博客 页面 61

从西贝“预制菜”风波看中国的食品安全困局

0

作者/编辑:李聪玲

责任编辑:胡丽莉 翻译:吴可正

2025年9月10日,罗永浩在微博上公开吐槽:“好久没吃西贝了,今天下飞机跟同事吃了一顿,发现几乎全都是预制菜,还那么贵,实在是太恶心了。”他同时呼吁国家立法,强制餐厅标注菜品是否为预制菜。随后,他在直播中进一步强调,自己并不是单纯反对预制菜的工艺,而是反对餐厅在不告知消费者的情况下使用预制菜。他提出了两个核心诉求:一是消费者的知情权必须得到保障;二是国家应尽快出台预制菜的明确定义和标准。

为了证明说法,他还在社交媒体中展示了部分媒体探访西贝门店的影像,指出冷冻鱼、袋装汤料等现象,并公开悬赏10万元征集“西贝使用预制菜的真凭实据”。在9月12日的直播中,他明确表示自己并无“针对西贝”或“针对贾国龙”的个人敌意,而是希望通过这次事件推动行业透明化与制度完善。罗永浩的直言很快引爆了舆论,网络上数以百万计的消费者留言支持,表达了自己对“预制菜进餐馆却不标识”的愤怒。显然,这不是一次个人的口水战,而是公众对食品安全长期焦虑的集中爆发。

面对汹涌的舆论,西贝创始人贾国龙和企业方面迅速作出回应。首先,贾国龙在公开采访中坚决否认“西贝菜品属于预制菜”。他解释称,西贝部分食材确实经过中央厨房的统一加工处理,但这与“预制菜”不同。按照他理解的定义,预制菜是“工厂生产、冷冻包装、加热即食”的模式,而西贝依然保持现场烹饪、调味,只是通过中央厨房切配、分份以保持标准化。为了挽回声誉,西贝采取了一系列措施:发布《致顾客的一封信》,并公开罗永浩所点13道菜的完整制作指导书,试图证明“非预制菜”;宣布全国门店后厨对顾客开放,只要符合防护规范,就可随时参观。推出所谓“罗永浩菜单”,即把争议菜品单独列出,并打出口号:“不好吃,不要钱”。计划开放原产地、中央厨房、工厂等参观路线,增加透明度。

与此同时,贾国龙宣布将起诉罗永浩,称对方的不实言论已给西贝带来巨大损失。他透露,9月10日至12日短短三天,西贝日均营业额下滑100至300万元,这已是公司成立以来遭遇的最大外部危机。可以说,西贝在这场舆论风暴中被迫从强硬反驳转向“自证清白”,而危机背后的核心,依旧是社会信任的严重缺失。

然而,当西贝公开后厨实际操作后,诸如不用鸡肉熬制的“鸡汤”、存放一年的冻羊腿、保质期长达两年的儿童餐专用西兰花等画面迅速在网络走红,令公众“大开眼界”。这种“中央厨房加工”与“预制菜”几乎难以区分,而多数餐饮企业为了营造专业餐厅的形象,并不会主动向消费者说明出品背后的真实情况。

中国餐饮业规模庞大、竞争激烈,预制菜近年迅速崛起,背后有三大驱动力:一是成本压力——原料上涨、房租高企、用工紧缺,迫使餐企寻求低成本模式;二是规模复制——连锁扩张需要口味统一、流程可控,预制菜成为最佳“标准化”方案;三是资本推动——被包装成“千亿赛道”,产业链迅速成型。然而,追求效率和利润,并不等于食品健康与安全。

而公众对预制菜的反感,并不仅仅因为口味,而是出于深层的不信任感。中国食品安全问题频发,从“三聚氰胺奶粉”“地沟油”到“毒生姜”“苏丹红鸭蛋”,公众一次次经历“舌尖上的灾难”,信任早已脆弱。背后折射的是制度性问题:监管缺位,地方政府往往顾及税收和就业,不愿严格执法;官商勾结,违规成本极低;信息不对称,消费者缺乏监督渠道;逐利至上,资本逻辑压倒公共健康。在这样的背景下,任何新兴食品模式都容易被怀疑为潜在隐患。

中国要走出食品安全困境,需要强化监管执行,确保标准统一、执法严格;提高信息透明度,让食材来源、加工方式和添加剂使用可被公众查询;加大违法成本,遏制官商勾结和违规行为;引导产业健康发展,减少过度加工和添加剂依赖,同时保持食品营养与口感;并加强公众教育与社会监督,形成全社会共同保障食品安全的机制。

今天的预制菜风波不仅是餐桌上的问题,更是一个社会隐喻:它像极了中国社会的“快速复制”模式——追求规模与效率,却牺牲了品质与安全。它揭示了公共治理的软肋——信息不透明,监管缺位,资本绑架政策。它让人们直面一个现实——普通人对制度的依赖比想象中更深,而制度却往往让人失望。

中国人常说:“民以食为天。”一顿饭看似琐碎,却连着生命健康、社会信任与制度公正。罗永浩和西贝,只是一次舆论的契机。更深层的问题是:我们是否能够建立起真正保障食品安全的制度,是否能让孩子们在学校里吃到安心的饭,是否能让普通人在餐桌前不必怀疑自己是不是“实验品”。预制菜不是洪水猛兽,但若任由资本裹挟、监管缺位,它就可能成为新的“毒药”。守护餐桌,其实就是守护未来。

The Predicament of China’s Food Safety Seen Through the Xibei “Pre-prepared Dishes” Controversy

Abstract: Luo Yonghao exposed Xibei’s use of pre-prepared dishes, sparking public concern about food safety and the right to know. The issue of pre-prepared dishes revealed regulatory gaps and a lack of transparency, highlighting the urgent need to improve China’s food safety system and rebuild social trust.

Author/Editor: Li Congling

Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Translator: Wu Kezheng

On September 10, 2025, Luo Yonghao publicly complained on Weibo: “I haven’t eaten at Xibei for a long time. Today I got off the plane and had a meal with colleagues, and I found that almost everything was pre-prepared dishes, and so expensive—it was absolutely disgusting.”He also called for national legislation to require restaurants to label whether dishes are pre-prepared. Later, in a livestream, he further emphasized that he was not simply opposed to the technique of pre-prepared dishes, but rather opposed to restaurants using them without informing consumers.He raised two core demands: first, that consumers’ right to know must be guaranteed; and second, that the state should quickly issue a clear definition and standards for pre-prepared dishes.

To support his claim, he also posted footage on social media from media visits to Xibei outlets, pointing out frozen fish and bagged soup ingredients, and publicly offered a reward of 100,000 yuan for “conclusive evidence of Xibei’s use of pre-prepared dishes.” In a livestream on September 12, he made it clear that he held no personal hostility “against Xibei” or “against Jia Guolong,” but hoped to use this incident to promote industry transparency and institutional improvement. Luo Yonghao’s blunt remarks quickly ignited public opinion, with millions of consumers leaving comments online in support and expressing anger at “pre-prepared dishes being served in restaurants without labeling.” Clearly, this was not a personal spat, but rather a concentrated outbreak of the public’s long-standing anxiety about food safety.

In the face of surging public opinion, Xibei’s founder Jia Guolong and the company quickly responded. First, in a public interview, Jia firmly denied that “Xibei’s dishes are pre-prepared.” He explained that while some of Xibei’s ingredients are indeed uniformly processed in a central kitchen, this is different from “pre-prepared dishes.” By his definition, pre-prepared dishes are “factory-produced, frozen and packaged, ready-to-heat-and-eat,” whereas Xibei still maintains on-site cooking and seasoning, using the central kitchen only for cutting and portioning to ensure standardization. To restore its reputation, Xibei adopted a series of measures: it issued “A Letter to Customers” and released the complete preparation manuals for the 13 dishes ordered by Luo Yonghao in an attempt to prove they were “not pre-prepared”; announced that kitchens at all outlets would be open for customer visits at any time, as long as protective rules were followed; introduced a so-called “Luo Yonghao Menu,” listing the disputed dishes separately with the slogan, “If it doesn’t taste good, it’s free”; and planned to open visits to places of origin, central kitchens, and factories to increase transparency.

Meanwhile, Jia announced that he would sue Luo Yonghao, stating that the latter’s false statements had caused Xibei huge losses. He revealed that from September 10 to 12, in just three days, Xibei’s daily revenue dropped by 1 to 3 million yuan, marking the biggest external crisis since the company’s founding. It can be said that in this storm of public opinion, Xibei was forced to shift from a strong rebuttal to “proving its innocence,” while the core behind the crisis remained a severe lack of social trust.

However, once Xibei made its kitchen operations public, images such as “chicken soup” not made with chicken, lamb legs frozen for a year, and broccoli for children’s meals with a two-year shelf life quickly went viral online, leaving the public “shocked.” This kind of “central kitchen processing” is almost indistinguishable from “pre-prepared dishes,” and most restaurant businesses, in order to present the image of a professional restaurant, will not voluntarily inform consumers of the true situation behind their products.

China’s catering industry is vast and highly competitive, and pre-prepared dishes have risen rapidly in recent years, driven by three main forces: First, cost pressure—rising raw material prices, soaring rents, and labor shortages have forced restaurants to seek lower-cost models; Second, replication at scale—chain expansion requires consistent taste and controllable processes, making pre-prepared dishes the best “standardization” solution; Third, capital promotion—packaged as a “trillion-yuan track,” the industry chain has quickly taken shape. However, pursuing efficiency and profit does not equate to food health and safety.

The public’s dislike of pre-prepared dishes is not merely due to taste, but stems from a deep sense of distrust. China has seen frequent food safety issues, from “melamine milk powder” and “gutter oil” to “toxic ginger” and “Sudan Red eggs,” with the public repeatedly experiencing “disasters on the tip of the tongue,” leaving trust already fragile. Behind this lies systemic problems: regulatory absence, with local governments often prioritizing tax revenue and employment over strict law enforcement; collusion between officials and businesses, with extremely low costs for violations; information asymmetry, leaving consumers without supervisory channels; and profit-seeking above all, where capital logic overwhelms public health. Against this backdrop, any new food model is easily suspected of being a potential hazard.

For China to overcome its food safety predicament, it must strengthen regulatory enforcement, ensure uniform standards, and enforce the law strictly; increase information transparency so that the sources of ingredients, processing methods, and use of additives can be checked by the public; raise the cost of violations to curb collusion between officials and businesses as well as illegal practices; guide the industry toward healthy development, reducing excessive processing and reliance on additives while maintaining nutrition and taste; and strengthen public education and social supervision to form a mechanism for the whole society to jointly safeguard food safety.

Today’s pre-prepared dish controversy is not only an issue at the dining table, but also a social metaphor: It closely resembles China’s “rapid replication” model—pursuing scale and efficiency at the expense of quality and safety. It reveals the weak point of public governance—lack of transparency, regulatory absence, and policies hijacked by capital. It forces people to confront a reality—that ordinary people depend on the system far more than they imagine, yet the system often lets them down.

There is a common Chinese saying: “Food is the paramount necessity of the people.” A single meal may seem trivial, but it is connected to life and health, social trust, and institutional justice. Luo Yonghao and Xibei were merely the trigger for public opinion. The deeper issue is: can we establish a system that truly guarantees food safety? Can we ensure that children eat with peace of mind in schools? Can we let ordinary people sit at the dining table without wondering if they are being used as “test subjects”? Pre-prepared dishes are not a monstrous scourge, but if left to be manipulated by capital and absent regulation, they could become a new kind of “poison.” To protect the dining table is, in fact, to protect the future.

民运风采:纪念民主日 勇者四人在旧金山呼吁尊重言论自由

0
民运风采:纪念民主日 勇者四人在旧金山呼吁尊重言论自由

编辑:胡丽莉

民运风采:纪念民主日 勇者四人在旧金山呼吁尊重言论自由

在国际民主日到来前夕,袁强、何宜城、李树清、张睿信四位民主人士在旧金山中国领事馆前举行行动,纪念这一全球关注民主、人权与公民自由的日子,并呼吁中共尊重言论自由。人数虽少,却彰显了捍卫真理的勇气。唯有源源不断的声音与坚持,才能为极权的终结掘下墓穴。

Pro-democracy Movement Highlights: Four courageous individuals commemorated Democracy Day in San Francisco, calling for respect for free speech.

Editor: Hu Lili

Translation: tomorrow

民运风采:纪念民主日 勇者四人在旧金山呼吁尊重言论自由

On the eve of the International Day of Democracy, four pro-democracy activists—Yuan Qiang, He Yicheng, Li Shuqing, and Zhang Ruixin—held an action in front of the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco to commemorate this global day of awareness for democracy, human rights, and civil liberties, and to call on the Chinese Communist Party to respect freedom of speech. Although small in number, they demonstrated the courage to defend the truth. Only a continuous voice and persistence can dig the grave for the end of totalitarianism.

中国⺠主党第755次茉莉花行动宣言

0
中国⺠主党第755次茉莉花行动宣言

作者:黄吉洲

责任编辑:罗志飞   翻译:程铭

我叫黄吉洲,作为中国民主党党员,2025年9月13日,在洛杉矶中共领事馆外主持了

第755次茉莉花行动。

我们抗议独裁者追求“长生不老”,揭露习近平与普京9月3日中共阅兵的谈论“长生不老”和器官移植。

正如此次抗议活动现场一位演讲者发言:“既然中共把我们当草芥,我们就把中共当

仇寇。” 我们呼吁结束中共独裁暴政,为自己赢得自由和尊严!

中国⺠主党第755次茉莉花行动宣言

 


Declaration of the 755th Jasmine Action of the China Democracy Party

Author: Jizhou Huang

Responsible Editor: Zhifei Luo   Translator: Ming Cheng

My name is Huang Jizhou. As a member of the China Democracy Party, on September 13, 2025, I presided over the 755th Jasmine Action in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles.

We protested against the dictator’s pursuit of “immortality” and exposed Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s discussion during the September 3rd CCP military parade about “living forever” and organ transplantation.

As one speaker at the protest stated: “Since the CCP treats us as if we are nothing but weeds, we will treat the CCP as our mortal enemy.”

We call for an end to the CCP’s dictatorial tyranny and for the Chinese people to win freedom and dignity for themselves!

讣告:深切悼念查理·柯克弟兄

0
讣告:深切悼念查理·柯克弟兄

2025年9月11日

作者:Tony

编辑:王梦梦     责任编辑:罗志飞

今天是“9·11”事件二十四周年。在这个本应缅怀的日子里,我们怀着无比沉痛和沉重的心情宣告:我们的基督徒弟兄查理·柯克于2025年9月10日在犹他谷大学公开活动中遭遇惨无人道的刺杀,安息在主里,享受永恒的天国,享年31岁。查理弟兄不仅是Turning Point USA的创始人,也是Turning Point Faith的联合创办人,该事工呼召信徒将信仰带入公共领域。他坚信,基督徒的生命不能仅限于私人虔诚或教会四墙之内,而必须像盐和光一样,在社会中发光,为家庭、生命与自由作见证——这些价值观皆根植于圣经真理。

 通过演讲、著作和媒体工作,他清晰而有力地向年轻一代传达以圣经为中心的世界观。在日益世俗化和充满敌意的环境中,他承受巨大压力和批评,却依然勇敢捍卫真理。他短暂的生命因此被中断,成为另一种见证,公共神学的门徒能够将信仰化为行动,奋勇争战。如此无意义的暴力,不仅夺走了一位充满潜力的年轻领袖,也使无数人的心灵破碎。

 我们呼吁所有弟兄姊妹一同祷告:

为他的家人祷告:愿主以慈爱亲自环抱他的妻子埃里卡,以及所有至亲好友,在深切的悲痛中赐下那超乎人所能明白的平安,并以充足的恩典扶持他们,使他们在软弱中经历主奇妙的安慰。

为美国教会祷告:愿主坚立祂的子民,使我们在黑暗与逼迫之中不失勇气,彼此同心,紧紧跟随主耶稣的脚踪,作盐作光,将真理活出来,见证祂国度的荣耀。为美利坚合众国祷告:愿主怜悯并医治这片因仇恨与分裂而受伤的土地,叫祂的公义如江河滚滚,祂的平安如溪水长流。愿祂转化人心,使世人认清真正的仇敌不是彼此,而是那背后操纵的黑暗权势;唯有在基督里,万民才能得着真正的合一与复兴。

虽然我们为查理弟兄的离去悲痛,但我们的盼望指向永生,超越死亡。我们坚信,他已放下地上劳苦,完成了善工:“我已经打过了美好的仗,当跑的路也跑尽了,所信的道也守住了。从此,有公义的冠冕为我存留,就是按着公义审判我的主到那日要赐给我的”(提摩太后书4:7-8),我们相信,他在基督里已得胜:“因为凡要救自己生命的,将要失掉生命;凡为我失掉生命的,将要得着生命。”(马太福音16:25)

我们郑重宣告:虽然我们身处不同的国家与文化,中国地下教会的千万信徒,仍与查理弟兄同为一体。因为我们共享同一本圣经,持守同一真道,在基督的身体里彼此相连,永不分离。

我们坚信:圣经无误,信仰必须活出来!查理弟兄以生命作见证,他的事奉提醒我们,跟随基督不仅是私人的虔诚,更是公共的见证。我们愿承接这托付,在家庭、在教会、在社会中,勇敢作盐作光,直到主再来。

愿逝者安息在主的怀中,得享永恒的安慰;愿生者刚强站立,在主里得力量,继续奔走天路。我们仰望那荣耀的盼望——当号筒吹响之日,死里复活,永远与主同在。阿们!

Obituary: In Loving Memory of Brother Charlie Kirk

September 11, 2025

Author: Tony

Editor: Mengmeng Wang   Responsible Editor: Zhifei Luo

Today marks the 24th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. On this day of remembrance, we must announce with unspeakable grief and sorrow: our Christian brother, Charlie Kirk, was brutally assassinated on September 10, 2025, during a public event at Utah Valley University. He now rests in the Lord, enjoying the eternal kingdom of heaven, at the age of 31.

Brother Charlie was not only the founder of Turning Point USA but also the co-founder of Turning Point Faith, a ministry that calls on believers to bring their faith into the public square. He firmly believed that the life of a Christian cannot be confined to private devotion or the four walls of the church. Rather, we must be like salt and light, shining in society and bearing witness to family, life, and freedom—values rooted in the truth of Scripture.

Through his speeches, writings, and media work, he communicated to the younger generation a clear and powerful vision of a Bible-centered worldview. In an increasingly secular and hostile environment, he bore immense pressure and criticism, yet courageously defended the truth. His brief life was thus cut short, becoming yet another testimony: that disciples of public theology can turn faith into action and fight the good fight. Such senseless violence not only robbed the world of a young leader full of potential, but also shattered countless hearts.

We call on all brothers and sisters to join together in prayer:

For his family: May the Lord, in His love, personally embrace his wife, Erica, and all close relatives and friends. In the midst of deep sorrow, may He grant them the peace that surpasses all understanding and uphold them with sufficient grace, so that in their weakness they may experience His wondrous comfort.

For the church in America: May the Lord establish His people so that, in times of darkness and persecution, we do not lose courage but walk together in unity, closely following the footsteps of Jesus, living as salt and light, and bearing witness to the glory of His kingdom.

For the United States of America: May the Lord have mercy and heal this land wounded by hatred and division. May His justice roll on like a river, His peace flow like a never-ending stream. May He transform hearts, so that the world will recognize that our true enemy is not one another but the dark powers working behind the scenes. Only in Christ can all nations find true unity and revival.

Although we grieve the passing of Brother Charlie, our hope points to eternal life, which transcends death. We firmly believe he has laid down his earthly labor and finished his good work: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing” (2 Timothy 4:7-8). And we believe that he has triumphed in Christ: “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:25).

We solemnly declare: though we dwell in different nations and cultures, the tens of millions of believers in China’s underground church remain one with Brother Charlie. For we share the same Bible, hold fast to the same truth, and are joined together as one body in Christ, never to be separated.

We firmly believe: the Bible is inerrant, and faith must be lived out! Brother Charlie bore witness with his very life. His ministry reminds us that following Christ is not merely private devotion, but also public testimony. We are willing to carry this sacred trust—in our families, in our churches, and in our society—to courageously live as salt and light until the Lord returns.

May the departed rest in the arms of the Lord, enjoying eternal comfort; may the living stand firm, strengthened in the Lord, continuing to run the race set before us. We look to that glorious hope—that when the trumpet sounds, the dead will be raised, and we shall be with the Lord forever. Amen.

