90岁高龄哈佛教授傅高义引用兔主席在《华盛顿邮报》发声

按：中美关系恶化，中国专家傅高义教授实在看不下去了。继《环球时报》采访后，又在《华盛顿邮报》上撰文，呼吁美国关注中美关系，避免将美国在中国的同情者推到对立面。确实，美国政府这两年来令人发指的行为正在快速消灭美国在中国用多年积累的“人品”和“软力量”，不断为中国的反美主义煽风点火。这篇文章傅高义教授是从美国人易接受的角度写的。文章开篇引用了兔主席的文章。（背后文章是《美国对中国的傲慢与偏见》）

《美国的政策正在将我们的中国朋友们推向反美民族主义》

（U.S. policies are pushing our friends in China toward anti-American nationalism）

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/22/us-policies-are-pushing-our-friends-china-toward-anti-american-nationalism/

傅高义Ezra F. Vogel

July 23, 2020 at 12:57 a.m. GMT+8

（Ezra F. Vogel是哈佛大学亨利·福特二世社会学荣休教授）

登载于《华盛顿邮报》

兔主席速译：

“兔主席”是一个中国知名博客的作者，拥有150万读者。有几位著名的中国博客学者——他们还在学生的时期我就认识他们——他就是其中一位。在他最近的一篇文章中，兔主席引用了著名的军事战略家孙子——“知己知彼，百战不殆”——用来解释为什么美国人在输掉与中国的冲突——因为我们“不了解我们的敌人”。

兔主席指出，美国输掉了越战，因为许多美国人错误地认为北越是旧式的共产主义者。事实上，在他们夺取政权并开始治理国家的时候，他们成为了民族主义者。

美国的官员正在攻击中国共产党——据说正在考虑对共产党员进行旅行限制，但没有考虑到共产党的复杂性与多样性。这不再是一个代表斯大林或毛时期共产主义目标的政党。在1978年邓小平时代以来，共产党已经转变成为一个代表全国的政党：它包括了曾经支持同情美国的人，包括企业家，科学家和知识分子。但当美国将共产党作为一个整体进行攻击的时候，党的成员——包括那些本来希望看到更多民主程序的人——都团结起来支持自己的党，以及自己的民族。

在我成为哈佛大学东亚研究教授的半个多世纪以来，我愉快地给许多中国学生授课。他们中有些人留在了美国，有些人回到了中国。我还认识许多曾经在哈佛学习的中国学生与学者（尽管他们不是我的学生）。我在过去四十年里每年至少访问中国一次，经常与那些回到中国的学生与学者会面。许多人在美国的时候都是非常出色的学生。他们对新的想法非常开放，也十分享受智识的自由。在过去几年，伴随美中关系更加分化，回国者发现他们面临着新的对自由的限制。他们找到许多有创造性的方法来拓展自己的自由，同时成功地避免麻烦。他们希望对中国忠诚，同时与美国维持友谊。但当他们看到美国在不实地攻击中国之时——例如称新冠病毒是武汉实验室研发的——这很大的加强了他们的爱国主义，使得他们更加支持中国政府，反对华盛顿。

许多回国者推动了重要的政策，例如建立规则，要求对美国企业的知识产权付费，或者采用联合国等机构推行的规则。前总理朱镕基努力推动中国加入WTO，使得中国必须进行内部的转变以适应国际组织的规则。中国为亚投行（AIIB）挑选的负责人在世界银行和亚洲发展银行都工作过，希望按照国际标准打造AIIB。他邀请负责草拟AIIB的是一位毕业于哈佛法学院的美国女律师。然而，美国政府官员非但拒绝加入AIIB，而且还呼吁我们的盟国共同抵制。许多中国人认定，美国并不关心原则和价值，只在意维持自己的国际权力。

由福尔布莱特项目资助前往中国的美国人在建立学术联系及重要关系方面做了巨大的工作。现在，美国政府说要终止这个项目。参与这个项目的美国人，以及积极响应配合的中国人民现在都觉得被美国抛弃。

