一位參加過兩次原子轟炸飛行員的證言

這是美國退休空軍將領 Charles Sweeney 在 1995 年國會聽證上準備的稿子,他也是唯一一位參加了兩次對日本轟炸原子彈的飛行員。在二次大戰結束 50 週年的時刻,他出席聽證會呼籲大眾重視二戰當時的歷史背景與戰爭結束的正面意義。這些話語在 20 年後的今天,依然發人深省。

我大概是沒有空把它翻成中文了。也許改天時間衝動兩者兼具的時候再來試試看吧…

[Update: 中譯在此]

(原文取自 archive.org,因為出處的排版比較粗糙,在這裡略作排版上的更動以符合一般閱讀習慣。)

[Statement of Major General Charles W. Sweeney, U.S.A.F. (Ret.) delivered before the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration—hearings on the Smithsonian Institution: Management Guidelines for the Future, May 11, 1995.]

I am Major General Charles W. Sweeney, United States Air Force, Retired. I am the only pilot to have flown on both atomic missions. I flew the instrument plane on the right wing of General Paul Tibbets on the Hiroshima mission and 3 days later, on August 9, 1945, commanded the second atomic mission over Nagasaki. Six days after Nagasaki the Japanese military surrendered and the Second World War came to an end.

The soul of a nation, its essence, is its history. It is that collective memory which defines what each generation thinks and believes about itself and its country.

In a free society, such as ours, there is always an ongoing debate about who we are and what we stand for. This open debate is in fact essential to our freedom. But to have such a debate we as a society must have the courage to consider all of the facts available to us. We must have the courage to stand up and demand that before any conclusions are reached, those facts which are beyond question are accepted as part of the debate.

As the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions approaches, now is an appropriate time to consider the reasons for Harry Truman’s order that these missions be flown. We may disagree on the conclusion, but let us at least be honest enough to agree on basic facts of the time, the facts that President Truman had to consider in making a difficult and momentous decision.

As the only pilot to have flown both missions, and having commanded the Nagasaki mission, I bring to this debate my own eyewitness account of the times. I underscore what I believe are irrefutable facts, with full knowledge that some opinion makers may cavalierly dismiss them because they are so obvious — because they interfere with their preconceived version of the truth, and the meaning which they strive to impose on the missions.

This evening, I want to offer my thoughts, observations, and conclusions as someone who lived this history, and who believes that President Truman’s decision was not only justified by the circumstances of his time, but was a moral imperative that precluded any other option.

Like the overwhelming majority of my generation the last thing I wanted was a war. We as a nation are not warriors. We are not hell-bent on glory. There is no warrior class — no Samurai — no master race.

This is true today, and it was true 50 years ago.

While our country was struggling through the great depression, the Japanese were embarking on the conquest of its neighbors — the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It seems fascism always seeks some innocuous slogan to cover the most hideous plans.

This Co-Prosperity was achieved by waging total and merciless war against China and Manchuria. The Japanese, as a nation, saw itself as destined to rule Asia and thereby possess its natural resources and open lands. Without the slightest remorse or hesitation, the Japanese Army slaughtered innocent men, women and children. In the infamous Rape of Nanking up to 300,000 unarmed civilians were butchered. These were criminal acts.

THESE ARE FACTS.

In order to fulfill its divine destiny in Asia, Japan determined that the only real impediment to this goal was the United States. It launched a carefully conceived sneak attack on our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. Timed for a Sunday morning it was intended to deal a death blow to the fleet by inflicting the maximum loss of ships and human life.

1,700 sailors are still entombed in the hull of the U.S.S. Arizona that sits on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Many if not all, died without ever knowing why. Thus was the war thrust upon us.

The fall of Corregidor and the resulting treatment of Allied prisoners of war dispelled any remaining doubt about the inhumanness of the Japanese Army, even in the context of war. The Bataan Death March was horror in its fullest dimension. The Japanese considered surrender to be dishonorable to oneself, one’s family, one’s country and one’s god. They showed no mercy. Seven thousand American and Filipino POW’s were beaten, shot, bayonetted or left to die of disease or exhaustion.