 

中日和平运动始末

0

第一章 第三节

作者:程铭

编辑:李聪玲   责任编辑:胡丽莉 校对:冯仍

卢沟桥是一座千年古桥,始建于金世宗大定二十九年,已有七百多年的历史。1937年7月7日,一队日本士兵在桥东的宛平城下进行夜间作战演习,与以往不同的是,“不论枪炮都装填了弹药”。带队官清水节郎中尉后来回忆说,这个夜晚,“一点风都没有,天空晴朗,没有月亮。星空中远远地、微微地浮现着卢沟桥城墙,只是隐约可见游动着的士兵。这是一个寂静的黑夜”(《清水节郎手记》)。

大约10点40分,演习行将结束时,众多官兵都听到了几声枪响。

小队长野地伊七以为,这是演习士兵误发的空包弹。但清水节郎以及几名参加过“满洲事变”的老兵却叫喊起来了,“是真子弹”。在片刻的惊愕后,清水节郎吹响了集结号,并让各小队清点人数。

清点的结果,是一名士兵不见了。对此,清水节郎怒不可遏,他命令兵曹岩谷兵治、上等兵内田太郎立即骑马去丰台,向大队长一木清直报告情况。与此同时,他命令部队展开队形,“决心断然膺惩,作了应战的准备”(《步兵17联队第三大队详报》,1937年12月)。

但几乎是两名传令兵刚刚离开,那个失踪的士兵就出现了。原来,这个叫志村菊次郎的新兵在演习时迷路了。“在走上回途时,弄错了方向……没有找到中队,急得到处乱转”。几十年后,他的那些同伴这么追忆他的形貌:小队长野地伊七说,他时年20岁,“是从东京附近入伍的当年兵”;而与他同年入伍的福岛忠义谈道:“他是一位认真老实、不引人注目的男子,大概是由于肥胖的缘故,动作略显迟钝,但脑子不笨……”

清水节郎左右为难。他让两名传令兵送去的消息,既包括“非法射击”,更包括“士兵失踪”。与后者相比,那几声来历不明的枪响不过是区区小事。他不知道该怎么办才好,“对于这之后的中队的行动,虽多方考虑,难下决心……(直到午夜)终于下了决心,撤离现场移动到西五里店”(《清水节郎手记》)。

大约凌晨一时,清水节郎中队抵达西五里店。但这时候,这个貌似阴差阳错的插曲,已在几十里外的北平城引发了轩然大波。

首先是一木清直大队的出动。11时57分,两名传令兵赶到丰台,向大队长一木清直报告了“非法射击”和“士兵失踪”。几乎没有任何犹豫,时年45岁的一木清直少佐当即下令集结部队,开赴卢沟桥边的宛平城。他后来谈道:“虽然我不会因仅仅受到射击就大惊小怪,但我觉得部队少一个人则是大事,于是决心进行警备集合。”与此同时,他也拨通了北平城内联队长牟田口廉也的电话,向他报告了这个消息。牟田口廉也命令说:“速到现场,完成战斗准备后,把(卢沟桥的)营长叫出来进行交涉。”(《步兵17联队第三大队详报》,1937年12月)

这么一来,这个消息就从卢沟桥传到丰台、又从丰台传到北平城了。又何止于此?在接过一木的电话后,牟田口廉也立即知会了驻北平使馆武官、特务机关长松井太久郎,让他与驻北平的29军进行交涉。而松井太久郎提出的要求是,中国方面立即打开毗邻卢沟桥的宛平城门,让日军连夜入城寻找失踪士兵。

但,听到这个要求后,北平市市长秦德纯却顾虑重重、疑窦横生。

作为29军副军长,秦德纯兼任北平市市长,是“华北自治”的产物。1935年12月,在勒逼南京撤销军委会北平分会、行政院北平政务整理委员会等派出机构后,29军军长宋哲元出任新成立的“冀察政务委员会”委员长,秦德纯也成为北平市市长。上任一年多来,他目睹了日本人威逼利诱、分离华北的种种手段,“每日均有日方人员前来接洽,平均每天最少一次,或二次……我虽感觉不胜其扰,但抱定任劳任怨之决心,据理应付,使日方无借口余地”。与此同时,一系列异乎寻常的军事举措,更让他深感警惕。

首先是日本的大举增兵华北。自从《辛丑条约》签订、日本获得在平津铁路沿线的驻兵权以来,三十余年间,华北驻屯军始终维持在一两千人的规模。但1936年4月18日,东京宣布增兵华北,并且事先没有知会中国政府。一个多月后,华北驻屯军升格为“中国驻屯军”,人数从1771人猛增到5774人,“同时变更一年交替制为永驻制”。它引发了中国方面的强烈抗议。

那么,秦德纯能够想到吗?石原莞尔的本意是以此阻止关东军对华北的插手。之所以采取“永驻制”,也为了避免满洲部队被派到华北。他后来谈道:“这件事成了华北事变的原因,痛感当时如不采取这样办法,而以统帅的威力扯住关东军的手可能好些。”

而在增兵华北之后,则是扼守丰台。派驻北平郊外的部队原定驻扎在冀东傀儡政权的首府通州,但在陆军省次官梅津美治郎的坚持下,它改驻丰台。那就是人数七百余人的一木清直大队。据说,梅津的理由是日本只有铁路沿线驻兵权,无权驻屯通州;但在千万中国人看来,此举包含着深不可测的祸心:作为平汉、平绥、北宁三条铁路的交汇处,丰台是北平咽喉;更重要的是,在冀东分离、长城两侧被划为非武装区后,北平已沦为一座孤城,它的唯一出口就是西南方向的丰台、卢沟桥地区。一旦卢沟桥失守,北平将旦夕沦亡。

1936年年底,在视察华北时,石原莞尔也注意到了这个因素。在《调整日华邦交要领》笔记里,他曾经写下,“丰台的兵力要转移到通州,确保通州、天津,明确冀东的防卫态势”。但不知道是什么原因,大半年过去了,这支部队始终没有移防。

更让人警惕的,还有1937年夏天以后的卢沟桥动态。从6月份开始,一木清直大队就日复一日地在卢沟桥附近进行夜间作战演习。尽管它的名义是普及几个月前下发的《新步兵操典》,但它的主要内容却是夜袭卢沟桥、封锁北平城。也是这个月份,一个影影绰绰的说法就在北平城内传开了,“七夕的晚上,华北将重演柳条沟一样的事件”。而所谓“柳条沟”就是满洲事变的爆发地。更不必说,这一天正是7月7日,日本采取西历后的“七夕的晚上”。

所有这一切,都让秦德纯不能不认为,所谓“士兵失踪”、“入城搜查”不过是借口,日本人的真正目的,是一举控制卢沟桥,进而占领北平城。为此,这个深夜,他语气决绝、然而多少留下几分余地地表示,“走失士兵我方不能负责,日军更不得进城检查。惟姑念两国友谊,可等天亮后,令该地军警代为寻觅”。在此之外,为解决所谓“非法射击”问题,他派出宛平县县长王冷斋、外交专员林耕宇以及绥靖公署副处长周永业三人,连夜前往东交民巷,与日本人进行紧急交涉。

就在王冷斋等人赶到东交民巷时,松井太久郎、牟田口廉也都已经知道了,那个士兵并没有失踪。

消息来自一木清直。大约2时3分,一木大队与清水中队在西五里店会合了。得知志村菊太郎已经归队后,一木一边派人知会北平,一边命令部队照常行进,并包围宛平县城。他后来谈道:“作为我的想法,既然从部队长那里接受了交涉的命令,却又因志村归队而中止,则中国方面将如何宣传不得而知……所以这回无论如何必须进行严重交涉。”(《朝日座谈会》,1938年7月)

也就是说,一木决定将错就错,趁机扩大事态。他唯一需要的,不过是一个包围宛平、“入城搜查”的新借口。而在他看来,这个借口也是现成的:有人向日本军队“非法射击”,这个人或许躲在宛平城内。

这个蛮横的、令人啼笑皆非的理由,也成为北平城内松井太久郎的依据。在双方的唇枪舌剑中,时间一分一秒地过去了。

大约3时20分,一木大队的几百名官兵逼近了卢沟桥、宛平城。为震慑中国方面,一木命令炮兵中队先占领一文字山,并架起大炮。这个海拔只有几十米的小山丘,距离宛平县城不过一箭之地。从这里射击,炮弹可以直接落入宛平城内。紧接着,又一个值得一提的细节发生了:不等一木发话,通信班班长小岩井就将电话线从丰台一直铺到了西五里店,“经丰台中转可直接与北平通话”;一木清直后来谈道:“安装电话是小岩井的一大功绩……在我向联队长上报这边的情势、促成战斗决心,这电话帮了大忙……”

几乎是电话刚刚架设完毕,牟田口廉也打来了电话。他告诉一木,几分钟前,中日双方已组成联合调查组,前往卢沟桥进行现场交涉。一木再也忍不住了。他告诉牟田口廉也,中国军队正袭击他的部队,“此时交涉根本没用,我认为占领卢沟桥后交涉会更好些”。后来,他这么解释着自己的用意,“我想,不能让战争打不起来,因此向联队长作了夸大的陈述”(《朝日座谈会》,1938年7月)。

对夜袭卢沟桥的要求,一开始,牟田口廉也含糊其辞。他暗示一木,“对于这件事,北京的中国军队不至于全面调动”。对此,一木更加急切地说:“既然尚未全面调动,便是个机会……在此之际,我认为猛打卢沟桥的中国军队是上策。”

在片刻的沉默后,牟田口廉也终于表态了:“可以打。”

一木惊喜不已地问:“真可以干了吗?”

牟田口廉也说:“可以干……我们对一下表,现在是4点20分,没错。”

一年以后,面对众多同僚、记者,一木清直不无得意地谈道:“我万万没有想到联队长会批准可以干,有些意外之感……然后真的干了。7月8日上午4点20分!这是事变开始的时间。”(《朝日座谈会》,1938年7月)

在得到牟田口廉也的批准后,一木当即下令埋锅做饭,准备拂晓攻击。一个多小时后,尽管中日联合调查组已进入宛平城,尽管这一行人中包括他的顶头上司、副联队长森田彻中佐以及特务机关的樱田少佐等,但一木还是以不管不顾的姿态,下令开炮。一时之间,一发发炮弹从一文字山上呼啸而下,落入了宛平城。

卢沟桥的星火,就这样被点燃了。但直到此时,无论中国的秦德纯、张自忠,还是日本的“中国驻屯军”参谋长桥本群少将、驻北平使馆副武官今井武夫少佐,都还试图着将它熄灭下去。此后八年,在几乎任何一次的中日和平交涉中,今井武夫都扮演了重要角色。这个角色,就从他斡旋“卢沟桥事变”开始。

今井武夫,1898年生,日本长野县人。作为中日战争自始至终的参与者,他亲历了那个终生难忘的夜晚:几乎刚刚睡下,卢沟桥的消息就传来了。在一墙之隔的牟田口联队会议室,他看到一个个军装严整的军人纷纷赶来,并亲耳听到牟田口廉也对一木清直行动的许可。而天麻麻亮的时候,他还召集了在北平的各国记者,举行了一个简短的新闻发布会。他后来回忆说:“在勉强只能辨认出面容的晓色朦胧中,天井里放了几条长凳。大家坐在新绿的槐树荫下,听我发表昨夜以来发生的事件的经过情况。”(《今井武夫回忆录》)

