2015年6月6日 星期六

Chinese Security Laws Elevate the Party and Stifle Dissent. 中國國家安全法草案強化意識形態控制

Chinese Security Laws Elevate the Party and Stifle Dissent. Mao Would Approve.

中國國家安全法草案強化意識形態控制

一家中央機構將全權負責國家安全事務,從而鞏固習近平在這一領域的權威。
Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
一家中央機構將全權負責國家安全事務,從而鞏固習近平在這一領域的權威。
北京——中國上個月公布了新的《國家安全法》草案,其中沒有多少地方着墨于軍事實力、反間諜或保衛邊境這樣的傳統安全問題。
讓這裡的很多人感到驚訝和擔憂的是,它讀起來更像是一份共產黨意識形態的文件,一篇旨在捍衛中共掌握權力的檄文。該法連同另外兩部近期公布的法律草案,構成了迄今為止對習近平主席國家安全理念的最全面的闡述。對於中共及其政權所遭受的威脅,它們也做出了自毛澤東時代以來最寬泛的解釋。
分析人士認為,這些法律的目的是讓安全部門和法院獲得更大的靈活性,以便封鎖被習近平視為威脅的中國民間團體和西方制度及理念的影響。
採用過去的民族主義語言已成為習近平執政期間的一種標準做法,《國家安全法》也是如此。草案中表示,必須維護各領域的國家安全,從文化到教育到科學技術,以「實現中國民族的偉大復興」。
「這部草案的重點集中在政治、意識形態和文化上,」曾在上海華東政法大學任法學教授的民權律師張雪忠說。
其他兩部法律草案也可以說涉及到「意識形態安全」。一部是《反恐怖法》,另一部則旨在控制境外非政府組織及其中國合作夥伴的活動。
一些學者認為,自從中共1949年掌權以來,用法律來為意識形態服務、維護中共存續的做法從來沒有像現在這樣頻繁。
張雪忠說,這幾部草案「看起來很像是體現了某些黨內領導人的保守政治思想,而立法機關只不過是在把他們的思想變成法律。」
最有趣的問題也許是:為什麼習近平認為他需要這樣的法律?現有的法規已經把共產黨的權力奉為不容質疑,將任何它認為鼓勵「顛覆國家政權」的行為歸為刑事犯罪。
不過一些學者表示,這些新的法律構建了一個更加強硬的法律框架來控制民間團體和西方組織。
這三部法律中最雄心勃勃的是《國家安全法》。通過讓一個中央機關——很可能是習近平創立的國家安全委員會——全權負責安全問題,鞏固習近平在國家安全方面的權威。中共黨報《人民日報》4月23日發表的一篇文章稱,這部法律的草案貫徹了「習近平總書記的精神」。
有學者認為,習近平希望制定這些法律的另一個原因則更加抽象。在普通中國人的生活中,中共的意識形態不再像毛澤東時代那樣發揮核心作用了,所以黨需要採取各種方式來宣揚這種意識形態,將其制度化,包括把它定為成文的法律。這一點在習近平當政期間尤為明顯。自2012年上任以來,習近平推動舊式中共意識形態的方式,是1989年6月天安門廣場一帶的親民主抗議活動遭到鎮壓之後所未有過的。
「這種意識形態現在要淡薄多了,民眾對它的關注大不如前,」在加州大學伯克利分校(Stanley B. Lubman)研究中國法律的陸思禮(Stanley B. Lubman)說。「因此,中國共產黨就需要獲得比以前更多的制度支持,而且可能還需要更多。這有助於解釋,為什麼自從習近平上台以來法律受到了重視。」
