China's Democratisation ---
Hong Kong is triggering political change in China


Chin Jin

 

China used to be a fresh-fledged, short-lived democracy far from perfection between 1912 and 1928.

The Revolution of 1911 overthrew the last imperial dynasty, which had been a system continuing for two thousand years in China, and this revolution established the Republic of China run mainly by warlords who controlled different regions.

The Chinese Communist Party won the Chinese Civil War immediately after WWII, with the full support of the Soviet Union and also unintentional assistance from the Truman administration in 1949 to set up the People’s Republic of China, a totalitarian system where people would enjoy no freedom in any way.

The modern Chinese democracy movement emerged after the death of Mao Zedong, and the advent of the Xidan Democracy Wall in November 1978 was accompanied by growing political pluralism and infighting of political power within the top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, which offered the political opportunity for grass-roots people to express their grievances and demand freedom.

This was the inception of the modern Chinese democracy movement.

With the ascendance of Deng Xiaoping to power, he outlawed the Xidan Democracy Wall Movement and therefore quelled the first wave of democracy in China.

Deng Xiaoping was aided by his two liberal-minded Party chiefs Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang, China enjoyed a decade long relaxed political period between 1979 and 1989.

This offered Chinese people the opportunity to think considerably freely to learn about the western ideologies of democracy and freedom.

The outbreaks of two pro-democracy movements in 1986 and 1989 were really the results of this 10-year political relaxation.

Deng Xiaoping and the hardliners then ordered a military crackdown on the Tiananmen Square democracy protests, which killed the democratic advancement that had flourished in China, and resulted in China retrogressing politically back to nil.

Chinese lost the political opportunity during 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests.

The US President George Bush’s choice could have decided who would win and who would lose in 1989, but unfortunately he chose to throw his support behind Deng Xiaoping.

Fleeing Tiananmen Square massacre exiles, set up the Federation for a Democratic China (FDC) in Paris, France in late September, 1989, vowing to end the one-party rule of the CCP in China as their ultimate political goal.

The sad thing was that George Bush refused to offer support to Chinese democracy movement with a wishful thinking that economic growth of China would lead to its political liberalization, West democracies followed suit.  

The Chinese democracy movement was then off the sideline and ignored. That became the external factor of the continuous downturn of the modern Chinese democracy movement.

The continuous downturn of the modern Chinese democracy movement had also its internal factors, resources and leadership.

1.      There were no resources to maintain this movement to keep prosperous and moving forward.

2.      The unsurpassable problem is that the movement’s leaders are short of political charisma and leadership to attract masses to follow.

It is most crucial that the advent of political changes must exist for China to achieve democracy, for which the following conditions must be met:

First, the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s top leaders must have the sense of political consciousness and historical mission to actively initiate top-down political reforms to promote open political elections.

On the contrary, they are hoping to remold the whole world to the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian political model.

Secondly, the ordinary people must have the awareness to demand political change. The reality is that the majority of Chinese people display a weak voice or no voice and indifference to political reform.

The third factor that could push change in China's current political system is the Western democracies who so far have committed the strategic error to believe that the rapid economic development would assist China in moving toward political liberalization.

In the past three decades, the entire West has had little interest in pushing the CCP for political change.

The question is: Who wants China to democratize? Who does not want China to democratize? And who does not care about China to democratize?

It is only a minority of forward-thinking Chinese elites who expect democracy for China, not the general public. Most Chinese people do not even know what democracy is.

China’s current rulers obviously do not want China to be a democracy, which is not in their interest, as it would greatly damage their vested interests.

The US led West democracies behaved not care whether China is democracy or not.

Dr. Wang Bingzhang, founder of the overseas Chinese democracy movement once pointed out that the Western democracies, especially the US, did not care about China's democracy and did not even want China to democratize.

He speculated that once China has achieved democracy, China will emerge from the political yoke and will have a huge inexhaustible strength to leap into the position of the world's new superpower, to compete against the existing dominant superpower.

It cannot be ignored that the whole world, especially the United States leading the world, badly lacks a clear and correct understanding of true China, the evil of the Chinese Communist regime and its looming danger to the future of the world.

Since World War II onwards over seven decades, the United States has been basically wrong in its dealings with the Chinese Communist Party while other West democracies blindly follow suit.

The emergence of Trump was exciting for the Chinese pro-democracy activist circles as it was seen as a political opportunity.

Of all US Presidents, he poses the greatest deterrent and threat to the Chinese Communist Party since 1945.

It is likely that the US-China Trade War will expand and transfer to other domains.

The Hudson Institute speech of Vice President Pence heralded the tangible reversal of the 40-year US China policy and it may further change the US-China relationship toward a new cold war.

If the current US Administration keeps up this work and direction targeting the evil Beijing, the stronghold of totalitarianism will be destroyed and wiped out.

It can be foreseen and predicted, in the post-communist era, a united and constitutional democracy in China would be highly unlikely, instead, a falling apart of China would be more realistic.

