袁剑:房地产崩溃进入倒计时

[力量对比描述不错,但结论恐怕有误。房地产一时不会崩溃,但处置不当,恐怕会绑架中国政府进入万劫不复的轨道。]

对于资产泡沫的预测没有特别好的方法,现有的方法对于预测泡沫破裂的时间更是完全无能。所以这篇文章试图用一种特别的方法来较为精确的预测中国房地产泡沫的破裂时间。虽然我相信房地产政策还会有反复,但是熊市已成定局,每一次波动都只能是反弹。

房地产崩溃进入倒计时

任何一位期望房地产价格下跌的人,只要愿意了解一下中国房地产市场中的力量对比,那他一定会感到沮丧甚至绝望。

在中国房地产巨大的泡沫游戏中,处于多头一方的,都是当今中国最为显赫的力量。在这些力量中,位列首位的是各级地方政府。无论是出于官员政绩,还是地 方财政及gdp的考量,中国各级地方政府都有最大的激励推动中国房地产泡沫的不断膨胀。可谓中国房地产的死多头。其中理由无非利益二字。这也是为什么金融 危机之后,中央政府稍有政策松动,各级地方政府便雷厉风行,密集出台各种房地产刺激政策的原因。出于同样的理由,在2010年中央政府开始抑制房地产泡沫 的时候,各个地方政府则是虚与委蛇,能拖则拖。今年以来,处于某种特殊的政治需要。虽然也有个别地方大员祭出住房消费税之类的把戏,颇有一点对房地产泡沫 大开杀戒的势头,但地方财政对土地泡沫的巨大需求使然,个别地方官员对房地产泡沫的特殊态度,至多能起到某种政治宣誓的作用。可以判断,地方政府对土地财 政的依赖一天不结束,地方政府就始终是推动中国房地产泡沫的死多头。特别需要指出的是,在现行的政治架构中,地方政府只享受房地产泡沫所带来的利益,却丝 毫不承担泡沫破裂的责任,是中国各级地方政府在推动房地产泡沫过程中毫无顾忌的重要原因。

在中国房地产的泡沫游戏中,与地方政府利 益高度一致并结成稳固同盟的另外一只多头力量,是形形色色、大大小小的房地产商。在这些房地产商中,虽然各有 各的算盘,但几乎没有人不喜欢价格泡沫,泡沫越大,他们赚得越多,即便冷静如王石者,恐怕也不会与泡沫过不去。说归说,长远利益归长远利益,短期暴利毕竟 不是坏事。至于泡沫破裂谁来兜底,地方政府尚且不顾,唯利是图的房地产商们又何须替古人担忧呢?所以,只要可能,他们就会采取诸如信息欺诈,游说政府等一 切可能的手段,为房地产泡沫火上浇油。尤其值得一提的是,在中国一直以私营企业为主的房地产商队伍中,近年来杀出了一路黑马:央企。由于在资金成本及实力 上的特点,以及在人事上与中国现行政治架构上的特殊勾连,央企的加入,为中国的房地产行业带来了重要的变数,其中最为重要的一条,就是中国房地产行业空前 的软约束化。与一般的地产商不同,央企的管理者们,完全不需要为房地产泡沫的崩溃承担任何个人损失,短期的泡沫越大,对他们越有利。在所有的房地产公司 中,央企最有动力推动房地产泡沫的膨胀。不止于此,今日央企的软约束已经远不止事后的免责,而更在于他们在事前对政策的游说,而这种政策的游说也绝非局限 在传统的部门范围,而是直及货币政策。任何资产泡沫,追根究底都是货币问题。影响货币政策,实际上也就影响了资产泡沫的最源头。去岁以来,中国一反其他新 兴经济体逐渐紧缩之势,货币政策欲紧还松,态度暧昧,虽不能完全归于央企之功,但与他们对政策钳制显然也有莫大关联。放眼经济领域,最大的软约束,莫过于 货币政策之软约束。其结果自然是货币充斥,价格腾踊,全民买单收场。在一年多来的中国房地产市场中,央企房地产异军突起,在泡沫面前全无惧色,频频刷新地 王记录,实在是其来有自。而这也正是中国房地产市场的重要特色之一。对于这些后起之秀,老牌民营房地产商们可谓亦喜亦忧。忧的是,他们可能挤占自己的市场 机会,喜的则是,这些不要命的官商毕竟在市场摇摇欲坠之际,延长了泡沫周期,为他们壮了胆撑了腰。

不过,如果仅仅只有地方政府,房地产商的做多热情,没有银行一边倒的信贷支持,中国的房地产泡沫恐怕也不会像现在这样烈火喷油,日剧一日。在上个世 纪90 年代之后,中国银行业在靡费数万亿公帑救助之后,得以幸存。以迄于今,不仅市值独步全球,而且在风险管控,经营管理方面据说也已脱胎换骨。而最近几年我们 看到的事实则让人忧从中来:中国耗资巨大的银行改革成果,很有可能是一个假象。中国银行业不仅业务高度的同质化,其最终的责任约束,似乎仍然无从谈起。短 期利益依然是那些调动频繁的行长们的最高利益。在利差收入还是中国银行业绝大部分利润来源的情况下,多放贷则都获利,于是,各大银行蜂拥放贷,一举而促成 中国历史上最为壮观的信贷狂潮。但一旦周期翻转(现在看来,这种概率正在变得越来越大),中国银行业无疑又是坏账如山。这种悲剧在金融史中俯拾皆是,在中 国更是十年前刚刚发生的故事。但短期利益所系,似乎没有人相信悲剧会重演,他们宁愿相信,中国的经济以及房地产将是历史上的特例。中国金融业乃是技术精英 云集之地,本应在市场狂热之时表现得更为理性,但他们在近几年的表现,让人有一次看到了,泡沫的狂热会在何种程度上摧毁一个民族的理智。不过,我不太相信 中国金融业全是这般见识浅陋之人,我以为他们更加隐蔽的算盘是:反正银行也不是我的,最终大不了中央银行或者中央财政再次兜底(实际上是全民买单)。要烂 大家一起烂,银行家个人的责任都可以归咎为所谓系统风险而消失得无影无踪。所以,只要宏观形势暂时不翻转,房地产短期内不崩盘,争先恐后放贷争取短期利润 就成为唯一理性的行为,而那些审慎经营的银行看上去就更像是一群自以为是的书呆子。如此博傻,夫复何言。要而言之,无论从短期还是长期来看,竞相向房地产 业放贷,推动房地产泡沫的不断腾升,都符合银行家们的利益。如此制度约束,中国银行业不成为房地产的多头反倒可能是咄咄怪事。

在中国房地产格局中角色最为微妙的是中央政府。由于中央政府对中国经济、社会负有广泛和最终的责任,他们对房地产的考量变得空前复杂,其处境也变得相 当痛苦。一方面,他们需要房地产拉动经济——这是中国政治合法性的主要来源(如果不是唯一的话),另一方面,不断腾升的房地产价格所引起的广泛民怨却在不 断吞噬着这种合法性,更为要命的是,随时可能破灭的房地产泡沫将彻底毁掉中国的金融系统并引发经济休克。这两种主要的厉害计算左右着中央政府对房地产的态 度。其最终决策取决于他们这种计算结果。毫无疑问,在过去的很多年中,虽然房地产已经逐渐导致了系统性的民生问题,但其对中央政府的正面价值显然大于其负 面价值。这也是中央政府尽管不断出台各种抑制泡沫的政策,但却始终不敢下重手的原因所在。及至金融危机,出于反危机之需,房地产更是万千宠爱积于一身,中 央政府不得不食言自肥,重新出台刺激房地产的各种政策。直到目前,中央政府的官方态度仍然是“保持房地产的健康、稳定”。在这一点上,素以坦率鲁莽著称的 任志强先生的看法,的确相当精准。他几乎不放过任何机会纠正媒体对中央政府态度的错误解读:政府从来没说要打压房地产,只是希望房地产价格稳定。任志强先 生的话翻译一下实际上是说:别看中央政府叫唤的厉害,他们仍然是我们的潜在的多头同盟军。纵观近十年来中央政府在房地产上的作为,虽然表现摇摆,态度暧 昧,但如果将其归于多头一方,虽不中亦不远也。有趣的是,中央政府这种反反复复、投鼠忌器的政策表现,不仅没有抑制住房价,反而造成了广泛的错觉。在这种 错觉中,中央政府的政策是唯一能够左右房地产价格的唯一因素,所有的下跌都是中央政府的打压政策而不是市场本身的力量所导致的。于是,房地产投机者与市场 的博弈变成了他们与中央政府的博弈。不幸的是,中国房地产的投机者们早就看透了中央政府的底牌:出于gdp的需要,中央政府即便暂时抑制房地产投机,也不 会将房地产往死里整。所以,一旦中央政府出台抑制房地产泡沫的政策,投机者们则祭出托字诀,坐等中央政府的下一次妥协。在这样一种意志的较量中,过往十年 的记录表明,形形色色的市场投机者们几乎完胜。在这个意义上,中央政府屡次房地产调控实际上起到了某种相反的助涨作用并延长了泡沫的时间。

在过去十余年中国房地产市场中,地方政府、开发商、银行以及那些拥有大量低成本住房的各类、各级官员,结成了一个相当稳定的多头利益集团。而唯一能够与 之 抗衡的中央政府,实际上也一直受制于经济增长之紧箍咒,而屡屡诚服于这个集团。而反观空头一方,仅仅只剩下那些尚未首次置业的年轻人以及进城的农民工了。 这个阶层在中国目前的政治格局中,几乎可归为最弱势之列,其政策影响几乎可以忽略不计。以这种力量与强悍无比的房地产多头相搏,无异于以卵击石。而即便是 这些人,一旦他们买房之后,他们就会立即转变为多头一方。毕竟,又有谁愿意自己的资产缩水,甚至变成负资产一族呢?如此看来,除了那些在现行房价下已经彻 底沦为看客的潜在购房者之外(颇有创意的中国房地产商们为他们发明了一个颇具羞辱性的别名:刚需),中国的房地产市场已经出现了净多头格局。所有的利益主 体都坐等某种神秘力量推动房地产价格的不断泡沫化,从而从中渔利。以这样的力量对比,不少人可能真的相信:中国的房地产真的会涨到天上去。然而,有经验的 投资者都知道,当一个市场全部都转变为多头的时候,市场实际上已经处于高度危险之中,换言之,市场反转的时候可能越来越近。其中道理非常朴素:所有的多头 力量都已经满仓入货,再也没有新的资金可以推动价格继续上涨。当那些刚需们被迫追涨蜂拥入市的时候,中国房地产的多头力量正在逐渐被耗竭。在这方面,迹象 已经变得越来越明确。有数据显示:中国的首次购房者的年龄正在快速降低。在北京,首次购房者的平均年龄已经下降到27岁。这个远远低于其他国家水平的数据 表明的是,中国房地产市场的购买力正在被迅速耗尽。当很多被认为不该买房的人都在买房的时候,难道不是一个牛市接近终点的有力证据吗?这就正如当不该买股 票的卖菜老太太都在买股票一样,将被熟练的投资者视为市场噩耗。顺便要提到的一个信号是,作为中国房地产市场的一个最为决绝的空头——一位叫“牛刀”的先 生,最近也已经向多头投降。开个玩笑,在这个时候,我们应该将牛刀先生视为市场一个灵敏的反向指标。多年之前,我的一位朋友在谈到股票市场的时候曾经有过 一个相当有趣的比喻:市场必须有摩擦力,如果失去摩擦力,市场就会飞出去。而飞出去的结果就是重重的跌落。从这个视角观察中国房地产市场,中央政府,地方 政府、银行、房地产商以及形形色色的投机者们万众一心、合力做多的2009年,与之何其相似乃尔?2009年的中国房地产难道不是真的飞出去了吗?一种看 上去不可一世的力量,毁灭他们的往往是他们自己,世事如此,言之可叹。

凭借逻辑上的证据,(包括中国房地产的空置率、自有住房率、租售比、房价收入比、尤其是中国未来经济的增长前景),以及市场经验,我们有充分的理由 相信, 中国房地产在2009年的放量暴涨,已经耗尽了这个市场绝大部分多头力量。这一年将是中国房地产市场长达十二年牛市的一个终结之年。而当下中国房地产市场 的种种表现,不过是其在顶部的最后挣扎。接下来的将是一次漫长的,惊心动魄的下跌。如果你想知道那会是什么景象,2008年中国股票市场就是一个标准的蓝 本。鉴于中国房地产价格对中国经济增长的严重透支程度,在我看来,中国房地产几无软着陆的可能,而很有可能是一场雪崩。

在论述人类 的农业及畜牧业革命时,汤因比认为,这不仅是技术的革命,更是人类由此获得了一种美德,人们已然认识到:“他们无论怎么饥饿,也绝不能吃光 种子或杀掉为他们提供奶水和补充畜群的母牛,母羊和母山羊。”而中国今天的房地产市场似乎已经根本背离了这一文明得以延续的美德。

在牧场被啃光、只剩下那些凶猛的动物的时候,猛兽之间的相互撕咬就可能成为他们生存下去的唯一办法。这大概就是所谓市场的力量。目下的中国房地产市场正处于这样一场战争的边缘。

2005年的时候,我曾经写过一篇《房地产套牢中国》,意思是说,房地产作为一个奇特的行业,已经将中国的强势利益集团紧紧捆绑在一起进而也将中国经 济的命运捆绑在一起。5年多过去之后, 这种捆绑不仅不见放松,反而更加紧密(我相信已经有人透不过气来)。如果说那个时候这还仅仅是一种趋势,那么现在房地产可能已经真正套牢了中国。房地产, 已经成为中国的一个死结。不过,西谚云:没有永远的朋友,只有永远的利益。中国房地产的死结也会因为利益的分野而被打开。

如前所 述,中央政府对房地产的态度取决于房地产泡沫给他们带来的价值。不用我算,在前面十余年,房地产给中央政府带来的正面价值远远大于负面价值。但 此一时彼一时,眼见得泡沫愈大,金融愈危,民怨愈盛,中央政府的算盘就可能打得不一样了。对于中央政府而言,房地产拉动经济的作用虽然仍不可小觑,但也不 是完全无法替代,比如多建廉租房,也同样可收拉动经济之功,况且在经历十数年的高速增长,自有住房率已经到接近90%左右的情况下,房地产究竟还有多少拉 动经济的潜力实在令人存疑。更为重要的是,房地产所引发的政治信任以及所带来的政治损失,正在变得越来越难以承受。显然,利弊权衡之后,天枰正在向另外一 面倾斜。我的判断是,中央政府对房地产的态度正在从最初的积极鼓励到前几年的被动支持,开始转变为今天的中性。用官方语言表述就是,“保持房地产的健康、 稳定”。在2010年,中央政府在年初及9月31日连出重手抑制房地产价格,即是这种态度转变的明确信号。虽然我也相信中央政府态度仍然可能出现反复,但 随着房地产泡沫日长夜大,这种概率会越来越小。与此相反,坚决抑制的概率的却变得越来越大。投资之大势者,此之谓也。时移世易,房地产曾经稳如磐石的多头 利益联盟显然已经出现裂缝。不过,在我看来,中央政府的态度并不是决定房地产走势的唯一因素,甚至不是最重要的因素。任何资产泡沫说到底都是货币现象。也 正是由于这个原因,我们相当有把握的判断,中国房地产泡沫已经走到尽头,处于盛极而衰的转折点上。

2008年金融危机以来,中国出于反危机之需,敞开货币闸门,货币供应达到有史以来的最高峰。一个被广泛引用的数据是:中国M2与GDP之比已经达到 180%远远超过美国的60%,广义货币的总量M2在2010年8月份达到68.7万亿,竟然超过美国10万亿左右。如此洪水猛兽般的货币态势,难道我们 还能指望货币政策继续扩张吗?虽然,疯狂的货币扩张在美国似乎没有引起通货膨胀,但不管美国、日本如何,也不管货币供应与通货膨胀之间的关系出现了哪些我 们不知道的变化,但作为一动而关乎天下社稷的政治家,货币供应与通胀之间关系的传统训诫,恐怕也不能完全掉以轻心。显见的事实是,中国的CPI正在以超过 所有预测者的速度逐月攀升。温JIA宝总理十月初在接受cnn采访时,明确将腐败及通胀列为威胁政权的两大因素,实际上已经明确了今后一段时间货币政策的 趋 势。另外一个更加重要的迹象是,中国领导人似乎已经准备接受更低的gdp增长速度。这显然意味着更加稳健和更加审慎的货币政策。当然,我们也不能排除中国 货币当局出于某种短期的政治利益而变成亡命之徒,更加疯狂的开动印钞机。但果真出现那种情况,讨论房地产恐怕已经没有必要了。明乎此,我们就能明白,从今 往后,中国的货币政策将逐渐趋紧,甚至在某些时候会骤然收紧。渐紧是大趋势,剩下的只在于程度及速度。于此,中国房地产市场的大趋势已经基本抵定。在这 里,那个一直沉默和隐身着的空头就要出场了。在整个房地产的泡沫游戏中,似乎从来就没有明显的受损者,只要房地产上涨,所有房地产的参与者几乎都能获利, 所谓多赢格局,莫过于此。如此好事,何乐而不为?或许正是由于这种考量,一位著名经济学家曾放言:房地产下跌对谁都没有好处。(顺便说一句,这是我听到的 关于房地产最无知的判断之一)然而,事实果真如此吗?天下从来就没有免费的晚餐,事实上,房地产泡沫在相当程度上是由全民货币购买力的损失来支付的。为了 人为延续泡沫而放任货币滥发的今日中国,情况则尤其如此。以全民货币贬值为代价向某些特定市场主体无偿支付暴利,这种游戏无论如何是难以长期持续的。货币 当局的这种貌似中性的欺骗真相一旦曝光,这个游戏就会嘎然而止。

当市场投机者们察觉并确认,市场最为重要的多头开始转向以及货币政 策将真的开始从紧的时候,市场的螺旋式下跌就开始了。房地产市场的各类投机者们,一 直被媒体妖魔化为一种可憎的形象,但实际上他们是一种中性的力量,涨是助涨,跌时助跌。他们从来不站在任何人一边,也从来没有所谓长远利益。人们或许很快 就会看见,他们是如何怀着惊恐的心情摧残他们昔日的多头同伴的。一场相互践踏的熊市大幕,正在拉开。中国房地产——这个曾经催生过无数富豪,吸引了无数聚 光灯的销金之窟,很快就会上演一幕剧情完全相反的戏剧。与这个剧情对应并作为背景的,是中国经济和政治的又一次艰难转型。

潘基文就2010年诺贝尔和平奖的颁发发表声明

潘基文就2010年诺贝尔和平奖的颁发发表声明

2010年10月8日 潘基文秘书长10月8日通过发言人发表声明表示,将2010年诺贝尔和平奖颁发给中国的刘晓波,是对国际社会在改善世界各地的人权做法与文化方面越来越多共识的一种认可。

潘基文在就刘晓波获得今年诺贝尔和平奖发表的声明中说,他一贯强调,人权、发展、和平与安全共同作为联合国工作的三个主要支柱的重要性。

声明说,过去数年中,中国取得了令人瞩目的经济进展,使千百万人脱离了贫困,扩大了政治参与,在遵循公认的人权文书与做法方面稳步加入了国际主流。

声明说,秘书长真诚地希望,任何有关颁奖决定的分歧将不会减损全球人权议程的推进或是这一奖项的崇高威望和鼓舞力量。

联 合国人权事务高级专员皮莱当天也对刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖表示欢迎。她表示,刘晓波无疑是一位著名的人权维护者,授予刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖是对人权维护者在 中国及许多其他国家发挥的重要作用、他们面临的挑战以及敢于表达自己信念的勇气的一种认可。她认为刘晓波等人权倡导者能够为中国的发展作出重要贡献。

皮莱在2009年曾就刘晓波被判入狱11年表示关切。

THE IMPACT OF THE PEACE PRIZE by Jerome A. Cohen

THE IMPACT OF THE PEACE PRIZE

Oct 12th, 2010 | By USAsialawNYU | Category: Jerome A. Cohen’s Blog

This article was published in the South China Morning Post on October 12, 2010 under the title, “Nobel Ripples.” It was published in Chinese in the China Times on October 13, 2010. The Illustration is from South China Morning Post. (繁体中文)(简体中文

by Jerome A. Cohen

When evaluating the impact of Friday’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, there are at least six audiences to consider, in addition to the Laureate himself: China’s Communist Party leaders, who stifle dissent to maintain their power; legal elites caught between Party policies and rule of law requirements; a congeries of dissidents and “rights activists” for whom Liu has now become the foremost symbol; the far larger and even more diverse community of intellectuals struggling to reconcile China’s traditions, “Westernization”, nationalism and universal values; the broad masses who had never before heard of Liu or the Charter ’08 democracy manifesto that he helped draft and that was ultimately signed by roughly 10,000 people; and the outside world that has once again been stimulated to focus on the nature of China’s political system.

Although Party leaders have imposed an increasingly repressive regime upon the country during the past three years since the 17th Party Congress, they cannot remain insensitive to munitions-maker Alfred Nobel’s latest bombshell. Their immediate reaction was abysmal. The leadership remained silent but the Foreign Ministry declared the Nobel committee’s decision a “desecration” of the donor’s intent, and the police suppressed all signs of domestic celebration. After a brief meeting with her imprisoned husband, Liu Xiaobo’s wife was placed under de facto house arrest, and any overt supporters were detained, beaten or threatened. Even Premier Wen Jiabao, who for weeks has stirred speculation by hinting that he favors universal values and political reforms, kept silent when asked for his view of the award.

Yet Politburo members are too intelligent to think that their silence plus suppression can defuse the current challenge. That tactic worked well in riding out the storms created by the Dalai Lama’s 1989 Peace Prize and by less famous but important awards such as the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for fellow dissident Hu Jia and the Philippines’ Magsaysay award for blind “barefoot lawyer” Chen Guangcheng. The present situation, however, is potentially incendiary.

Of course, its impact will be veiled in many respects. It is unlikely to gain Liu Xiaobo immediate relief. After all, Hu Jia remains behind bars, and Chen Guangcheng, despite the end of his prison term, suffers enforced isolation at home. But Liu’s Nobel may ignite concerns that even influence the jockeying for seats on the new Politburo Standing Committee to be installed in 2012. Many restless Party cadres will want some leaders who can positively respond to domestic and international human rights pressures.

Certainly many among China’s burgeoning legal elites would welcome such a change. Hundreds of thousands of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, administrative officials and law professors — most of them Party members — have been struggling with the implications for their daily work of the reactionary Party line on law emanating from the 17th Party Congress, and the appointments of politically reliable but professionally unqualified high legal officials. The Prize reminds them of the universal values on which China’s post-’79 law reforms have been based and of the outside world that rejects the Party’s intensifying insistence on distorted applications of the very norms it has imported. The Prize has undoubtedly added to long-simmering “red versus expert” tensions that pit more regressive Party groups against relatively more liberal legal elites.

A more obvious audience is the country’s embattled dissidents and rights activists, who have received a substantial morale booster, as have the courageous lawyers who try to represent them. These lonely proponents of free speech and the rule of law hunger for international recognition of their sacrifices, even at the cost of further repression.

Unlike dissidents and rights activists, most Chinese intellectuals avoid confrontation. They differ among themselves about the nation’s circumstances, goals and policies. Yet, whatever their prescriptions for reform, they believe that progress can only be made through patient, long-term efforts that do not provoke Party crackdowns. Some do not wish to lose the considerable benefits brought to them by China’s socio-economic progress. Others understandably fear martyrdom. Yet the Prize has plainly stoked the fires of their ongoing debates over China’s heritage, its contemporary dilemmas and its future.

It is difficult to evaluate the impact of the Prize on the hundreds of millions of Chinese who, because of Party-government controls over the media and internet, never before heard of Liu and Charter ’08. Due to this week’s massive campaign to conceal news of the award from the public, probably most still remain uninformed. Moreover, the regime seems poised to turn a vice into a virtue by gradually releasing the news only after imposing its own interpretation, as much as possible, upon it. The Prize has already been called an “insult” that is the latest imperialist scheme to humiliate the Chinese people by repudiating their values and achievements.

It is easiest, to be sure, to see the impact of the Prize on the outside world. Political leaders and public opinion in all democratic countries  overwhelmingly endorse the choice. Even Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou, who has been pursuing an historic reconciliation between Taiwan and the People’s Republic, nevertheless requested Liu’s immediate release. An impressive international consensus supports the principle expressed by the Nobel committee’s chairman: “We have a responsibility to speak when others are unable to speak”.

Not since the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen tragedy have China’s leaders been so out of step with humanity.

Professor Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU School of Law’s US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. He serves without compensation on a Freedom Now legal team assisting Liu Xia, wife of Liu Xiaobo. See also www.usasialaw.org

孔杰荣(柯恩):《人道第一,抢救刘晓波》

人道第一 抢救刘晓波

Posted By USAsialawNYU On 2010/10/13 @ 6:04 PM In Publications,柯恩专栏 | No Comments

出处:2010年10月14日 中国时报

作者:孔杰荣(柯恩)

衡量刘晓波在上周五获得诺贝尔和平奖所产生的影响,除获奖者本人外,至少有六个群体应纳入考量。一是通过扼杀异见维护统治的中国共产党领导人;二是 夹在党的政策与法治要求中间,左右为难的法律精英;三是目前以刘为重要象征的一群异议人士及“维权人士”;四是人数甚众,也更加多元化的一批努力想要调和 中国传统、“西方化”、民族主义和普世价值的知识分子;五则是在此之前对刘一无所知的普罗大众,他们对刘与他人共同起草的民主宣言《零八宪章》也闻所未 闻,尽管该宪章迄今已有约一万人签署;最后则是国际社会,因刘晓波获奖再度燃起对中国政治体制性质的关注。

中共领导人,即便自三年前召开的共产党第十七次代表大会起,就以日愈严苛的镇压式手法统治这个国家,但对于阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔这个军火制造者最近一 次抛出的重磅炸弹,也无法置之若罔。他们旋即作出了极为糟糕的回应。领导人依旧“失声”,外交部却宣称,诺贝尔委员会的决定,是对该奖项宗旨的“亵渎”。 与此同时,警方也将一切国内的庆祝活动扼杀在襁褓之中。刘晓波的妻子刘霞,仅仅见了狱中的丈夫短暂一面,就被软禁起来。公开的支持者们,不是被拘禁,就是 遭到殴打或威胁。即便是国务院总理温家宝,虽近几周频频示意赞成普世价值与政治改革,以致引发人们各种猜测,但被问及对获奖事宜的看法时,却选择保持沉 默。

然而,政治局委员何其聪明,他们知道以保持沉默和镇压的手段,无法化解眼下的挑战。不可否认,当一九八九年达赖喇嘛获得诺贝尔和平奖,以及另外一些 虽不那么有名,却同样重要的奖项颁布之际──如异议人士胡佳获得欧洲议会颁发的萨哈罗夫奖,以及盲人“赤脚律师”陈光诚获得菲律宾的麦格赛赛奖──这一招 曾非常奏效,帮助中共平安渡过由此引发的风波。但眼下的情况,却颇有愈演愈烈之势。

当然,刘获奖带来的影响在许多方面还不甚明朗。刘晓波不太可能立即获释。毕竟,胡佳也还身陷囹圄,而陈光诚,即便在服刑期满后,也仍然被软禁在家。 但是,鉴于二零一二年将产生新一届政治局常委,刘的获奖,或许会引发对此间席位角逐的关注,甚至于产生影响。许多坐卧不宁的中共干部,在未来领导人的选择 上,会倾向于那些能够积极应对来自国内外人权压力的人选。

诚然,中国迅速成长起来的法律精英群体中,有许多人都会乐于见到这样的改变。自党的十七次代表大会以来,中共发布的法律政策频频倒退,其任命的高层 法律官员,虽政治性强,专业方面却不合格。这一系列问题,都对中国数十万的法官、检察官、律师、行政官员以及法学教授的日常工作产生了影响;尽管他们中多 数都是中共党员,却也在不断与这种现象搏斗。刘的获奖,唤起他们对普世价值的记忆──这个中国自七九年起的法律改革所一贯秉承的价值观;同时也让他们想起 了,中共一意孤行,对其自身引入的准则阳奉阴违,其不断加剧的态势,已经遭受到外界的抵制。原本,在比较保守倒退的中共组织,和比较自由化的法律精英之 间,“红”与“专”的紧张关系就酝酿已久,蓄势待发,刘此番获奖,无疑更热化了这一冲突。

一个更明显的群体,则是在这个国家中,受到四面楚歌的异议人士及“维权人士”,以及勇于为这些人辩护的律师,刘获奖的消息对他们来说如同注入一剂强 心针。这些言论自由和法治的支持者,一直以来孤军奋战,非常渴望得到国际社会对于他们所作出的牺牲的认同,哪怕这种认同令他们遭受到更惨重的镇压。

与异议人士和“维权人士”不同,大部分中国知识分子选择避免正面冲突。他们对于这个国家的国情、目标和政策,有着各自不同的理解。不过,不论他们给 改革开出怎样的“处方”,他们都相信,为了避免引起中共的镇压,这只能是一个耐心的、长期不懈努力的过程。他们中的一些人,不愿因此丧失中国社会经济进步 带给其的可观利益。其他人,则当然是害怕需要他们以身殉道。不过,刘的获奖,对他们正在进行的关于中国传统、当前面临的窘境,和未来方向的争论,无疑是火 上浇油。

由于党政府对媒体和网路的控制,中国好几亿人此前对刘晓波和《零八宪章》闻所未闻,因此要衡量该奖项带给他们的影响,就比较困难。拜这一周来大规模 的封锁消息运动所赐,他们中大多数人恐怕仍然对刘晓波获奖一无所知。此外,中国政府似乎摆出想要“借力打力”的架势,在尽可能地强加其单方面解释之后,逐 步开放了消息。然而,此番获奖已被称作是一种“侮辱”,是帝国主义的最新阴谋,通过否定中国的价值体系和丰功伟绩,来羞辱中国人民。

该奖项对于外界的影响,无疑是最显而易见的。所有民主国家的政治领袖,以及民意,绝大多数都为这一选择欢欣鼓舞。甚至是致力于台湾和中华人民共和国 之间达成历史性和解的台湾总统马英九,也建议立即释放刘。国际社会达成鲜明共识,一致支持诺贝尔委员会主席所表述的原则:“当其他人无法站出来维护自己的 时候,我们有责任为他们发声”。

继一九八九年六月四日之天安门惨案后,这是中国领导人作出的最有违人道之举。

————————————————————————————————————-

(作者孔杰荣 Jerome A. Cohen, 纽约大学法学院亚美法研究所共同主任,纽约外交关系协会兼任资深研究员。作者义务担任刘晓波之妻刘霞的法律顾问小组“现在自由”(Freedom Now)之成员。英文原文请参www.usasialaw.org。亚美法研究所研究员韩羽译。)


Article printed from U.S. – Asia Law Institute: http://www.usasialaw.org

URL to article: http://www.usasialaw.org/?p=4444

A Nobel Prize for a Chinese Dissident(哈维尔为晓波写的诺贝尔和平奖推荐辞)

哈维尔是民主战士、作家、捷克前总统,他撰写的77宪章曾经改变了捷克的历史,为受压迫的人获得了自由。他为晓波写的诺贝尔奖推荐辞《给中国政治异见者的诺贝尔奖》值得一读。

A Nobel Prize for a Chinese Dissident

PRAGUE — It is hard to believe that it was more than 30 years ago that we, a group of 242 private citizens concerned about human rights in Czechoslovakia, came together to sign a manifesto called Charter 77. That document called on the Communist Party to respect human rights, and said clearly that we no longer wanted to live in fear of state repression.

Our disparate group included ex-Communists, Catholics, Protestants, workers, liberal intellectuals, artists and writers who came together to speak with one voice. We were united by our dissatisfaction with a regime that demanded acts of obedience on an almost daily basis: Shopkeepers were pressured to put up propaganda signs that read “Workers of the world, unite!” Schoolchildren, students and workers were compelled to march in May Day parades. Office workers had to denounce American imperialism at the start of the workday. Citizens had to “vote” in elections in which the only choice was the ruling party.

Communist parties, then as now, prefer to divide and conquer. After Charter 77 was released, the government did its best to try and break us up. We were detained, and four of us eventually went to jail for several years. The authorities also got back at us in petty ways (including the suspension of driver’s licenses and confiscation of typewriters). Surveillance was stepped up, our homes and offices were searched, and a barrage of press attacks based on malicious lies sought to discredit us and our movement. This onslaught only strengthened our bonds. Charter 77 also reminded many of our fellow citizens who were silently suffering that they were not alone. In time, many of the ideas set forth in Charter 77 prevailed in Czechoslovakia. A wave of similar democratic reforms swept Eastern Europe in 1989.

We never would have guessed that our short manifesto would find an echo in China some 30 years later. In December 2008, a group of 303 Chinese activists, lawyers, intellectuals, academics, retired government officials, workers and peasants put forward their own manifesto titled Charter 08, calling for constitutional government, respect for human rights and other democratic reforms. It was published to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Despite the best efforts of government officials to keep it off of Chinese computer screens, Charter 08 reached a nationwide audience via the Internet, and new signatories eventually reached more than 10,000.

As in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s, the response of the Chinese government was swift and brutal. Dozens if not hundreds of signatories were called in for questioning. A handful of perceived ringleaders were detained. Professional promotions were held up, research grants denied and applications to travel abroad rejected. Newspapers and publishing houses were ordered to blacklist anyone who had signed Charter 08. Most seriously, the prominent writer and dissident Liu Xiaobo, a key drafter of Charter 08, was arrested. Liu had already spent five years in prison for his support of peaceful Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. Held for more than a year with limited access to his wife or his lawyer, Liu was put on trial for subversion. In December 2009, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Despite Liu’s imprisonment, his ideas cannot be shackled. Charter 08 has articulated an alternative vision of China, challenging the official line that any decisions on reforms are the exclusive province of the state. It has encouraged younger Chinese to become politically active, and boldly made the case for the rule of law and constitutional multiparty democracy. And it has served as a jumping-off point for a series of conversations and essays on how to get there.

Perhaps most important, as in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s, Charter 08 has forged connections among different groups that did not exist before. Before Charter 08, “we had to live in a certain kind of separate and solitary state,” one signatory wrote. “We were not good at expressing our own personal experiences to those around us.”

Liu Xiaobo and Charter 08 are changing that, for the better.

Of course, Charter 08 addresses a political milieu very different from 1970s Czechoslovakia. In its quest for economic growth, China has seemed to embrace some features far removed from traditional Communism. Especially for young, urban, educated white-collar workers, China can seem like a post-Communist country. And yet, China’s Communist Party still has lines that cannot be crossed. In spearheading the creation of Charter 08, Liu Xiaobo crossed the starkest line of all: Do not challenge the Communist Party’s monopoly on political power, and do not suggest that China’s problems — including widespread corruption, labor unrest, and rampant environmental degradation — might be connected to the lack of progress on political reform.

For making that very connection in an all too public way, Liu got more than a decade in prison. In an especially spiteful move, the authorities, perhaps fearful that his prison cell would become a political rallying point, have forced him to serve his sentence in the northeastern province of Liaoning, far from his wife Liu Xia and friends in Beijing.

Liu may be isolated, but he is not forgotten. Next month, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will announce the recipient of the 2010 prize. We ask the Nobel Committee to honor Liu Xiaobo’s more than two decades of unflinching and peaceful advocacy for reform, and to make him the first Chinese recipient of that prestigious award. In doing so, the Nobel Committee would signal both to Liu and to the Chinese government that many inside China and around the world stand in solidarity with him, and his unwavering vision of freedom and human rights for the 1. 3 billion people of China.

Vaclav Havel

Coats教授谈Citizens United案对股东价值的影响

美国最高法院近期判决的Citizens United案引起了法学界对公司政治言论(或政治行为)和股东价值之间关系的讨论。Coats教授的文章Corporate Governance and Corporate Political Activity: What Effect Will Citizens United Have on Shareholder Wealth?通过对S&P 500公司样本的研究,发现1998-2004年期间公司政治言论与股东价值呈现反相关的关系。Coats教授的研究表明公司政治行为损害公司价值,故而最高法院Citizens United案件判决非但对改善公司治理无助,且对其有损。

文章在这里。here