THESE ARE FACTS.

As the United States made its slow, arduous, and costly march across the vast expanse of the Pacific, the Japanese proved to be a ruthless and intractable killing machine. No matter how futile, no matter how hopeless the odds, no matter how certain the outcome, the Japanese fought to the death. And to achieve a greater glory, they strove to kill as many Americans as possible.

The closer the United States came to the Japanese mainland, the more fanatical their actions became.

Saipan — 3,100 Americans killed, 1,500 in the first few hours of the invasion.
Iwo Jima — 6,700 Americans killed, 25,000 wounded.
Okinawa — 12,500 Americans killed, total casualties, 35,000.

These are facts reported by simple white grave markers.

Kamikazes. The literal translation is DIVINE WIND. To willingly dive a plane loaded with bombs into an American ship was a glorious transformation to godliness — there was no higher honor on heaven or earth. The suicidal assaults of the Kamikazes took 5,000 American Navy men to their deaths.

The Japanese vowed that, with the first American to step foot on the mainland, they would execute every Allied prisoner. In preparation they forced the POW’s to dig their own graves in the event of mass executions. Even after their surrender, they executed some American POW’s.

THESE ARE FACTS.

The Potsdam Declaration had called for unconditional surrender of the Japanese Armed Forces. The Japanese termed it ridiculous and not worthy of consideration. We know from our intercepts of their coded messages, that they wanted to stall for time to force a negotiated surrender on terms acceptable to them.

For months prior to August 6, American aircraft began dropping fire bombs upon the Japanese mainland. The wind created by the firestorm from the bombs incinerated whole cities. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese died. Still the Japanese military vowed never to surrender. They were prepared to sacrifice their own people to achieve their visions of glory and honor — no matter how many more people died.

They refused to evacuate civilians even though our pilots dropped leaflets warning of the possible bombings. In one 3-day period, 34 square miles of Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka were reduced to rubble.

THESE ARE FACTS.

And even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Tojo, his successor Suzuki, and the military clique in control believed the United States had but one bomb, and that Japan could go on. They had 3 days to surrender after August 6, but they did not surrender. The debate in their cabinet at times became violent.

Only after the Nagasaki drop did the Emperor finally demand surrender.

And even then, the military argued they could and should fight on. A group of Army officers staged a coup and tried to seize and destroy the Emperor’s recorded message to his people announcing the surrender.

THESE ARE FACTS.

These facts help illuminate the nature of the enemy we faced. They help put into context the process by which Truman considered the options available to him. And they help to add meaning to why the missions were necessary.

President Truman understood these facts as did every service man and woman. Casualties were not some abstraction, but a sobering reality.

Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes… they… did.

Were they necessary? Well that’s where the rub comes.

With the fog of 50 years drifting over the memory of our country, to some, the Japanese are now the victims. America was the insatiable, vindictive aggressor seeking revenge and conquest. Our use of these weapons was the unjustified and immoral starting point for the nuclear age with all of its horrors. Of course, to support such distortion, one must conveniently ignore the real facts or fabricate new realities to fit the theories. It is no less egregious than those who today deny the Holocaust occurred.

How could this have happened?

The answer may lie in examining some recent events.

The current debate about why President Truman ordered these missions, in some cases, has devolved to a numbers game. The Smithsonian in its proposed exhibit of the Enola Gay revealed the creeping revisionism which seems the rage in certain historical circles.

That exhibit wanted to memorialize the fiction that the Japanese were the victims — we the evil aggressor. Imagine taking your children and grandchildren to this exhibit.

What message would they have left with?

What truth would they retain?

What would they think their country stood for?

And all of this would have occurred in an American institution whose very name and charter are supposed to stand for the impartial preservation of significant American artifacts.