What, in the future, China will be alike has three possible scenarios:

Scenario 1. The CCP will insist on continuing its rule.

Scenario 2. The Chinese Communist Party may be forced to do structural changes because of increasing ruling difficulties, which would trigger the downfall of the regime. But Xi Jinping has explicitly ruled this out.

Scenario 3. A blundering CCP collapses overnight like what happened to the former Soviet Union under heavy blows of externally full-out attacks and domestic unrest, I would speculate that this third scenario is the most likely.

Hong Kong is triggering this process.

The continuing protests in Hong Kong may incite political changes in China, which really worries Beijing.

Beijing’s concession over the aspiration of Hong Kong people would mean the first domino of the Beijing regime’s downfall, Beijing is on a battle for life or death.

The attitude and stance of major democracies is now obviously wait-and-see.

If Beijing had to suppress the Hong Kong protesters by whatever kind of force to stop the protests violently, the Western democracies would unanimously condemn and isolate Beijing.

Beijing would be further cornered to go bankrupt.

In 1923, the British Government proposed an "international condominium of China".

In 1924, a Chinese political prophet prophesied that the Republic of China would be destroyed by Communism, and Condominium would be the solution to the collapse of communist China.

His first prophesy came true in 1949 when the communist Chinese won the Chinese civil war to establish the People’s Republic of China. Will his second prophesy be fulfilled? It is perceivable that China is now moving in this direction.

To sum up, in the post CCP era evolving in this upheaval scenario, the chance would be very slim for China to rebuild a united and constitutional democracy with all ethnic minorities remaining inside its boundaries as before.

Democracy will arrive in China only when the Chinese Communist Party is no more but China will then be splitting apart into ethnic regions.

That would be the tough and harsh reality the Chinese people will face. Therefore the Chinese people should hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

It will be witnessed that the century long dream of Chinese will be realized, and the whole world will see this spectacular, a peaceful and advanced new world emerges when the CCP is no more.

(To be translated)

Discuss with Mr. Li Weidong

 

  旅美中國戰略分析雜誌社社長李偉東先生近日連續發表兩篇重頭文章,希望我能夠將這兩篇文章發到民陣郵件組,並提出批評意見。既然有請,卻之不恭。閱後向作者李偉東表達讀後感如下。

 

偉東兄:

  兩篇政論都看了。不愧是嘔心瀝血之力作。

  先說「戰略檢討」。此文很長,由於自己也是繁忙,不及細看,非常抱歉。另一個原因是七十年過去,歷史陳案,早已木已成舟覆水難收,對今天可回顧,有借鑒,但不能指導。

  蔣、毛之爭基本相同項劉之爭,我稱蔣當代宋襄公。我不同意毛共得天下是歷史的選擇、人民的選擇。中國民眾本來草芥,聽任宰割。日本人來,「偽軍兩百,鬼子一百」;中央軍還都南京,萬人空巷;開國大典,鑼鼓秧歌。把中國民眾推入共產專制火坑的,首推杜魯門、馬歇爾,其次才輪得上斯大林。毛奸猾,蔣愚蠢,定下1949年乾坤江山。

  兄對1949年前的梳理,蔣下野,承讓毛,可以維持中華民國的法統。恕我直言,的確一廂情願和馬後炮。權力腐蝕人,能躲過的有幾人?華盛頓躲過了,並且以身作則成為了立國規矩,只有羅斯福戀棧,其餘都因為規矩而難以越雷池。我親眼見澳洲總理霍華德迷戀權力不放手,最終輸了個光腚。也就是說民主制度也常有約束不了人內心對權力貪婪的時候。

  兄的《當下中國政治體制改革建議方案》,在我看來完全是與虎謀皮。毛死後中國出現過政治轉型的大好政治機會,陳一諮、阮銘和趙紫陽的文獻中有記錄,但是時間是胡耀邦大力平反黨內高官以後到1978年鄧小平獲得最高權力之前。以後鄧胡趙三駕馬車運行的十年,中國政治改革或者轉型的機會仍然十分良好,走在了世界專制國家的前面,與對岸小蔣不分上下。1989年天安門大屠殺徹底改變了中國的國運,專制猛虎鄧小平被驚醒,從此中國在中共主導下進行政治轉型的機會就一去不復返了。三十年過去了,中共在以美國為首的西方短視政客默許合作下取得了經濟和軍事長足發展,綜合國力極大的提高,開始謀求以中共的專制模式影響世界改造世界。此情此景下的中共能夠接受兄的方案再重回40年前進行新長征嗎?中共內部有上位的新的鄧胡趙嗎?要有的話,也得等到習後。

  另一個問題我想提出來與兄探討,中共在六四以後得以平穩局面並且重新崛起,不在於內部的治理,而在於外部條件良好,主因還是美國對北京政策的昏聵,驢象兩黨都沒有目光深邃看清正邪較量的政治家,所以鄧的韜光養晦之計得以瞞天過海暗渡陳倉。西方人沒有中國古時候起的政治軍事的詭詐,看不懂中共的本質。中共最接近人性的年代就是胡趙十年,其餘時間基本為獸性,從江澤民到胡錦濤再到習近平,其邪惡本質發揮愈加淋漓盡致,西方看不懂,所以與中共打交道無往而不敗。自從出了個素人川普,不按牌理出牌,才打亂了北京的按部就班,才使得今天的北京如芒在背如坐針氈。這才是中國在未來出現政治變化的機會。無外部壓力,北京可以從容不迫地鎮壓任何內部反抗。有了外部壓力,可以引爆內部,北京才會內外受敵而毀於一旦。而中國的未來,我認為只有推倒重建,中共不復存在,中國才可以經此大變化獲得脫胎換骨的浴火重生。

  台灣島上的政治演變,早已是昨是今非。自1988年1月13日蔣經國去世,台灣走上一條新的道路,也是一條單向道,馬英九的8年也許尚可開倒車走回頭路,現在就更加漸行漸遠了。除非明年大選在中共全方位有效干預滲透台灣的情況下韓國瑜鹹魚翻身後來居上,台灣目前愈加走向與大陸漸行漸遠在未來可能被阻緩一下,不然台灣與大陸的分離趨勢只會加重加快。兄的規劃雖好,台海兩邊都不會接受,首先是北京不會接受。北京不接受去勸弱勢一方的台灣接受,更是不可能了。即使馬在位,相信他不過是表示客氣禮貌聽一聽,但不會去思考,更不可能付諸實施。台灣領導人的思考不是中國大陸的政治變化,而是台灣自身的安全和未來定位。

  這裡有我兩岸成立政治特區的建議:https://boxun.com/news/gb/pubvp/2014/12/201412250512.shtml

  香港問題焦灼,考驗北京和港人,不是生死決鬥也是事關重大的一役。港人要求民主本無過,只是北京擔心一旦鬆手引發國內有樣學樣。而且在過去七十年北京沒有向民眾退讓過。此次香港抗爭是習主動挑起,不是港人發起。習本想滅此朝食,再下一城。不料港人忌憚2014年的越境綁架,是以不惜一死抗爭。習一腳踢出去,狠狠地踢在堅硬的樹樁上,踢傷了自己的腳,始料未及。經過22年,港人逐漸認清了北京,也認識到北京的凶邪。港人無路可退,退一步前功盡棄,而不是海闊天空;進一步也許可以獲得自己的訴求,從而坦途一片。港人要求不算高,最根本的是雙普選。港獨本來就不是訴求,我認為充其量是一個策略,求其上得其中,求其中得其下。香港持續抗爭是港人的高度共識,沒有可見的領袖,兄找不到對話人。北京冥頑不化,一條道走到黑,兄的勸解也是無效。我們還是靜心屏氣,靜等兩廂決鬥的結果吧。

  圈點各方心態和作為 https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2014-10-21/52708

  多有相左,如有衝撞,敬請包涵。


Chin Jin
30th October 2019

(To be translated)

 

Guo Wengui's Leaking and China 's Democratic Revolution


Xiaogang Zhang

 


  郭文貴爆料是當前中文網絡上最熱門的關注點,吃瓜群眾們有各式各樣的立足點、各式各樣的觀察角、各式各樣的預期或期盼,從而有各式各樣的討論、評論和建議,這在沒有「統一意志、統一思想、統一指揮、統一行動」的自由民主社會,實在是最正常不過的事情,自然不必在相互之間過於較汁兒。

  不過,有一點我相信大家都是一致認同的,就是郭文貴的爆料必然並且已經給中共高層內部的權鬥帶來新的催化與變數。而這種變數的存在,是有可能給中國的政治民主轉型帶來可資利用的契機。

  是被動地等待和觀看這種變數的結果象餡餅一樣從天而降,還是做著著實的準備來把握、利用乃至創造契機,恐怕這才是很多人所吃之瓜的不同之處,儘管不是每一個朋友自己都意識到了。


一、要有落差的準備

  有些朋友,把全部的希望和關注都完全地投射到郭文貴的爆料本身。這我可以理解。在自己找不到做事的切入點的時候,往往會把這種從天而降的變數作為存放希望之雞蛋的唯一籃子。

  但是,考慮到郭文貴先生從一開始就一再重申的「保命保財和報復」的目標,以及一再重申的包含「不反黨、不反政府、不反習主席"條款的郭七條,尤其是,郭文貴先生在6月13日的視頻中特別著重地強調了他「就是不反皇帝」,並說他未來的結果「一定不是在‘要麼被(中共)殺、要麼被(中共)抓、要麼造反’這三條之中」,以及聲稱他所想要的跟「國家要給」他的是一樣的等等情況看,說明郭先生的規劃或判斷與選擇,跟絕大多數早已對中共權力集團不報任何幻想的朋友,還是有著相當的落差。

