越洋訪談(三)：美國前高官顧問談中國六四

me: Hi David, would like to seek your view about some China issues, Are you interested in talking about it?

我： 大衛好，想請你探討一下一些中國的事情，有興趣嗎？

David: ok, would be happy to share with you.

大衛：好啊，很高興與你分享。

me:for 23 years, people cannot forget about the 6.4 T square tragedy, tomorrow is the date again, what do you think?

23年了，人民忘不了6.4 天安門廣場悲劇，明天就是這個日子了，你有什麼看法？

David: Yes, I remember, its just too long ago,,,info is skewed,  but it's not good, a lot of disinformation from both sides, to make their own point。

大衛：我記得。只是很長時間以前的事了。信息有歪曲，但是，不是好事。雙方都為了強調自己的觀點而提供了許多虛假信息。

 me: why you think is skewed?

我： 何出此言？

David: a lot of the news, from each side, is more to show their own point,,,  how many killed, how many injured,,,very wide discrepancies, some say "hundreds killed " other say "thousands" 

大衛： 許多消息，從每一方，更多是為自己說話，，殺了多少人，傷了多少人，差異很大，有的說「殺了數百人」， 有的說「數千人」。

David: just have to say it was not a good day for either side,,,but the C Gov look bad internationally.

只想說，那一天對任何一方都不是好日子。但是共黨政府在國際上影響很差。

 me: what do you think of the student leaders?

我: 你對學生領袖們怎麼看？

 David: student leaders - admire to a point, but poorly executed plan.  put too many innocent people in harms way, and they paid with their life。

大衛： 學生領袖---一定程度很敬仰。但是，他們的計劃執行的太差。傷害了太多無辜的人，這些無辜的付出了生命的代價。

David: if you are leader must be responsible,,,  it's not just a "right" or "wrong",,,have to be responsible for those who follow you,  and not lead them on path to destruction for your own gain。

大衛： 如果你是領袖，就必須負責，，，這已經無關乎「對」或「錯」， 必須為那些追隨你的人負責，不能為了你的利益把他們領上了毀滅之路。

me: why you think it's their own gain? What did you hear about them?

我： 為何認為是他們自己的利益？ 關於他們你聽到了什麼？

 David: it's their idea, their fame,  they stir the pot,    get it to boiling point。

大衛： 這次運動是他們的注意，他們的名聲，他們攪局，並使它達到沸點。

David: but the soup is the blood of those innocents spilled on the streets.  they are dead, forever,  they got " caught up in the moment ". they never thinking they will risk their lives for this activity

但是鍋里的湯是那些撒在街上的無辜者的鮮血。他們死了。永遠。 他們被「陷在裡面」， 他們怎麼也想不到他們居然要為這場運動冒生命的危險。

me: what do you think of the government?

我： 你對政府怎麼看？

David :  govt over reacted,  because they not know how to react,,not have that situation before,  is easy to blame them, but also hard to blame them,,no experience in this type of deal.

大衛： 政府反應過度了。因為他們不知道如何做出反應。 沒有遇到過這種情形。責備他們很容易。但是，也不容易責備他們。這類事情，沒有應變經驗。

me: you think China government had no experience before?

我： 你認為中國政府以前沒有這方面的經驗？

David: no experience with this much int'l coverage, the whole world watching

 大衛：對這麼多的國際關注沒有經驗。整個世界都在矚目。

me: what about May. 4th, 1919

我: 1919年的54運動呢？

 David:   didn't have sat tv in 1919,  or cell phones,  or CNN

大衛：1919年沒有衛星電視， 也沒有手機，沒有CNN。

 David: the blame on the govt is their over reaction， but they had to react

大衛：對政府的指責主要是對政府的過激反應。但是，他們不得不反應。

it's just to what "degree" do you react,  tanks and snipers is a little bit much against a bunch of students,  but the students should have withdrawn when the army showed up....they should have known that this could "go very very badly "

只是看你反應到何種程度。用坦克和狙擊槍對一群學生是很過分的。但是，學生看到軍隊出現的時候，應該撤退的。他們應該知道，這事可能會非常非常糟糕。

but they pushed it,  while Americans will blame the C govt...if the same thing happened here the far right wing would say the students got what they deserved. i analyze it, find fault both sides

大衛：但是，他們逼得太緊。當然，美國人會指責中國政府。但是，如果同樣的事情發生在這裡的美國，右翼分子們一定會說，這是學生們應得的。我分析，找出雙方的錯誤。

David: find reasoning for actions of both sides, both are right, and wrong,  but both also made mistakes - by over reacting,    and both made mistake by underestimating the other, student underestimate the use of force from G forces . G forces underestimate the stubborness of the students, and that create a slaughter

 對雙方行動的進行推理，都對，都不對。雙方都犯了錯誤---反應過度。雙方都低估了對方。學生低估了政府會用武力，政府低估了學生的頑固不化。然後，導致屠殺。

  me: but how can you shoot your own kids,  it's too cold blododed.

