餘亮：忍不住寫封信給你，《紐約時報》
親愛的《紐約時報》，
在這個夜晚，我難以遏抑想要給你們寫信的衝動。《New York Times》，a certainly sexy name，是你們讓這份久違的閒情雅緻重回我懷抱。
你們太愛寫信了，尤其愛給我們的男一號寫信。據我所知，胡錦濤先生、習近平先生都收到過你們的公開表白。就在幾天前，你們發表了著名媒體人，《世界是平的》一書作者托馬斯•弗裏德曼給習近平主席的公開信，主旨是為西方記者求情討要簽證。
但這不是習大大第一次收信，也不是弗先生第一次寫信。所以，雙方都是有經驗的人。不如來讓我説些有經驗的話吧。
先説習大大收到的第一封信。在他尚未履職之時，2012年2月10日，你們發表公開信《十問中國接班人》（當時奧巴馬也在換屆中），作者是美國喬治•華盛頓大學中國政策研究室主任David Shambaugh。他還有一個看上去很粗大的中國名字：沈大偉。
沈大偉措辭粗暴，被時在美國得克薩斯大學任教的陳平教授指為完全不顧基本外交禮儀，近乎挑釁。比如作者問：“習近平具備足夠強大的政治影響力來與當前殘暴的體制抗衡嗎？”“習近平將如何應對非洲、中東和拉丁美洲對中國瘋狂掠奪資源的援助和貿易政策所表現出的強烈不滿？”盛氣凌人，上來就給中國預設罪名，惹得陳平老先生興起，撰文《十問美國接班人》針鋒相對。那是多麼富有基情的一次交鋒，《紙牌屋》、《唐頓莊園》之類只能望其項背。
不過説實話，親愛的《紐約時報》，沈大偉的那封信寫得真爛。簡直把自己降格為喜劇裏的滑稽人物。看過中國喜劇明星周星馳罵人的橋段嗎？比如“雖然你如此卑鄙下流無恥，但我……”巴拉巴拉之類，可討人一笑，但上不了大國外交的舞台。
不過，不會有人當真。我們的那位成熟男人只會對此一笑了之。他沒有動靜，但是他會知道，而且你們也知道他知道。你們也一定知道，出來混總是要還的。
即便如此，在我眼中《紐約時報》始終都是有風情的媒體。沈大偉雖然言辭不堪，但仍有一種粗蠻的土豪魅力，即使學者頭銜也掩蓋不住他那顆西部牛仔的心。而這一次，弗裏德曼捲土重來，卻改頭換面變了一幅腔調。12月15日，面對已經主掌大局一年的習大大，這個媒體老戲骨表現出了一種既剋制又刻薄的王熙鳳作風……（弗裏德曼讀過《紅樓夢》沒有？毛主席推薦大家都讀一讀。）
你們對我們的男一號如此執着，惹得我也忍不住要插足一番。
先説弗裏德曼的上一封公開信，2011年6月寫給胡錦濤主席。那時就已經表現出了這種風情。當時他玩起了角色反串，以中國國家安全局官員的口氣勸進胡總：從突尼斯到敍利亞，阿拉伯民眾要求的不僅僅是麪包、GDP，還有“尊嚴”，尊嚴只能以政治自由化和民主化程度為衡量標準。所以中國經濟再好，如果不仿效西方的政治體制也是要爆發“北京之春”的。
雖然弗裏德曼先生把中國比作中東這很糊塗，而且忘了當時正蓬勃的“華爾街之春”，但我還是欣賞弗裏德曼的才情。我在中國優秀情色專欄作家的筆下經常看到此類角色反串，比如一個女人把自己想象成一部電腦桌。在此類情景劇裏，山姆大叔一般喜歡扮演穿警服舉皮鞭的角色，但這一次卻是反披中國製服，實在有一種內奸的性感。
弗裏德曼顯然模仿了電影《竊聽風暴》裏的橋段。不過那是在斯諾登曝光稜鏡門事件之前，否則他就不會這麼幹了。
明知道對方不會聽你説，但仍然這樣表演，這實際是一種嫵媚。我當然知道，這封信是寫給中國的，或者説寫給仰望美國的那部分中國人，也確實會得到他們的pure love，雖然他們的愛比較天真，並不是你們喜歡的成熟類型。
我很喜歡弗氏這封新的表白書。
弗氏首先宣佈自己屬於全球投資界裏看好中國的那一派，區別於唱衰中國的另一派。我喜歡弗氏的直接，他説的是投資界，而不會像希拉里一樣説的是普世思想界。為了美國實際的國家利益，弗氏才願意屈尊做如此表白。這是多麼坦誠的感情，沒有利益就沒有真愛。
緊接着，弗氏弱弱地説，最近中國的一些舉動讓他懷疑習大大治下的系統沒有他想的那麼穩固，也就是説有兩家美國媒體中文版被封，有20多位記者尚未獲得延期簽證。然後開始以小見大——記者受到如此對待是因為他們揭露了中國的高層腐敗。不過習大大不應該怪罪記者，這只是網絡科技發達和官員腐敗帶來的必然後果。在全球化時代，西方記者不能不關注這些事情。“《紐約時報》和彭博社對此類事件的曝光極大地幫助了您的領導工作。這是心臟病發作前的一種警告。”
