英国驻中国新任女大使吴若兰在上任之前，与中国驻英国大使刘晓明亲切会见并合影留念。英国大使晒出的却是一张类似于向习近平拍马屁的亲密照，二人面带笑容手捧习近平著作合影留念。一时，引起公众的广泛议论。
英国驻中国新任女大使吴若兰在上任之前，与中国驻英国大使刘晓明亲切会见并合影留念。二人分别在网络上晒出他们的合影：中国大使晒出的照片严肃活泼，中规中矩，突出了中共的尊严，压制了英国国旗；英国大使晒出的却是一张类似于向习近平拍马屁的亲密照，二人面带笑容手捧习近平著作合影留念。一时，引起公众的广泛议论。
当记者询问英国外交部长时，外长居然回答说，英国的对华政策就是继续对话政策。也就是继续已经被广泛认为失败的对话政策，或者准确地说，就是对人权问题虚幻一枪，打打口跑，讨好共产党推进商业利益的政策。没隔几天，同一个外长在美国对美国领导人说，要与盟友共同抵制共产党的反人权和侵略性的内外政策云云。这到底是怎么回事呢？
如果你在西方生活的时间长一些，也就见怪不怪了。这种首鼠两端利益至上的政客，俯拾皆是不足为奇。但正如一位我在民主墙时代就认识的老资格英国外交家所说的那样：这位大使的举动闻所未闻，不符合英国外交官的传统，太出格了。另一位英国学者则说：这太丢人了。换句话说，你就是再贪财，吃相也不要这么难看嘛。
是什么因素，迫使或者引诱政客们如此吃相难看呢？这至少暴露出两个问题：首先是中共的金钱腐蚀和间谍渗透，比人们想象的更严重，足以扭曲人性，败坏道德而不知耻；其次是西方民主制度出现了问题，面对苏联的间谍战尚且能够抵抗，最后以胜利告终。但面对中共间谍活动加金钱政治的腐蚀性，以及商业利益的巨大压力，就显得抵抗力不足了。
比这更严重的出卖，我们二十年前就见识过了。给予中共永久最惠国待遇和进入世界贸易组织，现在被证明是一个极大的错误。不但破坏了正常贸易规则，而且养肥了共产党，使得共产党越来越有能力削弱西方的经济，挑战民主制度和国际安全。这也是造成全世界各种灾难的重要原因，同时危害着全中国人民，包括少数民族和香港、台湾。
其实二十年前面对那场世纪的最大争议，美国民意调查显示：三分之二以上的美国人否定了克林顿政府的提议，不愿意取消每年一次对中共人权纪录的审议，不同意给予中共永久的，也就是无条件的最惠国待遇。但是超过半数的政治家们支持了克林顿和中共，支持了这个现在被白宫正式承认的、上个世纪美国所犯的最大的错误。
是政治家们的专业素质低于普通民众吗？当然不是。民主政治的竞争体制下，政治家的政治专业水平不但高于普通民众，而且远高于近亲繁殖的专制体制。那为什么还会被低素质的共产党所忽悠呢？和那位英国大使和外长的问题一样，不是专业水平问题。醉翁之意不在酒，背后的逼迫和引诱超过了选民监督的约束力，包括足以造成恬不知耻的巨大压力。
有记者问我，如何解决民主制度的这些缺陷？其实人家西方人早就看到了这个问题，也想出了各种措施，但收效甚微。关键是解决问题的钥匙在政治家们手里，消减他们自己的利益和权力就比较难了。也许我们中国人建立民主的时候没有那么多包袱，有机会放手解决他们没有解决的问题。吸收前人成功和失败的经验教训，避免人家犯过的错误，这也是人类进步的不二法门。
The Scandal of British Ambassador to China
-- Wei Jingsheng
Caroline Wilson (Wu Ruolan), the newly-appointed British ambassador to China, met with Liu Xiaoming, the Chinese ambassador to the UK, and posed for ceremonial photos before taking office. The two separately posted their photos on the Internet. The photographs of the Chinese ambassador were solemn and lively, highlighting the dignity of the Chinese Communist Party and suppressing the British flag. The photo posted by the British ambassador was an intimate photo similar to a pat on the back for Xi Jinping, with the two ambassadors smiling and posing together with a copy of Xi Jinping's book held jointly in their hands. It caused wide-ranging public discussion for a while.
When the British Foreign Minister was asked by a reporter about it, the Foreign Minister actually replied that Great Britain's policy towards China was to continue the policy of dialogue. That is, to continue what has been widely regarded as a failed policy of dialogue, or to be precise, on human rights issues, naively to fire one shot and run, in order to curry favor with the Communist Party's policy of advancing business interests. A few days later, the same Foreign Minister in the United States told U.S. leaders to work with its allies to resist the Communist Party's anti-human rights and aggressive internal and external policies. So what the hell is going on here?
If you have lived in the West a bit longer, this is no surprise. It's no surprise that politicians faced with competing interests often equivocate. But, as a veteran British diplomat I've known since the days of Democracy Wall put it, the ambassador's actions are unheard of, inconsistent with the traditions of British diplomats, and out of line. Another British academic said: It's shameful. In other words, even if you're just greedy for money, your manners needn't be so ugly.
What forces or induces politicians to have such bad manners? At least two problems have been exposed. The first is that the Chinese Communist Party's money corruption and spy infiltration are more serious than people think, enough to distort human nature, corrupt morality and ignore shame. The second is that western democracies have a problem. This problem is that while in the face of the Soviet Union's spy war they were still able to resist and finally to achieve victory, facing the corrosive nature of CCP espionage and money politics, as well as its enormous pressure on business interests, their resistance is obviously insufficient.
We witnessed a more serious betrayal than that twenty years ago. Granting permanent Most-Favored-Nation trade status to the CCP and allowing the PRC to enter the World Trade Organization has proven to be a huge mistake. Not only did it undermine normal trade rules, but it also fattened the Communist Party, enabling it increasingly to weaken the West's economies, challenge its democracies and threaten international security. It is also an important cause of disasters all over the world, endangering all Chinese, including ethnic minorities, as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan.
In fact, two decades ago, in the face of the biggest controversy of the century, U.S. opinion polls showed that more than two-thirds of Americans rejected the Clinton administration's proposal to cancel the annual review of the CCP's human rights record and did not agree to permanent unconditional MFN status. But more than half of politicians backed Clinton and the CCP in supporting what is now officially recognized by the White House as America's biggest mistake of the last century.
Are politicians less professionally qualified than ordinary people? Of course not, under the competitive system of democratic politics, politicians' political professionalism is not only higher than that of ordinary people, but also far higher than that of inbred authoritarian systems. So why are they fooled by the low-quality Communist Party? Like the British ambassador and Foreign Minister, it is not a matter of professionalism. The drunkman's intention is not in the alcohol, and the pressure and allure behind their backs can exceed the binding force of voter supervision, sometimes huge pressure that is enough to cause shameless behavior.
A reporter asked me how to solve these shortcomings in democracy. In fact, westerners have long seen this problem, but the various coping measures seem to have little effect. The point is that the key to solving the problem is in the hands of politicians, but it is hard for them to constrain their own interests and power. Perhaps we Chinese when we build democracy don't have so many burdens, so we can let go and solve the problems others have not solved. Absorb the lessons of our predecessors' successes and failures and avoid mistakes that have been made by others. This is also the only way to achieve human progress.
0