  因此,只有我們這些朋友以自己的既定目標,做足了自己必要做的工作,才能夠在即便萬一郭文貴先生所選擇的走向與自己的期望有相當落差時,不至於手足無措,落到「希望越高,失望越大」的境地,而是仍然能夠以民間自主的民主革命動力和能力,創造與把握契機,推動實現中國的民主轉型。


二、官斗能夠成為契機,需有民主革命的崛起為前提

  還有些朋友,單純地將希望放在由郭文貴爆料引發的中共高層權鬥的激化上。有人期望習王斗,有人期待習曾斗,甚至有人期盼「江胡郭聯手倒習」並嘆息說「可是江胡有這個理念與覺悟嗎?」當然,也有的朋友期預,中共高層在權鬥僵持不下時,能夠通過與民間民主力量談判來改行民主體制。

  問題是,如果在這個過程中,沒有民間民主革命力量的崛起與行動,中共高層的權鬥無論進行到何種地步,它們憑什麼會選擇自行放棄一黨專制,改行民主化的道路呢?

  如果沒有民間民主革命力量的崛起與行動,那麼在這場中共高層內部權鬥中,假若是習贏了,那可以預期的是一個毛二世習正恩極權獨裁者統治的模式;假若是習王聯手贏了,無非是再等著看下一輪毛劉斗或毛林斗式的宮廷舊戲;假若是王贏了,那就是郭文貴口中的盜國賊全面盜得權與利的結局;假若是江曾一派贏了,或是胡一派贏了,甚至是天方夜譚一樣的「江胡郭聯手」贏了,那也無非回到我們早已體驗過的蛤蟆時代或面癱時代而已;即便是各派僵持不下,它們也大可以在自己內部各派之間談判分贓,也就是我們同樣早已眼睛都看出老繭來的「九常委」、「七常委」格局。這些都完全可能跟民主派、跟中國民主轉型的前景沒有絲毫的關係。

  不錯,中國政治民主轉型的過程中,結束一黨專政體制的,很可能是體制內的某個實權人物踢了關鍵的臨門一腳。這在絕大多數前專制國家的民主轉型過程中,幾乎都是這樣。但這個臨門一腳,也無不是在民間力量崛起的前提與促動下踢出的。

  就以我們中國的辛亥革命為例,武昌起義之後,北洋軍確實有足夠的實力鎮壓起義軍,從這個意義上講,的確可以說是袁世凱以左壓清廷右阻義軍的漁翁得利之機巧踢了這最後一腳,結束了帝制,成立了民國。但是如果沒有武昌的首義,沒有義軍的崛起,袁世凱就絕對沒有這個機會,清廷也斷斷不會答應退位。所以義軍的崛起是袁世凱能夠踢出臨門一腳的前提和條件。


三、僅僅是爆料本身,並不足以發動民主革命

  郭文貴先生在6月13日的視頻中說,他可以通過一個爆料就引起一千萬人上街。對於這個說法,我是難以信服的。因為以中國目前的狀態,無論是從民情看還是從信息通暢程度,僅僅一個對高層秘密的曝光,並不足以導致大規模的民眾上街,更不要說量化到「一千萬」這個數目規模的上街。

  因為最容易促使民眾大規模的自發上街,往往是直接的,並且即時或有著緊迫性的民眾利益普遍受損。

  譬喻說吧,如果有人現在爆料說,三年前的一場股市大跌,是某某官員操縱的結果,雖然有可能引起股民普遍的憤慨,但並不容易讓這些股民大規模的自發上街遊行。因為這畢竟已經有了三年的時間讓其中絕大多數的人「認栽」、「認命」了,而且當年股市大跌時曾出頭露面鬧過的人也往往已被當局重點監視住了。

  但是如果現在股市正在大跌或者剛剛大跌了,此時若有人爆出這場股災是某某官員操縱的真憑實據,就比較容易激起憤怒的股民自發地走上街頭。

  讓我們再次回顧辛亥革命的歷史:武昌起義之所以得以成功,其實是因為之前的四川保路運動。由於清廷宣佈將民間認股的鐵路改為官辦,損害了股民的利益,引起「群體事件」,甚至在官府壓制時,釀成「暴亂」和武裝起義。於是清廷急忙從湖北調兵入川鎮壓,令武昌兵力空虛,結果給了武昌起義一舉成功的機遇。

  可見,民眾直接的、普遍的和即時的利益受損,往往會成為大規模自發上街的導火索。而中國由過去三十年畸形發展所形成的低福利高腐敗的社會現狀,造成民眾因利益受損而大規模自發上街的「群體事件」此伏彼起。這幾天上海因政府「商住房整改」的政策變更引發的大規模示威遊行,就是最新例子之一。

  如果我們朋友們能夠靜心沈下去,深入民間運作,讓這些此伏彼起的「群體事件」同步化、共振化、連鎖反應化,就不愁民主革命的契機不到來。在這個過程中,郭文貴先生的爆料對民眾上街的作用也才有可能最大程度地放大。

  所以,即使是郭文貴先生自己,也曾在5月29日的視頻中說,「光是有我的爆料沒有用,還是要用民眾自發的上街」。


四、結論

  對於追求中國民主化的朋友,務必把啟動與運作民主革命作為自己首要和本份的工作。在這個工作過程中,當然要盡力地鼓勵郭文貴以及所有類似郭文貴這樣與體制有過千絲萬縷聯繫的人士與中共決裂,充分地利用他們的反叛與爆料給中共的統治造成裂痕,以便創造契機、利用契機、把握契機,促成中國的民主轉型。

  但是如果我們放棄自己應該做的民主革命的本份,把全部的精力和唯一的行動都放在吃瓜看戲上,希望僅僅是郭文貴先生的爆料或中共統治階層內部的權鬥就能夠自行產生民主轉型,那麼我們就實在都可以洗洗睡了,待一覺醒來出門看天上有沒有掉餡餅就行了。因為以那樣的狀態,有沒有我們的存在,以及我們睡不睡覺,都對中國能否走向民主化毫無影響。如果所有期盼著中國民主化的朋友都處在那樣的狀態,那麼即便契機來了也會瞬間流逝,中國的民主化就會永無實現之時。

  因此,我們必須有一批實幹的民主派人士,實實在在地行動起來,運作民主革命。有多少人,算多少人。只要每一個願意實幹的朋友都自己行動起來,我們就有機會創造契機,把握契機,實現中國的政治民主化轉型;也就才有機會,將郭文貴式的反叛與爆料,以及中共內部的權鬥,著著實實地化為結束一黨專政的合力。

2017年6月14日

No human right in China on Human Rights Day

Chin Jin


Human Rights Day is celebrated annually across the world on 10 December every year while the most populous China has no human rights.

Human rights are based on political power. Where human rights exist, all are countries with democratic systems. Countries without human rights are all dictatorial and authoritarian countries.

The improvement of human rights in China depends on the change of political system. Without the complete termination of the CCP's authoritarian regime, it is a nonsense and self-deception to indulge in improving human rights in China. Australia took the lead in starting a human rights dialogue with the Chinese government since 1992 and other West democracies followed suit, It has been a quarter of a century since then to achieve fruitless results. It has long been clear that this is hypocrisy of the West democracies because the West had never required the CCP to carry out political transformation and change. To upholding basic human rights is backed and guaranteed by a democratically elected government. China is an autocracy and there is no hope and sign that the Chinese authoritarian government will improve human rights. Any wishful thinking of improvement of human rights in China under the current regime is absurd.


Many years ago we emphasized that the fundamental issue for China is political, the change of the Chinese Communist regime, not the issue of human rights. Without pushing the change of China's autocratic system, appealing to the Chinese government to improve human rights is simply a matter of blindfolding. Western non-governmental organizations have for a long time called for the Chinese government to improve human rights. In essence, it is doing very little useful work. Western governments may occasionally mention China’s human rights violations during their dealing with the Chinese government, but then immediately chuck them under the carpet for the trade and short term interests. The fundamental aim is to greed the Chinese government for money grabbed from its own people and have a share with the Chinese government. There is a very vivid painting with the words: "The West is more willing to see an autocratic pot boiling Chinese people's flesh and blood, because they have been sharing the broth in the pot." This is the West headed by the United States.

Many years ago, Dr. Wang Bingzhang, founder of overseas Chinese democracy movement, once said to me: It seems that the United States does not want China to achieve democracy. He saw the hypocrisy of the West. It is speculated that the United States did not exert diplomatic pressure on the CCP in releasing Wang Bingzhang and Peng Ming who were both kidnapped or trapped by the mafia style tricks of the Chinese government. At least there were no visible acts of the West to do any work for the release of them. The West remains silence to the brutal atrocities the CCP always commits. When Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, was forced to suffer the fatal illness, no West leaders were seen to make public representations to the CCP government on behalf of Liu.

The Chinese democracy campaigners are really in the midst of hardships confront the CCP's tyranny while hypocritical leaders of Western powers look on indifferently without due assistance and on the other, are the massive Chinese people of numbness. The ugly brutality that Beijing recently drove the low-end population out of major cities in China, hundreds of thousands or millions of people were driven off like lambs being driven by wolves and tigers received little opposition. People with guts and courage to resist the brutality of the government are very few.

We are saddened by China's lack of human rights and frustrated by the reality of an indifferent world: the hypocrisy of the Western powers and the numbness of the Chinese people. Perhaps it is God's will to allow the CCP's ravage, God is almighty, to give the Satan free hand to do evil. The world is balanced with the co-existence of wickedness of Satan and the goodness of Angel.

We should abandon illusions and needless expectations. Only by working hard to demolish the high walls of the CCP's autocracy and pushing China to a throughout political change to sweep the evil CCP into the historical rubbish heap, will it be possible to establish a democracy like the West to have truly and once in all the improvement of human rights condition.


10th December 2017

(The author is the Chairman of the Federation for a Democratic China)

(To be translated)

 

Multi-aspect misleading ......The art of luring the enemy


XIONG Yan

 


  最近看到一本書的名字叫《兵以詐立》,說孫子兵法講來講去,實際上是講"兵以詐立"。這是個現代人寫的書名。但是,一千几百年以前的唐太宗皇帝也講過相類似的話:"朕觀千章万句,不出“多方以誤之”、一句而已。(語出《唐李問對‧卷下》)。可以想見,在軍事斗爭中"詐"(現代叫做"誘敵")占有中心地位。難怪美軍專有一門課專門講"Military Deception"(軍事誘敵)。

  筆者寫的是散文(不是論文也不是古文)。因此,就要在此文中擴展一下這個誘敵的觀念,展開一點思路,好把文章寫將下來。


一,為什么要詐敵呢?

  為什么要誘敵呢?用我的大白話可以這樣說:一切軍事沖突,不管你用什么戰略戰術,什么武器裝備,什么套路,歸根結底,只有一點:仗要打贏,要獲得胜利。所以軍事竟是异常簡單明了之事。但是,怎樣才能獲得胜利?那就要回到一個更為簡單的原理:拿起你的石頭砸敵人的雞蛋,或者干脆更簡單一點,石頭砸雞蛋。我把一切軍事原理,戰略戰術,陰謀詭計統統簡化成一個原理,用石頭砸雞蛋。用石頭砸雞蛋,原始人明白,小孩子明白,大家都明白。這樣寫當然過于幽默,而且大有把一切軍事人物一筆抹殺之嫌。不過想來想去也就是這個原理。所謂打仗,如果真要打蠃,那就要拿起你的石頭去砸敵人的雞蛋。只要做到了這一點,百分之百就會胜利。為什么呢?石頭,重也、硬也、厚也,雞蛋,輕也、軟也、薄也。用石頭砸雞蛋不是最明白最透徹的道理嗎?仔細研究思考,古往今來,一切大大小小的軍事沖突,甚至偶發事件都是循這個石頭砸雞蛋的原理。

  現在就來點正規的說法。正是這個最為簡單的原理衍化了最古老最复雜最令人難以捉摸的兵學。在這一歷史長河中成就了無數軍事天才和名人,也流了人類三分之一的血(約摸估計---這是散文的好處)。

  如何制成自己的石頭,找到自己的石頭,拿起自己的石頭砸向敵人的雞蛋,如何發現敵人的雞蛋,辨識敵人的雞蛋,砸雞蛋的哪個部位,這一套學問就是兵學。現代叫軍事科學和藝術,這學科博大精深,圖書館里有無數好書。有了這個背景,我們再來看為什么兵以詐立,為什么唐太宗李世民先生說“朕觀千章万句不出多方以誤之。”


二,為什么要使用多种方法造成敵人的錯誤呢?

  為什么要詐敵,即為什么要誘敵。說到底就是要讓敵方不知我方的石頭是什么,在哪里,雞蛋在哪里。

  無論一支多么強大的軍隊,也會有自己的石頭和雞蛋,強處和弱處。于是兩軍對陣,最主要的任務是要了解敵人,了解敵方的長處,強項,力量所在(石頭),發現敵人的短處。不但要發現敵人的石頭和雞蛋,還要不讓敵人發現自己的石頭和雞蛋,于是敵我雙方所做使用的戰略戰術,所行的陰謀詭計就是誘敵了。讓敵方找不到我方的石頭或把我方的石頭當雞蛋,隱藏自己的雞蛋,最后准備就緒拿起自己的石頭去砸敵方的雞蛋,一場戰斗就結束了,然后准備下一次戰斗。

  話雖講得如此直白,若運用軍事科學和藝術的術語來,專業的詞匯不輸給哲學家們。玄之又玄,這也是誘敵,誘讀者。增加軍事科學和藝術的神秘性。碰上我,冥思苦想几十年,博覽群書無數,就把這誘敵的秘密給揭示出來了。誘敵就是為了自己更好地拿起石頭砸敵人的雞蛋,而使敵人不知道我方的石頭和雞蛋在哪里,叫敵人無處下手,或砸錯了地方,把石頭砸在更大的石頭上。

  話雖然這樣講,這誘敵的工夫卻是奇妙無窮,要做得比真的還真,而且還要用多种辦法誘敵。在簡談一些專業術語之前,先講几個絕佳例子,引起讀者們的興趣,向嚴肅認真的方向推進。


三,几個戰例

  “多方以誤之”的例子莫過于第二次世界大戰的諾曼底登陸。英美盟軍當時有兩處可以登陸。第一個地方是從英國東南方的多佛爾地區過多佛爾海峽,到達法國加萊地區,此處登陸有兩個有利條件。第一,路線最近,第二,海空運輸很方便,而且還有登陸設施。不利條件就是敵方把主力部隊放在此處防守(敵人的石頭是也)。

  第二處登陸地點在諾曼底。有利重要條件是德防守薄弱,只有三個師的力量(雞蛋處),不利條件是路程較遠,又沒有登陸設施。那盟軍應該在哪里登陸呢?作為讀者和觀眾,我們當然知道盟軍最后選在諾曼底登陸。但當時卻煞費苦心。如果德軍知道盟軍要在諾曼底登陸,它立刻會加強諾曼底防守,不要說英美盟軍過不去,就算是過去了,恐怕人也死得差不多了。德軍不知道,德軍只想著,你路那么遠,又沒有登陸設施,如何去諾曼底呢?于是把寶押在多佛海峽。但問題其實不這么簡單。于是才有誘敵這出戲。盟軍選擇在諾曼底登陸(找到了德軍的雞蛋處),盟軍必須使出一切誘敵的動作,促使德軍堅定地相信盟軍會在多佛海峽登陸。而且這誘敵之戲必須演得逼真,而且還要有多种方法(即“多方”)。

  盟軍是這樣誘敵的。

  首先,在多佛爾等地區大布疑陣,把英國電影制片公司的布景導演都請來了,用拍電影時用的布景道具制成一大批登陸艦艇。用充气橡膠做成成旅的坦克,用帆布、鐵皮制成彈藥庫。什么醫院、兵營、食堂、廁所、飛机場、煉油厂、假人、假無線電通訊等等一應俱全,威武雄壯,從飛机上看,比真的還真。以此蒙騙德軍偵察飛机,造成盟軍要在多佛爾登陸的宏大气勢。這還夠,還只有一种假象欺騙,万一出了紕漏就前功盡棄。所以還第二招,假艦艇停在海上還不行,還要動起來,演習如何登陸,以這些假象,完全虛构了一個一模一樣的美軍“第一集團軍”。就連巴頓是總司令都要到位。有這些還不夠,所謂多方以誤之,還要在蒙騙空中德國偵察机的同時,繼續造成假象以誤導其他間諜,于是在地面上配有真實的軍事活動。盟軍不斷用飛机轟炸加來地區港口,以表示將要全力在此登陸,當然,諾曼底也不會不炸,但也不能大炸,于是就用漫不經心的例行轟炸,使德軍以為重心在多佛爾海峽。假如對諾曼底一點不炸,就可能引起德國的怀疑,因為德軍情報部門參謀總部及司令部也不是傻瓜。這一系列假動作終于造成了真實的假象,促使德軍認為盟軍要在多佛爾海峽登陸,而用重兵把守(把石頭放在多佛爾),自然,諾曼底就成了德軍的雞蛋,只有區區三個師防守。并且盟軍還使德軍認為盟軍至早要在1944年7月下旬才會登陸。

  戲都演到這個程度了,盟軍總司令艾森豪威爾作出決定:1944年5月5日至6日登陸諾曼底。盟軍的石頭是這樣的:一万一千架飛机掩護,七千艘艦艇出發,登陸部隊達287.6万人。這個石頭之大之厚之強,去砸德軍三個師,焉能不胜乎?這就是軍事,這就是兵法,這就是最有名的諾曼底登陸。

  所以唐太宗李世民先生的“千章万句不出多方以誤之”是多么深刻正确,他若知道諾曼底登陸不知會發出什么感嘆。兵以詐立,應該是一點不假。學軍事的人如不學好誘敵這一篇,就絕對不會及格,還要死人。

  我們今天讀起來寫起來是很容易的了,像喝爛米湯(湖南話)一樣,若是在當時,又在決策過程中,沒有天才的火花還真不行。

  關于誘敵,還有更好笑的戲劇性的真人真事,限于篇幅,只能簡談。

  誘敵最關鍵之處是要讓敵人信以為真,不被識破,否則就是自割脖子了,自宮了。要使敵人信以為真就必須不斷地花樣翻新。二戰中,盟軍還演出了一出誘敵之絕妙好戲,演得比真的還像,這就是二戰中歐洲戰場上英國情報机构人員演的“肉餡計划”,讓希特勒中了圈套。

  簡單說來是這樣“二戰中盟軍西西里登陸用了誘敵之術,用得神出鬼沒。當時德軍用主力部隊守衛西西里(石頭之所在),1943年盟軍向北非進軍,并決定攻打意大利的西西里島,可是敵人的主力部隊就在那里,那從邏輯上就是如何促使敵人把主力分散或調走,接下來的邏輯就是要讓德國希特勒相信盟軍不會攻打西西里,而是別的什么地方,從而分兵,把他的大石頭變為小石頭,最后變為雞蛋。希特勒也不是傻瓜,這誘敵之戲怎么演?又不能直接告訴希特勒,那時也沒有什么“群英會蔣干中計”。最后英國情報机构借一具尸体來完成這個任務。當時負責此“肉餡計划”的英軍少校喬蒙德利仔細研究討論決定借一具尸体來完成這個任務。找到一具尸体,讓尸体扮成一名盟軍參謀部的軍官(用了英國皇家海軍陸戰隊威廉.馬丁代理少校的身份)因飛机事故而死在德國防守的西班牙海岸。參謀軍官身上攜帶了特制的高層文件,文件真真假假,其中一份有透露盟軍要攻克某個地方,而不是西西里,致使德軍明明收到了關于西西里的信息,而硬以為盟軍在搞騙術。(這個“肉餡計划”只有講細節才會有樂趣,這里只能是用來說明“多方以誤之”,而不是故事本身)。

  最后希特勒中計了,明明在西西里有一大軍把守(石頭是也),他在盟軍誘敵計之下,發出這樣一個指令:“我要求所有与地中海防御有關的德國指揮机關迅速行動起來并密切合作”,“對撒丁島和伯羅奔尼撒采取的措施要先于一切。”別小看統帥的這十几個字,它造成22.7万人斃傷俘。統帥真不是好當的。國人說“一將功成万骨枯”,其實“一將出錯更是万骨枯”。

  希特勒的指令一發出,陸軍元帥隆美爾被派到雅典去組織一個新的集團軍,國家元首党衛軍旅被調到撒丁島,同時又從駐法德軍中抽出一個輕裝甲師,乘160節火車,轟轟隆隆奔向希腊和伯羅奔尼撒,并且還從俄國前線調兵等。接下來,德軍元帥威廉.凱泰爾竟要求所屬部隊增援撒丁島。當隆美爾按希特勒的指令,把他的大本營搬到希腊時,可怜的西西里只有孤軍了(由石頭變雞蛋了,或者說德軍的石頭碎了)。于是,1943年7月9日早晨,盟軍突然在西西里大舉登陸,第二天就控制了陣地。西西里的守軍叫天天不應,叫地地不靈,可怜了22.7万人。

  事后隆美爾在他的日記中寫道:“當盟軍准備進攻西西里時,德國的防御完全被引入了歧途——而這都是由于西班牙海岸發現了外交信使浮尸的結果。”(寫此文時,正好网上有共軍獲美軍水下什么無人潛航器之事,筆者突發奇想,若是這無人潛航器里面有點什么詐術,共軍可就慘了。當然,現在我們不知道)。


四,所有的軍事秘密大都与詐術(誘敵)有關。

  所有的詐術都要促使敵人自毀石頭,自露雞蛋。或使敵方錯誤判斷不知對方哪里是石頭哪里是雞蛋。詐術就是這么一回事。

  當然,要用現代軍事術語來表達,詞語就文雅深奧得多了,多得無法表達出來。

  美軍的誘敵之術:寫在Joint Publication 3-13.4里面,密密麻麻寫了十九頁,把古往今來的誘敵之法,之經驗、教訓、藝術、方法等等換成軍事科學術語。每個字的后面,內容無窮。現擇几處要緊簡單勾划。首先,誘敵之目的是要通過作為或不行為,通過各种手段誘使敵方作出錯誤判斷(即搞不清我方的石頭在哪里,雞蛋在哪里,甚至明白摸著了石頭,看到了雞蛋也起疑惑,不相信,太妙了)。誘軍之術有六項原則必須遵守。

  第一,集中兵力誘敵;
  第二,目標极其明确;
  第三,由中樞机构計划和控制;
  第四,絕對保密;
  第五,精密策划;
  第六,整合一切資源和信息。

  至于方式方法,那就是千變万化,花樣百出。

  唐太宗說,千章万句不出一句,多方以誤之。現代有了原子彈、導彈攔截,有了電子技術,無人偵察机這些武器通訊大大革新了戰爭的面貌,以致我們不得不怀疑過去的那些誘敵之術還管用嗎?坦白地說,99.99%都不管用了。這就是學軍事讀兵法的難處。學了不管用,但不學,也不行。筆者也苦苦掙扎了多年。讀那么多的兵書,又不管用,不是浪費人生嗎?所以多年來只是想讀又不全心全意地讀,畢竟人生還有其他它的書要讀,直到最近几年我從美軍參謀學院畢業(Command and General Staff College),不得不讀軍事的書籍才用心學了點。又直到有一次讀到中國人明末揭喧的《兵經百言》中這几句話才明白。學古人的兵法(現代人的軍事科學和藝術)并不是立刻就能統兵打仗(現代的打仗和曹操諸葛亮時代完全不一樣了,甚至和二戰、越戰都不一樣了),但是不讀兵法就更不行。為什么呢?因為大家都認同孫子的思想,“兵者,國之大事,死生之地,存亡之道,不可不察也。”

  揭喧的那句話寫在《兵經百言》開頭:“据兵之先,唯机与勢。能識測而后爭乃善。可不精讀兵言以,造于巧乎?”此意是說,据兵要先識測,要識測,怎么可以不熟讀兵書呢?只有熟讀以后,才有可能熟能生巧。這和彈鋼琴寫字是同一個原理。所以只管讀,至于能不能用上,那已經不重要了。因此,本人愿意把所讀兵書之心得寫成簡單明白的散文,叫做兵法散文談。一方面娛樂自己,紙上先談兵,借以不斷熟悉精進;另一方面讀者若能讀出點味道來,那就更有趣了,互相砥礪是也。


2016.12.22