作者：刘畅
最近越南与欧洲签约高铁项目，本以为某些人会反思越南为什么选远亲而不选近邻？恰恰相反，国内的媒体大肆宣传，越南签约欧洲是赔了夫人又折兵：赔了钱，还搭上廉价劳动力。明眼人一看，这是吃不到葡萄说葡萄酸。新闻播了几天，效果明显不咋地，又出现另一种新闻，中国和河内签署了工业园、公路等修建协议，来宣示这个邻居并没完全抛弃自己。不过是个欧越高铁项目的合作事件，偏偏弄出两个版本的新闻。恰恰应验了中共百年不变的新闻宣传方针“报喜不报忧”，对国外事件呢，报忧不报喜，人家没忧也要弄出点“忧点”，再反其道而行之，秀自己的存在，网络上出现一个新词“赢了”，在舆论上赢了，在宣传上赢了。这样一看，如果说阿Q精神在民国之前只出现在民间，而现在是官方内定、法定，冠冕堂皇，简直到了极致！
提到越南，大家并不陌生，百年前中国的藩属国，中法战争后，法国逐步取代清朝对越南的宗主权。近代时期，经历越法战争、越美战争，最终取得独立。在经济发展上，每一步都在效仿中国，改革开放、招商引资、劳动红利等，这条路线，不亚于当年模仿日本的中国。
当代的中国，无论是汉语词汇的引进，还是政策的效仿，太多脱胎于日本，什么素质教育、国企年功序列制度、国企改制、公务员选拔制、大学生扩招、大学生村官、选调生，都是日本在几十年前实践过的。更不要说，早期电影、电视、音乐中日本文化的影响，高铁、重工等工业影响。但绝大部分中国人并不知道这一事实，尤其在互联网并不发达的昨天。在中共的意识里，功劳都是自己的，人民无功，友邦无劳，拿来的都是他自己的。那老百姓知不知道，中日建交后，日本为了支持中国发展，提供了贷款和其他援助，更不用说，上世纪80年代，提供了多少技术和生产线？中国人民，在上个世纪掀起的日语潮、日本出国风也不是假的。
在这里，我不是宣传日本有多好，而是说明，日本这个中国现代化的最大的外籍功臣之一，中国尚且可以肆意抹黑，更不要提同样有贡献和支持的美国和欧洲。中国为什么对自己有帮助的友邦这个态度呢？
答：我曾经常给他们分享一个观点，为什么中共在文革时期坚决打击一切宗教？因为中共想当“上帝”。为了达到这个目的，一切风头盖过它的人物、组织、国家都必须在它之下，无论是它认为好的或者坏的。好的呢？它想方设法收编到它的麾下，或发展为党员，或者统战到其阵营，如果统战不成，就过河拆桥，把他们的功劳据为己有再抹黑之。它认为坏的呢？李洪志、马云等就是其下场。回到刚才那个问题，这些友邦虽然帮助了中国，第一、其风头容易盖过中共，第二、人权观念无法达成一致，就只有将其收功再抹黑。当中国人在侵华战争的历史叙事中被洗脑，出现仇日、反日情绪，甚至在深圳血案发生后，谁知道这个国家曾帮助中国人走向现代化？谁知道1989年后，这个国家为中国人民的人权而奔走和呼号呢？
反观越南，虽然是中国的学生，这些年默默地招商引资，默默地发展，秉持“竹子外交”，不站边，既不得罪中国，也与欧美关系稳定，逐渐成为了亚洲发展的一颗新星。主动与欧洲合作，也是符合市场经济规则。他们并没有学中国，动不动要求外企与国企合资，霸王条款一大堆，随时为“过河拆桥”埋下伏笔或者留后路。既然这样，越南就像个初出江湖的小兄弟，实力虽然不强，但谦逊低调，主动融入江湖规则，中国呢，则像个江湖老油条，有一定地位，但老奸巨猾，在它掌握绝对垄断地位时，别人有可能被迫顺服于它，但大环境中一旦出现更多像越南这类敦厚的小兄弟时，这种风格只会被丢进历史垃圾桶。
中国的改革开放已经近五十年，到底该怎么走？治国治企如同做人，合作才能共赢，凡事不着眼于你死我活的输赢逻辑，懂得尊重他人，有收获也必须有付出，才能长久合作；如果只是仗着地大物博、人口红利，处处对他国掣肘，处处搞经济霸权，你又如何在这个世界得到尊重？又有人说了，中国和第三世界走得很近，朋友很多，但那些朋友是中国抠人民的福利去“撒币”收买的，有钱就是朋友，没钱狗屁不是，这些国家墙头草两边倒，巴基斯坦就是例子。所以，治国也得靠仁义礼智信，人人为我，我为人人，遵守游戏规则，不是靠投机取巧，今天偶然取胜了，明天呢？友邦全部跑了，难道又回到闭关锁国、闭门造车的天朝“内需”时期？
再谈谈前段时间一个新闻，越南对外宣传，争取2050年建成发达国家。国内的人觉得越南不自量力。中国人在国内被洗脑，认为发达国家就是GDP、高楼大厦、车水马龙的硬件，其实还有什么？共产党永远不会告诉你，“发达”更多是国家给予人民的福利，从人权、医疗、教育、生老病死等一条龙保障。一个国家敢给他们人民承诺“发达”，就是承诺给予福利，这难道不是一种魄力和胆识？然而很多中国人连“福利”这个词都没听说过，更不要说福利的直观理解。以前罗大佑的歌曲《童年》，第二段唱道：福利社里什么都有，就是口袋里没有半毛钱……这一段也因政治原因被“和谐”掉了。中国发展了这么多年，财富积累这么多年，对内始终一句话：中国始终长期处在发展中阶段。也就是说，中国人民将长期不配有福利。要么说中国人口多了，但人口数据到底多少，它自己统计，它自己最清楚；要么说中国还要积累资本搞基建，中国的基建已经超越了很多发达国家了，还有太多重复建设，这个很重要吗？既然号称全民所有，为什么福利只限于体制内，可全民的“分红”呢？既然号称社会主义，可是全民共享福利才是真正的社会主义，否则就是资本主义或寡头。
最后，希望越南能一如既往地保持这种谦逊低调的外交作风，遵守规则，主动融入世界、服务于世界，造福于越南人民，发不发达不重要，只要坚持到底，十年、二十年、五十年，一定会成为东亚的另一种“发展”的可能，也能成为一面照妖镜，照出自己的清白坦荡，更照出真正的妖魔鬼怪！
编辑：胡丽莉 校对：孔祥庆 翻译：周敏
From Vietnamese High-Speed Rail to Universal Welfare: What Exactly Has China “Won”?
Author: Liu Chang
Abstract: Taking high-speed rail cooperation in Vietnam as an entry point, this article criticizes the win-lose logic promoted by CCP propaganda, analyzes the reasons why it smears external contributions, and compares the development models of China and Vietnam, calling for respect for rules and equal cooperation so that development genuinely benefits the people.
