sgold87 加入本网站时间 Member Since 03 February 2012 Sgold87's 评论 comments 观点 做研究工作的认真和严谨是不应该被质疑的。然而，李先生一直指出的问题是中国政府作出的每一个决定，特别是那些向公众发布的决定，是政治化的。如果不是，那为什么有需要像国务院新闻办公室、SCRTF，或者是宣传部这样的办公机构？我不是假设这些办公室就和环境研究或者是政策本身的细节有任何关系，但是他们绝对在关于政策（事实上任何政策）什么被提及，什么时候被提及，以及多少被提及中有发言权。至于像碳税需要“合理地代表一个国家的发展阶段”，我觉得这个声明很老套。这到底是什么意思？我真的不明白。是要给中国更多发展政策空间的借口吗？如果不是，请帮助我理解。我生活在北京，让我来告诉你，在很多方面，北京是一个高度发展的现代都市。 Perception The earnestness and seriousness of the research effort put forth should not be questioned. However, the problem that Mr. Lee may have been picking up on is that EVERY decision made by the Chinese government, especially the ones that are made public, is political. If not, then why the need for such offices as the SCIO, the SCRTF, or the propaganda department? I don’t assume that these offices necessarily have anything to do with the environmental research or the details of the policy itself, but they absolutely have a say in what is said, when it is said, and how much is said about the policy (in fact any policy). As for a carbon tax needing to “properly account for a country’s phase of development”, I find this statement utterly cliché. Exacty what does this mean? I don’t really know. Is it an excuse meant to give China more leeway in developing policy? If not, then please enlighten me. I live in Beijing and let me tell you, in many ways Beijing is a highly developed modern city. 看法2 然而，我不断地被这么一类说法连番轰炸：由于中国是一个发展中国家，因此所有在北京（或者全国各地）存在的问题和不公，都是可以被接受甚至无视的。 但不幸的是，至于发展中国家公关能力较差这个问题，我认为就中国来讲，西方对于中国的看法与其发展阶段有太大关系。例如，大体来说美国人对印度就有一个相对正面的看法。不管你承不承认，西方（尤其是美国）对其他国家的看法总会是受到政治制度，而并非经济发展因素所影响。我私以为，当中国政府高层使用“发展中国家”这个字眼的时候，他们可能只想隐晦地表达“社会主义国家”或者“具有中国特色的社会主义”罢了。我恳请各位帮我解释一下到底什么叫具有中国特色社会主义。 而有关阴谋论的问题，我认为在描绘中国的一些事件上面，确实有一些高层官员有他们自己的一些政治计划和原因，从而控制对事件的描述，这个事实是不容质疑的。 Perception 2 And yet, I am constantly bombarded by just such an argument—because China is a developing country, so the problems and injustices that exist in Beijing (and around the country) can be somehow easier to accept or even ignore. As for developing countries being bad at PR, unfortunately in China’s case, I don’t think China’s perception in the West has a lot to do with its stage of development. For example, Americans in general have a relatively positive view of India. The Western (especially American) perception is, whether one likes it or not, tainted more by perceived political system than economic development. My sneaking suspicion is that when the term “developing country” is used by the higher-ups in China, that it might be a codeword for “socialist country”, or perhaps “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. I implore someone to please explain to me exactly what socialism with Chinese characteristics is. As for notions of conspiracy theory, again, I don’t think it can be denied that certain high-ups have certain agendas and certain reasons for portraying events in certain ways in China. 看法3 如果美国政府要求新闻媒体做这做那，那将被视为“政府阴谋”。这种事在中国每天都发生。政府的这种行为在西方是受鄙视的。在中国却是相对可接受的。难道只有人们认为这是阴谋的时候，它才是阴谋？ 不管怎么说，如果中国的政策能够改善环境，对于中国还是世界来说都有好处。但是政治因素不能被忽视。尤其是在如今超现实主义的国际舞台上，政治优势始终是一个焦点。除非有一天零和博弈被摒弃，共同繁荣才可能实现，在此之前它仍将是一个问题。 Perception 3 If the US government was to require that a news source do this or that, this would be considered a “government conspiracy”. This happens every day in China. This kind of government activity is frowned upon in the West. But it is relatively acceptable in China. Is a conspiracy only a conspiracy if people consider it a conspiracy? Anyways, if the Chinese policy improves the environment, then good for China and good for the world. But politics simply cannot be removed from the equation. Especially in today’s hyper-realist international arena, political advantage is always a concern. Until the day that the zero-sum game is rejected and the possibility of mutual prosperity is recognized, it will continue to be a concern. 镇压的成效 "这个论点给予地方政府使用警方镇压的借口，这不是解决事情的根本之道。" 我不完全同意作者的说法。如果是为了施压抗议群众，使人们停止抗争并保持沉默，那么在某些例子中政府使用武力镇压确实十分有效。 但总体而言，我觉得作者对现代中国抗争运动的本质有极出色的见解。 effectiveness of crackdown "this approach provides the local government with an excuse to mobilise the police, which does nothing to solve the problem." I disagree to some extent. Forceful crackdown often is exceptionally effective at crushing dissent. If the goal is to instill enough fear to discourage further outward displays of dissent, then the authorities' use of force has clearly been effective in certain cases. Overall a very excellent point made about the nature of the protest in modern China.