By cancelling the proposed exhibit and simply displaying the Enola Gay, has truth won out?

Maybe not.

In one nationally televised discussion, I heard a so-called prominent historian argue that the bombs were not necessary. That President Truman was intent on intimidating the Russians. That the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The Japanese were ready to surrender? Based on what?

Some point to statements by General Eisenhower years after the war that Japan was about to fall. Well, based on that same outlook Eisenhower seriously underestimated Germany’s will to fight on and concluded in December, 1944 that Germany no longer had the capability to wage offensive war.

That was a tragic miscalculation. The result was the Battle of the Bulge, which resulted in tens of thousands of needless Allied casualties and potentially allowed Germany to prolong the war and force negotiations.

Thus the assessment that Japan was vanquished may have the benefit of hindsight rather than foresight.

It is certainly fair to conclude that the Japanese could have been reasonably expected to be even more fanatical than the Germans based on the history of the war in the Pacific.

And, finally, a present-day theory making the rounds espouses that even if an invasion had taken place, our casualties would not have been a million, as many believed, but realistically only 46,000 dead.

ONLY 46,000!

Can you imagine the callousness of this line of argument? ONLY 46,000 — as if this were some insignificant number of American lives.

Perhaps these so-called historians want to sell books.

Perhaps they really believe it. Or perhaps it reflects some self-loathing occasioned by the fact that we won the war.

Whatever the reason, the argument is flawed. It dissects and recalculates events ideologically, grasping at selective straws.

Let me admit right here, today, that I don’t know how many more Americans would have died in an invasion— AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!

What I do know is that based on the Japanese conduct during the war, it is fair and reasonable to assume that an invasion of the mainland would have been a prolonged and bloody affair. Based on what we know — not what someone surmises — the Japanese were not about to unconditionally surrender.

In taking Iwo Jima, a tiny 8 square mile lump of rock in the ocean, 6,700 marines died — total casualties over 30,000.

But even assuming that those who now KNOW our casualties would have been ONLY 46.000 I ask:

Which 46,000 were to die?

Whose father?

Whose brother?

Whose husband?

And, yes, I am focusing on American lives.

The Japanese had their fate in their own hands, we did not . Hundreds of thousands of American troops anxiously waited at staging areas in the Pacific dreading the coming invasion, their fate resting on what the Japanese would do next. The Japanese could have ended it at any time. They chose to wait.

And while the Japanese stalled, an average of 900 more Americans were killed or wounded each day the war continued.

I’ve heard another line of argument that we should have accepted a negotiated peace with the Japanese on terms they would have found acceptable. I have never heard anyone suggest that we should have negotiated a peace with Nazi Germany. Such an idea is so outrageous, that no rational human being would utter the words. To negotiate with such evil fascism was to allow it even in defeat a measure of legitimacy. This is not just some empty philosophical principal of the time — it was essential that these forces of evil be clearly and irrevocably defeated — their demise unequivocal. Their leadership had forfeited any expectation of diplomatic niceties. How is it, then, that the history of the war in the Pacific can be so soon forgotten?

The reason may lie in the advancing erosion of our history, of our collective memory.

Fifty years after their defeat, Japanese officials have the temerity to claim they were the victims. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of the Holocaust.

And, believe it or not, there are actually some American academics who support this analogy, thus aiding and giving comfort to a 50-year attempt by the Japanese to rewrite their own history, and ours in the process.

There is an entire generation of Japanese who do not know the full extent of their country’s conduct during World war II.

This explains why they do not comprehend why they must apologize —

  • for the Korean comfort women,
  • for the Medical experimentation on POW’s which match the horror of those conducted by the Nazi’s,
  • for the plans to use biological weapons against the United States by infecting civilian populations on the West Coast,
  • for the methodical slaughter of civilians,
  • and for much more.

In a perverse inversion, by forgetting our own history, we contribute to the Japanese amnesia, to the detriment of both our nations.

