埃及人民聚集在他们的天安门广场半个多月了。形势发展很快，独裁者穆巴拉克只好下台了。穆巴拉克是埃及独立后执政时间最长的独裁者。前边几位都死于暗杀和军事政变。他能够坚持这么长时间，是因为他很善于运用美国需要以色列这个重要因素，在阿拉伯人和以色列之间玩平衡。一旦失去了美国这个平衡因素，他只能下台。
埃及的局势从此就天气晴朗，风平浪静了吗？还不能就这么乐观。 穆巴拉克安排了他的亲信接班，美国在以色列的影响下不支持埃及人民起义，希望由穆巴拉克的接班人继续一个没有穆巴拉克的独裁政府。更重要的是在美国犹太人势力的影响下，以色列的安全被置于埃及人民的利益之上。而埃及的反政府势力中最强大的是穆斯林兄弟会等宗教团体。这就难免使人联想到伊朗的伊斯兰革命。那场革命创造了一个让全世界头疼的宗教极端政权。
现在的局势有点骑虎难下的味道。 按道理应该支持人民追求民主的革命，何况革命已经不是将来的事，而是正在进行中。但是如果革命带来的是比军事独裁更坏的结果，是否还要支持这场革命呢？这是摆在西方大国，特别是美国面前的重大课题，而且还是必须立即作出选择的难题。这就是奥巴马政府半个多月来政策摇摆的主要原因。
反对埃及人民的革命是不可能的选择。不要说埃及人民不会接受， 就是美国人民也不会接受。这是美国政治家必须考虑的基本条件。不能明着反对，就找一个折衷的方案，这就是半个多月来奥巴马政府政策摇摆试图寻找的方案。在他们和以色列看来，没有穆巴拉克的穆巴拉克政府，是最保险的选择。实际情况真的是这样吗？我们可以试着推演一下，看看是不是有了强大的美国支持，就可以获得一个以色列需要的安全的埃及政府。
从以色列人的角度看问题， 他们会觉得一个脆弱的阿拉伯政府不得不依靠美国和西方的支持，就不得不保障以色列的安全。这是过去半个世纪以来的规律，是西方支持阿拉伯独裁政权的根本原因，也是穆斯林专制政权的生存之道。但是伊朗的伊斯兰革命打破了这个规律。不但美国保不住伊朗的国王，而且产生了一个极端反美的宗教政权，在很长时间里成为专门给美国和它的盟友找麻烦的敌人。
为什么会这样呢？因为在一个专制政权被它的人民抛弃的时候， 至少有两种选择：走向民主或者走向新的专制。西方的民主有个基本的缺陷，就是短期行为。一般不太关注长远的目标，所以也就没有培植那个国家的民主势力。而宗教既有社会文化心理方面的传统优势，又有充足的资金，所以就成为革命后有条件摘桃子的最可能的选择。
这次埃及的革命又出现了同样的问题。 革命是一些非宗教的年轻人发动的，引起革命的原因也是民主而不是宗教革命。但是在革命中最有组织能力的，却是宗教色彩极其浓厚的穆斯林兄弟会。看上去又要走向伊朗的道路了。所以选择了半个多月，只好选择走回头路，继续没有穆巴拉克的穆巴拉克政权。
埃及人民反对的是穆巴拉克个人吗？是，也不是。 他们反对的是穆巴拉克的独裁政权。他们可以接受没有穆巴拉克的穆巴拉克政权吗？当然不能。在美国的支持下拥有军队的新的独裁者可能会稳定一段时间。待到人们重新集结起来之后，就像伊朗那样，美国也保护不了遭到人们抛弃的独裁政府。和平的革命不能成功，暴力的革命就很难避免了。人民的愿望是很难阻挡的。即使没有民主，人们也不愿意忍受独裁专制的统治。欧洲人和美国人自己不就是这样革命过来的吗？
所以奥巴马政府公开宣布的目标， 不是一个长期稳定的穆巴拉克式的政府，而是一个向民主过渡的政府。遗憾的是，这很可能是一个没办法实现的目标。问题就出在新的独裁者不一定会按照美国人的愿望仅仅成为一个过渡的桥。一旦掌权，他们就会舍不得放弃当独裁者的机会。他们有充足的时间寻找新的支持者；这个世界上不是只有美国人和以色列可以支持独裁者。而美国人民和犹太人民也不那么喜欢独裁者。当一个政府违背它自己的价值目标的时候，就会出现这种力不从心的局面。
奥巴马政府的这个错误的决策， 给了中共一个极好的机会插手中东和阿拉伯事务。中共一旦插手中东事务，将给世界带来什么后果是可以预料的。过去，中共没有足够的实力，只能浅尝辄止。但现在的中共有钱有枪，而且即将得到西方最先进的武器技术。它早已是今非昔比，鸟枪换炮了。可以预计世界将进入一个新的不稳定甚至倒退的时代。二次大战后的民主潮流，将因为西方人短视的政策而进入最困难的时期。
从里根时代的民主高潮期到现在，不过二十多年的时间， 就已经滑坡滑到现在的局面。从经济到政治，西方正在全面的倒退。这里边的教训值得我们中国人深思。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110210EgyptRevolution.mp3
（撰写于2011年2月10日。录音于2011年2月11日。 自由亚洲电台播出。）
Topic: Egypt's Revolution -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：埃及的革命 -- 魏京生
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/report2011/report2011-02/WeiJS110212EgyptRevolutionA613-W377.htm which contains identical information.