《國家安全法》明確提到,要讓中國13億人了解黨和國家的安全及意識形態需求。其中一條要求各機構「加強國家安全新聞宣傳和輿論引導」。
「國家安全教育納入國民教育體系和公務員教育培訓體系,增強全民國家安全意識,」草案中寫道。「每年4月15日為全民國家安全教育日。」
法律分析人士稱,這部法律預計最遲將於明年3月通過,屆時全國人民代表大會將在北京召開。該立法機關的常委會同樣擁有批准法律的權力,因此它也可能在那之前通過。
「我認為《國家安全法》的框架符合中國當前的需要,因為國家安全的概念已經擴展到了更多領域,」上海華東政法大學的法學教授童之偉表示。「但我不贊同草案中的一些措辭——例如『意識形態安全』和『文化安全』。」
意識形態和文化不會威脅到國家安全,童之偉補充道。
民權律師張雪忠則表示,這部法律「註定會被濫用」。有了它的規定,「那些想要遏制言論自由或限制外國出版物進口的執法人員,在做這些事的時候就會更有底氣,」他說。
在控制民間團體和西方機構方面,另外兩部法律草案有着更為具體的規定,而它們均有望最早於今年夏天通過。根據《境外非政府組織管理法》草案的規定,此類組織需要在公安部進行登記並受其管理。對此,國際特赦組織(Amnesty International)中國組研究員倪偉平(William Nee)認為,這一舉措相當於將非政府組織當作「潛在罪犯」。
這部法律將適用於所有的非營利組織,包括學校和藝術機構。即使那些無在華業務、只在中國舉辦一次活動的組織也必須取得警方的許可。
在登記之前,境外非政府組織需要找到一個業務主管單位。為了獲得主管單位的同意及公安部的批准,非政府組織需要放棄或者嚴格限制一些官方認為在政治上可疑的行為,例如旨在幫助中國建立獨立司法制度的活動。
此外,人權觀察組織(Human Rights Watch)研究員王松蓮(Maya Wang)撰文指出,對於那些「較為直言不諱的」中國非政府組織,來自境外非政府組織的資金將會「迅速枯竭」,從而導致很多類似的組織無法運行。王松蓮表示該法將會影響其團體的活動。
《反恐怖主義法》草案則要求外國科技和金融公司向中國機構備案密碼方案,並在其科技產品中安裝安全「後門」。對此,奧巴馬總統等美國官員正在向中國領導人施壓,希望放棄這些要求。
在習近平任期內,他屢次引用2300多年前戰國時期法家思想家韓非子的觀點。法家認為,集權統治應融入法律之中,而非受到法律的約束。
去年10月召開的一次黨代會為利用法律手段來維護和加強黨的統治奠定了基礎。會議呼籲通過政策來弘揚「具有中國特色的社會主義法治」。法律學者表示,共產黨在借用「法治」這一術語進行宣傳,但無意容許法律約束黨的權威。
紐約大學(New York University)法學教授孔傑榮(Jerome A Cohen)表示,「習近平的法治似乎是一種工具,還用於加強中央對不受管束的下級政府的控制,以及強化對地方法院決策的種種不良影響。」
在更宏觀的層面上,孔傑榮認為,「習近平加強了將立法和司法實踐作為黨的意識形態和政策工具的使用,從而展現出中國自六四以來壓制力度最大的一個政權。」
黃安偉(Edward Wong)是《紐約時報》北京分社社長。

