Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed: WSJ

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019, months before China disclosed the COVID-19 pandemic, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report.

The newspaper said the report - which provides fresh details on the number of researchers affected, the timing of their illnesses, and their hospital visits - may add weight to calls for a broader probe of whether the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from the laboratory.

The report came on the eve of a meeting of the World Health Organization's decision-making body, which is expected to discuss the next phase of an investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

A National Security Council spokeswoman had no comment on the Journal's report but said the Biden administration continued to have "serious questions about the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, including its origins within the Peoples Republic of China."

She said the U.S. government was working with the WHO and other member states to support an expert-driven evaluation of the pandemic's origins "that is free from interference or politicization."

"We're not going to make pronouncements that prejudge an ongoing WHO study into the source of SARS-CoV-2, but we've been clear that sound and technically credible theories should be thoroughly evaluated by international experts," she said.

The Journal said current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed a range of views about the strength of the report's supporting evidence, with one unnamed person saying it needed "further investigation and additional corroboration."

The United States, Norway, Canada, Britain and other countries in March expressed concerns about the WHO-led COVID-19 origins study, and called for further investigation and full access to all pertinent human, animal and other data about the early stages of the outbreak.

Washington is keen to ensure greater cooperation and transparency by China, according to a source familiar with the effort.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.

On Sunday, China's foreign ministry noted that a WHO-led team had concluded a lab leak was extremely unlikely after a visit in February to the virology institute. "The U.S. continues to hype the lab leak theory," the ministry said in response to a request for comment by the Journal. "Is it actually concerned about tracing the source or trying to divert attention?"

The Trump administration had said it suspected the virus may have escaped from a Chinese lab, which Beijing denies.

A State Department fact sheet released near the end of the Trump administration had said "the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses." It did not say how many researchers.

China refused to give raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team probing the origins of the pandemic, according to one of the team’s investigators, Reuters reported in February, potentially complicating efforts to understand how the outbreak began.

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Andrea Shalal; Editing by Daniel Wallis)

中国古代的民主意识

 我发现海外有许多华人把中国大陆迟迟未能走上民主大道的原因，归咎于中国古代文化的落后。他们特别指责孔孟的儒家学说，以为那就是封建专制的由来，孔孟就是封建帝王的御用文人。这个认识在中国大陆也大有人在，而且不只是现在，1919年的“五四”运动，就喊出过“打倒孔家店”的口号。

持这种观点的人，总是说不要怪罪哪个政府专制施暴，我们的文化就是孳生专制极权的土壤。这就把人们推倒专制，追求民主的视线与力量，从政治现实引向了文化历史，掩护了那些正在抵挡民主潮流，坚持独裁专制的真凶。如果到现实中细察一下，不难发现，所有持这种观点的人，对施行民主，没有信心；而对追究历史，也并不热心。

　　作为先秦诸子百家之一的儒家，其代表人物及其著述，已经经过了两千多年。不管他们当时说了什么，后人争气不争气，民主不民主，他们哪能管得了呢？要把自己的不争气，没有走上民主之路的原因归咎于他们，难道不荒唐吗？有人说：是他们的文化思想束缚了后人的思想。那么，孔孟若反问一句：你说我们的哪些话是要后人推行专制，不要民主的呢？此人恐怕就难以回答了。原来他不过人云亦云。专制就是施暴，而先秦儒学的中心思想是“仁”，反对“施暴”。正因为如此，孔孟诸师徒虽周游列国，而终不为所用。如果他们的思想真是为封建专制服务的，那么当时的君王为何都弃而不用？后来的朱元璋甚至说，孟子若活着，格杀不容。他还亲手删除了《孟子》中他最不能容的“民为贵”等80多处。原来孔孟学说以至整个先秦文化蕴含了许多可贵的民主意识。

１.天下为公

　　“天下为公”四个字最能表现儒家对于社会制度的基本构想，至今没有谁能提出比它更好的设想。世上只有极少数国家可能会走近那个境界。那不是“封建专制”四个字，而恰恰是与封建专制的家天下，党天下相对立的。这句话源于儒家经典著作《礼记‧礼运》的《大同》篇，是儒家对于人类社会理想境界的设想。文章开头是孔子（公元前５５１－４２９年）对于自己没逢盛世的慨叹，接着就假托远古，展开了对那个理想盛世的设想。原文是：

　　“大道之行也，天下为公。选贤与能，讲信修睦，故人不独亲其亲，不独子其子，使老有所终，壮有所用，幼有所长，矜寡孤独废疾者，皆有所养。男有分，女有归。货恶其弃于地也，不必藏于己；力恶其不出于身也，不必为己。是故谋闭而不兴，盗窃乱贼而不作，故外户而不闭，是谓大同。”

　　“大道之行也，天下为公”，是说人类理想的美好盛世，天下是天下人所公有的。那么谁来管理天下？它提出了“选贤与能”，即经民主选举出来的德才兼备者。在人际关系上，他提出“讲信修睦”，即讲究诚信，营造和睦关系。人们不只是善待自己的亲人，也要同样地善待别人，这就是“不独亲其亲，子其子”的意思。对于社会人的分工与待遇，他提出“使老有所终，壮有所用，幼有所长，矜寡孤独废疾者，皆有所养。男有分，女有归。”老人有一个善终的归宿，成年人都有发挥才智的地方，小孩能得到适时的教育，鳏寡孤独病残的人也都衣食无忧。男有所事，女有所归。一个社会能够达到这个境界，可以称得上民主，文明和幸福了。可文章并未止于此，它对人的精神面貌和社会秩序，还有进一步的设想与描述。他说：“货恶其弃于地也，不必藏于己；力恶其不出于身也，不必为己。”财物只怕浪费在外，而不必藏在自己家里；劳力只怕不是自己奉献，而不必专为己有。你看这个思想境界高不高？正因为物质精神境界都达到了这样的高度，社会秩序就好了，没有阴谋暴乱，偷盗抢劫，甚至离家外出都不必关门。最后文章把这个境界归结为“大同”，意思就是说这个境界就是世界大同。

　　《礼记‧礼运》在《大同》篇结束之后，紧接着开始了一个以“是谓小康”为接尾的下段，描写孔子不得已而身在其中的当时的社会状况。那段话的原文是：

　　“今大道既隐，天下为家，各亲其亲，各子其子，货力为已。大人世及以为礼，域郭沟池以为固。礼义以为纪，以正君臣，以笃父子，以睦兄弟，以和夫妇，以设制度，以立田里。以贤勇知，以功为已。故谋用是作，而兵由此起。禹、汤、文、武、成王、周公，由此其选也。此六君子者，未有不谨于礼者也。以着其义，以考其信，著有过，刑仁讲让，示民有常。如有不由此者，在埶者去，众以为殃，是谓小康。”

　　这段的大意是说：可惜当今，理想盛世不存在了。天下变成了家天下，实行着世袭制度，人们个为个，极力占有财产。统治者制定许多礼制法规来约束人民，调整关系，以求百姓顺从，天下稳定。但社会秩序还是很乱，人民遭殃。

　　在这个“大同”和“小康”的对比中，孔子明显地表现了对于前者的向往和对后者的无耐，与后世专制主义者讳言大同而力倡小康正好相反。

　　对于2500年前先儒的这种思想，我们能指责什么？它哪儿有一点提倡封建专制的意思？孔子一向主张“己所不欲，勿施于人”（《论语》）。《大同》这篇仅有141个字的文章和已成为一本书的《共产党宣言》相比，除了没宣扬暴力之外，对于社会的基本制度－－共和，民主，社会道德，社会分工，社会保障，社会秩序，都有精辟的陈述，比《共》充实，明确得多。而《共》则相反，通篇充满了“暴力”，“压迫”，“消灭”，“统治”，“专政”等血腥词眼，而真正共产主义社会是什么样儿，却几乎只字未提。

　　有人或许说《大同》没有指出生产关系上的分配方式。在这一点上，孔子恰恰又想到马克思前面去了。他在另一处说过“不患寡而患不均，不患贫而患不安”（《论语》），可见孔子反对贫富悬殊，更不容忍富人对穷人的压迫剥削。他的一切思想都是从“仁”出发的。“仁”是什么？就是今天西方所说的“博爱”。只有暴君，暴徒才厌恶和害怕这种思想。今天的人已经看到，马克思主义的暴力统治和专政给世界带来的是什么。

２.　民贵君轻

　　孟子（公元前３７２－２８９年）是先秦时期继孔子之后的第二位儒学大师。他与当时的齐宣王，梁惠王等有过多次的直接对话。在那时候，他充分发挥了孔子的“仁”与“天下为公”的思想，强调了人民的权利。民贵君轻就是他提出来的，见于《孟子》（以下凡孟语均见《孟子》）。原文是：

　　“民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻．是故得乎丘民而为天子，得乎天子而为诸侯，得乎诸侯而为大夫。诸侯危社子稷，则变置。”这话的意思是说：人民最可贵，国家在次，君主更在其次。得民心的才能成为天子，得天子心的才能成为诸侯，得诸侯心的才能成为大夫。诸侯若危害国家社会，就撤换他。他这里强调的是不得民心不能为天子。

　　孟子还认为有失民心的天子，人们就可以推翻它。有这样一个故事，说齐宣王问孟子：“商汤放逐了夏桀，周武王讨伐了商纣，有这事吗？”孟子答道：“传记上有这回事”，齐宣王又问：“臣民能杀他的君王吗?”孟子回答说：“伤害人道的人叫贼，伤害义礼的人叫残，残贼之类的人叫一夫，我听说诛灭了一个一夫商纣，没听说过犯上杀了一个君主。”

　　孟子认为待民善者谓之天子──君，待民恶者谓之一夫，一夫被打倒是应该的。他能把君民关系想到这个程度，不说他是民主主义者，至少堪称先知先觉。2300年后的今天，世界上有多少国家元首不是这样认识和处理与人民的关系的。　　　　　　　

　　孟子的话，是那些坚持独裁专制的君王不能接受的。他能直面君王慷概陈词，勇气可嘉。从另一方面来讲，没人杀他，没人抓他，也没人把他打成颠覆国家罪，可见先秦时期，言论禁忌还没有后世苛暴。

３.　国人皆曰贤，然后察之

　　对于“得乎丘民而为天子”的人，如何执政，孟子有一套几乎近于今天西方民主国家的议会民主程序。他对梁惠王说：“国君进贤，如不得已，将使卑逾尊，疏逾戚，可不慎与？左右皆曰贤，未可也；诸大夫皆曰贤，未可也；国人皆曰贤，然后察之，见贤焉，然后用之。左右皆曰不可，勿听；诸大夫皆曰不可，勿听；国人皆曰不可，然后察之，见不可焉，然后去之。左右皆曰可杀，勿听；诸大夫皆曰可杀，勿听；国人皆曰可杀，然后察之，见可杀焉，然后杀之。”

　　这段话的意思首先是说，执政者用人只能以贤为准，不能唯亲，不能唯尊。必要的时候，可以使地位低的超过地位高的，关系疏远的超过关系密切的。这一点就是今天民主国家也未必能作好。它的第二个意思是：执政者对于人事的处理要慎重，不可轻率，独断专行，不能偏信偏从。身边的人都说这个人好，不可认定；众大夫都说他好，也不可认定；如果老百姓都说他好，那去实地考察一下，看他是不是确实好，再录用他。如果身边的人都说他不好，别听；众大夫都说他不好，也别听；如果老百姓都说他不好，那就实地考察一下，看他是不是确实不好，如果是，就不要再用他了。身边的人都说这人该杀，别听；众大夫说他该杀，也别听；如果老百姓说他该杀，那就实地考察一下，如果确实该杀，那就杀了他。

　　一个2300多年前的人能直面统治者，把人民的权力阐述到这种程度，他的睿智与勇气，令我非常敬佩。他把“天下为公”具体化了。他虽没有提到“议会表决”这样的词，但他的想法已接近今天的民主议会程序。不难理解为什么“天下为公”和“民贵君轻”的思想不为君王所接受，孟子也像孔子一样一生不得志。

４.　保民之王　莫之能御也

　　现在的国家元首几乎无不说自己是为人民服务的，是代表人民的。其实要检验真假很容易，看他是否尊重民权民生。孟子强调的民权，上文已经说过，孟子对于民生的阐述更多。他强调人民的生计，他说：“明君制民之产，必使仰足以事父母，俯足以畜妻子，乐岁终身饱，凶年免于死亡。”

　　他认为好的君主给予百姓的财产必须使他能够上养父母，下养妻子儿女,好年成得温饱，坏年成也不会有人饿死。他说：“老者衣帛食肉,黎民不饥不寒,然而不王者,未之有也”意思是说：君王如果做到了使老人吃好，穿好,老百姓不饥不寒,那天下人没有不拥戴你的。孟子还对齐宣王说过:“保民而王,莫之能御也”,意思是说,如果能因爱护百姓而强大，那就没人能与你为敌了。有人可能要指责孟子是向君主进言，劝恶人行善，与虎谋皮。这人还真说对了，没听说过哪个君主采用孔孟学说的。孔孟这样操劳，甚至把自己弄得没饭吃。他们与封建君主并不同路。他们不是民主的敌人，他们的学说也不应该被贬为封建专制文化。

　　孟子也是十分痛恨贫富悬殊的，特别痛恨君王不顾人民死活,贪图自己的奢华享受。他有一次问齐宣王：“用刀把儿杀人与刀口儿杀人有什么不同?”答:“没什么不同。”又问;“用刀口儿杀人和用政令杀人有什么不同?”又答;“没什么不同。”于是孟子进一步说：“今天你厨房里有香喷喷的肉食,你的马圈里有肥壮的马匹,而百姓却面有饥色，野外有饿死的尸体，这不就等于领着野兽来吃人吗!”　　对于这位终年84岁的老翁的这些思想，我们后人还有什么可指责他的呢？

５.　防民之口　甚于防川

　　先秦时期，不只孔孟学说中蕴含着可贵的民主意识，许多非孔孟的著作中也蕴含着丰富的民主意识。这里我们先从《左传》中选讲一个故事吧。故事的名子叫“子产不毁乡校”。子产（公元前５８１－５２２）是郑国的卿相；毁，是撤销，砸烂的意思；乡校是乡里公共集会的场所。

　　故事说的是：郑国有些人时常到乡校那里游玩，聚在一起议论政府的行为。子产的手下有一个叫然明的人对子产说：“砸烂乡校吧。”子产问: “为什么？那些人早晚聚在一起，议论我们工作的好坏，他们认为好的我们就做，他们认为不好的我们就改正。他们是我们的老师，何必要去毁掉它？我听说过人应该用好的行为去减少别人的怨恨，而没听说过用耀武扬威来阻止别人怨恨的。要想阻止还不容易吗?但堵老百姓的嘴就像堵大水一样，大口子崩溃，必然伤人众多，难以救治，不如放开小口子疏导，让我们把它当成医药良方来听取。”2560年前，我们的先人能有这样的思想，不管他是谁，都是难能可贵的。

６.　齐王纳谏

　　《战国策》里有一个很有趣的故事叫“邹忌讽齐王纳谏”。邹忌是战国时期齐威王（公元前３５６－３２０）手下的臣子。讽，劝导的意思；纳谏，采纳批评意见。这是邹忌劝说齐威王采纳批评意见的故事。

　　邹忌身高八尺有余，相貌漂亮，早晨起来穿衣戴帽，照镜子，然后对他的妻子说：“我和城北徐公哪个漂亮?”妻子说：“你漂亮得很，徐公怎么赶得上你呢！”城北徐公是齐国的美男子，邹忌不相信，又问他的妾：“我和徐公哪个漂亮些?”妾说：“徐公怎么赶得上你呢?”隔日，有客人来，交谈中他又问客人：“我和徐公哪个漂亮些?”客人说：“徐公不如你漂亮。”第二天，徐公来了，他仔细观察徐公，觉得自己不如他，又照镜子看，觉得相差甚远。晚上他躺在床上想：妻子说我漂亮，是偏爱我；妾说我漂亮，是怕我；客人说我漂亮，是有求于我。

　　于是上朝见威王，说：“我的妻子偏爱我，我的妾怕我，我的客人有求于我，都说我比城北徐公美。现在齐国的土地方圆上千里，有一百二十座城镇，宫庭里的人，没有不偏爱您的，朝庭的臣子们没有不怕您的，四境之内的人，没有不有求于您的。由此看来，您受到的蒙蔽很大呀！”威王说：“你说得好啊。”于是下令说：“官员百姓有当面指出我的过错的，受上等奖赏；有写信批评我的，受中等奖赏；有在外议论让我听到的，受下等奖赏。”命令才出来的时候，上门提意见的人很多，门前就像街市一样；几个月后，还有人来提意见；一年以后，人们想提意见也没话可说了。韩，赵，燕，魏各国听说此事，都到齐国来朝拜。这就是所谓的不出朝庭而取胜的故事。

　　历史事实未必完全如此，但这个故事给后人的启示是弥足珍贵的。讲民主，十几亿人有十几亿个智慧；不讲民主，十几亿人中就只有几个智慧。

结语　

　　这里从先秦古籍中选录了几个例子，距今最近的也有2300多年了。不管当初出于何人，都是我国古代文化的精华。即使有人不承认它与今天的民主思想相近，但也无法抹杀它以人为本，以民为本，重民权，重民生的民主意识。把中国迟迟未能走上民主道路的罪责归于中国古代文化，归于先儒，不仅是不公正的，客观上为专制强权打了掩护。我国文化中的确有糟粕的东西，有维护帝制皇权的部分，但那都是历代帝王强加进去的文化糟粕。“天下为公”和“世界大同”的思想之所以被掩盖，未能发扬，是专制强权造成的。孔子孟子之所以终生不得志，就是因为他们本身处在专制强权之下，不过那时的专制比后世的宽松得多，百姓有说话的自由，指责了君王也没有被抓进监狱的。

　　中华文明经历了几千年，漫长的历史中夹带泥沙是不可避免的，就是孔孟之道也并非净如清水，但其中的精华部分，汇集了古代先人的智慧和道德修养。孙中山先生就是看到了中国古代文化中的民主精华，并以它为基础，吸收了西方现代民主思想与实践经验，而创立了三民主义和中华民国。他的口号“天下为公”和“世界大同”就是从孔子那里来的。可惜，他被马克思主义的暴力打败了。人类在世界各地实践马克思主义近200年失败后，终于在1988年来自世界7５位诺贝尔奖得主在巴黎集会的宣言上，写道: “人类要想在21世纪生存下去，必须从2500年前的孔子那里去吸取智慧”。世界尚且如此看重我们的古代文化，我们有什么理由不尊重自己的传统文化？

诺贝尔经济学者哈耶克：为什么极权总是最坏者当权？

 哈耶克是奥地利裔英国经济学家，新自由主义代表人物，1974年获诺贝尔经济学奖，代表作有《通往奴役之路》、《个人主义与经济秩序》等。他对市场经济理论、市场机制的运行过程，研究十分深入彻底，但极端的自由主义，也令他被贴上了“保守主义”、“反理想主义”的标签。哈耶克思想深刻影响英国首相撒切尔和美国总统罗纳德·里根，同时他对于社会主义的预测在苏联的解体过程中完全获得证实，因此得到了世界各国学术界的高度赞扬。

1944年，哈耶克发表划时代名著《通向奴役的道路》。他是这样论证的：如果社会主义用中央计划取代市场，那就必然要建立计委来负责制定计划。为了贯彻计划、控制资源的流动，计委就必须拥有对于经济事务的广泛的自由裁量权。但是，取消了市场，就无法形成价格；计委没有市场价格作为决策的依据，也就是说它没有办法知道何种生产计划在经济上是可行的。

1988年哈耶克在《致命的自负》一书中说：人类文明的诞生是起源于私人财产的制度。价格是唯一一种能使经济决策者们透过隐性知识和分散知识互相沟通的方式，如此一来才能解决经济计算问题。控制经济就是控制生命。统制经济，必然造成无孔不入的全面压制，因而导致现代最为严酷的政治控制——极权主义。

计划经济与民主是不相容的。各种各样的集体主义有一个共同之处，首先在于他们都坚持一个高于一切的共同社会目标；其次，在他们达到目标的方法，他们都要将整个社会组织起来，控制社会的一切资源，以达到其单一的目标；第三，他们都拒绝承认每一个人都有一个自己的独立自主的领域，拒绝承认在该领域内个人自身的目标是至高无上不容侵犯的。而要推行作为理想的计划经济体系，独裁专制乃是最有效的制度性工具。因此，这种中央管制的计划经济，是最典型的极权主义。其对个人自由的摧残程度，远远超过历史上的封建专制政治。只有在自由竞争的私有经济制度内，民主政治才可能实行。然而，当民主政治受到集体主义教条支配时，民主政治将走向自我毁灭。

在计划经济下，也不可能有思想和学术的自由。思想的国有化，正是工业国有化的伴随物。哈耶克指出，极权国家集中控制宣传，一切宣传工具都被用来朝一个方向影响所有的人，隔绝外界，没有任何其他声音，天长日久，任何人都难免受其影响。民主国家虽也有众多宣传机构，但它们相互独立、互相竞争、目标各异、声音多元，二者截然不同。极权的宣传技巧之一，就是仍然使用旧字眼，但换上新的意义，如自由、民主、真理等；其次，则是控制一切信息来源，实施资讯垄断，决定一则新闻是否发布的唯一标准，看其是否会影响国民对政权的忠诚；第三，是严厉压制不同见解。如此，在没有任何不同声音的环境下，人们的独立思考能力逐渐萎缩，在长期单一的垄断的声音的灌输下，统治者的思想就成了全体国民的思想，统治者的目标也就成了全体国民的目标，这一现象扩展至一切精神领域：科学、法律、历史、文学……

政治权力与真理划上等号，真理也就死亡了。《通向奴役的道路》第十章的标题是：为什么最坏者当权？他驳斥所谓的“现存的极权统治的恶劣，是由该统治者品质造成的，与（极权）制度无关，因而是一桩历史偶发事件。”本章深入分析在极权社会管理阶层上发生的普遍的“劣币驱逐良币”现象，指出其绝非偶然现象，而是极权社会运行的基本法则，即“精英淘汰制”。

第一，低素质的社会大众。在极权社会中，一个人数众多、组织严密、意识形态统一的团体，往往不是由社会中素质较高的人构成。 原因在于，人们的教育水准越高，理智越强，其观点和趣味就越独立，也就越多样化，因而就越不易认同一个统一的意识形态和价值体系。因此，高度划一的看法和意志，势必降低团体的道德标准。同时，也只有这样的群体，才便于独裁者掌握控制，以达到其政治目标。另外，大多数人是并无自己的坚定信念的，适合成为被灌输的土壤。

第二个原因就是，不断地向群众灌输极其简单又极其粗糙的不需思考的信条。 这样，最坏者将得到一切温顺的和易受骗的人的支持，这些粉丝没有坚强信念而只准备接受一个现成的价值体系。只要“大声地、喋喋不休地向他们鼓吹这种体系的话”，那些思想模糊、随波逐流、感情与情绪易冲动的人就会接受他们的体系。

第三个原因是，不断地煽动仇恨。 最坏者都是训练有素的政治煽动家，他们利用忌妒等大众心理，强调“我们”与“他们”间的鸿沟，划分“敌我”，以凝聚自己的团体，故他们易于成功，这也是坏人易得势的原因。在德国，成为敌人的是犹太人，一直到财阀阶级接替了其地位为止。这和俄国把富农挑选出来当作敌人，同样是整个运动都以之为基础的反资本主义的不满情绪的结果。在德国或奥地利，犹太人曾被视为资本主义的代表人物，因为人民当中广大阶层对经商怀有传统的厌恶，致使犹太人更容易接近经商这个受歧视的职业。

第四，不择手段，践踏道德底线。 集体主义的道德原则是，目的可以使手段正确。因此，“只问目的，不择手段”是合法的。极权社会的一个基本的假定是，如果我们的行为是“为全体谋福利”的，则天下没有什么事不可做。其结果，是对一切道德价值的否定。因此，这就是那些肆无忌惮为非作歹的人得以爬上高位的关键，也是斯大林能残酷杀害那么多同志、战友的原因。这就表明，哪里存在着一个凌驾一切的共同目标，哪里就没有任何一般的道德规则的容身之地。

品格完善的人难于在极权社会中居于领导地位。 因为在该社会中，许多坏事都是以“共同目标”的名义、以“革命”的名义而施行的。所以，存心干坏事，乃是增进权力、爬上高位的必由之路。因道德良知而无法做这些事的人，将被摈弃于权力之门外。 哈耶克的《通往奴役之路》这本书，写在上个世纪四十年代，今天读起来，仍有很多振聋发聩之处。只要宪政和民主没有建立起来，最坏者当政就永远是一个不可回避的问题。 世上有好人，但绝无好人政治。乞求圣君、好人当政，那就是乞求暴政。

历史终究站在了哈耶克一边。曾经繁荣强盛的计划体制渐次衰亡，苏联帝国走向覆灭，把它的无数反人类罪行暴露在阳光下。而这一切，哈耶克在数十年前就已经预言过。

Data withheld from WHO team probing COVID-19 origins in China - Tedros

 GENEVA/ZURICH (Reuters) - Data was withheld from World Health Organization investigators who travelled to China to research the origins of the coronavirus epidemic, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Tuesday.

The United States, the European Union and other Western countries immediately called for China to give "full access" to independent experts to all data about the original outbreak in late 2019.

In its final report, written jointly with Chinese scientists, a WHO-led team that spent four weeks in and around Wuhan in January and February said the virus had probably been transmitted from bats to humans through another animal, and that a lab leak was "extremely unlikely" as a cause.

One of the team’s investigators has already said China refused to give raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team, potentially complicating efforts to understand how the global pandemic began.

"In my discussions with the team, they expressed the difficulties they encountered in accessing raw data," Tedros said. "I expect future collaborative studies to include more timely and comprehensive data sharing."

The inability of the WHO mission to conclude yet where or how the virus began spreading in people means that tensions will continue over how the pandemic started - and whether China has helped efforts to find out or, as the United States has alleged, hindered them.

"The international expert study on the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples," Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Korea, Slovenia, Britain, the United States and the European Union said in a joint statement.

"NOT EXTENSIVE ENOUGH"

Although the team concluded that a leak from a Wuhan laboratory was the least likely hypothesis for the virus that causes COVID-19, Tedros said the issue required further investigation, potentially with more missions to China.

"I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough," he told member states in remarks released by the WHO. "Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions."

The WHO team's leader, Peter Ben Embarek, told a press briefing it was "perfectly possible" the virus had been circulating in November or October 2019 around Wuhan, and so potentially spreading abroad earlier than documented so far.

"We got access to quite a lot of data in many different areas, but of course there were areas where we had difficulties getting down to the raw data and there are many good reasons for that," he said, citing privacy laws and other restrictions.

Second phase studies were required, Ben Embarek added.

He said the team had felt political pressure, including from outside China, but that he had never been pressed to remove anything from its final report.

Dominic Dwyer, an Australian expert on the mission, said he was satisfied there was "no obvious evidence" of a problem at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The European Union called the study "an important first step" but renewed criticisms that the origin study had begun too late, that experts had been kept out of China for too long, and that access to data and early samples had fallen short.

In a statement, Walter Stevens, EU ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, called for further study with "timely access to relevant locations and to all relevant human, animal and environmental data available".

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay, John Miller and Emma Farge; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Kevin Liffey)

The second Cold War is tracking the first war

 In Washington, Beijing and Moscow, all officials want to avoid the new Cold War.these days piece The New York Times suggests that there is little reason to worry. “The competition of today’s superpowers is little like the past,” he insisted. This article points out Russia’s relative weaknesses and China’s technological capabilities to emphasize how things have changed since the late 1940s.

Of course, these differences exist. But to me, the similarities between today’s events and the early Cold War seem more and more compelling and even eerie.

Once again, you have the Russian and Chinese axes arranged against the Western Alliance led from Washington.Last week, U.S. President Joe Biden Coping EU Summit — Secretary of State Antony Blinken speech The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) called for Western unity to deter China’s military ambitions and Russia’s “aggression.” in the meantime, Sergey LavrovThe Russian Foreign Minister was in China and called on Beijing and Moscow to oppose US power.

There is growing tension between the two.The Chinese Air Force has just staged the largest air force in history Invasion In Taiwan airspace.Last week we also imposed China Sanctions About EU and British politicians who spoke about human rights in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.Russia withdrew ambassador from Washington this month Protest That’s what we called unprecedented action from the United States. The first meeting between senior Biden administration officials and the Chinese government Public Law..

The line from Beijing is that the current surge in tensions is caused by Washington’s inability to respond to the rise of China. There is a truth to the idea that the United States is obsessed with hegemony.

But Beijing’s story ignores the extent to which changes in China itself have caused changes in attitudes in the United States and Europe. Increased oppression, Personality cult The bending of the Xi Jinping around and Chinese military power of the President, the view of the hawks on China in the United States and Europe making it easier to sell much more.

As in the early days of the first Cold War, several important events embodied growing anxiety in the western capital. From 1945 to 1946, the Soviet Union imposed a satellite system on Eastern Europe, fundamentally reassessing Moscow’s intentions.

More detailed revelation over the past year about the collapse of the democratic movement in Hong Kong and the persecution of Uighurs by Chinese authorities — now labeled genocide By the US Government — played a similar role in changing Western attitudes.Increased high-pitched voice in Chinese “Wolf Warrior” Diplomacy has also sounded a warning, playing a role similar to the series of anti-Western European speeches issued by the Soviet Union in the 1940s.

Until recently, it seemed that Western Europe might try to stay out of alignment in the new Cold War. The EU’s decision to sign a trade and investment agreement with China suggested that Beijing had succeeded in opening the gap between Washington and Brussels.However, as China imposes sanctions on key members of the European Parliament, the EU ratification China’s trade agreement.

The European efforts to secure a reconciliation with Russia, strongly promoted by French President Emmanuel Macron, went nowhere. Increasing oppression in Russia, Imprisonment Opposition activist Alexei Navalny narrows the gap between European and American views on Russia.

