“大众政治论坛”是澳洲悉尼的一个具有左翼倾向的政治论坛。2006年7月14日的论坛演讲主题是“向中国出售铀的后果”（Selling Uranium to China – Consequences!）。本次论坛主持帕特.汤姆斯女士根据斯图亚特.里兹教授（悉尼大学“和平与冲突研究中心”主任）的推荐邀请了澳大利亚民主中国阵线主席秦晋作为本次论坛的主讲人之一，另一主讲人为理查德.布罗伊诺斯基先生。布罗伊诺斯基先生是悉尼大学客座教授、前澳洲资深外交官，曾出任过越南、南韩和墨西哥大使。以下是秦晋“大众政治论坛”演讲全文。
I am pleased to be invited through referral of Professor Rees of Sydney University to address the Politics In the Pub tonight on the issue of selling uranium to China. It is a great honour to meet the co-speaker for the night, Richard Broinowski, Adjunct Professor Sydney Uni, former senior Australian diplomat and author of FACT OR FISSION. I am thankful to Ms Pat Toms who chair the forum tonight for giving me this opportunity for a say.
Uranium is a very heavy metal which can be used as an abundant source of concentrated energy. Uranium is multi-uses, can be used to generate electricity and also develop nuclear weapons.
Australian uranium should be sold only to countries which are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and which allow international inspection to verify that it is used only for peaceful purposes. According to the promises by the Chinese leaders, China seemingly qualifies both counts.
Let’s first assume that China would abide by the agreement. As Australia is not the sole supplier of uranium to China, it is possible for China to use the Australian uranium only for the peaceful purposes while the uranium from other sources can be used for the development of nuclear weapons.
If in World War II, Australia sold copper to Japan under the conditions that the Japanese should not use the Australian copper to make bullets to shoot Australian soldiers, however, what Japan did was to replace the copper for peaceful civil use with that imported from Australia, and to make the ammunition with the copper saved to fight with Australia in the battlefield. Would you say that the bullet shooting Australian soldiers had nothing to do with the Australian copper sold to Japan?
Selling uranium to China might be in Australia's short-term economic interest, it is in my point of view not in Australia’s long-term national security interest.
How, on the basis of this agreement, can Australia be sure China will use its uranium for peaceful rather than military means?
Let me give two examples of how the Chinese Government has long been ignoring or invalidating its commitments and treaties in dealing with the international community.
In 1998 China became signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
However, to this day, these two treaties have not been ratified and put into operation in China.
Secondly, the Chinese Government has failed in its commitment to abide by the WTO by opening up and liberalizing its banking system and media organizations.
Chinese Government is always good at cover-up. Let me give you an example of tactics usually used by the Chinese government.
Outbreaks of SARS and then avian flu were initially denied and hidden. According to eyewitness accounts, when SARS broke out in China and the WHO brought in a team of disease experts for an inspection, SARS patients were packed into ambulances and driven around Beijing. They were only returned to the hospitals after the inspectors concluded Beijing was not under threat of SARS.
What assurance does Australia have that such tactics will not be employed to avoid detection of misuse of its uranium? What sort of inspection regime is needed to ensure the use of Australian uranium is not mismanaged?
Now I would like to show the recent political mentality of the Chinese Communist Party for your reference.
Let me quote The Global Socialism Yellow Paper, issued by the Chinese Academy of Social Science on 11th May 2006: the global socialist movement hit all time low because of the substantial change of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European Bloc thus resulted in capitalism reaching its peak. However, the global socialist movement not only survived the tremendous blow of the radical change, but also revived and made progress to some extent.
This was especially so for China, with one fifth of the world's population, which continued the road of socialism and reform with open door policies and achieved great success.
The global socialist movement is now walking out of the low ebb to its resurrection. It went on to predict that the US led global capitalism will be eventually replaced by the Chinese Communist Party led global socialism.
This is a signal not to be neglected. As the national power of China is increasing, the CCP has become more and more impatient with Deng Xiaoping’s foreign policy of stratagem of concealment. The policy of stratagem of concealment is essentially an accumulation of forces in hiding.
The actual meaning of this rhetoric should be interpreted in this way: the so called upholding of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the continuance of CCP one Party rule, the so called Chinese Communist Party led global socialism is globalizing one party autocratic rule, the so called replacement of US led global capitalism by Chinese Communist Party led global socialism is in fact the global replacement of democracy by autocracy.
It is noticeable that the stance against democracy by the CCP is tougher than ever. They reject western democracy while claiming that the CCP’s rule is democracy itself.
