越洋访谈(三)：美国前高官顾问谈中国六四

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

我： 大卫好，想请你探讨一下一些中国的事情，有兴趣吗？

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

大卫：好啊，很高兴与你分享。

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 天安门广场悲剧，明天就是这个日子了，你有什么看法？

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。

大卫：我记得。只是很长时间以前的事了。信息有歪曲，但是，不是好事。双方都为了强调自己的观点而提供了许多虚假信息。

 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" 

大卫： 许多消息，从每一方，更多是为自己说话，，杀了多少人，伤了多少人，差异很大，有的说“杀了数百人”， 有的说“数千人”。

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

只想说，那一天对任何一方都不是好日子。但是共党政府在国际上影响很差。

 me: what do you think of the student leaders?

我: 你对学生领袖们怎么看？

 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。

大卫： 学生领袖---一定程度很敬仰。但是，他们的计划执行的太差。伤害了太多无辜的人，这些无辜的付出了生命的代价。

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。

大卫： 如果你是领袖，就必须负责，，，这已经无关乎“对”或“错”， 必须为那些追随你的人负责，不能为了你的利益把他们领上了毁灭之路。

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

我： 为何认为是他们自己的利益？ 关于他们你听到了什么？

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

大卫： 这次运动是他们的注意，他们的名声，他们搅局，并使它达到沸点。

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

但是锅里的汤是那些撒在街上的无辜者的鲜血。他们死了。永远。 他们被“陷在里面”， 他们怎么也想不到他们居然要为这场运动冒生命的危险。

me: what do you think of the government?

我： 你对政府怎么看？

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.

大卫： 政府反应过度了。因为他们不知道如何做出反应。 没有遇到过这种情形。责备他们很容易。但是，也不容易责备他们。这类事情，没有应变经验。

me: you think China government had no experience before?

我： 你认为中国政府以前没有这方面的经验？

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

 大卫：对这么多的国际关注没有经验。整个世界都在瞩目。

me: what about May. 4th, 1919

我: 1919年的54运动呢？

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

大卫：1919年没有卫星电视， 也没有手机，没有CNN。

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

大卫：对政府的指责主要是对政府的过激反应。但是，他们不得不反应。

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 "

只是看你反应到何种程度。用坦克和狙击枪对一群学生是很过分的。但是，学生看到军队出现的时候，应该撤退的。他们应该知道，这事可能会非常非常糟糕。

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

大卫：但是，他们逼得太紧。当然，美国人会指责中国政府。但是，如果同样的事情发生在这里的美国，右翼分子们一定会说，这是学生们应得的。我分析，找出双方的错误。

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

 对双方行动的进行推理，都对，都不对。双方都犯了错误---反应过度。双方都低估了对方。学生低估了政府会用武力，政府低估了学生的顽固不化。然后，导致屠杀。

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

我： 但是，你怎么可以对自己的子弟下手，太冷血了。

 David: it's happened here too

大卫： 我们这里也发生过类似的事情。

 me: what happened here?

我： 发生什么事情？

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

大卫： 1970年的肯特州立大学案，国民卫队在校园杀死了5个学生，在一次抗议活动中，反越战的。

me: what then

我: 然后呢？

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

大卫： 很大件事。但是后来啥也没有发生。说是学生有错。

 me: why student fault?

我： 为啥是学生的错？

 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.

大卫： 国民卫队说他们以为听到了枪声。但是，他们听到的只是那些扔向国民卫队的可乐瓶子摔碎在水泥地上的声音。

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

我: 你认为中国军队和美国国民卫队的反应有和区别

 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

大卫：死5个人和成百上千人以及坦克是有很大区别的。但是，这不是关于数量而是关于“做什么”政策的辩论。双方的政策都错了。死一个，或死一千个。政策错了。

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

我： 为何错了？为啥政府有错？ 为啥学生有错？

 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,,,

大卫： 示威是和平的，对政府没有真正的威胁。不管怎样，学生不该在军队出现时还要坚持。政府错在不该围堵学生。学生应该明白情况会很糟糕，如果把军队引向他们自己。。。

me: you mean student should compromise?