In this second Cold War, as in the first, there are flash points in areas where conflicts can intensify. In Asia, some of these are actually the unresolved issues left by the first Cold War: the situation on the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan. In Europe, the front line has moved east. The focus of tension between Moscow and the West is now Ukraine, not Berlin.

During the Trump administration, new competition between the United States and China often lacked the ideological side of the first Cold War. Donald Trump was the trading president, with a particular focus on the US trade deficit with China.According to his former national security adviser John Bolton, Trump Personally encouraged Xi Jinping to pursue a large housing policies in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

However, with the advent of the Biden administration, ideological competition has revived.Biden said he wanted to convene Democracy summit And it is clearly intended to reassert the US claim of being a “leader of the free world.” Like Harry Truman, who was president when the first Cold War was formed, Biden was a former Vice President, Democratic Senator, and was once looked down upon by the intellectual elite of his party. ..

Technical competition is once again at the heart of superpower competition. In the first Cold War, it was a nuclear technology and space race. Today’s superpower rivals are focused on 5G telecommunications and artificial intelligence.

But the technical conflict is happening in another situation. Forty years of globalization have ensured a deep integration of the Chinese and Western economies. Whether the integration can survive the intensifying competition between the great powers is the biggest open question about the new Cold War.

Who are the Uighurs and why is China being accused of genocide?

 Fri, March 26, 2021, 2:53 AM

Uighur family pictured outside their home

China is facing mounting criticism from around the world over its treatment of the mostly Muslim Uighur population in the north-western region of Xinjiang.

Human rights groups believe China has detained more than a million Uighurs over the past few years in what the state defines as "re-education camps".

There is evidence of Uighurs being used as forced labour and of women being forcibly sterilised.

The US is among several countries to have accused China of committing genocide and crimes against humanity through its repression of the of the Uighurs.

China denies such allegations, saying it has been combatting separatism and Islamist militancy in the region.

Who are the Uighurs?

There are about 12 million Uighurs, mostly Muslim, living in north-western China in the region of Xinjiang, officially known as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

The Uighurs speak their own language, similar to Turkish, and see themselves as culturally and ethnically close to Central Asian nations.

They make up less than half of the Xinjiang population.

Recent decades saw a mass migration of Han Chinese (China's ethnic majority) to Xinjiang, and the Uighurs feel their culture and livelihoods are under threat.

Map of China shows density of Uighur population in Xinjiang region

Where is Xinjiang?

Xinjiang lies in the north-west of China and is the country's biggest region.

Like Tibet, it is autonomous, meaning - in theory - it has some powers of self-governance. But in practice, both face major restrictions by the central government.

It is a mostly desert region, producing about a fifth of the world's cotton.

Uighur women picking cotton

It is also rich in oil and natural gas and because of its proximity to Central Asia and Europe is seen by Beijing as an important trade link.

In the early 20th Century, the Uighurs briefly declared independence, but the region was brought under the complete control of China's new Communist government in 1949.

What are the allegations against China?

Several countries, including the US, Canada and the Netherlands, have accused China of committing genocide - defined by international convention as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

It follows reports that, as well as interning Uighurs in camps, China has been forcibly mass sterilising Uighur women to suppress the population and separating Uighur children from their families.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said China is committing "genocide and crimes against humanity".

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has said the treatment of Uighurs amounts to "appalling violations of the most basic human rights".

A UN human rights committee in 2018 said it had credible reports the Chinese were holding up to a million people in "counter-extremism centres" in Xinjiang.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute found evidence in 2020 of more than 380 of these "re-education camps" in Xinjiang, an increase of 40% on previous estimates.

Earlier, leaked documents known as the China Cables made clear that the camps were intended to be run as high security prisons, with strict discipline and punishments.

People who have managed to escape the camps have reported physical, mental and sexual torture - women have spoken of mass rape and sexual abuse.

In December 2020 research seen by the BBC showed up to half a million people were being forced to pick cotton. There is evidence new factories have been built within the grounds of the re-education camps.

• China's 'tainted' cotton

• Uighur camp detainees allege systematic rape

• China 'using birth control' to suppress Uighurs

• UK accuses China of 'gross' human rights abuses

Click here to see the BBC interactive

What was the build-up to the crackdown?

Anti-Han and separatist sentiment rose in Xinjiang from the 1990s, flaring into violence on occasion. In 2009 some 200 people died in clashes in Xinjiang, which the Chinese blamed on Uighurs who want their own state. But in recent years a massive security crackdown has crushed dissent.

Xinjiang is now covered by a pervasive network of surveillance, including police, checkpoints, and cameras that scan everything from number plates to individual faces. According to Human Rights Watch, police are also using a mobile app to monitor peoples' behaviour, such as how much electricity they are using and how often they use their front door.

Since 2017 when President Xi Jinping issued an order saying all religions in China should be Chinese in orientation, there have been further crackdowns. Campaigners say China is trying to eradicate Uighur culture.

What does China say?

China has said reports it has detained Uighurs are completely untrue.

It says the crackdown is necessary to prevent terrorism and root out Islamist extremism and the camps are an effective tool for re-educating inmates in its fight against terrorism.

It insists that Uighur militants are waging a violent campaign for an independent state by plotting bombings, sabotage and civic unrest, but it is accused of exaggerating the threat in order to justify repression of the Uighurs.