Adam Wu對本文有研究貢獻。


BEIJING — China’s new national security law, released in draft form this month, has little to say about such traditional security matters as military power, counterespionage or defending the nation’s borders.
Instead, to the surprise and alarm of many people here, it reads more like a Communist Party ideology paper and a call to arms aimed at defending the party’s grip on power. The law, together with two other recently published draft laws, constitutes the most expansive articulation yet of President Xi Jinping’s vision of national security, and the widest interpretation of threats to the Communist Party and the state since the Mao era.
Analysts say the laws are aimed at giving the security forces and courts greater leeway in muzzling Chinese civil society and corralling the influence of Western institutions and ideas, which Mr. Xi views as a threat.
Deploying the kind of retro-nationalist language that has become standard fare under Mr. Xi, the national security law says security must be maintained in all aspects of society, from culture to education to technology, “to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
“This draft focuses on politics, ideology and culture,” said Zhang Xuezhong, a civil rights lawyer and former law professor at East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai.
The two other draft laws — also related to what might be described as ideological security — are a so-called counterterrorism law and one aimed at controlling the activities of foreign nongovernmental organizations and their Chinese partners.
More than at any other time since the Communists seized power in 1949, some scholars say, the law is being used in the service of ideology and maintaining party survival.
The draft laws, Mr. Zhang said, “really look like an expression of the conservative political thinking of some party leaders, and the legislative organs are merely trying to realize their thoughts.”
Perhaps the most interesting question is why Mr. Xi thinks he needs such laws. Existing laws already enshrine Communist Party power and criminalize any act deemed to encourage “subversion of state power.”
But the new laws provide a firmer legal framework for controlling civil society and Western organizations, scholars say.
The most ambitious of the three, the national security law, solidifies Mr. Xi’s authority over national security by placing a central organ — likely to be the National Security Commission that Mr. Xi founded — in charge of all security matters. An April 23 article in People’s Daily, the official party newspaper, said the new draft of the security law reflected “General Secretary Xi Jinping’s spirit.”
Another reason Mr. Xi wants these laws is more abstract, scholars say. Party ideology no longer plays a central role in the lives of ordinary Chinese the way it did in the Mao era, so the party needs to promote and institutionalize the ideology by whatever means it can, including by writing it into law. That is especially true under Mr. Xi, who since the day he took office in 2012 has promoted old-school party ideology in a way not seen since the aftermath of the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protests aroundTiananmen Square in Beijing.
“The ideology is far thinner and holds the attention of the populace far less powerfully than before,” said Stanley B. Lubman, a scholar of Chinese law at the University of California, Berkeley. “As a result, the Chinese Communist Party needs more institutional support than before, and may need even more. This helps to explain the attention that law has recently been receiving since Xi came to power.”
The national security law explicitly mentions the need to teach China’s 1.3 billion people about the security and ideological needs of the state and the party. One clause commands institutions to “strengthen guidance on news, propaganda and public opinion about national security.”
“National security education will be included in the national education system and the public-servant training system to strengthen awareness among the entire populace,” the law says. “April 15 of each year will be set aside as national security education day.”
Legal analysts say the law is expected to be passed no later than March, when the National People’s Congress is to meet in Beijing. It could be passed sooner by the legislature’s standing committee, which also has the power to approve laws.
“I think the frame of the national security law fits the current needs of the nation, since national security as a concept has expanded to more areas,” said Tong Zhiwei, a professor at the East China University of Political Science and Law. “But I don’t agree with some of the wordings in the draft — for example the phrases ‘ideological security’ and ‘cultural security.’ ”
Ideology and culture are not threats to national security, Mr. Tong added.
Mr. Zhang, the lawyer, said the law was “destined to be abused.” With its sanction, he said, “law enforcement officials who want to suppress freedom of speech or set limits on importing foreign publications will be more confident in doing so.”
The two other draft laws have even more concrete provisions for controlling civil society and Western institutions; both could be passed as early as this summer. The foreign NGO law proposes that such organizations be registered and regulated by the Public Security Ministry, a step that William Nee, a China researcher with Amnesty International, equates to treating them “as potential criminals.”
The law would apply to all nonprofit groups, including schools and artistic organizations. Even those groups with no China operations but who want to hold an event here would have to register with the police.
Before registering, foreign NGOs would have to find an official sponsor. To get official backing and to win the approval of the security ministry, the NGOs would have to drop or severely curtail activities that officials might consider politically suspect, like those aimed at helping China build an independent judicial system, for example.
In addition, funding given by foreign NGOs to “more outspoken” Chinese NGOs would “rapidly dry up,” leading to the shutdown of many of those groups, wrote Maya Wang, a researcher with Human Rights Watch. Ms. Wang said the law would affect her group’s activities.
The separate draft counterterrorism law calls for, among other things, foreign technology and financial companies to hand over encryption keys to Chinese agencies and install security back doors in technology. President Obama and other American officials are pressing Chinese leaders to drop those requirements.
During his tenure, Mr. Xi has repeatedly cited Han Feizi, a Legalist philosopher from the Warring States period more than 23 centuries ago. The Legalists said autocratic rule should be codified in law rather than having law limit that rule.
A party conference in October laid the foundation for the party’s use of the law to justify and reinforce its rule. The conference called for policies promoting “the Socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics.” Legal scholars say the party is appropriating the term “rule of law” for propaganda purposes with no intention of allowing the law to circumscribe the party’s authority.
 Jerome A. Cohen, a law professor at New York University, said Mr. Xi’s “rule of law seems also a vehicle for strengthening the control of central authority over the unruly lower levels of government and all the distorting influences that impact local court decision-making.”
On a broader level, he said, “Xi has intensified the uses of legislation and judicial practice as instruments of party ideology and policy in order to impose a more repressive regime than China has witnessed since the June 4 era.”
 Adam Wu contributed research.

沒有留言: