祝大家龙年大吉！ Happy Chinese New Year of Dragon!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A685-W424
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A685-W424
Release
Date: Jan. 22, 2012
发布日：2012年1月22日
Topic:
The Illusion of Stability in China -- An Interview with Wei Jingsheng (Journal
of International Affairs, Columbia University School of International Public
Affairs)
标题：对中国稳定的错觉 -- 专访魏京生 （哥伦比亚大学国际事务杂志）
Original
Language Version: English/Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以英/中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
Note:
Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese
parts of this release. If this
mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request
for special delivery to us or visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2012/report2012-01/WeiJSinterviewIAjournal120122ColumbiaUniversityA685-W424.htm which
contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
Illusion of Stability in China
--
An Interview with Wei Jingsheng
On
5 December 1978, Wei Jingsheng, an electrician at the Beijing Zoo, posted an
essay to a brick wall on Xidan Street called "The Fifth
Modernization," which stated:
"Democracy
is our only choice.... If we want to modernize our economy, sciences, military
and other areas, then we must first modernize our people and our society....
Without democracy, society will become stagnant and economic growth will face
insurmountable obstacles."
Wei's
rare, public appeal for democracy struck a chord with the Chinese people, who
were exhausted by the failures of communism and the Cultural Revolution. The
brick wall on Xidan Street was soon filled with other criticisms of the regime
and became known as the "Democracy Wall." However, the "Beijing
Spring" was short lived. Wei was arrested on 29 March 1979 and imprisoned
for fourteen-and-a-half years. He was released in September 1993, only to be
detained again in February 1994 for engaging in political activities. He was
deported to the United States in 1997 when the international community
succeeded in pressuring China for his release. Having lived in exile for nearly
fifteen years, Wei discussed his views of China with the Journal's Rebecca
Chao.(1)
Journal
of International Affairs: Has China become more democratic or more
authoritarian over the last few decades?
Wei
Jingsheng: It seems that there is a new trend in Western thought that China is
more democratic than before. Many Western politicians, scholars and members of
the media think that China has become more free and more open. But I believe
that democracy is first and foremost a type of political system. China has not
changed its political system, so how can one say that China is becoming more or
less democratic? This line of thinking is actually misleading and only makes
people more tolerant of China's authoritarian political system.
Journal:
How has China's burgeoning economy and its strengthening diplomatic relations with
the West affected its internal political dynamics?
Wei:
I believe that China's tremendous economic growth has severely weakened the
West's ability to put pressure on China. Western capitalists in the United
States and in Europe have profited tremendously from China's export-oriented
economy, so it is now in the interest of big business to speak well of the
Communist Party. All politicians need campaign funds, so big business uses its
wealth to lobby politicians for policies that cater to its interests, which are
also China's interests, such as policies to maintain the status quo on human
rights and labor rights. It has become more obvious that big business is
controlling politics, which even the average American citizen is angry about.
Journal:
With China's tough stance on dissent, how can the Chinese people have their
independence day?
Wei:
Let me start by comparing mainland China and Taiwan. I visited Taiwan on
several occasions to speak with Taiwanese government officials. They told me
that the best situation for mainland China is to undergo a gradual and peaceful
political change like Taiwan. Theoretically, I agree with the possibility of
peaceful change but mainland China and Taiwan are fundamentally different.
The
Kuomintang Party ruled Taiwan under an authoritarian political system. But the
Kuomintang was, in the words of Chien Foo, hypocritical.(2) The Kuomintang wanted Taiwan to be
democratic and even admitted that authoritarianism is an illegitimate political
system.
Many
people in Taiwan do not understand that communist China believes its
authoritarian system is legitimate and wants to maintain one-party rule to
control the country and its people. The Communist Party may use democratic
language as a cover, just as Mao Zedong once spoke of "democratic
dictatorship."
I
do not think Taiwan's path to democracy, including the participation of
multiple political parties and a peaceful transition, is likely in China. As
long as the Communist Party insists on one-party rule, the only way to
establish democracy is through revolution.