十几分钟后,记者们散去了。在参拜招魂社、“为东洋的和平作了祈祷”后,天下起雨来。今井武夫后来写道:“恰巧就是在这一时刻,西南方响起了大炮声,震撼着云低雨蒙的昏暗天空……也许可以说是天意吧,这时候开始下起的雨,竟变成了几年来所未曾有过的霪雨,最后使华北的旷野浸在洪水之中……”

而在这样的狂风暴雨中,今井开始回顾几天来的蹊跷际遇。

6月26日,昭和天皇的姨父、在日本拥有大量信众的西本愿寺住持大谷光瑞,“在没有任何预告的情况下……突然来到北平,下榻于靠近前门火车站的六国饭店”。次日,他邀请今井武夫见面,并旁敲侧击地问起了华北驻屯军的情况。在两个多小时的谈话行将结束时,大谷才透露了他的来意。原来,过去几天,那个“华北将重演柳条沟事件”的消息也传到了东京。对此,刚刚上任二十多天的近卫文麿首相既惊又疑,这才派出大谷光瑞前来调查中国驻屯军的动态。

无独有偶的是,也是这一天,29军宣布北平城实行夜间戒严。紧接着,陆军省军事课的冈本清福中佐也来了,他担负着和大谷同样的使命。不过委派他前来调查的,是预感到中日战争一触即发的石原莞尔。

更蹊跷的还在后头呢!7月6日也就是事变前一天,今井前往医学博士、原北洋政府秘书长陈子庚的家里赴宴,不等开席,一个不速之客就匆匆赶来了。来者是冀北保安司令、一向与日本人关系密切的石友三。石友三语出惊人地说:“武官,日华两军今天下午在卢沟桥发生冲突,目前正在交战中,你知道这个情况吗?”

今井武夫大吃一惊。他宽慰石友三说:“我不知道这样的事,也不会有这样的事吧?”但石友三却不肯透露消息的来源,他恳求说:“我在北平北郊黄寺的部队,对于日本军队没有作战意图。请你务必转告贵军,不要去攻击他们。”(《今井武夫回忆录》)

凡此种种,都让今井武夫产生了不祥的预感。这个清晨,他打电话给中国驻屯军参谋长桥本群少将,表达了自己对事件“不扩大”的立场。桥本群满口赞成,并授权他予以斡旋。平息事态的第一个转机出现了:当时中国驻屯军司令官田代皖一郎重病在床,桥本群的表态,代表了驻屯军的态度。

紧接着,当晚7时许,又一个转机出现了。这一天,在瓢泼大雨中,今井武夫奔波了一整天,几乎一无所获。他后来谈道:“就在事件发生后不久,冀察政权的要人们似乎是在什么地方开会,(上门拜访时)他们家里的人一律回答说,不知道主人现在何处,(并)避免和日方见面。”但入夜时分,今井武夫依旧不肯死心,他再次前往秦德纯的私宅。

在秦宅外,一队荷枪实弹的警卫拦住了他,“说什么也不允许过去”。正不知所措之际,恰巧他的老熟人、132师师长赵登禹从宅院里出来。今井武夫赶紧叫住了他,请他代为疏通。他后来谈道:“赵师长是个老好人,他略微踌躇了一下,好像是改变了主意似的。尽管刚刚出来,又跑进里面替我斡旋去了。”

就这样,几分钟后,今井武夫见到秦德纯了。在简短的会谈后,双方都认可了“不扩大”、就地解决的方针。至于具体的解决方案,“因为中国方面一言不发,所以未能得到解决”。

而当今井武夫一身疲惫、冒雨赶回北平武官室时,一个更重大的转机在等待着他。这一天,东京陆军省、参谋本部的联席会议也作出了“不扩大”、就地解决的决定。他们发来了参谋本部第400号临时命令,这个命令言简意赅:“为防止事态的扩大,应避免进一步使用武力。”

这个命令,让今井武夫如释重负、喜出望外。

The Rise and Fall of the Sino-Japanese Peace Movement

Chapter One: The Young Prime Minister(Part three)

Author: Ming Cheng

Editor: Congling Li   Responsible Editor: Lili Hu

Translator: Ming Cheng

Lugou Bridge is a thousand-year-old bridge. It was built in the 29th year of Emperor Shizong of Jin and has a history of more than 700 years. On July 7, 1937, a team of Japanese soldiers conducted night combat exercises under Wanping City in Qiaodong. Unlike before, “no matter the guns were loaded with ammunition”. Lieutenant Seishiro Shimizu, the team leader, later recalled that this night, “there was no wind at all, the sky was clear and there was no moon. In the starry sky, the wall of Lugou Bridge appeared far away and faintly, and only the soldiers swimming could be faintly seen. This is a silent night” (Shimizu Setsuro’s Notes).

At about 10:40, when the exercise was about to end, many officers and soldiers heard a few gunshots.

The captain, Yiqi Yeji, thought that this was an empty bomb sent by the soldiers of the exercise by mistake. But Shimizu Setsuro and several veterans who participated in the “Manchurian Incident” shouted, “It’s a real bullet.” After a moment of shock, Setsuro Shimizu blew the rallying horn and asked each team to number the number of people.

As a result of the inventory, a soldier was missing. In this regard, Setsuro Shimizu was furious. He ordered the soldier Cao Iwatani Heiji and the high-class soldier Uchida Taro to ride to Fengtai immediately and report the situation to the captain, Kiyonao Ichiki. At the same time, he ordered the troops to deploy the formation, “determined to be decisively punished and prepared for battle” (Detailed Report of the Third Brigade of the 17th Infantry Wing, December 1937).

But almost as soon as the two messengers left, the missing soldier appeared. It turned out that the recruit named Shimura Kikujiro got lost during the exercise. On the way back, I took the wrong direction… I didn’t find the squadron, and I turned around in a hurry. Decades later, his companions recalled his appearance like this: the captain, Ichi Noji, said that he was 20 years old, “a soldier who joined the army from near Tokyo”; and said to Tadayoshi Fukushima, who joined the army at the same year, “He is a serious, honest and inconspicuous man, probably because of obesity, his movements are slightly Dull, but not stupid…”

Shimizu Setsuro is in a dilemma. The news he asked the two messengers to send included both “illegal shooting” and “disappearance of soldiers”. Compared with the latter, those gunshots of unknown origin are just trivial. He didn’t know what to do. “As for the action of the squadron after this, although he considered it from many sides, it was difficult to make up his mind… (until midnight) he finally made up his mind to evacuate the scene and move to Xiwuli Store” (“Shimizu Setsuro’s Notes”).

At about one o’clock in the morning, the Qingshui Festival Team arrived at the Xiwuli Store. But at this time, this seemingly wrong episode has caused a stir in Beiping City, dozens of miles away.

First of all, Itaki Kiyonao’s brigade was mobilised. At 11:57, two messengers rushed to Fengtai and reported “illegal shooting” and “disappearance of soldiers” to the captain, Kiyonao Ichiki. With almost no hesitation, the 45-year-old Major Ichiki Kiyonao immediately ordered to gather troops and drive to Wanping City by the Lugou Bridge. He later said, “Although I won’t make a fuss just because I was shot, I think it’s a big deal to have one less person in the army, so I’m determined to gather on guard.” At the same time, he also dialed the phone number of Renya Mutaguchi, the captain of Beiping City, and reported the news to him. Ren Mutaguchi also ordered: “Hure to the scene quickly. After completing the preparation for battle, call the battalion commander (of Lugou Bridge) out for negotiation.” (” Detailed Report of the Third Brigade of the 17th Infantry Wing, December 1937)

In this way, the news spread from Lugou Bridge to Fengtai, and from Fengtai to Beiping City. Why does it stop here? After receiving Kazuki’s phone call, Ren Mutaguchi immediately informed Toshiro Matsui, the military officer of the embassy in Beiping and the head of the secret service and asked him to negotiate with the 29th Army stationed in Beiping. Matsui Tailang’s request was that the Chinese side immediately opened the Wanping City Gate adjacent to the Lugou Bridge and let the Japanese enter the city overnight to find the missing soldiers.

However, after hearing this request, Qin Dechun, the mayor of Beiping City, was full of concerns and doubts.

As the deputy commander of the 29th Army, Qin Dechun is also the mayor of Beiping City, which is the product of “North China Autonomy”. In December 1935, after forcing Nanjing to abolish the Beiping Branch of the Military Commission, the Beiping Government Affairs Committee of the Executive Yuan and other dispatched institutions, Song Zheyuan, the commander of the 29th Army, became the chairman of the newly established “Jicha Government Affairs Committee”, and Qin Dechun also became the mayor of Beiping City. For more than a year in office, he has witnessed all kinds of means by the Japanese to coerce and separate North China. “There are Japanese personnel who come to contact us every day, at least once or twice a day on average… Although I feel that it is disturbing, I am determined to work hard and deal with it according to reason, so that Japan has no excuses.” At the same time, a series of unusual military measures made him more vigilant.

The first is Japan’s major increase in North China. Since the signing of the Treaty of Xinchou and Japan’s acquisition of the right to garrison along the Pingjin Railway, the North China garrison has been maintained at a scale of 12,000 or 2,000 for more than 30 years. However, on April 18, 1936, Tokyo announced the increase in troops in North China without informing the Chinese government in advance. More than a month later, the North China garrison army was upgraded to “Chinese garrison army”, and the number of people increased sharply from 1,771 to 5,774. “At the same time, the one-year rotation system was changed to the permanent station system”. It triggered a strong protest from China.

So, can Qin Dechun think of it? Ishihara Wan’er’s original intention was to prevent the Kwantung Army from interjecting in North China. The reason for adopting the “permanent residence system” is also to avoid the dispatch of Manchurian troops to North China. He later said, “This incident became the cause of the North China Incident. I feel that it would have been better if I had not adopted such a method at that time, but to hold the hand of the Kuntung Army with the power of the commander.”

After increasing the number of troops in North China, Fengtai was guarded. The troops stationed on the outskirts of Beiping were originally scheduled to be stationed in Tongzhou, the capital of the puppet regime in Jidong, but under the insistence of Mijiro Umezu, the deputy governor of the army, it was stationed in Fengtai. That’s the Ichimu Qingzhi Brigade with more than 700 people. It is said that the reason for Umejin is that Japan only has the right to station troops along the railway and has no right to station in Tongzhou; but in the eyes of tens of millions of Chinese people, this move contains an unfathomable evil: as the intersection of the three railways of Pinghan, Pingsui and Beining, Fengtai is the throat of Beiping; more importantly, it is classified as non-armed on both sides of the Great Wall and the separation of East Ji. After the district, Beiping has become a lonely city, and its only exit is the Fengtai and Lugouqiao areas in the southwest. Once the Lugou Bridge is lost, Beiping will fall overnight.