设想一下，如果我们是那些成千上万从美国回到中国、努力工作以推动中国追随国际规则的人们，突然听说美国政要宣称与中国的接触政策失败了，会作何感受？我可以告诉你们，许多努力响应美国的诉求，为自己推动中国接受国际标准的努力感到骄傲的人们（通常还要遭遇许多来自国内的反对声音），现在会觉得他们勇敢的努力及成功在美国政要眼中完全一钱不值。许多人就是中国共产党员。美国人对这些推动国际规则的中国人的努力一无所知，只是在把他们推向反美民族主义。

近年来，美国针对中国的政策与政治措辞都是由对中国发展知之甚少的官员所主导的。把中国人推到美国的对立面是不符合美国的利益的。如果我们希望中国人能够与我们一起努力，推动我们的共同利益，则我们需要从根本上重新审视我们的政策。这也要求高级官员去支持我们在中国的朋友，更多地了解中国国内的态势。

（原文）

The “Rabbit Chairman” is the author of a popular Chinese blog with 1.5 million readers. He is one of several influential Chinese bloggers I knew when they were students. In one of his recent posts, the Chairman quoted Sun Tzu, the famous war strategist — “If you know yourself and know your enemy, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles” — to explain how Americans are losing their conflict against China because we don’t “know the enemy.”

The Rabbit Chairman argues that the United States lost the war in Vietnam because many Americans mistakenly thought the North Vietnamese were old-fashioned communists. In fact, after they took power and were responsible for governing the country, they became nationalists.

U.S. officials are now attacking the Chinese Communist Party — and reportedly weighing a sweeping travel ban against members — without realizing its complexity and diversity. It is no longer the party that exemplifies the communist goals of Stalin or Mao. After Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978, the party was transformed into an organization to represent the nation. The Party includes people who have been pro-American, including business people, scientists and intellectuals. But when Americans attack the Communist Party as a whole, members — particularly those who would like to see more democratic procedures — rally to support the Party and, by extension, the nation.

In the half century since I became a professor of East Asian studies at Harvard, I have had the pleasure of teaching many Chinese students, some of whom stayed in the United States and others who returned to China. I have also come to know many Chinese students and faculty who studied at Harvard but were not my students. I have visited China at least once a year over the past four decades and have often met those students and scholars who returned home to China.

Many were excellent students in the United States. They were open to new ideas and enjoyed the intellectual freedom. In the past several years, as U.S.-China relations have become more polarized, returnees have faced new constraints on their freedom in China. Many find creative ways to stretch their freedom while staying out of trouble. They want to be loyal to China while remaining friends of the United States. But when they read of Americans attacking China with accusations that are not true — such as saying that the coronavirus was purposely engineered in a Wuhan laboratory — this strengthens their patriotism and willingness to support the Chinese government against Washington.

Many returnees have advanced important policies, such as establishing rules that required payments to American firms for intellectual property or standards applied by institutions such as the United Nations. Former premier Zhu Rongji fought to gain membership in the World Trade Organization so that China would be forced to make internal changes that meshed with those of international organizations. China chose as the head of its new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) someone who had served in both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and who wanted to make the AIIB one that followed world standards. The lawyer he hired to write the rules for the AIIB was an American woman, a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. However, not only did American government officials refuse to join the AIIB, but they also urged our allies to do the same. Many Chinese concluded that the United States was not concerned with principles but only with retaining international power.

Our Americans sent to China by the Fulbright program have done a marvelous job of establishing academic relationships and making important connections. Now the United States has said that it would be suspended. Americans who took part in the program and Chinese friends who responded positively now feel abandoned by the country that once sought their friendship.

How would we feel if we were in the position of those tens of thousands of Chinese who had returned home and worked hard to prepare China for better adherence to international rules and who then read that prominent Americans claim that engagement had failed? I can tell you that many who had fought to respond to American requests and felt proud of their successes in adopting international standards — often against domestic resistance — feel as if their valiant efforts and successes are seen by prominent Americans as worthless. Many are members of the Communist Party. Americans ignorant of their sacrifices for international rules are pushing them toward anti-American nationalism.

In recent years, U.S. policy and political rhetoric toward China have been dominated by officials with limited knowledge of developments in that country. It is not in the United States’ interest to turn the Chinese into enemies. If we want to encourage them to work with us for our common interests, we need some fundamental rethinking of our policies. This in turn requires that high officials be willing to support our friends in China and learn more about its internal dynamics.