Journal:
Some argue that the Chinese government has appeased the Chinese people
politically by allowing them unprecedented levels of individual freedom and
increased socioeconomic opportunities, but that it has prevented them from
uniting and organizing. Do you think that most Chinese people are happy with
their government and that only a small minority want to see it democratize?
Wei:
This trend of thought, that the Chinese government gives some freedoms to
individuals but not to groups, is wrong. The Communist Party has never given
any freedom to individuals. How can individuals have freedom if they are not
free to gather, associate or form parties? In other words, if there is no
freedom to organize politically, then there is no individual freedom. That is
the reality. The wealth in China is concentrated in the hands of the rich.
There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor, so statistics that say that
China is the world's second-largest economy are misleading. Unless you are an
animal, not a human being, you cannot like this kind of government. It is
simply impossible.
Journal:
You once criticized Liu Xiaobo for being too moderate.(3) Why?
Wei:
Before I explain why I criticized Liu Xiaobo, let me first explain one thing.
After his capture, I was one of the most vocal advocates calling for his
release from prison. Even if our views differ, I believe that we have to use
all means to save any Chinese activist who has been imprisoned. I also
criticized Liu Xiaobo after he was awarded the Nobel Prize, not before.
I
disagree with Liu Xiaobo's thoughts on how to deal with communist China. Why?
Liu and his followers promote a peaceful, deliberative, nonviolent approach
toward the communist government. I think this is completely wrong.
Mahatma
Gandhi was once asked: If a group of bandits came to your town and violently
demanded that you give them all of your money, what would you do? Gandhi
answered that you need to fight back. There is no peaceful, deliberative or
nonviolent way to deal with bandits. The Chinese government should be treated
just like those bandits because it is clear that the party members are tyrants.
In fact, there is universal agreement that self-defense is a human right, that
people have the right to resort to force against tyranny. If the government
uses force against its people, why can't the people use force to fight back?
As
you can see, Liu Xiaobo's idea is wrong from a theoretical standpoint. His idea
would work in a democratic government but not within an authoritarian one. In a
democracy, people resolve differences peacefully through negotiation under the
law and do not need to resort to force. Liu Xiaobo's so-called peaceful,
deliberative and nonviolent principle implies that people should not fight back
and use physical force to bring down the communist government. He advocates
negotiating with the government through peace talks, but despite his moderate
call for democracy, the Communist Party still put him in jail. How can you
negotiate with a communist government?
Journal:
Some say that the Communist Party leaders are simply pragmatists who would
reconcile human rights with greater economic prosperity and social stability if
they saw a way to do it. Do you think that is possible?
Wei:
According to this theory, as China's economy develops and prospers, democracy
will develop automatically because Chinese officials are pragmatic-they know
that economic growth will not continue without giving the people some freedom.
This is a very popular theory but it is incorrect. If you think about it, if
government officials can make lots of money through power and corruption, why
would they want to make changes and give their wealth to others? This will not
happen in China, nor will it happen in America. American capitalists will not
give their money to the American people. Why should you give away your money to
others? Therefore, to say that the Communist Party will give people more money
because of greater economic prosperity is wrong and unrealistic.
Some
say that communist officials are very practical. This is very true and, because
they are practical, they do not want to give people freedom and human rights.
In truth, they just want to extend Chinese authoritarianism. If they give human
rights to people, people will have the right to file complaints against
government officials--that is, themselves. Why would they do that? If they were
not practical, but rather a little bit idealistic, they might give the people
some freedom and some human rights.
Journal:
In 1987 you wrote a letter to Deng Xiaoping claiming he would go down in
history either as "a great sage or an infamous despot," but did not
send it. What are your thoughts now about Deng Xiaoping? And how far do you
think China has traveled, politically speaking, since then?
Wei:
I actually did mail the letter from prison to Deng Xiaoping in 1987. A guard
helped me and brought the letter himself to Beijing, by motorcycle, the same
day that I wrote it. I had won the respect of the guards while I was in prison.