Recently, Vietnam signed a high-speed rail project contract with Europe. It was originally thought that certain people would reflect on why Vietnam chose a distant relative over a close neighbor; on the contrary, domestic media hyped up on a grand scale that Vietnam signing with Europe meant suffering double losses: losing money and throwing in cheap labor to boot. Anyone with discerning eyes can see that this is a case of sour grapes. After broadcasting the news for a few days, the effect was obviously not good, so another kind of news emerged: China and Hanoi signed agreements to build industrial parks, highways, and other projects, so as to proclaim that this neighbor has not completely abandoned itself. It was merely a cooperation event on a Europe-Vietnam high-speed rail project, yet two versions of news were concocted out of it. This happened to fulfill the CCP’s century-old, unchanging news propaganda principle of “reporting good news but not bad news”; as for foreign events, it reports bad news but not good news, and even if others have no “bad points,” it will manufacture some, and then go in the opposite direction to show off its own presence, spawning a new term on the internet: “won”—winning in public opinion, winning in propaganda. Looking at it this way, if the Ah Q spirit appeared only among the populace before the Republic of China, it is now internally designated, statutory, high-sounding, and simply taken to the extreme by the authorities!
Speaking of Vietnam, everyone is not unfamiliar with it—a tributary state of China a century ago. After the Sino-French War, France gradually replaced the Qing Dynasty’s suzerainty over Vietnam. In modern times, having experienced the Franco-Vietnamese War and the Vietnam-US War, it ultimately achieved independence. In terms of economic development, every step has been emulating China: reform and opening up, attracting foreign investment, demographic dividends, and so forth. This route is no less than China imitating Japan back in the day.
In contemporary China, whether it is the introduction of Chinese vocabulary or the emulation of policies, far too much was born out of Japan—such things as quality education, the state-owned enterprise seniority system, state-owned enterprise restructuring, civil servant selection system, university expansion enrollment, university student village officials, and selected graduates were all practiced by Japan decades ago. Not to mention the influence of Japanese culture in early movies, television, and music, as well as industrial influences such as high-speed rail and heavy industry. But the vast majority of Chinese people do not know this fact, especially in the yesterday when the internet was not well-developed. In the consciousness of the CCP, all credits belong to itself: the people have no merit, friendly nations have no effort, and whatever it has taken from others is all its own. Then do the common people know that after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Japan, Japan provided loans and other assistance to support China’s development—not to mention how much technology and how many production lines it provided in the 1980s? The Japanese language craze and the wave of going to Japan set off by the Chinese people in the last century were not fake either.
Here, I am not promoting how good Japan is, but illustrating that towards Japan—one of the largest foreign contributors to China’s modernization—China can still willfully smear it, let alone the United States and Europe, which likewise provided contributions and support. Why does China hold this attitude toward friendly nations that have helped it?
Answer: I used to often share a viewpoint with them: Why did the CCP resolutely crack down on all religions during the Cultural Revolution? Because the CCP wants to play “God.” To achieve this goal, all figures, organizations, and countries that overshadow it must be beneath it, whether it deems them good or bad. What about the good ones? It tries every possible way to incorporate them under its banner—either developing them into party members or co-opting them into its united front camp; if united front tactics fail, it kicks down the ladder, usurps their credits as its own, and then smears them. What about those it deems bad? Li Hongzhi, Jack Ma, and others are their outcome. Returning to the question just now: although these friendly nations helped China, first, their momentum easily overshadows the CCP, and second, consensus cannot be reached on human rights concepts, so there is no choice but to usurp their merits and then smear them. When Chinese people are brainwashed in the historical narrative of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, giving rise to anti-Japanese emotions—even after the Shenzhen blood tragedy occurred—who knows that this country once helped Chinese people move toward modernization? Who knows that after 1989, this country bustled and cried out for the human rights of the Chinese people?
Looking at Vietnam in contrast: although it is a student of China, over these years it has quietly attracted foreign investment, quietly developed, and adhered to “bamboo diplomacy”—taking no sides, offending neither China nor losing stability in relations with Europe and America, gradually becoming a rising star of Asian development. Proactively cooperating with Europe also aligns with market economy rules. They did not copy China in demanding foreign enterprises form joint ventures with state-owned enterprises at every turn, packing in heaps of domineering terms and laying down hidden lines or leaving escape hatches for “kicking down the ladder” at any time. In this way, Vietnam is like a novice brother who has just entered the arena—though not strong in capability, humble and low-key, proactively integrating into arena rules; China, on the other hand, is like an old slickster in the arena—possessing a certain status, but cunning and treacherous. When it holds an absolute monopoly position, others may be forced to yield to it, but once more honest and simple junior brothers like Vietnam appear in the macro environment, this style will only be dumped into the trash heap of history.
China’s reform and opening up has lasted nearly fifty years; how on earth should it proceed? Governance of a country or an enterprise is just like personal conduct: only through cooperation can win-win results be achieved. If one refrains from focusing on the win-lose logic of life and death in everything, knows how to respect others, and realizes that harvests must come with contributions, long-term cooperation can be attained. If one merely relies on vast territory, abundant resources, and demographic dividends to stymie other countries at every turn and engage in economic hegemony everywhere, how can you gain respect in this world? Some people say again that China stays very close to the Third World and has many friends, but those friends were bought by China through pinching the welfare of its people to “scatter money”; with money they are friends, without money they are worth nothing—these countries sway like weeds on a wall, Pakistan being an example. Therefore, governing a country must also rely on benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness—all for one, one for all, obeying the rules of the game, rather than relying on opportunism. Winning by chance today, what about tomorrow? When friendly nations have all fled, will it return to the Celestial Empire’s “internal demand” period of national closure and behind-closed-doors development?
Let’s speak further of a piece of news from a while ago: Vietnam announced externally that it strives to build a developed country by 2050. People domestically felt Vietnam was overestimating its abilities. Chinese people have been brainwashed domestically into believing that a developed country is merely the hardware of GDP, skyscrapers, and bustling traffic. In fact, what else is there? The Communist Party will never tell you that “developed” is more about the welfare given by the country to its people—one-stop protection ranging from human rights, healthcare, and education to birth, aging, illness, and death. A country that dares to promise its people “developedness” is promising to provide welfare; is this not a form of boldness and courage? Yet many Chinese people have never even heard of the word “welfare,” let alone having an intuitive understanding of welfare. Previously, in the second verse of Lo Ta-yu’s song Childhood, it was sung: Inside the welfare shop there is everything, except there is not a half-penny in the pocket… This segment was also “harmonized” due to political reasons. China has developed for so many years and accumulated wealth for so many years, yet internally there is always one sentence: China remains in the primary stage of development for a long time. In other words, the Chinese people will not be worthy of having welfare for a long time. Either it is said that China’s population is too large—though as for how much the population data actually is, it calculates its own statistics and knows best itself; or it is said that China still needs to accumulate capital to conduct infrastructure construction—China’s infrastructure has already surpassed many developed countries, and there is far too much duplicate construction. Is this really that important? Since it claims to be owned by all the people, why is welfare limited to those inside the system, while where is the “dividend” for all the people? Since it claims to be socialism, sharing welfare among all the people is true socialism; otherwise, it is capitalism or an oligarchy.
Finally, it is hoped that Vietnam can, as always, maintain this humble and low-key diplomatic style, abide by rules, proactively integrate into and serve the world, and benefit the Vietnamese people. Whether it becomes developed or not is not important; as long as it perseveres to the end—ten years, twenty years, fifty years—it will surely become another possibility of “development” in East Asia, and can also become a demon-revealing mirror, reflecting its own innocence and frankness, while further exposing the true demons and monsters!
Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Zhou Min