Unlike the Germans who acknowledged their guilt, the Japanese persist in the fiction that they did nothing wrong, that they were trapped by circumstances. This only forecloses any genuine prospect that the deep wounds suffered by both nations can be closed and healed.

One can only forgive by remembering. And to forget, is to risk repeating history.

The Japanese in a well orchestrated political and public relations campaign have now proposed that the use of the term “V-J Day” be replaced by the more benign “Victory in the Pacific Day”. How convenient.

This they claim will make the commemoration of the end of the war in the Pacific less “Japan specific.”

An op-ed piece written by Dorothy Rabinowitz appearing in the April 5 Wall Street Journal accurately sums up this outrage:

The reason it appears, is that some Japanese find the reference disturbing — and one can see why. The term, especially the “J” part, does serve to remind the world of the identity of the nation whose defeat millions celebrated in August 1945. In further deference to Japanese sensitivities, a U.S. official (who wisely chose to remain unidentified) also announced, with reference to the planned ceremonies, that “our whole effort in this thing is to commemorate an event, not celebrate a victory.

Some might argue so what’s in a word — Victory over Japan, Victory in the Pacific — Let’s celebrate an event, not a victory.

I say everything is in a word. Celebrate an EVENT!

Kind of like celebrating the opening of a shopping mall rather than the end of a war that engulfed the entire Earth — which left countless millions dead and countless millions more physically or mentally wounded and countless more millions displaced.

This assault on the use of language is Orwellian and is the tool by which history and memory are blurred. Words can be just as destructive as any weapon.

Up is Down.

Slavery is Freedom.

Aggression is Peace.

In some ways this assault on our language and history by the elimination of accurate and descriptive words is far more insidious than the actual aggression carried out by the Japanese 50 years ago. At least then the threat was clear, the enemy well defined.

Today the Japanese justify their conduct by artfully playing the race card. They were not engaged in a criminal enterprise of aggression. No, Japan was simply liberating the oppressed masses of Asia from WHITE Imperialism.

Liberation!!! Yes, they liberated over 20 million innocent Asians by killing them. I’m sure those 20 million, their families and the generations never to be, appreciate the noble effort of the Japanese.

I am often asked was the bomb dropped for vengeance, as was suggested by one draft of the Smithsonian exhibit. That we sought to destroy an ancient and honorable culture.

Here are some more inconvenient facts.

One, on the original target list for the atomic missions Kyoto was included. Although this would have been a legitimate target, one that had not been bombed previously. Secretary of State Henry Stimson removed it from the list because it was the ancient capital of Japan and was also the religious center of Japanese culture.

Two, we were under strict orders during the war that under no circumstances were we to ever bomb the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, even though we could have easily leveled it and possibly killed the Emperor. So much for vengeance.

I often wonder if Japan would have shown such restraint if they had the opportunity to bomb the White House. I think not.

At this point let me dispel one of many longstanding myths that our targets were intended to be civilian populations. Each target for the missions had significant military importance — Hiroshima was the headquarters for the southern command responsible for the defense of Honshu in the event of an invasion and it garrisoned seasoned troops who would mount the initial defense.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with the two large Mitsubishi armaments factories. In both Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese had integrated these industries and troops right in the heart of each city.

As in any war our goal was, as it should be, to win. The stakes were too high to equivocate.

I am often asked if I ever think of the Japanese who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I do not revel in the idea that so many on both sides died, not only at those two places but around the world in that horrible conflict. I take no pride or pleasure in the brutality of war whether suffered by my people or those of another nation. Every life is precious.

But it does seem to me such a question is more appropriately directed to the Japanese war lords who so willingly offered up their people to achieve their visions of greatness. They who started the war and then stubbornly refused to stop it must be called to account. Don’t they have the ultimate responsibility for all the deaths of their countrymen?