At the end of 1936, Ishihara Wan’er also noticed this factor when inspecting North China. In the notes of “Adjusting the Essits of Foreign Exchanges between Japan and China”, he once wrote that “Fengtai’s troops should be transferred to Tongzhou to ensure that Tongzhou and Tianjin should clarify the defensive posture of eastern Hebei”. But I don’t know why, more than half a year has passed, and the troops have never moved.

What is more alarming is the dynamics of Lugou Bridge after the summer of 1937. Since June, the Ichimu Qingzhi Brigade has been conducting night combat exercises near Lugou Bridge Day after day. Although its name is the “New Infantry Exercises” issued a few months ago, its main content is to attack Lugou Bridge at night and block Beiping City. It was also this month that a shadowy rumor spread in Beiping City, “On the night of Qixi Festival, North China will reproduce events like Willow Gou”. The so-called “Wicker Valley” is the place where the Manchurian Incident broke out. Needless to say, this day is July 7th, and Japan adopts the “Night of Tanabata” after the Western calendar.

All this made Qin Dechun think that the so-called “disappearance of soldiers” and “search into the city” were just excuses. The real purpose of the Japanese was to control the Lugou Bridge and then occupy Beiping City. For this reason, late at night, he said in a decisive tone, but more or less left some room to say, “We can’t be responsible for the lost soldiers, and the Japanese army is not allowed to enter the city for inspection. Only if you think about the friendship between the two countries, you can wait until dawn and let the local military police search for it. In addition, in order to solve the so-called “illegal shooting” problem, he sent Wang Lengzhai, the governor of Wanping County, Lin Gengyu, the foreign affairs commissioner, and Zhou Yongye, deputy director of the Appeasement Office, to Dongjiaomin Lane overnight to negotiate urgently with the Japanese.

Just as Wang Lengzhai and others arrived at Dongjiaomin Lane, Matsui Too Longlang and Mutaguchi Lian had already known that the soldier was not missing.

The news came from Kiyonao Ichiki. At about 2:03, the Yimu Brigade and the Qingshui Squadron met at Xiwuli Store. After learning that Shimura Kikutaro had returned to the team, Kazuki sent someone to inform Beiping, while ordering the troops to marge as usual and surround Wanping County. He later said, “In my opinion, since we have received the order to negotiate from the commander, but it has been suspended because of Shimura’s return to the team, it is unknown how China will publicize… So serious negotiations must be made this time no matter what.” (” Asahi Symposium, July 1938)

That is to say, Yimu decided to make a mistake and take the opportunity to expand the situation. The only thing he needs is a new excuse to surround Wanping and “enter the city to search”. In his opinion, this excuse is also ready-made: someone “shoots illegally” at the Japanese army, and this person may be hiding in Wanping City.

This arrogant and ridiculous reason also became the basis for Matsui Toshiro in Beiping City. In the lips and tongues of both sides, time passed by minute by second.

At about 3:20, hundreds of officers and soldiers of the Yimu Brigade approached Lugou Bridge and Wanping City. In order to deter China, Yimu ordered the artillery squadron to occupy Yiwen Mountain first and set up cannons. This small hill, which is only a few dozen meters above sea level, is only a stone’s throw away from Wanping County. If you shoot from here, the shells can fall directly into Wanping City. Then, another detail worth mentioning happened: without waiting for Yimu to speak, Xiao Yanjing, the monitor of the communication team, spread the telephone line from Fengtai to Xiwuli Store. “You can call Beiping directly through Fengtai transit”; Ichimu Qingzhi later said, “The installation of the telephone is a great achievement of Xiao Yanjing… I reported it to the captain. The situation here has contributed to the determination to fight. This phone call has helped a lot…”

Almost as soon as the phone was set up, Mu Tiankou Lian also called. He told Yimu that a few minutes ago, China and Japan had formed a joint investigation team to go to Lugou Bridge for on-site negotiations. Yimu couldn’t help it anymore. He told Renya Mutaguchi that the Chinese army was attacking his troops. “It’s useless to negotiate at this time. I think it would be better to negotiate after occupying Lugou Bridge.” Later, he explained his intention, “I thought I couldn’t let the war go, so I made an exaggerated statement to the captain of the company” (Asahi Symposium, July 1938).

At the beginning, Mu Tiankou Lian was also vague about the request of the night attack on Lugou Bridge. He hinted at Kazuki, “For this matter, the Chinese army in Beijing will not be fully mobilized.” In this regard, Yimu said more eagerly, “Since it has not been fully mobilized, it is an opportunity… At this time, I think it is the best policy for the Chinese army to hit the Lugou Bridge.”

After a moment of silence, Mutaguchi Lian also finally took a stand: “You can fight.”

Yimu asked in surprise, “Can you really do it?”

Mutaguchi Ren also said, “You can do it… Let’s check the table. It’s 4:20 now, that’s right.”

A year later, in front of many colleagues and reporters, Ichiki Kiyonao said proudly, “I never thought that the joint captain would approve it. I was a little surprised… Then I really did it. 4:20 a.m. on July 8th! This is the time when the incident began. “(Asahi Symposium, July 1938)

After getting the approval of Renya Mutaguchi, Ichiki immediately ordered to bury the pot to cook and prepare to attack at dawn. More than an hour later, although the Sino-Japanese joint investigation team had entered Wanping City, and the group included his top boss, Lieutenant Colonel Toru Morita, the deputy captain of the joint force, and Major Sakurada of the secret service, Ichiki still ordered the fire with a disregarding attitude. For a moment, a round of cannonballs whizzed down from Yiwen Mountain and fell into Wanping City.

The star fire of Lugou Bridge was ignited in this way. But until now, whether it was Qin Dechun and Zhang Zizhong of China, Major General Hashimoto, Chief of Staff of the “Chinese Garrison Army” of Japan, and Major Takeo Imai, the deputy military officer of the embassy in Beiping, were still trying to extinguish it. In the following eight years, Takeo Imai played an important role in almost any Sino-Japanese peace talks. This role began with his mediation of the “Lugou Bridge Incident”.

Takeo Imai, born in 1898, is from Nagano Prefecture, Japan. As a participant in the Sino-Japanese War from beginning to end, he experienced that unforgettable night: almost as soon as he fell asleep, the news of Lugou Bridge came. In the conference room of the Mutiankou Joint Forces, which was separated by a wall, he saw soldiers in strict military uniforms coming one after another and heard Mutiankou Lianya’s permission to operate Ichimu Kiyoshi. At dawn, he also convened reporters from all over the world in Beiping and held a brief press conference. He later recalled, “In the hazy face that could barely be recognized, there were several benches in the patio. Everyone sat in the shade of the fresh green locust trees and listened to me announce the story of the events that happened last night. “(Memoirs of Takeo Imai)

Ten minutes later, the reporters dispersed. After visiting the Soul Club and “praying for the peace of the East”, it rained all over the world. Takeo Imai later wrote: “It happened to be at this moment that the sound of cannons sounded in the southwest, shaking the dark sky with low clouds and rain… Perhaps it can be said that it was God’s will. The rain that began to rain at this time turned into a rain that had not been seen in several years, and finally immersed the wilderness of North China in the flood…”

In such a storm, Imai began to look back on the strange encounters in the past few days.

On June 26, Emperor Showa’s uncle, Mitsuru Otani, the abbot of Nishi Honganji Temple, who has a large number of believers in Japan, “without any warning… suddenly came to Beiping and stayed at the Rokukoku Hotel near the Qianmen Railway Station”. The next day, he invited Takeo Imai to meet him and asked about the situation of the North China garrison. At the end of the conversation of more than two hours, Otani revealed his intention. It turned out that in the past few days, the news that “North China will repeated the Willow Ditch Incident” has also spread to Tokyo. In this regard, Prime Minister Wenmaro, who had just been in office for more than 20 days, was both shocked and suspicious, so he sent Mitsuru Otani to investigate the dynamics of the Chinese garrison.

Incidentally, it was also on this day that the 29th Army declared martial law at night in Beiping City. Then, Lieutenant Colonel Kiyofuku Okamoto of the Military Department of the Army Department also came, who had the same mission as Otani. However, it was Ishihara Wan’er, who foreseed that the Sino-Japanese War was imminent, who sent him to investigate.

What’s stranger is that it’s still in the future! On July 6, which was the day before the incident, Imai went to the home of Chen Zigeng, a Doctor of Medicine and former secretary-general of the Beiyang Government, for a banquet. Before the banquet, an unintited guest arrived in a hurry. The person who came was Shi Yousan, the security commander of northern Hebei, who has always had a close relationship with the Japanese. Shi You said in an amazing voice, “Military officer, the Japanese and Chinese armies clashed at Lugou Bridge this afternoon and are currently at war. Do you know this situation?”

Takeo Imai was shocked. He comforted Shi Yousan and said, “I don’t know about this kind of thing, and it won’t happen, will it?” However, Shi Yousan refused to reveal the source of the information. He pleaded, “My troops in Huangsi, the northern suburbs of Beiping, have no intention of fighting against the Japanese army. Please be sure to tell your army not to attack them. “(Memoirs of Takeo Imai)

All these things made Takeo Imai have an ominous premonition. This morning, he called Major General Hashimoto, Chief of Staff of the Chinese Garrison Army, and expressed his position on “not expanding” the incident. Hashimoto Qun was in favor and authorized him to mediate. The first turning point to calm down the situation appeared: at that time, Wanichiro Tashiro, the commander of the Chinese garrison army, was seriously ill in bed, and the statement of the Hashimoto group represented the attitude of the garrison army.

Then, at about 7 o’clock that night, another turning machine appeared. On this day, in the pouring rain, Takeo Imai ran around all day and got almost nothing. He later said, “Shortly after the incident, the dignitaries of the Jicha regime seemed to have a meeting somewhere. (When they visited), the people in their family all replied that they didn’t know where the master was now, (and) avoided meeting with the Japanese.” However, at night, Takeo Imai still refused to give up. He went to Qin Dechun’s private house again.

Outside Qin’s house, a team of guards with live ammunition stopped him and said, “No matter what he said, he was not allowed to go there.” When he was at a loss, Zhao Dengyu, his old acquaintance and commander of the 132nd Division, happened to come out of the courtyard. Takeo Imai quickly stopped him and asked him to do the dredging on his behalf. Later, he said, “Master Zhao is a good old man. He hesitated a little, as if he had changed his mind. Although he just came out, he ran in and mediated for me.