China has dismissed claims it is trying to reduce the Uighur population through mass sterilisations as "baseless", and says allegations of forced labour are "completely fabricated".

Coverage of China's hidden camps

Turning the tables on China

Editor's comment: it is about time. Europe has been lagging in its dealing with China. When UK, US are sanctioning China over HK, Europe is still talking with China on trade deals. Stand together is the only way to deal with tyranny.

 

Last week’s crisis between China on the one hand, and the EU, US and their allies on the other, has helped crystallize a number of issues previously obscured by uncertainty.

This uncertainty stemmed from the EU’s decision to initial an investment treaty with China just before the new year. This raised two major questions. Was it, as many European critics have argued, a diplomatic error by the EU to give China a diplomatic victory just as the incoming team of US President-elect Joe Biden hinted that they would rather Europeans are waiting for her to take office to forge a common approach to Beijing?

And, secondly, did he pull the rug under any pretense of European “strategic autonomy” vis-à-vis China? The signing of the deal just days after Beijing’s dictatorial crackdown on dissidents in Hong Kong certainly suggested a certain European callousness in the pursuit of commercial interests. Beyond that, it has been legitimately argued that if the deal is implemented it would increase the cost for European economies to challenge Beijing on social and human rights grounds, such as its oppression in Hong Kong. and the forced labor of Uyghur citizens in Xinjiang.

On the other hand, the more optimistic stance (which I spoke about) highlighted how the EU was equipping itself, both in the investment agreement and unilaterally, with legal tools to lobby. on China. Much depends on the incentives of the EU’s internal and external political economy to use them.

If the last few days are anything to say, Europe and the West are healthier than the pessimists would like.

The imposition of sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for the persecution of Uyghurs has been coordinated between the EU and the United States, with the participation of the United Kingdom and Canada. (The EU, however, could usefully join US sanctions for abuses in Hong Kong as well.) And this coordinated stance doesn’t sound like lightning in the pan. The Biden administration has done everything it can to mend barriers with Europe after the Trump years, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken arriving in Brussels this week to re-establish a US-EU dialogue on relations with China.

This proves that the December investment deal did not torpedo a close transatlantic relationship with China. The unity of interest between Europe and the United States runs much deeper than that.

For now, at least. But what happens next? The hope of optimists has always been that the EU would find the political courage to keep China to high standards, whether by deciding to ratify the investment agreement, using the legal tools it provides, or more generally by taking autonomous measures to promote its values ​​against a power which it recognizes not only as an economic competitor and a potential partner on issues such as climate change, but as a “systemic rival”. With the new sanctions, the EU has just done it. The question is whether this will continue.

Ironically, Beijing’s own reactions make the answer more likely to be “yes”. By launching counter-sanctions against MEPs, academics and analysts, Chinese authorities have made it politically impossible for the EU to ratify the investment deal unless it backs down. If this is how Beijing deals with what they see as a loss of face, they simply put themselves in a situation where you have to lose face twice to get back to where they were.

Behaviors such as the childish habit of having official spokespersons mocking Western leaders, or the tirade uttered by Blinken’s Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, at last week’s meeting between the two, also make any reconciliation more difficult.

For now, EU countries have allayed suspicions that European business opportunities will always trump European values ​​in their dealings with China. Europe has a limit, although much of it depends on how far that limit is set. But it’s yet another clear sign that the bloc is ready to subordinate traditional trade policy to strategic imperatives. The pursuit or maintenance of integration with China will not come at any cost.

Much more depends on what China will do. Getting through all the great geopolitical challenges ahead is the central question of whether Beijing is ready to see some economic decoupling between itself and the West as a price to pay for resisting Western pressure.

The answer was obviously “yes” in its relations with small partners. Beijing’s intimidation of Australia, or the freezing of Norway after dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize, illustrates China’s staunch desire to cut economic ties with critics. But it doesn’t cost an economy of its size anything. It’s a different issue against the US or the EU, let alone the two together. After all, Beijing made a trade deal with Donald Trump when he was president. And its attempt to divide EU member states through the 16 + 1 initiative shows that it fears EU unity against it.

It is true that the Chinese leadership aims to develop its economy towards a more self-sufficient model. The overall trade intensity of its economy is not as strong as it was a decade ago, although it is still stronger than that of the United States. A central element of President Xi Jinping’s dual circulation strategy is to strengthen the capacity of the national economy to thrive. But the key word remains “double”. As the recent signing of the Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership Trade Agreement shows, Beijing’s economic strategy is not isolationist. Dual circulation should not be seen as a decoupling of the domestic economy from the global economy, but rather as an attempt to tie international economic activity to China’s domestic economic engines rather than the other way around, like this has been the case so far.

Any serious decoupling would undermine this strategy. It would even be a brake on deeper integration, especially in the new and growing areas of connected technology and digital services. But these are precisely the areas where the West can prevent such deep integration with China as we have seen in conventional trade, depending on Chinese behavior. Are they ready to do it? My hunch is yes: unlike China, they have the experience of being less globalized but still rich. As Beijing is well aware, China is still not a rich country. It needs the West more than the West needs.