思樂書

在某些罕見的年月里，一個國家的未來會系于個人的命運，即使這是一個注入了13億個的靈魂的國家。或許，中國現在就處於這樣的一個時刻，而那個人就是陳光誠。來自山東省的盲人活動家陳光誠，從貧困崛起，為正義而戰，并付上了自身的自由為代價。上月他為自己的自由一搏，卻就此捲入了非個人所能控制的超級大國的政治機器中。現在，什麽將被加于他和他的家人，已然成了關乎中美關係和中國權力性質的問題。

在許多方面，陳光誠是現代中國最卓越的人物。他自幼失明，成年以前接受的教育乏善可陳，而後靠自學成為了一名律師。在一個強權就是真理的國家，這從來不是一個安全的職業。作為一個打著實地戰役的農村活動家——比起藝術家艾未未那樣的來自城市精英階層的政治角色，這讓他成了中國一股更具實效的力量——他曾有多年因提倡殘疾人的權益受到當地政府的褒獎。然而後來他踩過了紅線，為了被視為中國嚴厲的計劃生育政策一部份的強制墮胎和絕育，陳光誠跟地方黨組織幹上了。在因莫須有的指控被監禁了4年后，陳光誠當了19個月家囚。

在4月22日，他逃往位於北京的美國大使館，而美國國務卿希拉里因年度中美戰略經濟對話應將抵達那裡。接下來發生的事則眾說紛紜。美國外交官們說他們與陳光誠交流密切，甚至在談話時握住了他的手。他們還說，在六天的居留后，陳光誠自願由大使陪同離開大使館前往醫院，去與他的家人重聚。他收到了中國政府將好好地對待他，并允許他進入大學學習法律的承諾。然而，從他的病榻之上，疲憊不堪、飽受驚嚇的陳光誠突然開口抱怨說，美國外交官們曾“遊說”他離開，並且不允許他與他的朋友們聯繫，以及中方官員曾威脅他的妻子。他對美國政府“非常失望”并表示他想要離開中國。在另一方，中國官方沒有承認任何交換條件——但他們確有嚴辭要求美國道歉。

北京抉擇

幸運的話，眾說將會趨於平靜。或許陳光誠會精神奕奕地去國赴美，或許他會找到留在中國過正常的日子的辦法，但此事拋出了三個疑問。最為緊迫的一個是，美國最優秀的外交官們真的拋棄了這個勇敢的人嗎？如果他們真的對陳光誠漠不關心，他們現在就幾乎沒有拿人權討價還價的本錢了。如果他們被中國對手愚弄了，或者輕信了對方的保證，他們將被當作傻瓜看待。如果他們匆匆忙忙達成交易，讓一個困苦的盲人的權益在貨幣與關稅的考量面前黯然失色，他們將被視同騙子。克林頓夫人宣稱陳光誠離開大使館“反應了他自己的選擇和我們的價值觀”。她的話毫無疑問將受到今年的大選的檢視。

然而陳光誠的困境讓兩個關於他本國的更深層次的問題浮出了水面。第一個就是，中國是否仍然認為它必須將自己與美國的關係置於其他任何問題之上。在過去的爭議中，尤為突出的是在2001年中國戰機與美國飛機的空中相撞中，中國最終趨於將美國擺在首位——作為貿易與財富的源泉，以及世界警察。然而現在的中國更為強大了，它的經濟總量增長了，它可以保衛自己的疆域，並且期望在國際上更有分量——尤其是，在北京的勝利論者們看來，美國已然被金融海嘯和邪惡的黨派政治拖垮了。

如果陳光誠現在被懲處了，而巴拉克·奧巴馬受到了羞辱，這將預示著兩個超級大國間關係的棘手轉變。一個受創的、多疑的美國，和一個猖狂的、一心想要贏得它認為應得的尊敬的中國，註定要上演至好是阻滯至壞是衝突的戲碼。這無論對於兩個超級大國還是對於世界都是一個可怕的結果，它們應當盡其所能把事情辦圓。

權力轉移

另外一個問題——同樣也是在這新一代權力交接的年份里困擾著中國的首要問題——這個國家要怎樣運轉下去。這位墨鏡下的盲人律師，只是在這專制統治下苦苦掙扎的數百萬普通人中的一個。在很長的一段時間里——一開始是在中國蛻下毛澤東主義的時候，接下來是在經濟浪潮洶湧澎湃的時候——大多數中國人盯著他們飛升的生活水平，而對法律的完善置若罔聞。進而，弱勢、殘疾、失業、貧困的人們都被掃到了一遍，他們被遺忘了，甚至被追逐財富的大軍蹂躪于腳下。現在，放緩的經濟、嚴峻的腐敗、農村的怨氣和城市的特權都昭示著共產黨正承受著推行法治的巨大壓力，尤其是以圖削除地方官員的豁免權。

共產黨意識到，它必須開始變得負責任一點，並且為民眾的怨憤提供一個合法的渠道。在面對村民抗議地方官員從土地買賣中謀取暴利而引發的烏坎騷亂時，北京最終站在了村民的一邊；共產黨熱衷于將治理重慶的薄熙來的革職作為中國是一個法治國家的證據；中國總理溫家寶雄辯道，腐敗將不被容忍。就算它想，共產黨也不能完全控制這個國家里2億5千萬個微博主，他們中的每個人都過著自己的戲劇化生活，并持續愚弄著那些網管們。