In this way, a few minutes later, Takeo Imai saw Qin Dechun. After a brief meeting, both sides agreed to the policy of “no expansion” and local solution. As for the specific solution, “because China didn’t say a word, it could not be solved”.

Now, when Takeo I was tired and rushed back to the Beiping Military Officer’s Office in the rain, a more major turning point was waiting for him. On this day, the joint meeting of the Tokyo Ministry of the Army and the General Staff also made a decision to “not expand” and solve it on the sit. They sent the temporary order No. 400 of the General Staff, which was concise: “In order to prevent the expansion of the situation, further use of force should be avoided.”

This order made Takeo Imai relieved and overjoyed.

海上的回声

0
海上的回声

—— 写在昝爱宗受审的日子里张致君

作者:张致君
翻译:程铭

海上的回声

杭州的秋天,总是会有雾气。雾气从钱塘江里生出,沿着河堤的石缝爬上来,把街灯和行人都变得模糊。这样的季节里,有人走进法院,成为被告。那个人叫昝爱宗。

(被捕前的昝爱宗(中)与邹巍(右)在朱虞夫(左)家)

在中国新闻的字眼里永远不会出现他的名字,他的名字被放进了“涉嫌寻衅滋事”这一栏里。这个词语已经太熟悉了,它像是一个永远张着口的黑色袋子,随时可以把人丢进去。昝爱宗只是去海边祭奠一位逝者,却因此失去了自由。

我想起刘晓波。他在囚禁中死去。他的名字本来属于书籍和奖章,如今却被中国政府刻意遗忘。昝爱宗和他的朋友们不愿意忘记,于是他们去了海边。他们面朝大海,把花瓣撒进浪潮里。海水吞下花瓣,也吞下他们的沉默和祈祷。就在这一刻,纪念变成了罪行。

昝爱宗出生在安徽的平原,1969 年的秋天。那个年代的中国,饥饿与贫穷像影子一样笼罩着乡村。他走出来,成了写字的人。他写散文、写评论、写那些不愿被湮没的故事。他是基督徒,也是独立作家。他加入了独立中文笔会,和那些相信文字自由的人们站在一起。

他常常在边缘上行走。警方会跟踪他,国保会找他谈话。二十大的时候,他甚至被带去“旅游”,所谓的旅游,其实是监视与隔离。他明白这一切,也从未装作不明白。他只是继续写,继续说,继续活成一个清醒的人。

2024 年 7 月 13 日,海宁的潮水翻涌。昝爱宗与几位朋友来到钱塘江入海口。那天的天空并不晴朗,海风带着咸涩的味道。他们没有喧哗,只是点燃蜡烛,撒下花瓣,念出一个名字——刘晓波。

这是一场安静的仪式。安静到除了风声和浪声,没有第三种声音。可就是这样安静的纪念,却被视为危险的行动。午夜时分,警车划破黑暗,把他们带走。

我想起一句话:人的命就是一直忍受。可有些人不只是忍受,他们还在忍受里保持记忆。

2025 年 9 月15日的杭州,法院的门口一定也有雾气。昝爱宗会走进去,坐在被告席上。公诉书上的字冷冰冰,写着“寻衅滋事”。

法官一定会问他:你是否认罪?而他大概会抬起头,用微微沙哑的声音说:我只是去海边祭奠一个人。

这样的回答,法律无法容纳。

也许在庭下坐着的人,眼神复杂。朋友们可能被阻拦在法院之外,甚至无法靠近。空气里充满一种荒诞:在别的国家,人们可以为逝去的诗人、作家、思想者竖立雕像;在这里,去海边献花却成了罪行。

昝爱宗并非英雄。他只是一个普通的写作者,一个信仰者,一个不愿丢掉记忆的人。可是正因为普通,所以他的遭遇更让人心酸。

在当下中共的统治里,遗忘是最廉价的事情。每一天都有新的新闻、新的热点,把昨日掩盖。昝爱宗却拒绝遗忘。他知道刘晓波的名字不能消失,哪怕只是在海边低声呼唤一次。

这种记忆的坚持,像是一种顽固的信仰。它没有枪支,没有队伍,没有口号,却比任何口号都要锋利。

海浪一遍遍涌来,把岸边的脚印抹去,也把花瓣卷走。可海不会忘记。海是巨大的记忆体,它保存着人类的欢呼与哭泣,保存着那些无法被官方档案写下的秘密。

昝爱宗把自己的良知托付给海。海回应了他,却无法保护他。于是他走进了看守所,走进了法院。

我总觉得,这个故事带着浓重的余华式的荒诞感:一个人去海边撒花,被告知这是“寻衅滋事”;一位作家因为祭奠另一位作家,而成了被告。现实本身,已经荒诞到比小说更难以置信。

声援昝爱宗,其实也是声援我们自己。

2024年7月13日,我也一手策划了海祭刘晓波的活动,只不过我在圣莫妮卡海,他们在钱塘江入海口,我们平安的回了家,他们关进了专制的牢笼。

我们要问:今天他因为海祭而受审,明天还会是谁?如果连纪念的自由都被剥夺,那么我们将生活在怎样的沉默里?

他的遭遇提醒我们,记忆需要守护,良知需要有人承担。或许我们每一个人都无法像他那样走到海边,但至少我们可以记住他的名字,记住他为什么被审判。

杭州的秋天,雾气依旧会从江面升起。法院的审判终将结束,判决书会落在纸上。可我相信,当年钱塘江的海风,已经把昝爱宗的花瓣带到更远的地方。

那里有刘晓波,也有无数逝去的人。他们在海的另一边,看见一个中年作家俯下身,把花瓣投进浪潮。

而我们,也要记得。

(照片为2024年7月13日作者策划的圣莫妮卡海滩祭奠刘晓波逝世7周年活动现场)


The echo of the sea – written on the day of the trial of Zan Aizong

Author: Zhijun Zhang
Translator: Cheng Ming

海上的回声

There is always fog in Hangzhou in autumn. The fog came from the Qiantang River and climbed up along the stone cracks of the river embankment, blurring the streetlights and pedestrians. In such a season, someone walks into the court and becomes a defendant. That man’s name is Zan Aizong.

(Before his arrest, Zan Aizong (middle) and Zou Wei (right) were at Zhu Yufu’s (left) house)

His name will never appear in the words of Chinese news. His name was put in the column of “suspected of causing trouble”. This word is too familiar. It is like a black bag that always opens its mouth and can throw people into it at any time. Zan Aizong only went to the beach to pay tribute to a deceased person, but he lost his freedom because of it.

I think of Liu Xiaobo. He died in prison. His name originally belonged to books and medals, but now it is deliberately forgotten by the Chinese government. Zan Aizong and his friends didn’t want to forget, so they went to the seaside. They faced the sea and scattered the petals into the waves. The sea water swallowed the petals and also swallowed their silence and prayers. At this moment, the memorial became a crime.

Zan Aizong was born in the plains of Anhui Province in the autumn of 1969. In China at that time, hunger and poverty covered the countryside like a shadow. He came out and became a writer. He writes essays, comments, and stories that he doesn’t want to be annihilated. He is a Christian and an independent writer. He joined the Independent Chinese Pen Association and stood with those who believed in freedom of writing.

He often walks on the edge. The police will follow him, and the national security will talk to him. During the 20th National Congress, he was even taken to “travel”. The so-called travel was actually surveillance and isolation. He understood all this and never pretended not to understand. He just continued to write, continued to speak, and continued to live as a sober person.

On July 13, 2024, the tide of Haining surged. Zan Aizong came to the mouth of the Qiantang River with several friends. The sky was not clear that day, and the sea breeze tasted salty. They didn’t make a fuss. They just lit candles, scattered petals, and recited a name – Liu Xiaobo.

This is a quiet ceremony. It was so quiet that there was no third sound except for the sound of wind and waves. But such a quiet commemoration is regarded as a dangerous act. At midnight, the police car cut through the darkness and took them away.

I remember a sentence: human life is to endure all the time. But some people don’t just endure it, they also keep their memories in it.

In Hangzhou on September 15, 2025, there must be fog at the gate of the court. Zan Aizong walked in and sat on the dock. The words on the indictment were cold, and it was written as “seeking trouble”.

The judge will definitely ask him: Do you plead guilty? And he probably raised his head and said in a slightly hoarse voice: I just went to the beach to pay tribute to someone.

The law can’t accept such an answer.

Maybe the person sitting under the court has complicated eyes. Friends may be blocked outside the court and can’t even get close. The air is full of absurdity: in other countries, people can erect statues for deceased poets, writers and thinkers; here, it is a crime to go to the beach to offer flowers.

Zan Aizong is not a hero. He is just an ordinary writer, a believer, and a person who is unwilling to lose his memory. But because of the ordinary, what happened to him was even more heartbreaking.

Under the current rule of the Communist Party of China, forgetting is the cheapest thing. There are new news and hot spots every day, covering up yesterday. Zsn Aizong refused to forget. He knew that Liu Xiaobo’s name could not disappear, even if it was just called out in a low voice by the sea.

The persistence of this memory is like a stubborn belief. It has no guns, no team, no slogan, but it is sharper than any slogan.

The waves surged again and again, erasing the footprints on the shore and the petals away. But the sea will not forget. The sea is a huge memory, which preserves the cheers and cries of human beings, and the secrets that cannot be written down in official files.

Zan Aizong entrusted his conscience to the sea. Hai responded to him, but he couldn’t protect him. So, he walked into the detention center and the court.

I always feel that this story has a strong sense of absurdity of Yuhua style: a man went to the beach to scatter flowers and was told that it was “making trouble”; a writer became a defendant because he paid tribute to another writer. Reality itself is more absurd than the novel.

In fact, solidarity with the Aizong is also solidarity with us.

On July 13, 2024, I also planned the activity of worshipping Liu Xiaobo in the sea, but I was in the Santa Monica Sea. They entered the sea of the Qiantang River. We returned home safely, and they were locked up in an autocratic cage.

We want to ask: He was tried today because of the sea sacrifice. Who else will he be tomorrow? If even the freedom of commemoration is deprived, what kind of silence will we live in?

His experience reminds us that memories need to be guarded, and consciences need to be borne by someone. Maybe each of us can’t walk to the beach like him, but at least we can remember his name and why he was tried.

In autumn in Hangzhou, the fog will still rise from the river. The trial in the court will eventually end, and the verdict will be on paper. But I believe that the sea breeze of the Qiantang River in those years has brought the petals of Zan Aizong to a further place.

There is Liu Xiaobo there, and there are countless people who have passed away. On the other side of the sea, they saw a middle-aged writer bending down and throwing petals into the wave.

And we should also remember.

(The photo is the scene of the Santa Monica Beach memorial service to the 7th anniversary of Liu Xiaobo’s death planned by the author on July 13, 2024)

声援邹巍

0
声援邹巍

——言论无罪,释放良心犯

作者/编辑:李聪玲
责任编辑:罗志飞

2024年7月13日,中国民主党人昝爱宗、邹巍等,仅仅因为在钱塘江边悼念诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波,就被中共当局粗暴抓捕。7月20日,邹巍以“寻衅滋事罪”遭到刑拘,并于8月26日被正式批捕。如今,他即将站在杭州拱墅法院的被告席上,面对一场注定不公正的政治审判。

在当局眼中,悼念是罪,言论是罪,良知是罪。可是,在人民心中,悼念是人性,言论是权利,良知是光芒。今天,我们必须大声疾呼:声援邹巍!言论无罪!释放良心犯!

刘晓波先生是中国当代最具国际影响力的民主斗士,他以非暴力抗争与公民勇气,获得诺贝尔和平奖。他的离世,不仅是知识界的巨大损失,更是中国民主运动的巨大悲剧。任何一个有良知的中国人,都有权利为他悼念。邹巍与昝爱宗等人仅仅是在钱塘江边举起悼念横幅,这样的举动完全是和平、合法、正当的。他们没有扰乱社会秩序,没有危害任何公共安全,更没有侵犯他人利益。相反,他们的行为体现了作为公民的责任与担当。然而,中共当局却将悼念视为威胁,将记忆当成敌人。因为在独裁者眼里,纪念刘晓波,就是提醒世人:这个国家依然有人在抗争,依然有人敢于说“不”。对他们来说,这种记忆比任何武器都要危险。

“寻衅滋事”已经成为中共最常用的政治工具,它是一个模糊、空洞的口袋罪,可以随意套在任何人的头上。从维权律师,到独立学者,从街头抗议者,到网络发声者,无数敢于直言的公民都曾被这个罪名压制。但我们必须追问:到底谁在寻衅滋事?是那些举横幅悼念的公民,还是那个害怕悼念的政权?是那些和平表达诉求的人,还是那个动辄抓捕异议者的权力机器?

言论自由不是西方的“专利”,它是写入《世界人权宣言》的基本权利。中共自己签署的《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》,也明确保障思想、言论与集会自由。可见,今天的迫害不仅违反道义,也违背国际法。一个不能容忍悼念的人,一个连批评都惧怕的政权,本身才是真正的“滋事者”。

邹巍是谁?他是中国民主党人,是一位坚持信念的公民。他的行动没有任何暴力,没有任何煽动,更没有任何破坏。他唯一的“罪行”,就是在威权高压下,依然选择了勇敢发声。今天,中共要用铁窗禁锢邹巍的身体,却无法摧毁他内心的自由。正如历史上一切良心犯一样,他们的名字终将被铭记,他们的坚持终将启迪更多人。

我们必须重申:邹巍无罪!立即释放邹巍!让一个良心之士蒙冤,说明体制的荒谬;让一位民主斗士坐牢,只能让更多人看清专制的丑陋。

历史告诉我们:当权力把“悼念”定罪,把“言论”定罪时,如果社会选择沉默,就是在替独裁背书。正因如此,我们呼吁国际社会继续关注邹巍案,持续对中共施压。各国政府、人权组织、媒体不应对这样的冤案视而不见。只有当全球目光聚焦,当外部压力存在,专制才会有所忌惮。我们也呼吁海内外公民共同声援。转发邹巍案的消息,公开表达支持,推动更多人了解真相。自由需要传播,良知需要接力。今天我们为邹巍发声,就是在为我们每一个人的未来发声。

言论自由,是一切自由的起点。剥夺了言论,自由只剩空壳,社会便沦为恐惧的囚笼。邹巍案的发生,再次证明中共政权对自由的恐惧与敌意。它害怕人们纪念先贤,害怕人们回望历史,害怕真相在黑暗中点燃火光。但正是这种恐惧,反而昭示了专制的脆弱。独裁可以囚禁肉身,却囚禁不了人心;权力可以压制当下,却压制不了未来。纵然黑暗笼罩,但星火已在燃烧。今天,我们高喊:释放邹巍!释放所有良心犯!言论无罪!民主必胜!

正在经历的不仅是邹巍这一场审判,更是中国社会良知的审判。中共要让人们忘记刘晓波,要让公民噤声,要让历史停摆。但我们不会忘记,我们不会噤声,我们不会沉默。只要还有人发声,只要还有人铭记,独裁就不可能永远存在。邹巍的坚持,将成为更多人觉醒的灯塔。让我们一起,声援邹巍,声援所有因追求自由而遭受迫害的人。因为他们的自由,就是我们的自由;他们的命运,就是我们的命运。邹巍无罪!释放邹巍!言论无罪!释放所有良心犯!

声援邹巍

照片:左起邹巍、朱虞夫、徐光、陈开频2022年春节在徐光家

Support Zou Wei

— Speech Is Not a Crime,Free All Prisoners of Conscience

Summary: Chinese Democracy Party member Zou Wei faces trial on charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” for commemorating Liu Xiaobo. Mourning is not a crime; freedom of expression is a universal right. We call out: Zou Wei is innocent—release him immediately!

Author/Editor: Li Congling
Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Lyu Feng

On July 13, 2024, Chinese Democracy Party members Zan Aizong, Zou Wei, and others were brutally arrested by the authorities simply for holding a commemoration for Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo by the Qiantang River. On July 20, Zou Wei was placed under criminal detention on charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” and on August 26 he was formally arrested. Now, he is about to stand trial in Hangzhou’s Gongshu District Court, facing a political trial that is certain to be unjust.

In the eyes of the authorities, mourning is a crime, speech is a crime, conscience is a crime. But in the hearts of the people, mourning is humanity, speech is a right, conscience is light. Today, we must raise our voices: Support Zou Wei! Speech is not a crime! Free all prisoners of conscience!

Liu Xiaobo was the most internationally influential democracy activist in contemporary China. Through nonviolent resistance and civic courage, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His passing was not only a great loss to the intellectual community but also a tragedy for China’s democratic movement. Every conscientious Chinese citizen has the right to mourn him. Zou Wei, Zan Aizong, and others merely raised a banner by the Qiantang River in remembrance—a peaceful, lawful, and legitimate act. They disturbed no social order, threatened no public safety, and harmed no one’s interests. On the contrary, their actions embodied civic duty and responsibility. Yet the authorities treated mourning as a threat and memory as an enemy. For dictators, commemorating Liu Xiaobo means reminding the world that resistance continues, that there are still people brave enough to say “no.” To them, this memory is more dangerous than any weapon.

“Picking quarrels and provoking trouble” has become the most common political tool used by the regime. It is a vague, catch-all charge that can be pinned on anyone at will. From rights lawyers to independent scholars, from street protesters to online voices, countless outspoken citizens have been suppressed under this accusation. But we must ask: who is really picking quarrels? Is it the citizens who raise banners in mourning, or the regime that fears such mourning? Is it those who peacefully express themselves, or the machinery of power that arrests dissenters at every turn?

Freedom of expression is not a “Western privilege”—it is a basic right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Chinese government itself signed, guarantees freedom of thought, speech, and assembly. Today’s persecution is not only immoral but also a violation of international law. A regime that cannot tolerate mourning, that fears even criticism, is the true “provoker of trouble.”

Who is Zou Wei? He is a member of the China Democracy Party, a citizen of conviction. His actions involve no violence, no incitement, no destruction. His only “crime” is choosing to speak out courageously under authoritarian repression. Today, the authorities may imprison his body, but they cannot imprison his inner freedom. Like all prisoners of conscience in history, his name will be remembered, and his perseverance will inspire many more.

We must reaffirm: Zou Wei is innocent! Release him immediately! To let a man of conscience be wrongfully punished exposes the absurdity of the system; to imprison a democracy activist only makes the ugliness of tyranny clearer to the world.

History tells us this: when power criminalizes mourning and speech, silence from society is tantamount to endorsing dictatorship. This is why we call on the international community to keep a close watch on the Zou Wei case and to continue pressuring the regime. Governments, human rights organizations, and media worldwide must not turn a blind eye to such injustice. Only when global attention and external pressure exist will authoritarianism feel any restraint. We also call on citizens, at home and abroad, to show solidarity: share the news of Zou Wei’s case, publicly express support, and help more people learn the truth. Freedom must be spread, conscience must be passed on. Speaking up for Zou Wei today is speaking up for the future of us all.

Freedom of expression is the foundation of all freedoms. Without it, freedom is an empty shell, and society becomes a prison of fear. The case of Zou Wei once again proves the regime’s deep fear and hostility toward freedom. It fears people honoring their heroes, fears people remembering history, fears truth sparking light in the darkness. But it is precisely this fear that reveals the fragility of tyranny. Dictatorship can imprison bodies but not souls; it can suppress the present but not the future. Though darkness looms, sparks are already burning. Today, we shout: Free Zou Wei! Free all prisoners of conscience! Speech is not a crime! Democracy will prevail!

What is unfolding is not only the trial of Zou Wei but also a trial of China’s collective conscience. The authorities want people to forget Liu Xiaobo, silence citizens, and freeze history. But we will not forget, we will not be silenced, we will not remain quiet. As long as there are voices, as long as there is memory, dictatorship cannot last forever. Zou Wei’s perseverance will be a beacon of awakening for many more. Let us unite in support of Zou Wei and all those persecuted for pursuing freedom. Their freedom is our freedom; their fate is our fate.

Zou Wei is innocent! Release Zou Wei! Speech is not a crime! Free all prisoners of conscience!

声援邹巍

Photo: From left to right — Zou Wei, Zhu Yufu, Xu Guang, and Chen Kaiping, taken during the 2022 Spring Festival at Xu Guang’s home.