The Democracy White Paper by the CCP came out in March 2006. It declared that democracy in China is democracy under the leadership of the CCP. It complained that the Western media has a prejudice against democracy in China because they apply Western standards. China has kept a high rate of over 9 percent of economic growth for the past 20 odd years, this high economic growth is really unimaginable under an autocracy without democracy.
Unique, universal and absolute democracy is non existent. Real democracy is not just the model, but its application in accordance with the condition of a country and the way it conforms to the requirements of the development of the country.
I think we may have a fresh recollection of the joint press conference of Bush and Hu Jintao in last April. When asked if China needs to take democracy into operation, Hu Jintao replied: "I don’t understand the concept of democratic country raised, but we do insist that there is no modernization without democracy".
Many commentators misinterpreted the real meaning of what Hu said and believed that Hu will push forward with democratic political reforms. Many have high expectations of this.
As a matter of fact, Hu’s implication was on the contrary. The genuine meaning of Hu's statement is that the West has Western democracy, while China has China’s democracy. Since China has achieved tremendous success in its modernization, that demonstrates the conformity of the current political system to China's situation and how it embodies the interests of the whole people, so it is democracy with Chinese characteristics.
It is obvious that Hu's real meaning does not value and endorse democracy, but actually negates it.
Now what I want to say is, if this is the case, my concern is the fate of the free world. A big country like China under the control of CCP, has no similarity to Cuba and North Korea. It is potentially a menace to the world as it becomes another super power under the guise of peaceful rise. At that time, China will have a showdown with democracies.
I call on all democracy and peace loving people around the world to be fully aware of the potential danger, and to always remain on guard. World democracies should be vigilant to defuse the future possible bombshell of the monstrous CCP.
Is China on the road to a "peaceful rise", as CCP leaders tell us? Its growing economy and huge domestic market dazzle the West, while its military build-up and reactionary political stance has prompted worries and fears of its potential as a negative force.
Historically, a newly emerging power often clashes with existing powers. In the Asia-Pacific region, the most likely zone of conflict is Taiwan, with its pro-independence leader repeatedly challenging the territorial integrity of the communist People's Republic.
Though not imminent, should such a conflict materialise and draw in the US, what would Australia do? Australia's long-standing security relationship with the US will be in conflict with its benign business relationship with China and Australia will be put to the test by both. By selling uranium to China, Australia is possibly backing the foe of an ally.
History repeats itself if people keep forgetting it. World War II was to a great extent caused by the appeasement of Nazi Germany by Britain and France.
At the end of World War II, repeating Chamberlain's mistake, US president Franklin Roosevelt and British prime minister Winston Churchill signed the Yalta treaty with Stalin, in which the Soviet Union obtained an undeserved post-war position in East Asia.
With the continuation of this policy by the Truman administration, communist-led troops were given a free hand to sweep over mainland China. The US looked on without going to rescue its former wartime ally. This incited Kim Il-sung's adventure in the Korean War for the unification of the whole peninsula. Thus took shape the Cold War of East-West confrontation, lasting 40-odd years.
Today, a neo-appeasement is taking effect. In confronting the rise of China, the policies and performances of Western democracies are less than laudable. Western leaders, Australia among them, seek access to China's huge market and play down the significance of democratic principles and human rights, overlooking the suffering of the 1.3 billion people under Chinese totalitarianism. Facing China’s rapid development as a “rising power”, should Western democracies commit the same error as they did with Hitler?
The liberalising economic policy since the end of the 1970s has pushed China forward into an unprecedented period of high growth. Most Western observers believed political reform would inevitably follow.
Unfortunately, the present outlook for China is not positive. The injection of enormous amounts of capital has rescued the regime of the CCP; the high rate of economic growth has helped legitimise it and keep it in power. I cannot help myself asking this question: Have investments and other commercial activities in China impeded more urgent political reform?
It is in our interests, both as a nation and as private citizens, to more vigorously support the democracy movement in China.
Appeased dictators only demand more, but if you stand up to dictators on matters of principle, they retreat. It is perfectly possible for Western countries have a “two track” policy with China, incorporating with both a healthy economic relationship and a frank political dialogue. Democracies such as Australia should support calls for accelerated progress toward political reform in China.
In the absence of proper pressure from the world’s political leaders on Beijing, it is vital that the world’s people raise the pressure on Beijing for democracy and freedom in China.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Thank you for your time.
_(博讯自由发稿区发稿) (博讯 boxun.com)(本文只代表作者或者发稿团体的观点、立场)
果农年关卖果难 雪上加霜 市容借机榨钱财(图)
我的父母快70了还要交苛捐杂税 (评：我的辛酸故事 )