然而，兩難在於，即使共產黨需要用法律進行統治，但在它不流失權力、放棄特權的情況下，法律不可能被遵守。至少現在，共產黨還想要魚與熊掌兩者兼得。相對於之前的任何事件，惱人的陳光誠問題引起更大的“不可兼得”的疑慮。在外交官和政客們濟濟宴會的幾個街區之外，這個睡在北京的醫院病床上的男人，他孱弱的肩頭上有著千斤重擔。這重擔卻與中國的未來有著莫大關聯。

Chen Guangcheng

Chen, China and America

The disputed story of a blind activist raises difficult questions for both superpowers

May 5th 2012 | from the print edition

AT RARE moments the future of a nation, even one teeming with 1.3 billion souls, can be bound up in the fate of a single person. Just possibly China is living through one of those moments and Chen Guangcheng is that person. A blind activist from Shandong province, Mr Chen emerged from poverty, fought for justice and paid the price with his own liberty. Last month he made a bid for freedom and became ensnared in the impersonal machinery of superpower politics. What now befalls him and his family raises questions about Sino-American relations and the character of Chinese power.

In many ways, Mr Chen is the best of modern China. Blind since childhood, poorly educated until adulthood and then self-taught, he became a lawyer, never a safe career in a country where might is right. As a peasant activist fighting local battles—which makes him a much more potent force in China than politicised members of the urban elite such as the artist Ai Weiwei (see article)—he was praised for years by the local government for advocating the rights of disabled people. Then he crossed the line by taking on the local party over the abortions and sterilisations it enforced as part of China’s strict one-child policy. After four years in jail on spurious charges, Mr Chen was kept prisoner in his own home for 19 months.

On April 22nd he fled to the American embassy in Beijing, where Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, was due to arrive for her country’s annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China. What happened next is disputed (seearticle). American diplomats say they became close to Mr Chen, even holding his hand when they spoke. They say that, after six days inside, Mr Chen willingly left the embassy for hospital, accompanied by the ambassador, to be reunited with his family. He had received assurances from the Chinese government that he would be treated well and allowed to study law at university. However, from his hospital bed, a weary, browbeaten Mr Chen suddenly began to complain that American diplomats had “lobbied” him to leave, that they had not let him confer with his friends and that Chinese officials had threatened his wife. He was “very disappointed” in the American government and said he wanted to leave China. For their part, Chinese officials acknowledge no deal—but they have sternly demanded an apology from America.

The Beijing switch

With luck the dispute will calm down. Perhaps Mr Chen will be spirited away to America, or find a way to live normally in China. But the incident raises three questions. Most immediately, did America’s best diplomats let a brave man down? With Mr Chen out of their care, they now have little bargaining power. If they were duped by their Chinese counterparts, or too ready to accept their assurances, they will be taken as fools. If they struck a deal in haste, calculating that currencies and tariffs should eclipse the rights of an inconvenient blind man, they will be taken as knaves. Mrs Clinton boasted that Mr Chen left the embassy “in a way that reflected his choices and our values”. Her words will undoubtedly be scrutinised in this year’s election.

Yet the plight of Mr Chen raises two deeper questions about his own country. The first is whether China still feels it must put its relations with America before anything else. In past disputes, notably the aerial collision of a Chinese fighter and an American spyplane in 2001, China has tended eventually to put America first—as the source of trade and wealth and the policeman for the global commons. But China is stronger now, its economy is bigger, it can defend its own shores and it expects to carry weight in the world—especially as, in the view of some triumphalists in Beijing, America has been dragged down by the financial crash and its vicious partisan politics.

If Mr Chen is now punished and Barack Obama is humiliated, that will signal a troubling shift in the terms of the superpowers’ relations. A wounded, suspicious America and a rampant China, bent on winning the respect it thinks its due, set the stage for dysfunction at best and conflict at worst. It would be a terrible outcome for both superpowers and for the world. They should strive to patch things up.

The power shift

The other question—and one that will preoccupy China in a year when power shifts to the next generation of leaders—is how the country is run. The blind lawyer in dark glasses is just one of millions of ordinary people smarting under arbitrary rule. For a long time—first when China shed Maoism and then as its economy surged—most Chinese people cared less about the niceties of the law than their fast-rising living standards. Even then the weak, the disabled, the unemployed and the poor were ignored, sidelined and sometimes trampled in the rush for wealth. Now, a slowing economy, corruption, rural anger and urban freedoms all mean that the party is under pressure to enforce the rule of law—especially in order to curtail the impunity of local officials.

The Communist Party recognises that it must start to be more accountable and give people a legal outlet for their grievances. Faced with an insurrection in Wukan, after villagers protested about local officials’ profiteering from the sale of land, Beijing ended up siding with the villagers. The party has been keen to depict the sacking of Bo Xilai, who ran the south-western region of Chongqing, as proof that China is a country of laws. Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, has argued that corruption will not be tolerated. Try as it might, the party cannot altogether control the country’s 250m microbloggers who follow each drama live and continue to confound the censors.

The dilemma is that although the party needs the law to govern, it cannot submit to the law without losing power and giving up privileges. At the moment the party still wants to have it both ways. More than any other incident so far, the disturbing case of Mr Chen raises doubts about whether it can. It is a heavy burden to be resting on the frail shoulders of a man lying in a Beijing hospital bed as the diplomats and politicians dine together a few blocks away. But it matters enormously to China’s future.