I do not know if Deng Xiaoping received it or not. If he did, he would
certainly have pretended not to. In 1989 I wrote him a letter criticizing him
harshly and advising him that "your only way out is to resign."
Ironically, he resigned four days later.
I
still believe that Deng Xiaoping was a despot. He protected and maintained the
system of the Communist Party. This was his basic character. In 1979, when he
implemented economic reforms, some people believed the political system should
also be changed but Deng Xiaoping and his followers wanted to keep the
Communist Party.
Journal:
If Deng Xiaoping had not been so harsh on political dissidents after the
Tiananmen Square event, would this have led to instability that could have
harmed China's economic growth?
Wei:
If Deng Xiaoping had loosened control in 1989, political change might have
happened, and I believe that the economy would be more open today. It would be
at least equivalent to today's economy. Market-based economies need freedom and
the rule of law to grow. In reality, the government tightly controlled politics
in 1989, but it also manipulated the economy. The leadership felt that a
booming economy would give too much power to the people and make it harder to
maintain social stability. Therefore, after the Tiananmen event on 4 June 1989,
the overarching domestic policy was maintaining the stability of the country.
Journal:
Do you believe that the transition of leadership from Hu Jintao to presumably
Xi Jinping in 2012 will be smooth? And what will the transition tell us about
the health of the Communist Party?
Wei:
I believe that the upcoming power transition will not be that smooth. On the
surface, the transition may look calm, but internally it will not be simple.
There are a few reasons for this.
The
first reason is that the resistance to this transition by the Chinese people is
fiercer than it has been in previous years. The Chinese people are also
stronger than before. Almost every day there are protests in the streets and
police cars overturned. For example, large-scale protests erupted in the
Xintang area of Zengcheng in Guandong Province in June 2011 when police
assaulted a pregnant street vendor. And to my knowledge, there were similar
protests almost every other day in the first half of June. It seems that there
is this type of movement everywhere in China. The people are fired up. The
entire society is unstable. Society needs a change.
The
second important reason is that, even if the Communist Party claims that the
people are satisfied with the government, the officials know that it will
become more and more difficult to sustain. Their days are numbered. The party
has to manage a great deal of polarization within Chinese society. While
average citizens want reform, the wealthy who profit from the current system
want to maintain the status quo. There will certainly be a struggle leading up
to the Eighteenth National Congress in 2012.
Journal:
Turning now to pro-reform figures in the Communist Party, Premier Wen Jiabao
accompanied then-general secretary Zhao Ziyang to meet with protesters in
Tiananmen Square in 1989, but he did not suffer the same political fall from
grace as Zhao.(4) Premier Wen said
in London recently: "Without democracy, there is no socialism. Without
freedom, there is no real democracy." Why does the Communist Party allow
Wen to be so forthright and vocal about democratization in China?
Wei:
President Hu Jintao said the same thing when he visited the United States.
Former President Jiang Zemin also said as much when he visited. Even Deng
Xiaoping, when he visited the United States, said the same thing. The party
leaders just say what the West likes to hear. There is no deep meaning to their
words. I think that if the Western media checked to see what all past Chinese
communist leaders have said to the West, they would see that they have all said
the same thing. There is no new message. Such words are meaningless.
Journal:
What are the greatest differences between the current generation of leaders and
those who have been tentatively selected for the next generation? What do these
differences mean for China's future?
Wei:
The older-generation party leaders were aggressive communist activists while
they were still in school. They have been trained since they were young and
brainwashed to believe in party propaganda. They cannot be changed now. But the
leaders of the current generation have had very different experiences. They talked
about democracy when they were young and suffered under the suppression of the
Communist Party. Take Vice President Xi Jinping, for instance; he was sent to
some of the poorest places in Shanxi Province to work as an ordinary farmer. As
a result, these successors are going to be different from Hu Jintao. (5)
The
most important similarity between these two generations is that they are
members of the elite, even though they may have different thoughts about how to
sustain the elite. We do not know exactly how they are going to do this--I am
sure that even they do not know. But overall, the thinking of the new
generation is newer and more modern, and as a result we hope that they will
bring something new to the party and not just follow in the footsteps of the
old members.
Journal:
Between Deng Xiaoping and Hu Jintao, has there been a change in how Communist
Party leaders are chosen? How has this affected internal party dynamics?
Wei:
Successors are still selected based on loyalty to the party, but other
leadership qualities are also important. Deng Xiaoping wanted a successor who
could skillfully manage the Communist Party and chose Jiang Zemin. Jiang Zemin
selected Hu Jintao for the same reasons. But you never know if one of the new
leaders will become like the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev. Nobody can
predict exactly what a new leader will do.
NOTES
(1)
The interview took place on 7 September 2011 at Columbia University. This is a
condensed, edited and translated version of the exchange.
(2)
Frederick Chien Foo was Taiwan's minister of foreign affairs from 1990 to 1996.
The Kuomintang justified its implementation of martial law on the rationale
that it would return to democratic rule once it reclaimed mainland China.
(3)
Liu Xiaobo is a noted Chinese writer and activist who gained international
attention in 2009 when he was arrested and sentenced to eleven years in prison
after leading the initiative to draft Charter '08, a political manifesto that
included demands for an end to one-party rule and greater respect for human
rights. Liu received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 for "his long and
non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China."
(4)
Zhao Ziyang was a pro-reform figure in the Communist Party who advocated
restricting party power. After showing sympathy for the student protesters in
Tiananmen in 1989, he was placed under house arrest and remained there until
his death in 2005.
(5)
Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang are expected to replace President Hu Jintao and
Premier Wen Jiabao, respectively, in 2012.
COPYRIGHT
2011 Columbia University School of International Public Affairs
From:
Journal
of International Affairs, Fall/Winter 2011, Vol. 65, No. 1. Fall/Winter 2011 |
191
Original
link of this issue of the Journal:
http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/in-the-journal/317
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This
is a message from WeiJingSheng.org
The
Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are
dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help
in any means. We pledge solidarity
to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this
planet.
You
are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website
at: www.weijingsheng.org
Although
we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your
contribution as well. You may send
your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files,
not in attachments.
For
website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web
master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org
To
find out more about us, please also visit our websites at: www.WeiJingSheng.org
and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org for news and information for Overseas Chinese
Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole,
especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.
You
may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-270-6980
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation's postal address is:
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
You
are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in
learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply
reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process
your request.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A685-W424
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A685-W424
Release
Date: Jan. 22, 2012
发布日：2012年1月22日
Topic:
The Illusion of Stability in China -- An Interview with Wei Jingsheng (Journal
of International Affairs, Columbia University School of International Public
Affairs)
标题：对中国稳定的错觉 -- 专访魏京生 （哥伦比亚大学国际事务杂志）
Original
Language Version: English/Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以英/中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2012/report2012-01/WeiJSinterviewIAjournal120122ColumbiaUniversityA685-W424.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
对中国稳定的错觉
-- 专访魏京生
1978年12月5日，魏京生，一个北京动物园的电工，在西单大街上的砖墙上张贴一篇“第五个现代化”的文章，其中指出：“民主是我们唯一的选择。。。如果我们想在经济、科学、军事等方面现代化，首先就必须使我们的人民现代化，使我们的社会现代化。。。没有民主，社会将停滞不前，经济的增长也将遇到难以克服的障碍。”
魏京生对民主的罕见而公开的诉求在那些被失败了的共产主义和“文化大革命”耗尽了的中国人那里得到了共鸣。西单大街上的那堵砖墙很快就充满了其它对政权的批评，被称之为“民主墙”。但是，“北京之春”是短命的。魏京生于1979年3月29日被逮捕并被监禁十四年半。
1993年9月，他被释放，但因从事政治活动于1994年4月再次被拘留。国际社会要求释放他，这个对中国的压力终于在1997年获得成功，使他被递解到美国。在将近十五年的流亡生活后，魏京生与本杂志的周丽贝卡讨论他对中国的看法。（1）
国际事务杂志：在过去的几十年里，中国是变得更加民主了，还是更为专制？