心臟病？弗裏德曼真瞭解中國，這可是市井吵架常用的詛咒。弗氏在示愛之後才開始表達自己的小小不滿，做深明大義狀，一邊示愛又一邊刻薄。這簡直是賽金花才能達到的境界。
他繼而小心翼翼地警告：倘若得不到簽證，記者們就會在香港台灣韓國繼續報道，而且因為失去現場考察機會，報道會更加不平衡。這幾乎是在暗示做交易了——“給我簽證，我們在報道腐敗的時候可以配合你們。”他最後提問：“當財富集中在頂層、權力在底層散佈、透明度無處不在的時候，會發生一些什麼事情。”會發生什麼事情呢？弗氏給的答案是佔領華爾街、斯諾登事件。這太有趣了。
我得承認，弗裏德曼的手段甚至讓我都有些暈頭轉向了。我不知道，這到底是他為了禮貌而先説自己國家的陰暗面以“起興”呢，還是實際上他本來就是想借着給習寫信來諷諫你們美國？我理解像弗裏德曼這樣美國有識之士的焦慮。他剛剛讚美過上海的中學教育，焦灼於美國教育的落後，他甚至深諳美國的“體制問題”，以至於説“過去任何時候去中國和新加坡，要為民主問題辯解的總是當地人。現在，唯恐避之不及的變成了美國人。”可能，你們內心已經感覺到要犯心臟病的是美國，只是難以直接説出口？
無論如何，我尊重弗裏德曼先生為美國國家利益所做的努力，就像我和我的同伴們也會為中國人民的利益做點努力。在一個不再有“共產國際”的世界上，一個美國人不遠千里跑來發言聲稱是為了中國利益，也可以算是國際主義精神了。但是他這麼焦急，顯得有點大題小做，而且還有點……我實在不好意思説出口，考慮到著名的《經濟學人》雜誌今年曾經把我國男一號畫成穿龍袍的樣子，表達了你們心目中對習大大的實際崇拜，所以一句中國古話就呼之欲出了，叫做“□□不急□□急”。
至於部分記者的遭遇，説實話，我不清楚。我見過其中的一些人，確實很優秀。我個人希望能很快再次見到他們。我想雙方都需要各自有所調整。只是，讓我告訴你們，你們致信的那位，以我通過媒體獲得的觀察來看，頗似受到貴國電影《黑衣人》裏威爾•史密斯的影響。史密斯對一個向自己示愛的女人説：“必須我主動！”所以《紐約時報》們不要着急，不要太主動。（下一個來表白的會是誰？克魯格曼先生？）
至於腐敗問題，以我的身份只能説：要相信中國政府和媒體處理腐敗的能力。何況弗裏德曼近期的一系列文章都清楚表明，他認為中國政府這方面的能力勝過了美國。
《紐約時報》也應該高興，如果你在中國被封（實際我們還有很多辦法看到你的容顏），也從另一面肯定了你們設置議程的能力。《環球時報》認為你們想成為掌控中國輿論的超級媒體帝國——我不完全同意。我個人認為，你們的記者乃至大使並不一定有弗裏德曼的見識，他們對輿論的操控超越了分寸，演化成宣傳和恐嚇。你看看，一個小小的pm2.5，在工業社會本不是稀奇事，也可以逐步解決，現在已經被炒作成了一個大議程，炒作成了中國中產階級的噩夢，人快沒法活了。他們天天嚷嚷着要移民，完全忘了當今世界大勢是，聰明人爭着到中國生活，“民主燈塔”台灣現在有150萬人來了大陸就不肯走。美國人也不少。至於你們宣稱，作為報復，正在考慮要不要拒籤中國記者，我個人建議是沒什麼問題的，那樣可以避免我們“浪費納税人的錢”。
如果我們不能很快相見，不如就暫時分開一陣。距離產生美，讓我們都有空間來反思一下我們彼此的感情。我們也想好好面對自身媒體能力的不足。你們的來信也提醒我們要拿捏好分寸，甄別對待，不要打擊了那些真心熱愛中國的國際友人。
期待和你們再次相逢。Just here waiting for you！
祝健康！
一箇中國好朋友
英文版（the english version）見下一頁
How Could I Not Write to you, New York Times
This night, I can’t help writing to you. It’s you, New York Times, a certainly charming name, that makes such leisure return to me after a long time.
