2014年8月16日 星期六

中國霸權進西藏、非洲 China’s million-migrant march into Africa


「拉薩共識」:中國影響海外西藏討論

更新時間 2014年8月15日, 格林尼治標準時間11:23
今年一月青海藏人示威要求釋放被捕的僧人
中國媒體大量報道最近召開的「中國西藏發展論壇」達成的「西藏共識」,但是「拉薩共識」在海外引起了爭議,參加西藏論壇的西方政界人士受到游說團體的非議,「共識」也受到質疑。
報道說來自30多個國家的上百嘉賓參加本月在西藏拉薩舉行的為期兩天的「2014·中國西藏發展論壇」,代表當中有各國的政府官員、專家學者、各界代表人士。這是「中國西藏發展論壇」首次在西藏舉行。

相關内容

相關新聞話題

「拉薩共識」及其爭議似乎說明了隨著中國國際影響力擴大以及同西方國家交往擴大,中國的影響力已經波及關於西藏問題的海外討論話語。1989年獲得諾貝爾和平獎,有道德和和平領袖聲譽的西藏流亡精神領袖達賴喇嘛及其支持者在海外關於西藏的輿論中一直起主導作用。

「拉薩共識」

據報道,參加論壇的中外嘉賓形成「拉薩共識」,即承認了50多年來中國在西藏經濟社會發展、提高生活水平,保護文化和生態等方面取得的成就,認為在西藏實行現代化和進步不可逆轉。
中國報道說,論壇讓與會者近距離見證了西藏的發展和變化,有利於消除關於西藏的各種曲解和誤解。中國報道說,以前的舊西藏是農奴制的黑暗歷史,但是卻被一些人描繪成美妙的「香格里拉」;西藏的發展和進步被說成「破壞環境」和「文化毀滅」。
參加論壇的另外西方嘉賓,英國工黨影子內閣法律和商務大臣戴維森勛爵(Lord Neil Davidson)拒絕了BBC的採訪要求。他對中國媒體讚揚了中國在西藏取得的「傑出成就」在英國引起了爭議,英國工黨強調戴維森是以私人身份參加論壇會議,同時表示了對西藏的人權狀況表示「深度關注」。
與此同時英國記者也紛紛聯繫戴維森希望他對他的言論作出澄清。一些報道還提出誰資助他去西藏參加會議的問題。
英國工黨影子內閣法律和商務大臣戴維森勛爵(Lord Neil Davidson)讚揚了中國在西藏取得的「傑出成就」在英國引起了爭議
根據中國央視新聞錄像,戴維森對記者說,「顯然在西藏的投資大幅度提高了當地人民的生活水平。有人說西藏人口的壽命差不多提高了一倍。在這麼短時間取得如此成就很了不起。」

「西方偏見」

不過另外一位西方與會者,新西蘭基督城的市長鮑勃·帕克(Bob Parker)對BBC記者說,他並沒有對所謂一致通過的「拉薩共識」表示過支持。他說他去參加論壇會議是因為能夠訪問西藏的機會難得。
根據中國媒體報道,戴維森還說西方媒體有關西藏的許多報道都是由達賴喇嘛的「狂熱追捧者」撰寫的。報道引述戴維森說,「西藏基礎設施的建設讓西藏人民的生活水平有了巨大的提升,但這樣一種生活的改善並沒有被西方民眾真正理解。」
參加會議的印度教徒報報業集團主席拉姆(Narasimhan Ram)也批評了西方媒體在西藏問題上的「偏見」。他對中國媒體說,「西方媒體的涉藏報道起到的是推波助瀾的作用,往往成為達賴與其支持者散播虛假信息的傳聲筒,卻還自詡是中立的。」

爭奪話語權

在英國的「自由西藏」組織指責中國官方發表的「西藏共識」是官方宣傳,而且質疑「共識」是否凖確和真實,因為還不清楚西方與會者是否全部同意這個「共識」。該組織認為參加者根本就不應該接受國務院新聞辦的邀請去西藏參加會議。
中國有關部門每年都公布《中國西藏事實與數字》證明西藏在中國管理下取得的社會、經濟、文化和宗教等多方面的發展。但是西藏流亡政府和海外支持西藏團體都強調,西藏的經濟發展和穩定只能建立在對人權的尊重和自治之上。
關於西藏在1959年後的發展和之前的歷史長期以來一直都是政治辯論和學術辯論的內容,辯論的主要對立方是中國官方觀點和海外流亡西藏運動和他們的西方支持者。最近中國舉辦的西藏論壇會議和「拉薩共識」討論進入海外主流媒體報道和輿論說明,隨著中國國際影響力增加,關於西藏問題的敘事和討論也越來越多地受到中國影響。
(編寫:橫路 責編:路西)



China’s million-migrant march into Africa

BY JEFF KINGSTON
SPECIAL TO THE JAPAN TIMES



The scramble for Africa is intensifying. In early August, U.S. President Barack Obama hosted 50 African leaders, signaling renewed interest in the continent.
These leaders understand that this is the African moment and must welcome the intensified competition over their natural resources because it improves their bargaining leverage.
The Sino-Japanese rivalry has extended to other parts of the world in a competition for natural resources, markets and political influence. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has energetically revived Japan’s moribund diplomacy by crisscrossing the globe, but he has a deep hole to climb out of. In the ongoing contest for sub-Saharan African markets and resources, China is way ahead of Japan. China’s two-way trade has rocketed from $10 billion in 2000 to $170 billion in 2013, closing in on the European Union’s $200 billion and dwarfing Japan’s $25 billion.
The Japanese government’s annual white paper on trade notes that the presence of Japanese companies in Africa is limited and thus they are “losing by default” in a region with a growing middle class, promising markets and an abundance of natural resources. Africa has a reputation for being a difficult and risky operating environment, but its stunning potential and rapid GDP growth is attracting large inflows of foreign direct investment, estimated by the African Development Bank at $80 billion this year alone; by comparison, China attracted $117 billion and Japan a paltry $2.3 billion in 2013. Sub-Saharan Africa is a rich prize, as GDP growth in 2014 is expected to average 6.5 percent, trailing only Asia. Although sub-Saharan African exports jumped from $68 billion to $400 billion between 1995 and 2012, natural resources accounted for $300 billion of the 2012 total. Given a rapidly growing population and dwindling resources, a more sustainable model is essential, but there are few signs of progress.
China’s Export-Import Bank lent $62.7 billion to African nations between 2001 and 2010, compared with the World Bank’s $50 billion. Last year, Japan pledged some $30 billion in aid to African nations over the next five years, showing some ambition. But Japan can’t match China’s financial firepower, while Beijing’s “no questions asked” soft loans make it popular with African despots and the local kleptocracy.
Earlier this year, Abe, accompanied by a business delegation, took a three-nation tour that touched down in Cote d’Ivoire, Mozambique and Ethiopia, the first visit to the continent by a Japanese premier in eight years. Ironically, while wooing leaders of the African Union, Abe gave a speech in the $200 million headquarters gifted by China.
Howard French, who reported for The New York Times in Africa, Japan and China for three decades, is now a professor at Columbia University’s School of Journalism. His latest book, “China’s Second Continent: How a Million Migrants are Building a New Empire in Africa,” is a fascinating and fresh look at the new dynamics in sub-Saharan Africa, drawing on extensive travels and interviews.
There are numerous enlightening encounters with some of the 1 million Chinese migrants who have decided to make a go of it in Africa. French explains that this is not a state-sponsored migration, but rather the result of individual choices and entrepreneurial ambitions. The migrants are divided by class, region and linguistic differences, enjoy varying levels of success and love scorning each other and commenting scathingly about Chinese business practices. Outside China, it seems migrants savor the freedom to vent.
One of the more colorful characters French met was Mr. Hao, who bought vast tracts of farmland in rural Mozambique even though he knew little about farming and spoke none of the local languages. He is happy in this African backwater, explaining of Europe and the United States that “the people in those f-cking places are too smart. I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere.”
Like many other Chinese migrants, Hao first went to Africa as part of a state-sponsored project and later decided to return on his own, attracted by opportunity and better natural and business environments.
Hao gambled on impoverished Mozambique because he thought there would be fewer Chinese competitors who might cheat him out of his money or steal his ideas. When asked about corruption, Hao insisted to French that it is far worse in China. He plans to have his sons marry local women to secure his family’s land title, a gambit that French wryly describes as “sexual colonization.”
With 60 percent of the world’s uncultivated arable land available at relatively low prices, Africa is ideal for agribusiness. As French writes, Africa is “in the grips of momentous and historic change, transitioning fast from its longtime status as neglected stepchild of the global economy to becoming one of its most heavily courted regions.”
“China has peppered the continent with newly built stadiums, airports, hospitals, highways and dams,” writes French in a recent New York Times op-ed, “but as Africans are beginning to fully recognize, these projects have also left many countries saddled with heavy debts and other problems, from environmental conflict to labor strife.”
China now finds itself accused of colonial-style exploitation, buying resources cheaply and selling back manufactured products. Moreover, there is growing resentment about the lack of transparency in China-funded projects, while French also suggests that the Chinese have become the ugly Americans of the 21st century.
Africans across the continent complain about the “Chinese propensity for bribery and corruption, for shoddy goods and for cutting corners,” according to French. This is often evident in construction projects, where roads and buildings quickly become dilapidated. Because they consistently underbid all competitors, provide financing and are adept at the art of greasing palms, however, Chinese firms own the infrastructure sector, a major conduit for migrants working on such projects eager to escape grim prospects back home.
Still, French is relatively optimistic about Africa’s prospects and long-term capacity to manage relations with China.
“The best chance that African states have of meaningful, sustainable development is through the maturing of democratic governance. This means moving beyond the narrow, formal exercise of electoral democracy, which already exists in many African countries, and the achievement of steadily greater accountability of the state,” he explains via email.
“This would mean, among other things, that governments would be required, via the pressure of an informed citizenry, elections and scrutiny from civil society, to make decisions more and more on the basis of something that can be likened to national interest, as opposed to the interests of a highly insulated and highly corrupt elite.”
Jeff Kingston is the director of Asian Studies, Temple University Japan.

沒有留言: