>>
加拿大参议院否决关于新疆种族灭绝的反华议案
加拿大参议员胡元豹，Senator Yuen Pau Woo, 28日在参议院发表长篇发言，论述为什么加拿大不应该通过这样的议案，有理有力有利，获得多数议员的支持，也在几家媒体得到了比较公平的报道。
Motion Concerning Genocide of Uyghurs
JUNE 28, 2021 Honourable colleagues, I am glad for the opportunity to speak to this motion, which is controversial for many reasons and has generated strong emotions. Unlike in the House of Commons, we are having a real debate about it, which I believe does honour to the chamber of sober second thought. There are of course different points of view, including some that are uncomfortable to many, but let’s embrace diversity of opinion rather than seek to shout it down. The motion has two parts: The first to do with the plight of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and the second which effectively calls for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China. I am going to focus on the former, since the Olympics issue is a relatively straightforward question about how far we should allow politics to influence sporting events. My view, in short, is “not very far at all”. On the thornier issue of Xinjiang, let me begin by saying that how you vote on the motion says very little about your feelings on the plight of Uyghurs. Of course, there are those who want your vote on this motion to be a test of who you are and what you stand for. I empathize with those of you who feel you must vote for the motion in order to not be typecast in a certain way. That is why it is not easy for me to make this speech, which is likely to generate a torrent of reflexive denunciations and crude labeling from my umm… “fan club”. I reject that kind of reductive logic and the insidious insinuations that come with it. It is an unfortunate reflection of our times that I even have to say this at the start of a speech in the Senate of Canada, but I am exploring with all of you what is in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. I hope we can also make the same assumption about other Canadians – especially Chinese Canadians -- who share some version of my views, but do not have the privilege and protections that I enjoy. There is a worrying trend in this country where discussions about China and Canada-China relations are framed in Manichean terms, and where Canadians with connections to China are received with discomfort, suspicion, or outright hostility. The crux of the motion is the labeling of Chinese actions against Uyghurs in Xinjiang as a genocide. I would note that we have already passed a motion calling on the government to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and that motion does not include the genocide label. You already know my views on “Magnitsky-style” motions but insofar as this chamber wants to demonstrate that “action” needs to be taken, a motion advocating such has already been adopted. The current motion does not add any actionable measure specific to the Uyghur situation in China; it is simply an exercise in labeling. We have heard various accounts about what is happening in Xinjiang, most of which is from American and Australian sources. But the best assemblage of information on Xinjiang is right here in Canada, at the University of British Columbia, by way of the Xinjiang Documentation Project https://xinjiang.sppga.ubc.ca/ . It is extremely important for all of us to have as accurate and as comprehensive a fact base as possible, especially in forming a view on matters far removed from Canada. If you are interested in the issue of extra-judicial detention of Uyghurs, Kazahks, and other ethnic groups in Xinjiang, the UBC portal is a great place to start. The URL can be found in the text of my speech that will soon be posted on my Senate website. The UBC team does not tell us if the legal definition of genocide has been met, but I believe that there is no version of what is happening in Xinjiang that most Canadians would be comfortable with. Even if we accept the Chinese government’s explanation that their treatment of Uyghurs is for the benefit of the Uyghur community, that the motivation is to counter terrorist acts, that the camps are basically vocational training centers, that the demolition of mosques is in the name of infrastructure development and modernization -- I think it is safe to say that most Canadians would still be appalled. That is why I understand that for our fellow parliamentarians in the other place, and for many of you, it might seem impossible to contemplate not voting for the motion. The fact that there is no version of what is happening in Xinjiang which Canadians can be comfortable with is as much a comment on us, as it is a comment on China. We have a view of individual liberties that is embodied in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we hold sacred, and which would not today allow our government to make mass arrests on the suspicion of terrorism, force whole communities to attend schools for what we perceive to be for their benefit, sterilize women so that they did not burden themselves and society with “inferior” children, or relocate entire villages in order to give them modern amenities. Except that we did all those things, and we did them throughout our short history as a country, most appallingly to indigenous peoples, but also to recent immigrants and minority groups who were deemed undesirable, untrustworthy, or just un-Canadian. The fact that China does not share our view of individual freedoms or indeed our interpretation of freedoms based on