我：你认为学生应该妥协？

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

大卫： 他们已经赢了。 他们只需要点到为止撤退，但是，他们没有，军队不得不控制局势。

me: did you watch the TV?

我： 你那时看了电视吗？

 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

大卫： 看了一些。但是当时我们对中国的看法很低，看的跟俄罗斯一样低级，有点落后。那会是大消息，但是也容易就忘却了。

me: how you review again about that after 23 years

我： 23年以后你怎么看？

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.

大卫：我这里说的只是我的观点。双方都做的太绝了。手中有枪的人一定会赢过手中没枪的人的。

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

我： 你认为他们应该用枪吗？为何不用橡皮子弹或者水龙头呢？

 David: i think the army should have guns,    coudl have used rubber bullets,  heavy water hose, non lethal force
大卫：我认为军队应该有枪。但是，应该使用橡皮弹，高压水管，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，你认为政府不应该用军队，派军队进广场？

 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

但是我认为学生走的太远。军队没有选择。他们心中或他们的指挥官心中，发出了他们已经执行的命令，以维护政府控制，镇压他们看到的威胁。

me: what threat do you think they see?

我： 你认为他们看到了什么威胁？

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

大卫：政府看到对他们领导权力的威胁， 他们要保有这个权力。

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

我：来自学生的威胁？学生能做什么威胁政府的事情呢？

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

大卫：对整个国家的威胁。如果学生抗议蔓延到天安门广场以外的地区。

 me: how ?我： 何以见得？

 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

大卫：如果蔓延开来，没有足够的军力来控制局面。一定程度上，军队也会厌倦杀害自己的人民，便会调转枪口对准他们的领袖。就像埃及，利比亚，像俄罗斯那样，就像我们这里当时把英国人赶出去一样， 到了一定时候，人们会说“够了”，军队会说“够了，够了， 我们为了少数人的利益在杀害多数人，这样的话，领导们就有麻烦了。他们必须把动乱早日镇压下去。

  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。

大卫： 否则，他们结局会很惨，会被蒙着眼睛，背靠高墙，被枪杀。就和1989年的罗马尼亚一样。这是真诚的意见，对双方糟糕策略导致局势急剧升温而发生屠杀许多人，并且给了政府军队黑眼圈。但是，双方都有错，这是我的看法。孙子说过 “了解你敌人，当你强他弱时—进攻；当你弱，他强时，撤退并重新整合。”学生应该多读孙子兵法。

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

我: 学生认为他们在追求民主反对腐败，你认为他们做得对吗？

 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

大卫：是的，但陷得太深。学生领袖就像草火上面刮过的一阵风，把火越刮越远。。。

 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

大卫：大多数美国人不会像我这样分析。他们会很轻易地选择美国一边。我是个公正的人，看见什么说什么。学生太乐观了。没有想到政府军队会真的“对他们动手”。必须分清责任。我给他们双方分责任。如果一个人端着枪跑进小店，并且说“你可以离开，不然，我会开枪的！” 也许你应该离开，你可以明天再来小店吗。

Me： How do you assign responsibility?

我: 你是怎么分清责任的？

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

大卫： 我各打五十大板。找错很容易。找到真正的错误就难了。评估谁应该受到指责更难。政治的问题就是人们不想要"对的"事情，他们要的是“他们的”事情。这也是为啥美国的政治变得如此丑陋的原因。

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

我： 你认为政府应该为此道歉，并为64平反吗？

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

大卫： 是的。会有益处。但是，道歉的时候不能承认有罪。否则，会促成另一场抗议。

me: what should G say?

我：政府应该怎么道歉。

 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

大卫：政府应该说“这是我们历史上不幸的一天”，“但是，在理想主义的火热决斗中，领导有义务保护所有公民的安全”。未来政府的责任和义务，充分利用克制和外交手段，以避免这中悲剧再降临到我们的国家和人民身上。这种悲剧只会分裂我们，让所有中国人民的敌人受益。

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：许多人在呼吁政府平反事件，你认为这会发生吗？你认为这代领导人或下一代领导人比如习近平会平反六四吗？

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

大卫： 非常小的机会。而且必须小心使用极其隐晦的外交辞令，比如我上面建议的。