Perhaps if the Japanese came to grips with their past and their true part in the war they would hold those Japanese military leaders accountable. The Japanese people deserve an answer from those that brought such misery to the nations of the Far East and ultimately to their own people. Of course this can never happen if we collaborate with the Japanese in wiping away the truth.

How can Japan ever reconcile with itself and the United States if they do not demand and accept the truth?

My crew and I flew these missions with the belief that they would bring the war to an end. There was no sense of joy. There was a sense of duty and commitment that we wanted to get back to our families and loved ones.

Today millions of people in America and in southeast Asia are alive because the war ended when it did.

I do not stand here celebrating the use of nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary.

I hope that my mission is the last such mission ever flown.

We as a nation can abhor the existence of nuclear weapons.

I certainly do.

But that does not then mean that, back in August of 1945, given the events of the war and the recalcitrance of our enemy. President Truman was not obliged to use all the weapons at his disposal to end the war.

I agreed with Harry Truman then, and I still do today.

Years after the war Truman was asked if he had any second thoughts. He said emphatically, “No.” He then asked the questioner to remember the men who died at Pearl Harbor who did not have the benefit of second thoughts.

In war the stakes are high. As Robert E. Lee said, “it is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it.”

I thank God that it was we who had this weapon and not the Japanese or the Germans. The science was there. Eventually someone would have developed this weapon. Science can never be denied. It finds a way to self-fulfillment.

The question of whether it was wise to develop such a weapon would have eventually been overcome by the fact that it could be done. The Soviets would have certainly proceeded to develop their own bomb. Let us not forget that Joseph Stalin was no less evil than Tojo or his former ally Adolf Hitler. At last count, Stalin committed genocide on at least 20 million of his own citizens.

The world is a better place because German and Japanese fascism failed to conquer the world.

Japan and Germany are better places because we were benevolent in our victory.

The youth of Japan and the United States, spared from further needless slaughter, went on to live and have families and grow old.

As the father of ten children and the grandfather of 21, I can state that I am certainly grateful that the war ended when it did.

I do not speak for all veterans of that war. But I believe that my sense of pride in having served my country in that great conflict is shared by all veterans. This is why the truth about that war must be preserved. We veterans are not shrinking violets. Our sensibilities will not be shattered in intelligent and controversial debate. We can handle ourselves.

But we will not, we cannot allow armchair second guessers to frame the debate by hiding facts from the American public and the world.

I have great faith in the good sense and fairness of the American people to consider all of the facts and make an informed judgment about the war’s end.

This is an important debate. The soul of our nation, its essence, its history, is at stake.

闢謠: 加拿大外交部關於「台灣是中國一部分」的神回覆

加拿大,全球政治最清廉的國家之一,加拿大外交部的回答讓我們不得不佩服….
長久以來,中華人民共和國一直堅持台灣是中共的一部份,但是中共便為此鬧了個國際笑話。中國外交部要求加拿大承認台灣是中國的領土。加拿大提出5點理由反駁﹕

  1. 台灣並非加拿大所擁有之領土,所以加拿大沒有權利承認台灣主權歸屬於誰。如果是加拿大所擁有的北極圈諸小島與中國有爭議,加拿大才有權利承認其歸屬。這是從羅馬法以來的所有權法理。國際法當然也依此原則適用。
  2. 沒有任何國際法理論使加拿大有「權利」承認、或有「義務」承認與它無任何關係的台灣的主權歸屬。中國要求加拿大做這種承認毫無道理。
  3. 即使加拿大承認台灣是中華人民共和國一部份,實際上並無任何法效果或意義。因為加拿大國民、飛機、船舶要進入台灣,拿北京政權所發簽證根本無效,還是要向台灣當局申請簽證。承認其對台灣實效統治,這等於是立刻又以具體行為否認台灣是中國的一部份。
  4. 加拿大若在國際條約中承認台灣是中華人民共和國的一部份,依條約必須履行原理,加拿大勢必派兵攻佔台灣,負責把台灣交給中國以履行條約。這是多麼荒謬的一件事。
  5. 台灣如果的確屬於中華人民共和國,則北京政權又何必要求各國承認。例如,海南島是中國領土不可分割的一部份,中國根本不必要求他國承認。反之,台灣若非中國領土,中國即使到處去要求他國承認,實際上也沒有國際法效果。如果台灣是有紛爭的領土,中國也應該去找與該領土有關的當事國交涉及承認才有國際法效果。強迫無關的第三國承認是毫無意義。