我： 但是，你怎麼可以對自己的子弟下手，太冷血了。

 David: it's happened here too

大衛： 我們這裡也發生過類似的事情。

 me: what happened here?

我： 發生什麼事情？

 David: Kent State, in 1970,  National Guard shot 5 students to death on campus,   during a protest,   about Vietnam war

大衛： 1970年的肯特州立大學案，國民衛隊在校園殺死了5個學生，在一次抗議活動中，反越戰的。

me: what then

我: 然後呢？

 David: big review, but nothing ever happened,   said students at fault

大衛： 很大件事。但是後來啥也沒有發生。說是學生有錯。

 me: why student fault?

我： 為啥是學生的錯？

 David: national guard said they fired when they thought they heard gun shots ，but what they heard were coca cola bottle breaking on the cement when they were thrown at the national guard.

大衛： 國民衛隊說他們以為聽到了槍聲。但是，他們聽到的只是那些扔向國民衛隊的可樂瓶子摔碎在水泥地上的聲音。

me: what is the difference between China force and National Guard reaction?

我: 你認為中國軍隊和美國國民衛隊的反應有和區別

 David: there's big difference between 5 dead and hundreds or thousands and tanks， but it's not a debate about "quantity" as much as it is about "policy" of what to do,  and both policy are wrong,   1 dead or 1 thousand,,,,policy is wrong

大衛：死5個人和成百上千人以及坦克是有很大區別的。但是，這不是關於數量而是關於「做什麼」政策的辯論。雙方的政策都錯了。死一個，或死一千個。政策錯了。

 me: why? why G wrong, why student wrong?

我： 為何錯了？為啥政府有錯？ 為啥學生有錯？

 David: protest were peaceful...no real threat to govt,  either way, student wrong to keep pushing when army showed up， G wrong to contain students,,,  students should understand it could go very badly,  by drawing the army to them,,,

大衛： 示威是和平的，對政府沒有真正的威脅。不管怎樣，學生不該在軍隊出現時還要堅持。政府錯在不該圍堵學生。學生應該明白情況會很糟糕，如果把軍隊引向他們自己。。。

me: you mean student should compromise?

我：你認為學生應該妥協？

 David: they had already won,   they just needed to retreat at that point, but they didn't,  and army had to assert control

大衛： 他們已經贏了。 他們只需要點到為止撤退，但是，他們沒有，軍隊不得不控制局勢。

me: did you watch the TV?

我： 你那時看了電視嗎？

 David: yes, some . but our view of China then was low,,,think of them as low level russians, kind of backwards ， it was big news,,,but easily forgot

大衛： 看了一些。但是當時我們對中國的看法很低，看的跟俄羅斯一樣低級，有點落後。那會是大消息，但是也容易就忘卻了。

me: how you review again about that after 23 years

我： 23年以後你怎麼看？

David: : what i saying here is my review,  both sides pushed to the edge of the cliff....but the people with guns will always win over those who don't.

大衛：我這裡說的只是我的觀點。雙方都做的太絕了。手中有槍的人一定會贏過手中沒槍的人的。

 me: do you think they should use guns ?   why not use rubber bullet  or water hose or use just police?

我： 你認為他們應該用槍嗎？為何不用橡皮子彈或者水龍頭呢？

 David: i think the army should have guns,    coudl have used rubber bullets,  heavy water hose, non lethal force
大衛：我認為軍隊應該有槍。但是，應該使用橡皮彈，高壓水管，而不是致命武力。

me: so do you think the leadership made bad choice of forces,  to bring army into the Tsquare?

我： 因此，你認為政府不應該用軍隊，派軍隊進廣場？

 David: but i think the students pushed to far....and the army had no choice, in their minds, or their commanders, to order wath they did。to maintain G control, and put what they saw as a threat, down

但是我認為學生走的太遠。軍隊沒有選擇。他們心中或他們的指揮官心中，發出了他們已經執行的命令，以維護政府控制，鎮壓他們看到的威脅。

me: what threat do you think they see?

我： 你認為他們看到了什麼威脅？

 David: the G saw a threat to their leadership. their hold on power

大衛：政府看到對他們領導權力的威脅， 他們要保有這個權力。

 me: threat from student?   what can student do to threat government?