the Charter is not a basis on which to lecture the Chinese on how they should govern themselves. I suspect many Chinese nationals, and other nationals for that matter, will be aghast to learn that it is on the basis of our Charter that disabled people with an irredeemable condition and whose death is not reasonably foreseeable can be accorded a medically-induced death – to cite just one example of Canadian exceptionalism. If the point of this motion is to remind us that the PRC is an illiberal, authoritarian state, I have a news flash for you: The PRC has been an illiberal, authoritarian state since its founding over 70 years. Without minimizing any of the repressive – perhaps even genocidal -- acts against Uyghurs in recent years, the accusations against the Chinese government – forced relocation, demolition of traditional homes and ways of living, coercive birth control, mandatory re-education, suppression of individual rights – are as old as the PRC itself. Why do you think the Chinese government recently announced a policy to encourage families to have three children? Because they are trying to reverse the disastrous and often brutal one-child policy of previous decades that was forced on the entire population, especially Han Chinese. Perhaps the motivation behind this motion, and other motions like this one, is to point out that the PRC is indeed an illiberal and authoritarian state, and that – after 70 years -- we should do something about it. This is of course the subtext of the geopolitical contest between the US and China that will define at least the first half of this century, and which poses grave danger to the world. It is not just that US and China are competing for markets as well as military and technological supremacy. There is more than a hint that the contest is between what some would deem as legitimate and illegitimate systems of government, with China clearly in the latter category. That notion is behind much of the current debate on Canada-China relations, which is increasingly framed as one in which we should pursue relations with “good” Chinese people, but not the “bad” Chinese state. The argument that the Chinese government is illegitimate is typically based on the observation that it is not democratic. You may be surprised to learn, therefore, that in a recent poll on the state of democracy around the world, 70 percent of Chinese respondents agreed with the proposition that the PRC is democratic, compared to 65 percent in Canada, 60 percent in India, and only 50 percent in the United States. On a different question about degrees of democracy, respondents in China expressed greater satisfaction with the status quo in their country than did respondents in Canada and the United States. If you are suspicious about the source of this poll, I can tell you that it is from an organization known as the Alliance of Democracies, which has as its mission the promotion of democracy and free markets, and is led by the former Danish Prime Minister and Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. How is it possible, you say, when China does not even have elections for its government? Well, as political theorists will remind us, there are two kinds of state legitimacy: There is input legitimacy and there is output legitimacy. In the West, we tend to place much more emphasis on input legitimacy, which is essentially about how we select our representatives. Hence, the focus on free and fair elections. But in practice, citizens also confer legitimacy to their governments based on the results that are produced by that government – that is to say, on “outputs”. Now, like most of you, I was brought up in the orthodoxy that input democracy through free and fair elections will in the long run outperform because citizens can always vote out a government that has not performed and in that way seek to improve outputs by changing the inputs. But we are learning the hard way that democratic elections and changes in the government over decades have not consistently produced better outcomes for citizens in many industrialized economies. Sure, there has been economic growth, but income and wealth inequality have increased, with stagnating median incomes, and growing societal tension. That is the reason for what is now widely observed to be the problem of democratic deficit in western industrialized economies, and the rise of populist leaders who have illiberal instincts but nevertheless command much support through democratic elections. I much prefer the vagaries of democratic choice to the certainty of authoritarian rule, but we cannot be smug about our preferences for input legitimacy as the only way to validate state power, and we cannot deny that the Chinese state has its own claim to a kind of legitimacy – even if we don’t like it. What does political theory have to do with the current motion? Well, the premise of the motion is that we have a special right to criticize an illiberal and authoritarian China because the government is illegitimate. Think a bit about gross human rights violations by states that are ostensibly liberal and democratic and the fact that there are no motions making similar criticisms of them and I think you will see what I mean. You might say “Yes, I agree with Senator Woo’s observation. We should indeed adopt motions criticizing states that are responsible for violations of human rights in all instances, regardless of regime type”. But is this really what you want the Senate of Canada to be about? A body that passes judgment on the rest of the world with two or three paragraph motions that cannot possibly capture the complexity of a given situation? There is a reason why Parliament has historically left matters of foreign affairs to the executive, as part of the Royal Prerogative. The management of relations with other countries, especially great powers, is exceedingly complex, and does not lend itself to one-off pronouncements which are based on the desire to perform without having the responsibility to manage. Yet, it seems the Senate is increasingly activist on foreign policy issues, with at least a dozen bills and motions directing the government to do this or do that on what is always a very narrow issue in a broader bilateral or multilateral relationship. It isn’t just that these actions are almost always gratuitous; it is also that they can be damaging to Canadian interests because of the distraction caused by the action, and the ability for our counterparts to use those distractions, sometimes cynically, to advance their own bargaining positions. In this respect, I wholly agree with Senator Harder that this motion and others like it are not helpful in resolving some of the most pressing problems in the Canada-China relationship today, especially efforts to secure the release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, who continue to languish in Chinese prisons. Does this mean that we say nothing about the plight of Uyghurs? No, we must find ways to dialogue with the Chinese on the situation in Xinjiang. However, I do not believe the performance of a Senate labeling motion is the right way to do it. Let me share with you a version of how I broach this issue in my conversations with interlocuters. I had one such interaction recently. To our Chinese friends, I say: We are hearing very troubling news about the situation facing Uyghurs in Xinjiang – that their religious and cultural rights are being repressed; that they have been sent to training centers against their will; that their leaders have been subjected to intimidation and abuse; that their very existence as a people is being threatened. We understand that your actions are motivated by the fight against terrorism, a desire to provide employable skills for minorities, the need to modernize infrastructure and upgrade living standards, and a wish for greater national cohesion. We understand because our country made these same claims in our treatment of indigenous people in Canada and of minority groups that had come to this country as immigrants. We had a system of residential schools for indigenous children for over 140 years that sought to assimilate aboriginal peoples into mainstream society – ostensibly for their own good. It did not work. More than that, we have come to understand that the policy of Indian assimilation was not only ineffective, it was also morally wrong. The legacy of residential schools is one of individual and community trauma that will take generations to heal. We convened a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2008 to try and better understand what went wrong and how we can fix those wrongs. The findings were released in 2015 and we are still in the early stages of responding to all its recommendations. Many Canadians cannot listen to the news about Uyghurs, even your government’s version of what is going on in Xinjiang, without reflecting on how terribly wrong our own experiment with indigenous children in residential schools went. In making those reflections, Canadians are saying to Chinese friends that we don’t want you to make the same mistakes. We do so not because we have a superior moral position, not because we have the answers to the problems you are trying to solve, not because we want to embarrass China. We do it because of the pain we feel over what happened in our own country and for what we can learn from each other in not making such mistakes again. Each country functions within its unique historical, cultural, and political context, but we believe there are universal values to be upheld and common lessons that can be shared across borders. When it comes to the treatment of indigenous peoples and minorities, repression and forced assimilation only leads to longer-term problems for society at large. Canadians are still wrestling with those longer-term problems in our society and it is impossible for us to not express concern over what we hear about Xinjiang. We do it because we recognize our common humanity with Uyghurs and all peoples in China, and out of a desire for China to succeed as a nation of many ethnicities. Honourable colleagues, this is how I approach the issue. I accept that for many of you, what happens today in Canada or happened in Canada decades ago is irrelevant to the question of whether we should label the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang as a genocide. I respect that point of view, but I hope you will consider that a labeling motion, such as this one, is not the only way to respond to legitimate and genuinely-felt concerns of Canadians about the news coming out of western China. The fact that there is an alternative should give you a reason to vote against this motion. And if you do vote against the motion, it is not because you are unconcerned about the human rights of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, but because you want to do something about it. Thank you.
2021年6月28日 各位同事，我很高兴有机会就这一动议发言，这一动议由于许多原因而具有争议性，并产生了强烈的情绪。 与下议院不同的是，我们正在对它进行真正的辩论，我相信这对冷静思考的议院来说是一种荣誉。 当然，有不同的观点，包括一些让许多人感到不舒服的观点，但让我们拥抱意见的多样性，而不是寻求用叫喊来淹没他人。 该动议有两个部分。第一部分涉及新疆维吾尔族人的困境，第二部分则有效地呼吁抵制在中国举行的2022年冬奥会。 我将重点讨论前者，因为奥运会问题是一个相对简单的问题，即我们应该在多大程度上允许政治影响体育赛事。 简而言之，我的观点是 "根本不可能"。 关于更棘手的新疆问题，首先让我说，你如何对该动议投票，并不能说明你对维吾尔人的困境的感受。 当然，有一些人希望你们对这项动议的投票是对你们的身份和立场的一种考验。我很同情那些认为自己必须对该动议投赞成票以避免被打成某种类型的人。 这就是为什么我不容易发表这个演讲，这可能会引起我的嗯...... "粉丝俱乐部 "的反射性谴责和粗鲁的标签。我拒绝这种归纳性的逻辑和随之而来的阴险的影射。我甚至不得不在加拿大参议院的演讲开始时说这句话，这是我们时代的不幸反映，但我正在与你们所有人探讨什么是加拿大和加拿大人的最佳利益。 我希望我们也能对其他加拿大人--特别是加拿大华人--做出同样的假设，他们与我的观点有某种程度的相同，但没有我所享有的特权和保护。 在这个国家，有一种令人担忧的趋势，即关于中国和加中关系的讨论是以摩尼教的术语进行的，与中国有联系的加拿大人受到了不舒服、怀疑或直接的敌视。 该动议的核心是将中国针对新疆维吾尔人的行动称为种族灭绝。 我想指出，我们已经通过了一项动议，呼吁政府对在新疆侵犯人权的中国官员实施马格尼茨基式的制裁，而该动议并不包括种族灭绝的标签。 你们已经知道我对 "马格尼茨基式 "动议的看法，但就本会议厅想表明需要采取 "行动 "而言，已经通过了一项主张这样做的动议。 目前的动议并没有针对中国的维吾尔族局势增加任何可操作的措施；它只是一种贴标签的做法。 我们已经听到了关于新疆发生的各种说法，其中大部分是来自美国和澳大利亚的消息。 但是，关于新疆的最佳信息汇总就在加拿大，在不列颠哥伦比亚大学，通过新疆文献项目https://xinjiang.sppga.ubc.ca/。 对我们所有人来说，拥有尽可能准确和全面的事实基础是极其重要的，尤其是在对远离加拿大的事务形成看法时。如果你对新疆维吾尔族、哈萨克族和其他民族的法外拘留问题感兴趣，UBC门户网站是一个很好的起点。 网址可以在我的演讲稿中找到，我的演讲稿很快将在我的参议院网站上公布。 UBC团队没有告诉我们是否符合种族灭绝的法律定义，但我相信，对于在新疆发生的事情，没有一个版本是大多数加拿大人可以接受的。 即使我们接受中国政府的解释，即他们对待维吾尔人是为了维吾尔社区的利益，动机是为了打击恐怖主义行为，营地基本上是职业培训中心，拆除清真寺是为了发展基础设施和实现现代化--我认为可以说，大多数加拿大人仍然会感到震惊。 这就是为什么我理解，对于我们在另一个地方的议员同伴，以及对于你们中的许多人来说，似乎不可能考虑不投票支持这项动议。 对于在新疆发生的事情，没有一个加拿大人可以接受的版本，这一事实既是对我们的评论，也是对中国的评论。 我们对个人自由的看法体现在我们的《权利和自由宪章》中，我们认为它是神圣的，今天它不会允许我们的政府以恐怖主义的嫌疑进行大规模逮捕，强迫整个社区为我们认为对他们有利的学校上学，对妇女进行绝育以避免她们用 "劣质 "儿童给自己和社会带来负担，或搬迁整个村庄以给他们提供现代化的设施。 只是我们做了所有这些事情，而且我们在作为一个国家的短暂历史中都做了这些事情，最令人震惊的是对原住民，但也对最近的移民和被认为不受欢迎、不值得信任或只是不适合加拿大的少数群体。 