursue their own interests. What the Americans missed from that anecdote was that the same strategic sentiment held true for China. Once America built China into an equal, China would not remain an ally but would "fly away".

However, Deng tactfully decided not to tell the most famous story about Cao Cao and Liu Bei—for if he had done so, he would have divulged China's true aims in dealing with the Americans. Chinese hawks had not yet begun to write openly about the allegory contained in these ancient stories. We would need this key to decode Chinese strategic allusions. There was no sign that either Ford or Kissinger had any idea what Deng was talking about.



The emphasis Chinese strategy places on concealing one's true intention to replace the hegemon is embodied in the story of asking the weight of the emperor's cauldrons. However, a different, related story from the Three Kingdoms (三國) period both embodies and informs China's efforts to go beyond mere passive concealment, by actively deceiving the enemy to mask one's true ambitions.

A few years before the Battle of Red Cliff (赤壁之戰), the secretive challenger Liu Bei was summoned to meet with Cao Cao. Liu Bei, who was conspiring to overthrow Cao Cao, "had to keep his secret agenda from the attentive and intelligent Cao Cao." Upon Liu Bei's arrival, Cao Cao led him to a table beneath one of his plum trees, where the two men sat to enjoy some warmed wine. While they drank, the weather began to change as clouds gathered and a storm seemed imminent. One of Cao Cao's servants pointed to a cloud formation that resembled a dragon. All eyes turned to the dragonlike formation, and Cao Cao asked his guest if he understood the evolution of dragons.

"Not in detail," Liu Bei replied.

"A dragon can assume any size, can rise in glory, or hide from sight," Cao Cao said. "This is the midspring season, and the dragon chooses this moment for its transformations like a person realizing his own desires and overrunning the world. The dragon among animals compares with the hero among people. You, General, have traveled all lakes and rivers. You must know who are the heroes of the present day, and I wish you would say who they are."

Liu Bei feigned puzzlement. "I am just a common dullard. How can I know such things?"

"You may not have looked upon their faces, but you must have heard their names," Cao Cao responded.

"Yuan Shu (袁術) of the South of River Huai (准南), with his strong army abundant resources: Is he one?" Liu Bei asked.

Cao Cao laughed. "A rotting skeleton in a graveyard. I shall put him out of the way shortly."

"Well, Yuan Shao (袁紹) then," Liu Bei offered.

"A bully, but a coward."

"There is Liu Biao (劉表) of Jingzhou (荊州)."

"He is a mere semblance, a man of vain reputation," Cao Cao answered. "No, not he."

"Sun Ce (孫策) is a sturdy sort, the chief of all in the South Land. Is he a hero?" Liu Bei inquired.

"He has profited by the reputation of his father, Sun Jian. Sun Ce is not a real hero."

"What of Liu Zhang (劉璋) of Yizhou (益州)?"

"Though he is of the reigning family, he is nothing more than a watchdog."

Finally Liu Bei asked, "What about Zhang Xiu (張繡), Zhang Lu (張魯), Han Sui (韓遂), and all those leaders?"

"Paltry people like them are not worth mentioning, retorted Cao Cao.

"With these exceptions I really know none," Liu Bei said at last.

"Now, heroes are the ones who cherish lofty designs in their bosoms and have plans to achieve them. They have all-embracing schemes, and the whole world is at their mercy."

"Who is such a person?" asked Liu Bei.

Cao Cao pointed his finger at Liu Bei and then at himself, and said, "The only heroes in the world are you and I" (italics mine).

Liu Bei gasped, dropping his chopsticks to the floor. Just then, loud thunder roared from the clouds. Liu Bei, bending over to retrieve his chopsticks, exclaimed, "What a shock! And it [referring to the thunder] was quite close."

Surprised, Cao Cao said, "What! Are you afraid of thunder?" After all, what hero is afraid of mere thunder? Liu Bei had succeeded in concealing his true ambitions to challenge the ba.

A short time later, Liu Bei recounted his experience to two close allies, noting that his goal "was to convince Cao Cao of my perfect simplicity and the absence of any ambition. But when he suddenly pointed to me as one of the heroes, I was startled, for I thought he had some suspicions. Happily the thunder at that moment supplied the excuse I wanted."

"Really you are very clever," they said.

The rest—quite literally—is history. Liu Bei soon gained his independence from Cao Cao and spent the rest of his long life fighting against him for dominance.



Entranced as they were by their new relationship with the Chinese, the Nixon and Ford administrations willingly satisfied many of China's immediate political objectives. All these gifts—and more to come—were kept secret from the American public for at least thirty years. The United
States not only cut off the CIA's clandestine assistance program to the Dalai Lama—Public Enemy Number One to Communist China—but also canceled the U.S. Navy's routine patrols through the Taiwan Strait, which had symbolized America's commitment to Taiwan. American policy became a series of initiatives to strengthen China against its adversaries.

In 1975, while still at RAND, I wrote an article for Foreign Policy magazine advocating military ties between the United States and China, to create a wedge against the Soviets. Richard Holbrooke, the once and future diplomat, was then serving as the magazine's editor. He was a strong proponent of the article, labeling my idea a "blockbuster." He shared my thoughts with other editors, leading to a long story in Newsweek, "Guns for Peking?" Other media outlets picked up the proposal, while the Soviet press attacked both the arguments I made in the proposal and me personally. Chinese military officers at the United Nations had suggested the idea to me. So in 1973 I began four decades of conversations with China's military hawks, hearing about lessons from Warring States to deal with the hegemon, which I then assumed would always mean the Soviet Union.

In early 1976, Ronald Reagan, running against President Ford for the Republican presidential nomination, read the article. (I had sent it to Reagan at Holbrooke's behest.) In a handwritten note, the former California governor said he agreed with the idea of closer ties with the Chinese as a wedge against the Soviets. But he also cautioned me about the Chinese, and worried in particular about abandoning America's democratic allies in Taiwan. After I met with Governor Reagan at his Pacific
Palisades home—where he joked about being "sixty-four years old and unemployed"—he encouraged me to keep sending him material about China that he might use in speeches.

In 1978, relations with the United States moved toward normalization—that is, official American recognition of Communist China as the legitimate government of the Chinese people. That year, Deng focused immediately on what was at the top of his American wish list: science and technology. This was an example of the Warring States concept known as wu wei (無為)—or, having others do your work. As he formulated a strategy in 1978, Deng understood, as he put it, that "technology is the number one productive force" for economic growth. The only way China could pass the United States as an economic power, Deng believed, was massive scientific and technological development. An essential shortcut would be to take what the Americans already had. Deng found a willing partner in that effort in a new American president, Jimmy Carter, who was eager to achieve the diplomatic coup of a formal Sino-American partnership.



In July 1978, President Carter sent to China the highest-level delegation of U.S. scientists ever to visit another country. Frank Press, Carter's science adviser and a former MIT professor specializing in earthquake science, led the delegation. Press had been chairman of the U.S. Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China from 1975 to 1977, and therefore took particular interest in scholarly exchanges with China. The Press delegation received great attention from the Chinese. The People's Daily rarely published speeches by foreigners, but in this case it printed Press's banquet speech, which stressed the advantages of globalization. And Michel Oksenberg, a National Security Council official for China policy who would sit in on some fourteen meetings with Deng, said he never saw Deng more intellectually curious and more involved in articulating his vision about China's future than on this trip. Again playing the role of vulnerable supplicant, Deng spoke to Press's delegation about China's all but hopeless backwardness in science and technology and expressed his
concerns about American constraints on high-tech exports to his country.

In the past, Beijing kept tight control over the country's scientists going to the United States, limiting their numbers in fear that the scientists might defect. Press expected that they would likewise be cautious about expanding scientific exchanges with the West. So he was surprised when Deng proposed that the United States immediately accept seven hundred Chinese science students, with the larger goal of accepting tens of thousands more over the next few years. Deng was so intent on receiving a prompt answer that Press, considering this one of the most important breakthroughs in his career, telephoned President Carter, waking him at 3:00 a.m. Like his adviser, Carter gave little thought to the implications of China's sudden intense interest in scientific exchanges, viewing it as merely a welcome sign of improved relations.

In January 1979, Deng made his first and only visit to the United States, and he was a hit. President Carter feted him at a state dinner and, in a sign of the bipartisan flavor of U.S.-China policy, even invited the disgraced Richard Nixon to attend, the first time the former president had visited the White House since his resignation in August 1974. Deng spent thirteen days in the United States, touring Coca-Cola's headquarters, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, and even Disney World. In a sign of acceptance by the American popular media, Time magazine put Deng on its cover, twice.

At the National Museum in Beijing, one can see displayed a photograph of Deng smiling beneath a ten-gallon hat he received in Texas, which became the symbol of his 1979 visit. It signaled to the U.S. public that he was good-humored, less like one of "those Communists" and more like "us." But it also proved a turning point for the Chinese and the Marathon. Deng obtained far more than had Mao.

On January 31, 1979, during his visit to the United States, Deng and Fang Yi (方毅), director of the State Science and Technology Commission, signed agreements with the U.S. government to speed up scientific exchanges. That year, the first fifty Chinese students flew to America. In the first five years of exchanges, some nineteen thousand Chinese students would study at American universities, mainly in the physical sciences, health sciences, and engineering, and their numbers would continue to increase. Carter and Deng also signed agreements on consular offices, trade, science, and technology—with the United States providing all sorts of scientific and technical knowledge to Chinese scientists in what would amount to the greatest outpouring of American scientific and technological expertise in history.

The Chinese reached out to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to send a series of delegations to China to initiate U.S.-China scientific exchanges in several fields China had selected. The Chinese strategy was to get the Americans to ensure their admission to all international organizations dealing with physics, atomic energy, astronautics, and other fields. The Americans agreed, thus making an eighth offer to China.

The Americans also agreed to engage in more covert military cooperation. President Carter provided China with intelligence support to aid China's war in Vietnam, to a degree that shocked even Henry Kissinger, as he described in his 2011 book On China. In tones suggesting that perhaps he'd created a monster by opening the door to ties with Beijing, Kissinger denounced Carter's "informal collusion" with what was "tantamount to overt military aggression" by Beijing—aid that "had the practical effect of indirectly assisting the remnants of the Khmer Rouge." A visit to China by Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, Kissinger fumed, "marked a further step toward Sino-American cooperation unimaginable only a few years earlier."

The ninth offer, Presidential Directive 43, signed in 1978, established numerous programs to transfer American scientific and technological developments to China in the fields of education, energy, agriculture, space, geosciences, commerce, and public health. The following year, the Carter administration granted China most-favored-nation status as a U.S. trading partner.

President Carter also authorized the establishment of signals intelligence collection sites in northwestern China in about 1979, as the CIA operative and future U.S. ambassador to China James Lilley described in his memoir, China Hands. "Part of the reason I was awarded a medal from the CIA was my work setting up the first CIA unit in Beijing," Lilley wrote. "Another contributing fact was my role in developing intelligence sharing with China... It sounded like a far-fetched idea—the United States and China, who had been fighting each other through surrogates just a few years earlier in Vietnam, working together to collect strategic technical intelligence on the Soviet Union."



In 1978, I was serving as a professional staff member on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and I also worked as a consultant to the Defense Department, where I continued to read classified analyses on China and produced reports and analyses of my own. As Ronald Reagan mounted a second bid for the White House in 1980, I was appointed as one of his advisers, and I helped draft his first campaign speech on foreign policy. I expressed a view, common among his advisers, that the United States ought to help China to stave off the far greater Soviet threat. After Reagan won the election, I was named to the presidential transition team. I then advocated still more cooperation. An early ally in my efforts was Alexander Haig, who knew all about the earlier efforts with China under the Carter administration, and now as secretary of state visited Beijing and publicly offered to sell weapons to China, the next logical step.

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 11, signed by President Reagan in 1981, permitted the Pentagon to sell advanced air, ground, naval, and missile technology to the Chinese to transform the People's Liberation Army into a world-class fighting force. The following year, Reagan's NSDD 12 inaugurated nuclear cooperation and development between the United States and China, to expand China's military and civilian nuclear programs.

Reagan was deeply skeptical of his predecessor's policies toward China—a stance that led to a serious policy disagreement within the administration. Reagan saw China's underlying nature better than I did and better than most of the China experts who would populate his administration. On the surface, Reagan followed the Nixon-Ford-Carter line of building up China—"to help China modernize, on the grounds that a strong, secure, and stable China can be an increasing force for peace, both in Asia and in the world," in the words of Reagan's NSDD 140, issued in 1984. (Significantly, the NSC staff severely limited access to NSDD 140—only fifteen copies were produced—probably at least in part because it outlined the Reagan administration's controversial goal of strengthening China.)

Reagan signed these secret directives to help build a strong China and even offered to sell arms to the Chinese and to reduce arms sales to Taiwan. But unlike his predecessors, Reagan added a caveat that should have been crucial. His directives stated that U.S. assistance to China was conditioned on China staying independent of the Soviet Union and liberalizing its authoritarian system. Unfortunately, his advisers largely ignored these preconditions, and for whatever reason so did he.

Additionally, the Reagan administration provided funding and training to newly established Chinese government-run institutes specializing in genetic engineering, automation, biotechnology, lasers, space technology, manned spaceflight, intelligent robotics, and more. Reagan even approved a Chinese military delegation visit to one of the crown jewels of national security, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the research agency that invented the Internet, cyber operations, and dozens of other high-tech programs.

During the Reagan presidency, America's covert military cooperation with China expanded to previously inconceivable levels. The United States secretly worked with China to provide military supplies to the anti-Soviet Afghan rebels, the Khmer Rouge, and the anti-Cuban forces in Angola. Our cooperation against the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia—including the arming of fifty thousand anti-Vietnam guerrillas—was discussed in interviews by four of the CIA officers who revealed the details of this program in the book The Cambodian Wars. There was a much larger secret that other CIA officers revealed in George Crile’s book Charlie Wilson's War, the story of America's purchase of $2 billion in weapons from China for the anti-Soviet Afghan rebels. Kissinger's memoirs reveal that there was covert cooperation in Angola as well.

Why did China seek to cooperate with the United States on these large-scale covert actions? We will definitively find out only when Beijing opens its archives or a very high-level defector arrives. One thing we know now is that Beijing wanted to use American power and technology to strengthen China for the long term. The key point seems to have been the perceived need to play strategic wei qi (圍棋), to head off encirclement by the Soviet Union. No one saw this as an effort to make broader progress in the Marathon. China made itself seem weak and defensive to us, in need of protection.

In the tenth offer, U.S.-Chinese intelligence gathering along China's border with the Soviet Union—code-named the Chestnut program—was approved, according to the New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler. Later, during an August 1979 trip to China by Carter's vice president, Walter Mondale, the Pentagon and the CIA airlifted to China the Chestnut monitoring stations via military transport. Tellingly, Tyler reported, the Chinese asked the U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter at the Beijing airport to park beside a Soviet passenger jet so the Soviets would see the cooperation.

According to Tyler, these monitoring stations could collect information about air traffic, radar signals from Soviet air defenses, and KGB communications, and they could also detect any change in the alert status of Soviet nuclear forces. Thus China would have an increase in its warning time in the event of a Soviet attack. This was a huge advance in Chinese security in the months before the attempted encirclement that would begin with the Soviet-backed Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Through their patience, the Chinese were getting more than what Kissinger, Ikle, and I had proposed six years earlier.

According to the requirements of shi, Beijing must have thought it needed America's help to break up the two "pincers" of the Soviet encirclement of China—in Afghanistan and Vietnam. The circumstances justified going farther than Mao had; Deng would accept significant aid from the hegemon.

From 1982 through 1989, the Sino-American Cambodian program was run out of Bangkok, with the support of the Chinese, the Royal Thai Army, Singapore, and Malaysia. This constituted the eleventh offer of U.S. assistance to China. The covert cooperation was effectively masked for two decades because it was partly overt. USAID provided funds named for the program advocates, Representative Bill McCollum, a Republican from Florida, and Representative Stephen Solarz, a Democrat from New York, for nonlethal humanitarian assistance in Cambodia. Behind these two overt programs, Reagan ordered the CIA to provide covert assistance initially in 1982 for $2 million a year, and that was raised as of 1986 to $12 million, as Kenneth Conboy notes. The program was commingled under a project the Thais called Project 328. China, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand also contributed weapons and funds. Singapore's prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀) even visited Bangkok to travel to the secret camp. I visited in 1985 and 1986, to be briefed by the CIA station chief, who had transferred to Bangkok after serving as head of the Far East Division at CIA headquarters. He considered the project "the only game in town," referring to the Cold War, with China joining up against the Soviets.

Starting in the summer of 1984, two years after the program in Cambodia began, Chinese covert cooperation to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan would become fifty times larger than its effort in Cambodia.

We did not understand shi and counterencirclement at that time, and therefore no one thought the Chinese government would risk Soviet wrath by becoming a major arms supplier to America's efforts to aid the Afghan rebels. The discovery was made by a brilliant, Mandarin speaking CIA friend, Joe DeTrani. This Chinese connection was a tightly held secret, and no more than ten people in the entire CIA were aware of the program, according to Tyler. The Chinese still do not acknowledge that they provided such arms. In his book Charlie Wilson's War, George Crile reports that the first order was for AK-47 assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled antitank grenades, and land mines.

In 1984, Representative Charlie Wilson had drummed up $50 million to increase support for the rebels in Afghanistan. Crile reports that the CIA decided to spend $38 million of it to buy weapons from the Chinese government. The Washington Post in 1990 quoted anonymous sources that said that the total value of weapons provided by China exceeded $2 billion during the six years of Sino-American covert cooperation.

U.S.-Chinese clandestine cooperation reached its peak during the Reagan administration. Presidents Nixon and Ford had offered China intelligence about the Soviets. President Carter established the Chestnut eavesdropping project. But it was Reagan who treated China as a full strategic partner—albeit in secret.

The three main projects were clandestine aid to the anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Angola. By now, I had been promoted to the civilian equivalent of a three-star general and made head of policy planning and covert action in the Pentagon, reporting to the official in charge of policy, Fred Iklé. Iklé and I were among the few who knew about Kissinger's 1973 offer to aid China and President Carter's Chestnut program. He and I were ready to test whether China was really willing to become a U.S. ally. The affirmative results would prejudice many U.S. senior officials to favor China for years to come.

My duty was to visit the leaders of the Afghan, Cambodian, and Angolan rebel groups in Islamabad, Bangkok, and southern Angola, respectively, to ascertain their plans and needs. I was also sent to obtain China's advice, approval, and support. We recommended that President Reagan sign National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 166, which reflected that there was a chance that escalation in Afghanistan could provoke retaliation by the Soviets. We needed China's assessment of the situation and, ideally, its support.

Two decades later, the journalist Steve Coll alleged that "the Chinese communists cleared huge profit margins on weapons they sold in deals negotiated by the CIA." If the assertion is accurate that $2 billion was spent on Chinese weapons for the anti-Soviet rebel groups, then China's purchase of more than $500 million in American military equipment for itself seems relatively small.

The Chinese not only sold the weapons to us to give to the rebels, but also advised us how to conduct these covert operations. From their advice emerged a few lessons about Chinese strategy toward a declining hegemon, in this case the Soviet Union. First, the Chinese emphasized that we had to identify key Soviet vulnerabilities to exploit. One tactic, they explained, was to raise the cost of empire. When I first proposed the option of supplying Stinger antiaircraft missiles to the Afghan and Angolan rebels, the Chinese were delighted at the high costs that these weapons would impose, in the form of destroyed Soviet helicopters and jet fighters.

The second idea was to persuade others to do the fighting. This was of course a manifestation of the Warring States-era notion of wu wei.

The third concept was to attack the allies of the declining hegemon. The Cambodian rebels worked against the Soviets' Vietnamese puppets. The Angolan rebels expelled the Cubans, who had been flown to Angola in Soviet aircraft that might also have been shot down with Stingers, if they had been made available then. The United States, in cooperation with China, did all this, and more.

I asked the Chinese whether they thought it would be excessively provocative to take two additional steps: Should we supply and encourage Afghan rebels to conduct commando sabotage raids inside the Soviet Union (which had never been done during the Cold War)? And should we agree to the request to provide the Afghans with long-range sniper rifles, night-vision goggles, and maps with the locations of high-ranking Soviet officials serving in Afghanistan in support of what amounted to a targeted assassination program? My colleagues had been certain that the Chinese would draw the line at such actions. I had read enough Chinese history to guess that they would agree, but even I was taken aback at the ruthlessness of Beijing's ambition to bring down the Soviets when they answered affirmatively to the two questions.

Steve Coll wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars that it was the American side that declined these requests. He writes of "alarms" among the CIA's lawyers that it was almost "outright assassination" and so the local CIA station chief "might end up in handcuffs." So the sniper rifles could be approved but not the maps and night-vision goggles. The commando raids inside Soviet territory, favored by the Chinese as a way to bring down the Russian hegemon, were soon curtailed as well, in spite of the Chinese recommendation to us that this would have a useful psychological shock effect on the declining hegemon.

In 1985, the aid to the Chinese Marathon expanded to include American weapons, as the Reagan administration arranged for the sale of six major weapons systems to China for more than $1 billion. This program aimed to strengthen China's army, navy, and air force and even to help China expand its marine corps. And in March 1986 the Reagan administration assisted China's development of eight national research centers focused on genetic engineering, intelligent robotics, artificial intelligence, automation, biotechnology, lasers, supercomputers, space technology, and manned spaceflight. Before long, the Chinese had made significant progress on more than ten thousand projects, all heavily dependent on Western assistance and all crucial to China's Marathon strategy. The Reagan administration hoped it was countering Soviet power by giving a boost to the Chinese, and everyone—from Reagan on down—wanted to believe Beijing's claims that China was moving toward greater liberalization.



China's strategy to break the Soviet encirclement with help from its fellow Warring State was succeeding. In 1989, the Soviets announced they would leave Afghanistan, and Vietnam soon withdrew from Cambodia. Now, would Washington and Beijing build on this foundation of trust and therefore become true allies forever? I thought so. But according to the Warring States' axioms, now would be the time for China to get back to dealing with the real hegemon, the United States.

A critical component of shi involves countering the enemy's attempts at encirclement. In one of the most candid discussions of the encirclement theory of shi, Deng Xiaoping looked back on the successes of the 1980s when he revealed to President George H. W. Bush in Beijing in February 1989 that the Soviet encirclement of China had been a mortal threat. But now the wei qi game had moved toward the Chinese encirclement of the much weakened Soviets. No one foresaw how China would assess shi as the mighty American hegemon continued to strengthen, while Moscow began to decline.

Source: Michael Pillsbury's The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Power p.52-79