You really love writing letters , especially to our number one leading roles. As far as I know, both Mr. Hu Jintao and Mr. Xi Jinping have received your public expression. Just a few days ago, you posted Dear President of China by Thomas Friedman, the famous journalist, author of The World Is Flat, aiming to plead for visas for several western journalists.
But this was not the first time that Mr. Xi received a letter, nor was it the first time that Mr. Friedman wrote a letter. In that case, both are experienced. So, Why not let me say something of experience.
Let’s talk about Mr. Xi’s first received letter. Before Mr. Xi took office, you published an open letter Ten Questions for China’s Heir Presumptive on February 10th, 2012, while Obama was to participate in a new presidential campaign. The author was David Shambaugh, Director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University. And he has a gross Chinese name: Shen Dawei (沈大偉).
Shambaugh wrote harshly,was criticized for his total ignorance of diplomatic etiquette and his provocation by Professor Chen Ping, who was then a visiting scholar at the University of Texas. For instance, the autor asked, “Will Xi be sufficiently confident to all the relaxation of tightened controls on mainstream media, social media, the Internet and educational institutions?”, ”How will Xi handle the growing discontent across Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America over China’s rapacious and mercantilist energy, aid and trade policies?”
In such a domineering manner, Shambaugh pre-convicted China. Mr. Chen Ping was therefore irritated and wrote Ten questions for the US leader presumptive, tit for tat. Such a mazing would even leave the dramas like House of Cards, Downton Abbey far behind.
But indeed, dear NYT, Shambaugh’s letter was so terrible . He almost degraded himself to a clownish comic role. Have you ever watched how the Chinese comic star Stephen Chow swears in his movies, including “although you are so mean and shameless, I still…”? Blah blah. It may amuse people, but could not be put on the stage of great diplomacy.
However, nobody would take it seriously. That mature man of ours would only smile at it. It seemed that he did not take any reaction, but he would know, and you all knew that he knew.
Even so, NYT has always been a charming media in my eyes. Though Shambaugh’s words were harsh，there was still a crude fascination of tuhao. Even the title of scholar can’t conceal his cowboy mind. But this time, Friedman staged a comeback, whereas with a new tone. On December 15th, Friedman, facing Mr. Xi, who has been in power for one year, presented a Wang-Xifeng style of restraint and acrimony. (Has Friedman read Dream of the Red Chamber? Chairman Mao once recommended everybody reading it.)
Your enthusiasm on our Big man was so strong that it lured me to join.
To start with Friedman’s last open letter, written to President Hu Jintao in June, 2011. He played a travesty role as a Chinese official in the Ministry of State Security and advised to Mr. Hu that the Arabians requested not only for bread or GDP, but also for “dignity”, while dignity could only be measured by the votes. Therefore, however prosperous Chinese economy was, uprisings like “the Beijing Spring” might happen if China didn’t follow the western political system.
Mr. Friedman compared China as the Middle East, which was a wooly-headed idea, and forgot the booming “Wallstreet Spring” at the same time. Even so, I still admire his talent. I always see such travesty roles in works by excellent columnists of erotic literature. For example, a woman would imagine herself to be a computer desk. In such kind of dramas, Uncle Sam usually enjoys playing a role in cop costumes, holding a whip. While this time, he puts on a Chinese suit, showing a sexy feeling as a traitor.
Friedman apparently copied the film The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen). But that was before the exposure of the US surveillance program PRISM by Edward Snowden, or else he wouldn’t have done so.
Clearly aware of your not being heard, you still insisted on performing in such a way. This is actually fascinating. Of course I know that the letter was written to China, or rather, to those Chinese people who looked up to the U.S.. I think you can be sure of getting their pure love, which is na?ve, instead of the mature type that you like.
I like this new open letter by Mr. Friedman very much.
He first claimed that he led toward the camp in the global investment community that was optimistic about China, different from the other camp that screams short of China. I love his straightforwardness. Unlike Hilary always mentioned the universal value, Friedman referred to the business. It was for the actual state interests of the U.S. that Friedman would confess in a condescending manner. How frank it was. Without interests, love is never true love.
Then, Mr. Friedman murmured that the system under control of Mr. Xi was not as stable as he had imagined, according to what China did recently, i.e., two Chinese-language websites of U.S. media were blocked, and more than 20 journalists in China got refused for their visa renewal. He then expressed the whole through details – the journalist were treated like this because they disclosed the corruption among the high level government officials. However, Mr. Xi shouldn’t have blame the journalists. It was a necessary result of developed internet technology and corruption of the officials. In the era of globalization, the western journalists have to pay attention to these. “The Times and Bloomberg did your leadership a huge service in exposing this. It was a warning heart attack.”