魏京生：最近西方的一些新说法，总要解释说中国已经比过去民主得多了。有很多西方的政治家，包括很多媒体，很多学者都认为中国现在比过去民主得多了，更为自由和开放。但民主最主要的是一种政治制度。中国的政治制度没有改变，怎么能说民主比过去多了还是少了？我觉得这种说中国民主比过去多一点或者少一点的说法，事实上是要误导西方的老百姓和西方的政治，使得他们对共产党的暴政更为宽容。
杂志：中国萌生的经济发展和它加强与西方的外交关系如何影响其内部政治？
魏京生：我相信这些年中国经济的巨大发展，严重削弱了西方对中国施加压力的能力。欧美的资本家们从中国的出口型经济中挣了大量的钱，所以现在是这些欧美大企业的利益在为中共说话。西方的政治家都需要竞选经费，所以大企业用钱来游说政治家，做出对他们的利益有益，因此也对中共有益的决策，比如说保持中国人权和劳工现况不变的政策。他们用这种方式来影响西方政府的决策已经越来越明显，现在连普通的美国人都感到很愤怒了。
杂志：中共对异议人士立场强硬，中国人民怎么才能有自己独立之日？
魏京生：我想把大陆和台湾做个比较，大陆和台湾其实是根本不一样的。我几次去台湾的时候，和很多台湾的高官谈过。他们跟我说，你们大陆最好也能像我们台湾一样，搞和平演变。我说，理论上我同意和平演变，可是中国大陆和台湾完全不同。
台湾的国民党当时的统治虽然也是独裁统治，但用钱复的话说，它是伪君子。（2）因为国民党的基本理念是要民主，而且它自己都承认独裁是不合法的。
很多台湾人不理解这一点，大陆的共产党从理论上讲就相信它的独裁体系是合法的。它要用一党专制来控制这个国家和人民。共产党以民主的语言为掩护，用毛泽东的话说是“民主集中制”。
我认为像台湾那样一个有其它政党参与的最后达到和平过渡的民主之路，在大陆的希望不是很大。因为只要共产党还坚持它的一党专政，革命就成了通向民主的唯一道路。
杂志：有人认为，中国政府已经通过容许中国人民的个人自由达到了前所未有的水平并增加了他们的社会经济机会，而缓解了这些人政治上的要求。但政府阻止他们团结和组织。你认为大多数中国人喜欢他们的政府，只有少数人希望看到其民主化吗？
魏京生：这种说中国政府只是给了个人自由，还没有给集体自由的说法是错的。共产党根本就没有给什么个人自由。如果个人有了自由，为什么还没有集会的自由和组党的自由？或者说，如果没有政治性组织的自由，也就没有个人的自由。实际上就是这样。中国的钱都集中在有钱人手中。中国有着巨大的贫富差距。而说中国是世界第二大经济体的统计数据造成误导。除非中国老百姓不是人，是牲口，他们怎么可能喜欢这个政府呢？不可能的。
杂志：你曾经批评刘晓波太温和。（3）为什么？
魏京生：在说明我为什么批评刘晓波前，我得说明，实际上刘晓波被捕以后，呼吁释放他发出的声音最大的就是我，为他做的事情最多的也是我。为什么？因为从道义上讲，人被捕了，我们就得救他。但他的想法，我是不同意的。为什么呢？就因为他们提倡的和平、理性、非暴力方法来对付共产党，我觉得是完全错误的。
印度的甘地曾经被问到，如果有一伙匪徒，闯进了一个村庄，要让所有人拿出钱来，那怎么办？那只能回击。和匪徒没有什么和平、理性、非暴力，对不对？对付中共也是这样。中共就像那些匪徒，因为很清楚，他们是暴君。其实这也是现在全世界都认同的，就是人们有用武力反抗暴政的权力。如果政府用武力来对付人民，人民凭什么不能用武力来反抗呢？
而刘晓波的想法从理论上就是错的。因为和平理性非暴力，是在民主政治内部，大家互相打交道的方法，而不是在独裁体制内。在民主体制内，人们在法律的框架下协商来解决纠纷，而不需要武力。刘晓波所谓的和平理性非暴力，暗指的就是让老百姓不要去用武力去反击，去推翻共产党。而鼓吹不要跟共产党对抗，只能去跟共产党协商，那共产党还能跟你协商么？但即使他如此温和地呼唤民主，共产党还是把他投入大狱。你怎么能和中共政府协商？
杂志：有人说，共产党的领导根本就是实用主义者，如果他们能看到一个方法来调和人权并带来更大的经济繁荣和社会稳定，他们就会那么做。你是否认为这是可能的？
魏京生：按照这个理论：经济发展了，中国自然而然就会民主；而中国的政府官员很现实，知道如果他们不给人民自由就会影响经济发展。这个说法很流行，但完全错误。你想一个政府的官员如果能依靠权力和腐败赚很多钱的时候，他为什么要变化，要分钱给别人？哪有这种道理？不但在中国没有，在美国也没有。美国的资本家可不会给美国老百姓多分点钱，你问谁愿意？所以说，因为经济发展了，中共就会把钱多分给老百姓一些，这是错误的，也是不现实的。
说共产党的脑子很现实，确实如此。正是因为这个现实，所以它不愿意给老百姓人权和自由。事实上，他们只想维持专制统治。如果给了老百姓权利，可以去告状，那不是告中共官员自己吗？哪有这么傻的？正因为共产党很现实，所以它不给老百姓人权。如果理想一点儿，它倒可能给。
杂志：你在1987年给邓小平写了一封信，声称他在历史上将成为“大贤者或大奸雄，两者必居其一”，但没有送出。现在你对邓小平是什么想法？你认为自那之后，中国在政治上走出了多远？
魏京生：事实上，1987年我从监狱里给邓小平寄出了这封信。监狱的警察在当天骑着摩托车把它送往北京。我在监狱里受到警察的尊敬。我不知道邓收到没有。如果他收到的话，他也会假装没有。在1989年，我给他写了一封信严厉批评他并告诫他“唯一的方法是辞职。”结果他在4天后果然辞了职。
我依然相信邓小平本质上是一个独裁者。作为一个共产党员，他维持和维护共产独裁体制。这是他的本质。在1979年他搞经济改革时，很多人认为政治制度也需要改，但邓小平这派人认为还是要维持一党专政的制度。