我：來自學生的威脅？學生能做什麼威脅政府的事情呢？

David: threat from entrie country if the student protest spreads beyond Times Square

大衛：對整個國家的威脅。如果學生抗議蔓延到天安門廣場以外的地區。

 me: how ?我： 何以見得？

 David: if it spreads then no army big enough to contain it,   at some point, the army would tire of killing its own people,   and would turn their guns on the leaders. just lik Egypt, Just like Libya, Just like russia,  Just like here when we threw the british out,  at some point,,,people say "enough", and the armies say enogh,  enough,   that we are killing many for the benefit of a few, then the leadership is in trouble so, they have to put down the revolt early

大衛：如果蔓延開來，沒有足夠的軍力來控制局面。一定程度上，軍隊也會厭倦殺害自己的人民，便會調轉槍口對準他們的領袖。就像埃及，利比亞，像俄羅斯那樣，就像我們這裡當時把英國人趕出去一樣， 到了一定時候，人們會說「夠了」，軍隊會說「夠了，夠了， 我們為了少數人的利益在殺害多數人，這樣的話，領導們就有麻煩了。他們必須把動亂早日鎮壓下去。

  David: or they will end up against the wall , with a blind fold on their eyes, and get shot, just like romania in 1989, it's honest opinion of the bad strategies of both sides, and how it culminated in the slaughter of many, and a black eye to the G forces,  but both sides were wrong,  is my opinion, Sun Tzu said - " know your enemy. when you are strong and he is weak - attack. when you are weak and he is strong, withdraw and regroup",  the students should have read more Sun Tzu。

大衛： 否則，他們結局會很慘，會被蒙著眼睛，背靠高牆，被槍殺。就和1989年的羅馬尼亞一樣。這是真誠的意見，對雙方糟糕策略導致局勢急劇升溫而發生屠殺許多人，並且給了政府軍隊黑眼圈。但是，雙方都有錯，這是我的看法。孫子說過 「了解你敵人，當你強他弱時—進攻；當你弱，他強時，撤退並重新整合。」學生應該多讀孫子兵法。

me: Students  thought they are pursuing democracy, and fight against corruption, you think they are doing the right thing?

我: 學生認為他們在追求民主反對腐敗，你認為他們做得對嗎？

 David: yes, caught up in moment,,,and the student leaders were like the "wind" over a fire in the grass,,,blowing it farther and farther

大衛：是的，但陷得太深。學生領袖就像草火上面刮過的一陣風，把火越刮越遠。。。

 David: most americans won't analyze ，they just easily choose american side 。, I am fair guy.....  call it like i see it,  but the students were over matched,  and didn't think the G forces would actually "take them down "， but have to assign responsibility, and i do that, to both， if a person with gun come into the store and says " you can leave, or i will shoot you",   perhaps you should leave,   can go to store tomorrow

大衛：大多數美國人不會像我這樣分析。他們會很輕易地選擇美國一邊。我是個公正的人，看見什麼說什麼。學生太樂觀了。沒有想到政府軍隊會真的「對他們動手」。必須分清責任。我給他們雙方分責任。如果一個人端著槍跑進小店，並且說「你可以離開，不然，我會開槍的！」 也許你應該離開，你可以明天再來小店嗎。

Me： How do you assign responsibility?

我: 你是怎麼分清責任的？

David:   i beat each side up, finding fault is easy,  finding correct fault is hard, assessing blame to those who should be blamed - is harder，but the problem with politics is that people don't want the right thing, they want "their" thing,,,and thats why politics here has gotten so ugly

大衛： 我各打五十大板。找錯很容易。找到真正的錯誤就難了。評估誰應該受到指責更難。政治的問題就是人們不想要"對的"事情，他們要的是「他們的」事情。這也是為啥美國的政治變得如此醜陋的原因。

 me: do you think G should say sorry to student? do you think G should apologize for this?  and redress the event?

我： 你認為政府應該為此道歉，並為64平反嗎？

 David: yes, it would helpful...but,,,it has to be said in a manner as not admit guilt,  otherwise will invite more protests

大衛： 是的。會有益處。但是，道歉的時候不能承認有罪。否則，會促成另一場抗議。

me: what should G say?

我：政府應該怎麼道歉。

 David: G should say " it was an unfortunate day in our history"..."but, in the heat of dueling idealogies, it was incumbent on the leadership to protect the safety of ALL CITIZENS', and it is also incumbent on future G's to harness the power of restraint and diplomacy to avoid the tragedy of such a day, ever again, to befall our great country and people ",  "which only serves to divide us, and benefit the enemies of all chines

大衛：政府應該說「這是我們歷史上不幸的一天」，「但是，在理想主義的火熱決鬥中，領導有義務保護所有公民的安全」。未來政府的責任和義務，充分利用克制和外交手段，以避免這中悲劇再降臨到我們的國家和人民身上。這種悲劇只會分裂我們，讓所有中國人民的敵人受益。

me: many people are calling on G to redress the case, do you think its going to happen? Do you think this generation of G leaders or next generation like Xi will say sorry to this event？

我：許多人在呼籲政府平反事件，你認為這會發生嗎？你認為這代領導人或下一代領導人比如習近平會平反六四嗎？

 David: very narrow opportunity to do so,,,and it must be in very hedged diplomatic language, like i put above

大衛： 非常小的機會。而且必須小心使用極其隱晦的外交辭令，比如我上面建議的。