Heart attack? How well Friedman knows about China. This is a common curse in quarrels on the streets. After showing his love, Mr. Friedman began to express his discontent, as if deeply conscious of everything, lovingly and meanly. Indeed, only Sai Jinhua(Seth Meyers, you know that woman ) could reach such a level.
Then he carefully warned: if the reporters did not get the visas, they would continue to report in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, and their reports would be more unbalanced as they could not be on site. It was almost implying business,, ”Give me the visa, then we can cooperate with you in reporting corruption." Finally he asked,what would happen “when wealth gets concentrated at the top, power gets distributed at the bottom and transparency gets injected everywhere" So what will happen? Friedman’s answer is Occupation of Wall Street and the Snowden event. How funny!
I have to admit that Friedman’s means even makes me somewhat dizzy. I don’t know what’s his purpose of disclosing America’s dark side. Was it just for politeness so that he could criticize more about China, or he was intended to satirize the United States by writing to Xi？But I really know the anxiety of such sober people like Friedman in the United States. He was just praising Shanghai’s secondary school education, and was anxious about the backward of American education. He even knows it is an ”Institutional issue” in the U.S., and said “it is always the locals defending democracy when going to China and Singapore any time in the past, but now, it is the Americans instead.” I guess, are you too embarrassed to say it out even if you have already been aware that the United States is to undergo heart attack?
Anyhow, I respect Mr. Friedman’s efforts for America’s national interests.My companions and I are doing the same for China. In a world without Comintern, an American spares no effort to make the statement and claimed that all that he said was for China’s interests, which may also be regarded as internationalist spirit. However, his anxiety seemed really exaggerating and it’s somewhat…It is really awkward for me to say. Given the famous magazine the Economist this year depicted President X JP wearing Imperial Robe expressing that you are actually worshiping him in your mind.,a Chinese old saying could be vividly portrayed, which is “The emperor doesn’t worry while his e□□u□h worries.”
As with what had happened to some reporters, to be honest, I do not know. I’ve met some of them who are really outstanding. Personally, I hope to see them again soon. I think both sides need some adjustment. But let me tell you, from my perspective, the one to whom you wrote, might be influenced by your country’s movie “Men in Black" in which Will Smith said to a woman who was showing love to him: “I should take the initiative!” So， “New York Times”， take it easy! Don’t be too proactive. (who will be the next to make confession? Mr. Krugman? )
As for corruption, in my stand ，I can only says that you’d better trust the capability of Chinese government and media’s to deal with it. Besides, Mr. Friedman’s recent series of articles have made ??it clear that he believes the Chinese government is more able to deal with this issue than the U.S.
On the other hand, the New York times should be happy, as your being blocked in China (actually we have various ways to see your beautiful face), is the affirmation of your ability to set the agenda. The Global Times believes that you want to be the super media empire to control China’s public opinion, which I don’t entirely agree. Personally, I don’t think your correspondents or even ambassador have Friedman’s insight, as their excessive manipulation of public opinion was beyond the limit, and evolved into propaganda and intimidation. As you can see,. the pm2.5issue in an industrial society is not surprising at all and it can also be solved gradually. And yet it has become a big issueby sensationalization,becoming a nightmare for the Chinese middle class. who clamor every day that they cannot live through in China unless migrate, totally ignoring the fact -that in currentt world, wise people are scrambling to live in China. At present, about 1.5 million Taiwanese refused to go back to their “democratic beacon” after living in Mainland China. There are also many Americans thinking the same way. As to your claim,you are considering refusal to Chinese journalists’ visa as revenge, my personal perspective is that it’s completely okay, so that we can avoid “wasting taxpayers’ money”.
If we can’t meet soon, it would be better to separate for a while. Distance creates beauty. Both sides may have space to introspect our feelings. Your letter also reminds us of taking good discretion and discriminate carefully, avoiding hurting those international friends who really love China.
Look forward to meet you again! Just here waiting for you!
Good health!
A good fella from China
________________________________________________
Author: Yuliang, the chief commentator of the Observer Post (www.guancha.cn)
Guancha.cn is the famous civil media in China which foucs on the political and economic news ,especially ‘Chinese model’ . Eric.Li and Zhangweiwei,who are columnists of NYT and The Huffington Post used to first published all their aricles(Chinese version) on Guancha.cn.
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: This letter is written in Chinglish, the most powerful language in future,so if you can’t understand it well for now,don’t worry.You would get it.