------------------------------ -----------------------------------
Egypt's Revolution
-- Wei Jingsheng
Egyptian people gathered in their Tiananmen Square for more than half a month. The situation developed so fast that the dictator Hosni Mubarak had to step down. Mubarak was the longest reigning dictator of Egypt since its independence. The ones preceding him all died of assassination and military coups. One of the reasons that he could last for such a long time is because he was very good at using the special relation between Israel and the U.S. to get military aid and others. He did this by playing a balance between the Arabs and Israel. Once he lost the support of the United States, he could only step down.
Will the situation in Egypt be sunny and peaceful from now on? We cannot be so optimistic yet. Hosni Mubarak arranged for his cronies to take over the power. Due to the influence of Israel, the U.S. government was not so supportive of the Egyptian people. The security of Israel is placed above the interests of the people of Egypt. Yet, the largest coherent anti-government force in Egypt is the religious group called the Muslim Brotherhood. This situation is inevitably reminiscent of Iran's Islamic revolution. That revolution created a religious extremist regime which is a headache for the whole world.
The situation now is a little like riding on the back of a tiger. Rationally, the Egyptians' pursuit of democracy should be supported, especially since this revolution is not a matter in the future, but is already in progress. However, if it brings a result even worse than the military dictatorship, should this revolution still be supported? While the major Western countries face this uncertainty, the dilemma is they must make the choice immediately. This dilemma is the main reason for the policy swings by the Obama administration in the pas more than half a month.
To be against the Egyptian people's revolution is an impossible choice. The Egyptian people will not accept that choice, and the American people will not accept it either. So the American politicians must take this basic fact into consideration. The Obama administration has been trying to seek an adequate compromise in the past more than half month with its policy swings. In their view and the view of Israel, a Mubarak's government without Mubarak is the safest choice. But is this the real reality? We could try to see if one could get an Egyptian government that meets Israel's needs for its security with the strong support of the U.S.
From the Israelis point of view, they might feel that a fragile Arabic government which has to rely on the support of the United States and the West will also have to safeguard Israel's security. This is the pattern of the past half-century. Together with oil, Israel is the root cause for the West support for authoritarian Arab regimes. These authoritarian regimes survive on such an approach as well. But the Islamic Revolution in Iran broke this pattern. Not only couldn't the U.S. protect the Shah of Iran, further, the Iran Revolution produced a religious extremist regime that is extremely anti-American, an enemy that is dedicated to make troubles for the U.S. and its allies for a very long time.
Why is this so? That is because when a totalitarian regime is abandoned by its people, there are at least two options: to walk toward democracy or to a new dictatorship. The Western democracy has a basic flaw: its short-term behavior. Generally, it is less concerned about long-term goals, so there is no attempt to cultivate a country's democratic forces. In comparison, the local religion has both the traditional social, cultural, and psychological advantages and the funding, thus it becomes the most likely one to enjoy the fruit after the revolution.
This time, the revolution in Egypt has similar issues. This revolution was launched by many non-religious young people. The cause of the uprising was not religious. But in this revolution, the group that is most capable of organizing is the Muslim Brotherhood, which leads to the concern of repeating the road of Iran. So after more than half month of hesitation, the choice was to go back where it was, to continue a Mubarak regime without Mubarak.
Are the Egyptian people against President Hosni Mubarak as an individual? Yes, and no. What they were against was the dictatorial regime of Mubarak, with its corrupt police security. Will they accept a Mubarak regime without Mubarak? Of course not. A new dictator who holds the power of the military and has the support of the U.S. might be stable for a period of time. However, after people re-assemble themselves, it could be another Iran where even the U.S. could not protect a dictatorial regime abandoned by the people. When a peaceful revolution is not successful, a violent revolution is hard to avoid. The people's desire will be difficult stop. Even without democracy, people are not willing to tolerate autocratic rule. Didn't the Europeans and Americans have their own share of revolution history just like that?
Therefore, the declared goal of the Obama administration now is not a Mubarak-style government with long-term stability, but a government transition to democracy. Unfortunately, this might likely be a goal that cannot be achieved. The problem lies in a new dictator who will not only want to be a transitional bridge according to the wishes of the Americans. Once he has the power, he will not want to give up the opportunity to be a dictator. He will have plenty of time to find new supporters. In this world, it is not only the USA and Israel could supporting dictators. In addition, the American people and the Jewish people do not like dictators. So when a government is engaging in foreign policy against its fundamental values, it will be in such a relatively powerless situation.
A wrong decision of the Obama Administration will give an excellent opportunity for the Chinese Communist Party to intervene in Arabic and Middle East affairs. Once the Chinese Communist Party gets involved, we could predict what kind of consequences there will be. In the past, the Chinese Communists did not have enough strength, so they could only scratch the surface without the depth they wanted. But now the Communist Party not only has both money and guns, it will soon get the most advanced weapons technology from the West. There is no comparison between now and the past. Therefore, we can expect that the world will enter a new era of instability, even a regression. The democratic trend since the World War II will enter the most difficult period because of the shortsighted policy of the Westerners.
From the height of the democratic tide of the Reagan era, it took just a little more than two decades for the slide to the current situation. From economics to politics, the West is in full regression. We Chinese must give some deep thoughts to this lesson.
To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110210EgyptRevolution.mp3
(Written on February 10, recorded on Feb. 11, 2011. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)
埃及的局势从此就天气晴朗，风平浪静了吗？还不能就这么乐观。 穆巴拉克安排了他的亲信接班，美国在以色列的影响下不支持埃及人民起义，希望由穆巴拉克的接班人继续一个没有穆巴拉克的独裁政府。更重要的是在美国犹太人势力的影响下，以色列的安全被置于埃及人民的利益之上。而埃及的反政府势力中最强大的是穆斯林兄弟会等宗教团体。这就难免使人联想到伊朗的伊斯兰革命。那场革命创造了一个让全世界头疼的宗教极端政权。
现在的局势有点骑虎难下的味道。 按道理应该支持人民追求民主的革命，何况革命已经不是将来的事，而是正在进行中。但是如果革命带来的是比军事独裁更坏的结果，是否还要支持这场革命呢？这是摆在西方大国，特别是美国面前的重大课题，而且还是必须立即作出选择的难题。这就是奥巴马政府半个多月来政策摇摆的主要原因。
反对埃及人民的革命是不可能的选择。不要说埃及人民不会接受， 就是美国人民也不会接受。这是美国政治家必须考虑的基本条件。不能明着反对，就找一个折衷的方案，这就是半个多月来奥巴马政府政策摇摆试图寻找的方案。在他们和以色列看来，没有穆巴拉克的穆巴拉克政府，是最保险的选择。实际情况真的是这样吗？我们可以试着推演一下，看看是不是有了强大的美国支持，就可以获得一个以色列需要的安全的埃及政府。
从以色列人的角度看问题， 他们会觉得一个脆弱的阿拉伯政府不得不依靠美国和西方的支持，就不得不保障以色列的安全。这是过去半个世纪以来的规律，是西方支持阿拉伯独裁政权的根本原因，也是穆斯林专制政权的生存之道。但是伊朗的伊斯兰革命打破了这个规律。不但美国保不住伊朗的国王，而且产生了一个极端反美的宗教政权，在很长时间里成为专门给美国和它的盟友找麻烦的敌人。
为什么会这样呢？因为在一个专制政权被它的人民抛弃的时候， 至少有两种选择：走向民主或者走向新的专制。西方的民主有个基本的缺陷，就是短期行为。一般不太关注长远的目标，所以也就没有培植那个国家的民主势力。而宗教既有社会文化心理方面的传统优势，又有充足的资金，所以就成为革命后有条件摘桃子的最可能的选择。
这次埃及的革命又出现了同样的问题。 革命是一些非宗教的年轻人发动的，引起革命的原因也是民主而不是宗教革命。但是在革命中最有组织能力的，却是宗教色彩极其浓厚的穆斯林兄弟会。看上去又要走向伊朗的道路了。所以选择了半个多月，只好选择走回头路，继续没有穆巴拉克的穆巴拉克政权。
埃及人民反对的是穆巴拉克个人吗？是，也不是。 他们反对的是穆巴拉克的独裁政权。他们可以接受没有穆巴拉克的穆巴拉克政权吗？当然不能。在美国的支持下拥有军队的新的独裁者可能会稳定一段时间。待到人们重新集结起来之后，就像伊朗那样，美国也保护不了遭到人们抛弃的独裁政府。和平的革命不能成功，暴力的革命就很难避免了。人民的愿望是很难阻挡的。即使没有民主，人们也不愿意忍受独裁专制的统治。欧洲人和美国人自己不就是这样革命过来的吗？
所以奥巴马政府公开宣布的目标， 不是一个长期稳定的穆巴拉克式的政府，而是一个向民主过渡的政府。遗憾的是，这很可能是一个没办法实现的目标。问题就出在新的独裁者不一定会按照美国人的愿望仅仅成为一个过渡的桥。一旦掌权，他们就会舍不得放弃当独裁者的机会。他们有充足的时间寻找新的支持者；这个世界上不是只有美国人和以色列可以支持独裁者。而美国人民和犹太人民也不那么喜欢独裁者。当一个政府违背它自己的价值目标的时候，就会出现这种力不从心的局面。
奥巴马政府的这个错误的决策， 给了中共一个极好的机会插手中东和阿拉伯事务。中共一旦插手中东事务，将给世界带来什么后果是可以预料的。过去，中共没有足够的实力，只能浅尝辄止。但现在的中共有钱有枪，而且即将得到西方最先进的武器技术。它早已是今非昔比，鸟枪换炮了。可以预计世界将进入一个新的不稳定甚至倒退的时代。二次大战后的民主潮流，将因为西方人短视的政策而进入最困难的时期。
从里根时代的民主高潮期到现在，不过二十多年的时间， 就已经滑坡滑到现在的局面。从经济到政治，西方正在全面的倒退。这里边的教训值得我们中国人深思。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110210EgyptRevolution.mp3
（撰写于2011年2月10日。录音于2011年2月11日。 自由亚洲电台播出。）
Topic: Egypt's Revolution -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：埃及的革命 -- 魏京生
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/report2011/report2011-02/WeiJS110212EgyptRevolutionA613-W377.htm which contains identical information.
------------------------------ -----------------------------------
Egypt's Revolution
-- Wei Jingsheng
Egyptian people gathered in their Tiananmen Square for more than half a month. The situation developed so fast that the dictator Hosni Mubarak had to step down. Mubarak was the longest reigning dictator of Egypt since its independence. The ones preceding him all died of assassination and military coups. One of the reasons that he could last for such a long time is because he was very good at using the special relation between Israel and the U.S. to get military aid and others. He did this by playing a balance between the Arabs and Israel. Once he lost the support of the United States, he could only step down.
Will the situation in Egypt be sunny and peaceful from now on? We cannot be so optimistic yet. Hosni Mubarak arranged for his cronies to take over the power. Due to the influence of Israel, the U.S. government was not so supportive of the Egyptian people. The security of Israel is placed above the interests of the people of Egypt. Yet, the largest coherent anti-government force in Egypt is the religious group called the Muslim Brotherhood. This situation is inevitably reminiscent of Iran's Islamic revolution. That revolution created a religious extremist regime which is a headache for the whole world.
The situation now is a little like riding on the back of a tiger. Rationally, the Egyptians' pursuit of democracy should be supported, especially since this revolution is not a matter in the future, but is already in progress. However, if it brings a result even worse than the military dictatorship, should this revolution still be supported? While the major Western countries face this uncertainty, the dilemma is they must make the choice immediately. This dilemma is the main reason for the policy swings by the Obama administration in the pas more than half a month.
To be against the Egyptian people's revolution is an impossible choice. The Egyptian people will not accept that choice, and the American people will not accept it either. So the American politicians must take this basic fact into consideration. The Obama administration has been trying to seek an adequate compromise in the past more than half month with its policy swings. In their view and the view of Israel, a Mubarak's government without Mubarak is the safest choice. But is this the real reality? We could try to see if one could get an Egyptian government that meets Israel's needs for its security with the strong support of the U.S.
From the Israelis point of view, they might feel that a fragile Arabic government which has to rely on the support of the United States and the West will also have to safeguard Israel's security. This is the pattern of the past half-century. Together with oil, Israel is the root cause for the West support for authoritarian Arab regimes. These authoritarian regimes survive on such an approach as well. But the Islamic Revolution in Iran broke this pattern. Not only couldn't the U.S. protect the Shah of Iran, further, the Iran Revolution produced a religious extremist regime that is extremely anti-American, an enemy that is dedicated to make troubles for the U.S. and its allies for a very long time.
Why is this so? That is because when a totalitarian regime is abandoned by its people, there are at least two options: to walk toward democracy or to a new dictatorship. The Western democracy has a basic flaw: its short-term behavior. Generally, it is less concerned about long-term goals, so there is no attempt to cultivate a country's democratic forces. In comparison, the local religion has both the traditional social, cultural, and psychological advantages and the funding, thus it becomes the most likely one to enjoy the fruit after the revolution.
This time, the revolution in Egypt has similar issues. This revolution was launched by many non-religious young people. The cause of the uprising was not religious. But in this revolution, the group that is most capable of organizing is the Muslim Brotherhood, which leads to the concern of repeating the road of Iran. So after more than half month of hesitation, the choice was to go back where it was, to continue a Mubarak regime without Mubarak.
Are the Egyptian people against President Hosni Mubarak as an individual? Yes, and no. What they were against was the dictatorial regime of Mubarak, with its corrupt police security. Will they accept a Mubarak regime without Mubarak? Of course not. A new dictator who holds the power of the military and has the support of the U.S. might be stable for a period of time. However, after people re-assemble themselves, it could be another Iran where even the U.S. could not protect a dictatorial regime abandoned by the people. When a peaceful revolution is not successful, a violent revolution is hard to avoid. The people's desire will be difficult stop. Even without democracy, people are not willing to tolerate autocratic rule. Didn't the Europeans and Americans have their own share of revolution history just like that?
Therefore, the declared goal of the Obama administration now is not a Mubarak-style government with long-term stability, but a government transition to democracy. Unfortunately, this might likely be a goal that cannot be achieved. The problem lies in a new dictator who will not only want to be a transitional bridge according to the wishes of the Americans. Once he has the power, he will not want to give up the opportunity to be a dictator. He will have plenty of time to find new supporters. In this world, it is not only the USA and Israel could supporting dictators. In addition, the American people and the Jewish people do not like dictators. So when a government is engaging in foreign policy against its fundamental values, it will be in such a relatively powerless situation.
A wrong decision of the Obama Administration will give an excellent opportunity for the Chinese Communist Party to intervene in Arabic and Middle East affairs. Once the Chinese Communist Party gets involved, we could predict what kind of consequences there will be. In the past, the Chinese Communists did not have enough strength, so they could only scratch the surface without the depth they wanted. But now the Communist Party not only has both money and guns, it will soon get the most advanced weapons technology from the West. There is no comparison between now and the past. Therefore, we can expect that the world will enter a new era of instability, even a regression. The democratic trend since the World War II will enter the most difficult period because of the shortsighted policy of the Westerners.
From the height of the democratic tide of the Reagan era, it took just a little more than two decades for the slide to the current situation. From economics to politics, the West is in full regression. We Chinese must give some deep thoughts to this lesson.
To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJS110210EgyptRevolution.mp3
(Written on February 10, recorded on Feb. 11, 2011. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)
没有评论:
发表评论