中国不同意我们对个人自由的看法，或者说不同意我们根据《宪章》对自由的解释，但这并不能成为教训中国人应该如何管理自己的依据。 我猜想许多中国人，以及其他国家的人，在得知我们的宪章规定患有不可救药的残疾人士，并且其死亡无法合理预见的情况下，可以获得医学上的死亡--这只是加拿大例外主义的一个例子时，会感到非常震惊。 如果这项动议的重点是提醒我们，中华人民共和国是一个不自由的、专制的国家，那么我有一个消息要告诉你。中华人民共和国自建国70多年来一直是一个不自由的专制国家。 在不贬低近年来对维吾尔人的任何镇压--甚至可能是种族灭绝--行为的情况下，对中国政府的指控--强制搬迁、拆除传统房屋和生活方式、强制节育、强制性再教育、压制个人权利--与中华人民共和国本身一样古老。 你认为为什么中国政府最近宣布了一项政策，鼓励家庭生育三个孩子？ 因为他们正试图扭转前几十年的灾难性的、往往是残酷的独生子女政策，该政策是强加给全体人民的，尤其是汉族。 也许这项动议以及其他类似的动议背后的动机是要指出，中华人民共和国确实是一个不自由的专制国家，而且--70年后--我们应该对它做些什么。 这当然是美国和中国之间地缘政治较量的潜台词，这种较量至少将定义本世纪上半叶，并对世界构成严重危险。美国和中国不仅在竞争市场，也在竞争军事和技术优势。更有迹象表明，这场竞争是在一些人认为合法和不合法的政府系统之间进行的，而中国显然属于后者。 这一概念是目前关于加中关系的大部分辩论的基础，这种辩论越来越多地被描述为我们应该与 "好的 "中国人民建立关系，而不是 "坏的 "中国国家。 中国政府不合法的论点通常是基于它不民主这一观察。因此，你可能会惊讶地发现，在最近一次关于世界各地民主状况的民意调查中，70%的中国受访者同意中华人民共和国是民主的主张，而加拿大有65%，印度有60%，美国只有50%。在另一个关于民主程度的问题上，中国的受访者对他们国家的现状比加拿大和美国的受访者表示更满意。 如果你对这项民意调查的来源感到怀疑，我可以告诉你，它来自一个被称为民主国家联盟的组织，该组织以促进民主和自由市场为使命，由丹麦前首相和北约秘书长安诺斯-福格-拉斯穆森领导。 你说，中国甚至没有为其政府进行选举，这怎么可能呢？嗯，正如政治理论家会提醒我们的那样，国家的合法性有两种。一种是输入合法性，一种是输出合法性。在西方，我们倾向于更多地强调输入合法性，这基本上是关于我们如何选择我们的代表。 因此，重点是自由和公平的选举。但在实践中，公民也会根据政府产生的结果--也就是说，根据 "产出"--来赋予政府合法性。现在，像你们中的大多数人一样，我是在正统观念中长大的，即通过自由和公平的选举进行的投入民主从长远来看会有更好的表现，因为公民总是可以投票选出一个没有表现的政府，并以这种方式寻求通过改变投入来改善产出。 但我们正在努力学习，在许多工业化经济体中，民主选举和几十年来的政府变革并没有为公民持续产生更好的结果。当然，经济有了增长，但收入和财富的不平等却在增加，中位数收入停滞不前，社会关系日益紧张。这就是现在人们普遍认为西方工业化经济体存在民主赤字问题的原因，也是民粹主义领导人崛起的原因，他们有不自由的本能，但还是通过民主选举获得了很多支持。 我更喜欢民主选择的变幻莫测，而不是专制统治的确定性，但我们不能自鸣得意地把输入合法性作为验证国家权力的唯一方式，我们也不能否认中国国家有自己的一种合法性要求--即使我们不喜欢它。 政治理论与当前的动议有什么关系？好吧，这个动议的前提是，我们有特殊的权利来批评一个不自由和专制的中国，因为这个政府是不合法的。想一想那些表面上是自由和民主的国家对人权的严重侵犯，以及没有动议对它们进行类似的批评，我想你会明白我的意思。 你可能会说 "是的，我同意吴参议员的意见。我们确实应该通过动议，批评那些在所有情况下对侵犯人权负有责任的国家，无论政权类型如何"。但是，这真的是你希望加拿大参议院的目的吗？一个用两到三段的动议对世界其他地方作出判断的机构，而这些动议不可能捕捉到特定情况的复杂性？ 议会在历史上将外交事务作为皇家特权的一部分交给行政部门处理，是有原因的。 与其他国家，特别是与大国关系的管理是极其复杂的，并不适合发表一次性的声明，这些声明是基于执行的愿望而没有管理的责任。 然而，参议院在外交政策问题上似乎越来越积极，至少有十几项法案和动议指示政府在更广泛的双边或多边关系中的一个非常狭隘的问题上做这个或做那个。 这不仅仅是因为这些行动几乎总是无缘无故的；还因为这些行动可能会损害加拿大的利益，因为这些行动会分散人们的注意力，而且我们的同行能够利用这些分散的注意力，有时是冷酷的，来推进他们自己的谈判地位。 在这方面，我完全同意哈德参议员的观点，即这项动议和其他类似的动议无助于解决今天加中关系中一些最紧迫的问题，特别是为确保释放继续在中国监狱中受折磨的迈克尔-斯帕弗和迈克尔-科夫里奇所作的努力。 这是否意味着我们对维吾尔人的困境只字不提？ 不，我们必须找到与中国人就新疆局势进行对话的方法。 然而，我不认为参议院贴标签动议的表现是正确的方式。 让我与你分享我在与对话者的对话中如何讨论这个问题的一个版本。 我最近有一次这样的互动。 对我们的中国朋友，我说。我们听到关于新疆维吾尔人面临的情况的非常令人不安的消息--他们的宗教和文化权利受到压制；他们被强行送入培训中心；他们的领导人受到恐吓和虐待；他们作为一个民族的存在受到威胁。我们理解你们的行动是出于打击恐怖主义、为少数民族提供就业技能的愿望、实现基础设施现代化和提高生活水平的需要，以及增强民族凝聚力的愿望。 我们理解，因为我们的国家在对待加拿大的原住民和作为移民来到这个国家的少数群体时，也提出了这些主张。我们有一个超过140年的原住民儿童寄宿学校系统，试图将原住民同化为主流社会--表面上是为了他们的利益。它并没有发挥作用。不仅如此，我们已经认识到，印第安人同化政策不仅没有效果，而且在道德上也是错误的。寄宿学校的遗产是个人和社区的创伤，需要几代人的努力才能愈合。 我们在2008年召集了一个真相与和解委员会，试图更好地了解什么是错误的，以及我们如何能够纠正这些错误。 调查结果于2015年公布，我们仍处于对其所有建议作出回应的早期阶段。 许多加拿大人听了关于维吾尔人的新闻，甚至是你们政府对新疆发生的事情的说法，就会想到我们自己在寄宿学校里对原住民儿童的试验是多么的错误。 在进行这些反思时，加拿大人在对中国朋友说，我们不希望你们犯同样的错误。 我们这样做不是因为我们有优越的道德地位，不是因为我们有你们试图解决的问题的答案，不是因为我们想让中国难堪。 我们这样做是因为我们对发生在我们自己国家的事情感到痛苦，也因为我们可以从对方身上学到什么，不至于再犯这样的错误。 每个国家都在其独特的历史、文化和政治背景下运作，但我们相信有一些普遍的价值观需要维护，有一些共同的教训可以跨越国界分享。 在对待原住民和少数民族的问题上，压制和强制同化只会导致整个社会的长期问题。 加拿大人仍在与我们社会中的这些长期问题作斗争，我们不可能不对我们听到的关于新疆的情况表示关切。 我们这样做是因为我们认识到我们与维吾尔族和中国所有民族的共同人性，并出于对中国作为一个多民族国家取得成功的渴望。 各位同事，我是这样处理这个问题的。 我承认，对你们中的许多人来说，今天在加拿大发生的事情或几十年前在加拿大发生的事情与我们是否应该将新疆维吾尔人的待遇称为种族灭绝这一问题无关。 我尊重这一观点，但我希望你们考虑，像这样一个贴标签的动议，并不是回应加拿大人对来自中国西部的消息的合理和真正的关切的唯一方式。 有一个替代方案的事实应该给你一个投票反对这项动议的理由。 如果你真的投票反对这项动议，并不是因为你不关心新疆维吾尔人的人权，而是因为你想为此做些什么。 谢谢你们。