杂志：如果邓小平在天安门事件后对持不同政见者不如此苛刻，这是否可能导致不稳定而损害中国的经济增长？
魏京生：如果1989年邓小平让步了，中国可能就进入了真正的政治改革。我相信社会将变得更加放松，经济也会更加自由。那种情况下，我不认为经济会比现在差。市场经济需要的就是自由和法治的保障。而实际上，从1989年之后，共产党不单在政治上有高压政策，在经济上也采取垄断的政策。中共领导层觉得自由经济发展了以后，老百姓力量太强了，不利于他们要的稳定。因此，从89年六四以后，他们的一切政策都是为了维持稳定。
杂志：你认为2012年从胡锦涛到想必是习近平的领导层的过渡会顺利吗？这个过渡将告诉我们共产党的健康状况吗？
魏京生：我想这个权力交接不会是一个风平浪静的事情。表面上似乎平静，但内部不会那么简单。
第一个原因就是社会上老百姓的反抗比前几年要更剧烈了。动不动就上万人到街上抗议把警察车给推翻了。每天都在发生这种事。
比方说2011年6月在广东省增城的新塘地区，城管欺负了街上一个怀孕的小贩后发生的大规模抗议。据我所知，光在6月的上半月每隔一天就有一起类似的事件。全中国，到处都在点火，到处都在抗议。整个社会都不稳定。社会需要一个变化。
第二个很重要的原因就是，尽管中共说中国老百姓好像对政府都还满意，可连中国政府内部，他们自己共产党里的人都知道维持不下去了，熬不下去了。日子已经快到头了。中共难以保持中国社会的两极分化。一般的老百姓要改革，而那些从这个专制政权里赚到的钱的人却觉得还没赚够，要继续挣。2012年的中共18大前肯定会有斗争。
杂志：现在谈共产党内亲改革的人物，国务院总理温家宝曾陪同当时的总书记赵紫阳，在1989年与天安门广场的抗议者会面。但他并没有像赵那样在政治上摔下来。（4）最近，温家宝总理在伦敦说：“没有民主，就没有社会主义。没有自由，就没有真正的民主。”为什么共产党容许温家宝在中国的民主化上如此坦率并发声？
魏京生：胡锦涛访问美国的时候也说过这样的话。以前江泽民访问美国的时候也说过。而且更早，就是邓小平访问美国的时候，也说过这样的话。
这样的话，根本什么也不代表，毫无意义。那是说给外国人听的。说难听点，是用来欺骗外国人的。这些在媒体上可以查资料，所有过去的中共领导人都对西方说过一模一样的话。其中没有新意。这种话也没有意义。
杂志：目前这一代的领导人和那些已经初步选定为下一代的领导人之间最大的区别是什么？这些差异对中国的未来意味着什么？
魏京生：老的共产党领导是从学校里的激进份子变成的共产党干部。他们满脑子都是从年轻时学来的共产党的宣传。改不了了。但这一代的新领导人经历完全不同。他们跟我们很多经历都是相似的。年轻的时候，他们也跟大家一起讨论过民主，也受到过共产党的迫害。以习近平为例，他被下到陕北最穷困的山区去当了好几年普通的农民。结果是，这些接班人会和胡锦涛很不同。（5）
当然现在更重要的是，他们都是利益集团的成员。这是他们的共同点。但怎样维持这个利益集团，他们想法肯定不完全一样。当然他们会做什么，我们不能肯定。谁也不知道他们会做什么，可能他们自己都不一定知道。但毕竟他们和老一代中共的领袖不一样，思想已经比较新，比较现代化。所以说，我们大家当然都很希望他们能做出些事情，而不是跟着那老一代的脚步。
杂志：邓小平与胡锦涛之间，如何选择共产党领导人是否有改变？这如何影响党内？
魏京生：至少到目前为止，选接班人的主要标准，可能还是对党的忠诚度，但其它的领导才能当然也很重要。邓小平选出江泽民的标准是能不能把共产党维持下去。江泽民他们选胡锦涛什么的，也是从这样一个标准出发的。但你会不会选出一个苏联的戈尔巴乔夫，也很难说。没有人能预言出一个新的领袖会做什么。
附注
1
采访于2011年9月7日在哥伦比亚大学进行。这是一个浓缩、编辑和翻译版本的交流。
2
钱复在1990年到1996年曾任台湾的外交部长。国民党实施戒严的理由是一旦它光复大陆，便会返回到民主法治。
3
刘晓波是中国著名的作家和活动家，在2009年因领头起草08宪章而被捕并判刑11年后，赢得国际关注。08宪章是一个要求结束一党统治和更多人权的政治宣言。刘于2010年因“他为中国的基本人权进行的长期和非暴力斗争”获诺贝尔和平奖。
4
赵紫阳是共产党内支持改革和主张限制党的权力的人物。在1989年向天安门广场的抗议学生表示同情后，他被软禁，直到他2005年死亡。
5
习近平和李克强，有望在2012年分别取代国家主席胡锦涛和国务院总理温家宝。
原文来自：哥伦比亚大学国际事务杂志，2011年秋/冬，第65卷，第1期。
该期的原始连接：
http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/in-the-journal/317
（魏京生基金会中文稿。）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱： HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生基金会通讯地址：
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
电话： 1-202-270-6980
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国民主运动。
倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息，请回复本信并用 unsubscribe 作为主题(Subject)。