說得中國外交部啞口無言,『十三億』口莫辨。自此之後,中國只能嘴巴嚷嚷,不敢再要求加拿大承認台灣是中國的領土。
論理充分…提出理由的加拿大老兄顯然受過嚴謹邏輯訓練

實在沒想到有一天會來寫這種闢謠文章,更沒想到這麼明顯的謠言居然可以流傳這麼廣,最近越傳越兇,在 ptt 上一堆腦殘狂推,連同學的圈子都傳進去了。

這篇文章最早是 2010 年左右看到的。或許可以參看這裡這裡。大致上是說,中共外交部行文給加拿大外交部,要求他們承認台灣是中國的領土,結果被加拿大外交部打臉打很腫。

我能夠理解台灣人看到這篇文章的反應都是「好爽」、「加拿大不愧是已開發國家,太屌炸天了」云云。問題是這根本是很明顯杜撰出來意淫的而已,現實中根本不可能發生。

你問我怎麼證明沒這回事?

道理很簡單。簡單到簡直像是 1+1=2 一樣,寫文章說明我都覺得浪費時間。之所以這麼多台灣人看不出來,是因為幾十年來的政治人物和媒體都在欺騙你們。

先回顧一下加拿大和中華人民共和國是怎麼建交的吧。加拿大是 1970 年和中共建交的。請注意這個年代,雖然才 45 年前,許多人卻已經完全沒有記憶。那是光復大陸、反共復國的年代,那是風雨飄搖、精誠團結的時代,那是蔣介石還在當國家領袖、民族英雄的年代,那是看電影要起立唱國歌的年代,那是連電視上放個廣告都還要新聞局批准審核的年代。最重要的是,那是全世界大部分西方國家都跟「中華民國」還有邦交的年代。當時國際上大部分國家都承認整個「中國」是我們「中華民國」的,這個「中國」當然包括台灣。雖然當時整片中國幾乎都在共產黨統治之下,但是以當年國際間的反共氣氛,大部分國家還是願意認可台灣 (或者準確的說,中華民國) 是中國的合法政府,而共產黨代表的政府則成為中國的叛亂團體。以當年的標準用語來說,就是「匪」。

然後就在 1970 這一年,有一個西方國家開當時風氣之先,率先打我們的臉。那就是謠言中大家以為「把中國打臉打很腫」的加拿大。加拿大承認了共產黨的中國政府是中國唯一的合法政府,台灣既然是中國的一部分,那麼加拿大當然也承認中華人民共和國是台灣的合法政府。盤據在台灣的「中華民國」,由九天之上被打落凡塵,從合法政府變成「叛亂團體」。當然也就在這個時候,加拿大跟中華民國斷交了。加拿大不只不是「中華民國」的好朋友,正好相反,是率先踢你一腳棄你而去的見風轉舵者。今天台灣人卻在造謠,幻想說加拿大是你的好朋友、幫你打中國的臉。這豈止是無知腦殘,簡直就是下賤。

從加拿大開始,1970 – 80 年代,許許多多的國家都開始與「中華民國」斷交,轉而與「中華人民共和國」建交,承認他們是中國唯一的合法政府。

因此之故,大陸外交部自然不可能行文加拿大,如這篇謠言所說的,要求他們「承認」台灣是中國的一部分。因為這個「承認」早在 1970 年代他們建交的時候就承認了,45 年來從來沒有變過。大陸外交部怎麼可能去要求加拿大變更他們的承諾?

真正的事實是,大部分的台灣人只會該該叫自己「國際地位不明」、「國際地位特殊」,很渴望一堆什麼「台灣之光」、讓「全世界都看見」。但是媒體和政治人物都在騙你,沒人敢告訴你,在大部分國家的正式定義裡面,台灣的「中華民國政府」就是個盤據在幾座島上面的「叛亂團體」,要怎麼處理只看中國政府決定怎麼對待他的叛亂組織罷了。其他國家不會承認台灣的統治合法性,就好比如果 Florida 出現民兵叛變,你究竟是會承認 Florida 的民兵政府組織?還是華盛頓代表的美國政府有統治權力?如果你要承認 Florida 以前,會不會擔心華盛頓不高興?

對現狀可能很多人不滿。不過散佈意淫的謠言,對現狀一點幫助都沒有。千里之行始於足下,連自己站在哪裡都不曉得,怎麼知道往哪裡走?

Welcome to the real world.

查理週刊槍擊背後的深層問題

Je_suis_Charlie-24
巴黎的槍響,吸引了全球的目光。隨著傷亡者的姓名和生活瑣事逐一曝光,無不繫動著關懷者的心腸。媒體大篇幅的報導,高聲譴責對言論自由的暴力威脅;巴黎民眾自發走上街頭,高舉著「Je Suis Charlie」(我們都是查理) 的標語,捍衛自己的生活方式和報刊嘲諷的權利。兩日後的今天,隨著逃亡者逐一被擊斃,事件彷彿告一段落,生活將恢復正常的平靜。

這種感覺無疑是錯誤的。查理不是開始,也不會是結束。

查理週刊因為刊登嘲諷伊斯蘭教先知的漫畫而受到攻擊。如果大家不健忘的話,英國人魯西迪曾經因為寫作《魔鬼的詩篇》而受到伊朗宗教領袖何梅尼的追殺令。魯西迪本人雖然未曾受傷,卻有多國的翻譯人員、出版人員因此受傷甚至喪命,甚至曾使英伊兩國斷交。

我要強調的,並不是「伊斯蘭教好可怕」,也不是支持槍擊者。受到攻擊的週刊、被槍殺的工作人員,無疑都值得同情,槍擊者也應當受到譴責與追捕。但是法國人與世界主流媒體的第一反應:「我們應當捍衛我們的自由和生活方式,在這一刻,我們都是查理!這是對言論自由的最嚴重暴力!」恰恰正是事情的根源。

大部分國家都保持有言論自由,並且受到法律的規範與保護 – 通常在公益與私益方面各有一些界定。例如無視事實的傷害他人名譽,顯然不受言論自由的保障。每個國家對這些的界線各自有一些劃分方式。

如果一個報社漫畫畫上某知名人物的雙親,不堪入目的淫穢畫面,大部分人應該都可以同意,不能允許這種下流行為,以世界大部分的國家法律標準來說也不被容忍。那麼,如果把這個對象換成宗教領袖呢?換成基督、穆罕默德、佛陀、媽祖,是否就成為可以允許的範圍了呢?

隨著歐洲來自中亞和非洲的移民日益增多,法國的穆斯林數目也與日俱增,類似的議題可以想見未來只會層出不窮。

europe_muslim
因此,從深層來看法國的槍擊事件的話,問題有兩個根源:

  1. 言論自由保障的界線到什麼程度?是依據既有的歐洲文化標準,還是應該依照人口不斷變化的現在而有所調整?是「老」法國人應該適應、尊重新移民的文化,還是新移民應該要「融入」法國文化?
  2. 現存既有的言論自由規則,以及相關的保障,制定之時是由歐洲文化所主導。伊斯蘭文化並沒有參與制定。因此對部分激進的穆斯林來說,現存的規則是保障強者欺負他們的規則 – 他們無意、也沒有能力透過現行規則來保護自己的權利。因此他們能夠採取的手段,就變成世所難容的極端暴力。

當巴黎人們高喊「Je Suis Charlie」的時候,對這些激進者而言,這正好是「我們堅決捍衛侮蔑你們的權利」。如果以目前法國以及主流媒體的應對方式來看,將來出現類似的攻擊事件只是時間早晚的問題而已。

問題的解決,需要仰賴雙方的包容 – 法國的舊勢力需要能夠接受新移民的文化和觀念,新移民也需要尊重法國的基本規則,並且雙方重新架構彼此都能接受的社會規範。

當然我知道,這條路還是長夜漫漫。不然就不會有 2005 年的大暴動2013 歷史家溫那自殺的事件了。不過,如果法國真的有意追尋更和平美好的明天,捨此別無他途。

司法追殺的下場

最近因為某候選人被查稅的事情引起鄉民熱議,讓我想到 2008 年美國參議員選舉的案子。

2008 年美國阿拉斯加州參議員選舉前幾天,追求連任的參議員 Ted Stevens 被法院定罪。數日後,Ted Stevens 以不到四千票的些微差距敗給競爭對手 Mark Begich。然而,就在選後不久,其中一位控方證人出面表示他做了偽證,而且公訴人在明知他的證詞有問題的情況下依然讓他出庭作證。

隨後的調查更被發現,當初公訴人刻意隱匿了對辯方有利的證人和證據。

Ted Stevens 的案件,後來在 2009 年被撤銷起訴。但是當然參議員席位不可能重選,他本人後來也於 2010 年的空難喪生。

至於起訴他的公訴人呢?其中兩位在 2012 年被懲處。兩人的處罰分別是停職 15 和 40 天。是的,只罰停職這麼幾天就沒事了。

政治追殺、司法迫害並不只有鬼島會發生。判決並不總是準確而公正。正義更往往來的並不及時。

We live in an imperfect world. We can improve it by stop pretending it is.

中國的經濟發展與民主

“To date, Beijing has been able to maintain a viable and largely politically stable society mainly because the political restraints of a one-party state have been offset by the degree to which the state is seen to provide economic growth and material wellbeing. But in the years ahead, that is less likely to be the case, as China’s growth rates slow and its competitive advantage narrows.”

葛林斯潘最近在 Foreign Affairs 寫了一篇文章。文章中,有個觀點特別讓我感到值得一提。西方觀點一般認為,隨著共產國家的經濟水平提高,人們也容易趨向追求票選的民主。葛林斯潘這篇文章也不例外。

這種觀點認為,中國之所以能夠維持相對不民主的制度,是因為高速的經濟成長。但是人民生活改善到某一程度,或是經濟成長一旦減速遲緩,中國制度被改變的壓力也會隨之增加。換言之,西方熱衷輸出民主的政體可以坐等中國持續高速發展 ─ 或是崩潰,因為兩者都會讓中共政體裂解,將中國轉化為民主國家。

這是個很方便的概念,也讓鴿派成功說服鷹派,讓他們願意與中國和平做生意,促進中國的發展,讓原本是宿敵的陣營打了約 30 年的交道。

可惜的是,這個假設前提根本是錯的,因為持這種觀點的西方人 (以及許多台灣人) 根本不懂所謂的「中國特色」。

事實真相則正好相反,中國並不會因此而追求民主。而是中國的經濟起飛是建立在政治穩定的前提之上 ─ 至少大部分中國人都是這樣相信的。鄧小平也是掃平四人幫以後才能帶領中國走向改革開放之路。

可以預見的是,西方主流觀點認為一旦中國經濟減速,中國共產黨將會面臨巨大的民眾壓力。真相則恰恰相反:當中國經濟減速的時候,大陸民眾會更緊緊的抱緊共產黨,確保「政治穩定」,希冀由此帶來更宏偉長遠的光明之路。

哪一種觀點是對的?We shall soon see in a few years.