谢长发专访

0
谢长发专访

——纵长夜漫漫仍要秉烛前进的先行者

采访人:张致君
录音:常坤 语音 整理:林小龙 背景资料整理:陈婷 责任编辑:罗志飞 翻译:吕峰 校对:冯仍

谢长发先生是中国民主党党刊《在野党》杂志复刊推动人,是《在野党》荣誉主编之一。本期采访人与《在野党》杂志一起走进谢长发先生的民主道路,体味其中的艰辛历程。

谢长发专访

1998年中国民主党创党,他作为中国民主党湖南地区负责人,为推动多党竞争、呼吁政治改革与民主选举各处奔走。后因其行动活跃,2009年中共当局使用“颠覆国家政权”罪名判其服刑13年,谢长发先生是中国民主党案判刑最多、拒不认罪、不减一天刑的政治犯。

在九八年中国民主党的组党运动中,谢长发先生冲在最前面。他串联各地,参与座谈,组织游行,申请注册。仅仅在湖南,被判刑的就有佟适东、廖石华、张善光、柏小毛、何朝晖、李旺阳等人。他侥幸逃过了第一次搜捕,之后,谢长发先生毅然挑起了中国民主党湖南筹委会负责人的重担。

零八年春节,由于有七、八个省市的民运朋友与会,受到长沙“国保”严厉的警告。他策略性地放弃了主持这次团拜会,唯一的目的就是希望为自己赢得自由空间,去推动建设和组织中国民主党全国“一大”的召开。

在中国,从事民主运动必须具有牺牲精神,而谢长发先生是以百分之百精力投身进去的。他甘于清贫,受他接济的民运朋友不下百人,款项不下十万。

记者与谢长发先生连线采访,赫然可见一位鹤发童颜精神矍铄的老先生侃侃而谈,监禁并未销磨掉他身上的英雄气质,交谈中似乎又再见到了中国民主党组党时期那位英姿飒爽的青年,孑然一身朗朗前行的样子。

(图为记者与谢长发先生视频,视频中一直有干扰)

张致君:谢老先生,安康!您现在是《在野党》杂志的荣誉主编,您也是复刊的主要推手之一。请问你是如何看待《在野党》的?

谢先生:我们要想进入一个真正的民主制度社会,就必须要有自己的理论刊物。理论知识就是一座灯塔,《在野党》就提供这样的思想,它会照亮中国人前行的道路,给未来的可能性指明方向。

张:您在国内的时候看过早期《在野党》刊物吗?

谢:看过,朱虞夫把杂志给过我。当时就觉得太好了!中国民主党作为要和中国共产党竞争的党,就必须有自己的刊物,就是在理论上有了基础。

张:谢先生,中国民主党湖南省筹备委员会成立的时候,你是如何一个心路历程?

谢:我当时跟浙江、 湖南、湖北、上海、北京、贵州这些各地负责人私下达成了一些协议,一定要勇敢建党。1998年,因为我在外面比较活跃,我们就顺势组建了湖南民主党, 我们向湖南省民政厅去递交了成立中国民主党湖南省筹备委员会的申请。当时我们4个人去的,我、还有北航的教授、长沙大学的、还有一个湘潭大学的。

张:您在组党的时候做过很多推动组党进程的事情,比如各地串联,您觉得是什么锻造了您的这种能力?

谢:83年的时候,我在长沙钢厂任助理工程师期间,成立了“良友社”。我用毛笔字写过“良友”两个大字做招牌,那时候就有20多位民主人士联合在一起。良友会就是为了寻找志同道合的战友,一起旅游和交流,在良友会期间我逐渐学会组织能力。组织能力很重要,但前提是一定要有很好的人品,否则是得不到别人的认可的。这样的结社生活是为组建党派奠定基础的,组党和结社是一个道理。

张:是哪些因素让您意识到中国的制度问题,从而让您走上民主之路的?

谢:在中南大学读书期间,我一直考虑的问题就是:“根据《中华人民共和国宪法》第二条,中华人民共和国的一切权利属于人民。第三十五条,中华人民共和国国民享有出版、言论、集会、结社自由。我们是第一个按照宪法申请的注册组党的,尝试着做筹备委员会,但是中国共产党不守信用,欺骗我们。我研究历史比较多,我懂得“信,国之保也,民之所平也”不守信用的国家是会出大问题的。

张:您因为声援“89”学生,也被判过2年劳教,当时在1989年的时候,您是怎么反对中共对学生镇压的?

谢:1989年2月28日,由长沙市委组织部到各个工厂抽调工作人员去扶贫。我是以工程师的身份被抽调到浏阳市官渡镇扶贫。我经常听美国之音的报道,能够获取外界的信息,1989年6月4号上午,当我听到北京的“枪声”,我就意识到可能要开始革命了。早上七点多,我带着自己的身份证、工作证到浏阳市高中,学校里有我认识的七、八个男学生,我亮出我的工作证,告诉、鼓励他们“现在北京已经镇压学生运动了,我们要奋起反抗,因为我们也是学生”。

张:您单单只是鼓励他们站出来然后您就被抓了吗?共产党又是怎么发现您在做这个事情的?

谢:那些学生自发捐钱买笔、墨、纸,在官渡镇的街上写了很多标语“反对镇压学生运动”、“反对专制”等等。12月16日长沙市国家安全局的一個科長和副科長就在我厂里将我带到长沙市第一看守所。判了两年劳教,抓我的科长叫罗海蛟。

张:在劳教所里面经历过事情让你特别难忘吗?

谢:根据当时的制度,他们把我在之前工厂工作的工资私自克扣了之后给我减刑,这是一种贪污行为。当时我们这个监室有四十五个来自全国各地的政治犯,其中也有大学教授,对于我们的劳教相对于宽松,我们只需要工作半天,但是另外的违法乱纪的整天都需要工作。

张:后来您第二次入狱的十三年中是否有遭到过虐待?

谢:狱警看过我写的文章,他佩服我,对我的待遇还可以。我在里面也受到外界各方资助,一直有人在外面声援,有钱就可以在监狱里面买饭。再者,我会为人处事,里面的人就都待我不错,在刚进去的时候,被扇过我耳光。

在湖南省赤山监狱服刑期间,被一个名叫刘宏的当班狱警用塑料板打在我的头部,虽然不是很重,但行为是恶劣的。为此,我弟弟还在岳麓山的云麓宫举横幅,也在监狱大门前举横幅,横幅内容“单挑恶狱警刘宏!”。由于我弟弟的勇敢行动和外界的声援,据说监狱长和那个恶狱警刘宏都被调走了,他们是否受到处分不得而知。

我认识的另外一个邵阳的李旺阳,被虐待到耳聋眼瞎。经济状况好一点的,在里面生活就会稍微好一点,经济状况不好的,在里面受不了的就有割腕自杀的。

张:您组党被捕的时候,心理上是个什么样的状态?

谢:我的心态还是很好的,佛家语说“我不下地狱谁下地狱”,既然要走这条路,我心理早有准备。我第一次被劳教,在劳教所的时候有一个干部就很欣赏我写的一段话“如果一个优秀的政党没有强有力的机构去监督他的话,这个优秀的政党总要腐化堕落的”、“一个不让人说真话的政党,终会坍塌的”。我做的是正确的事,无怨无悔。

张:听朱虞夫老先生说您当年把您做生意赚的钱都投入到民主运动的事业当中去了。

谢:1999年的时候我就开始做点小生意,我到全国各地鼓励别人,自己跑了26个省市地区。我在大学时期是学轧钢专业的,所以我就用自己的专长很有信心到全国去推销。利用推销的机会就到这些地区讲政策,讲建党。干大事就要不辞辛劳,吸引人才就要像滚雪球一样越来越大,我们要把握历史的时代潮流。

张:中国共产党当时判您13年就最大的主要对您的指控是什么?

谢:说是颠覆国家政权。共产党看到我集结那么多人、跑了那么多地方。1999年到2008年6月我是比较隐蔽的去做这些事。

张:这将近横跨十年的时间他们一直都不知道您做的事?

谢:之前共产党是不知道我做的这些事的,早些年我在甘肃认识一个叫王凤山的,他当时也是个大学生,但是他的哥哥是哈尔滨的市委书记,王凤山告诉我他认识的一个叫岳天祥的也是因为煽动颠覆国家政权罪被判了十年,我就邀请他们6月8号到长沙来玩。当时来的有王凤山、他的哥哥、岳天祥。我们在吃饭聊天的时候,我就跟他们聊了一些民主党准备召开“一大”会议的构思,这些信息被他们传播出去,我就被抓捕了。

张:谢老,出狱后,您近况如何?

谢:我出狱后状态还是比较好的。2023年2月20日突发糖尿病,我的弟弟对我的帮助很大,病情虽然有所缓解,但轻微后遗症还是存在,不得不继续服药。我现在一个人住,之前的家人也挺好。周末我会去教会做礼拜。

张:您对我们这些年轻人有什么想说的话吗?

谢:人品好、有教养的年轻人一定要勇敢的联合,我觉得中国人最缺的就是勇敢联合的精神,大家只要联合起来,优秀的同胞越来越多,发挥自己的特长,那我们就一定能够竞争出一个民主自由的社会。

年轻人要根据他们自身的专业、追求、志向,有伟大志向的我们就可以引导、启发、激励他们。

年轻人也要学以致用,学习德国的经济如何发展的,美国的三权分立如何建立的,不停地学习,运用起来,中国的民主道路才有希望。

张:谢老,您经历了那么多,如果再来一次的话您在民运这条路上还会这样做吗?

谢:要善始善终,做一个决定、做一个伟大的事业,就不要后悔,我对我所作的事情是不后悔的,并且我有圆满胜利的信心,我知道这是一个历史的大趋势,我们要把民主事业继续做下去,联络更多人品好、有文化、有知识的年轻人,我们就能取得胜利。我們就能竞争出一個真正民主自由的社会,我们竞争就能贏得民心。

记者语:采访至此,我深知笔墨难以完全承载谢长发先生走过的风雨与苦难。他的坚守与信仰,在与专制抗衡的历史的长河中已经留下不可磨灭的痕迹。

前路依旧险阻,而正是有谢老这样的人存在,中国的民主理想才从未熄灭。谢老在采访最后对年轻人和理想国的期待,也是一代代坚守在中国守护公义的志士的愿望。

愿读到这篇采访的朋友们,在心中点燃属于自己的微光,薪火相传。

(照片为1998年中国民主党组党时期的谢长发先生(左一),在杭州拍摄,后排中为毛庆祥先生,后排右为朱虞夫先生)

Exclusive Interview with Xie Changfa

— A Pioneer Who Holds the Candle Through the Long Dark Night

Interviewer: Zhang Zhijun
Recording: Chang Kun Transcription: Lin Xiaolong Background Research: Chen Ting
Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Lyu Feng

Mr. Xie Changfa is one of the driving forces behind the relaunch of the China Democracy Party’s journal Opposition Party and serves as one of its Honorary Chief Editors. In this issue, the interviewer, together with Opposition Party magazine, explores Mr. Xie’s path of democracy and experiences the hardships of his journey.

谢长发专访

In 1998, with the founding of the China Democracy Party, Mr. Xie Changfa served as the party’s regional leader in Hunan, tirelessly advocating for multi-party competition, political reform, and democratic elections. Due to his active involvement, in 2009 the Chinese Communist authorities convicted him on the charge of “subversion of state power” and sentenced him to 13 years in prison. Mr. Xie is the China Democracy Party member who received the longest sentence in the case, and he steadfastly refused to plead guilty or have a single day reduced from his term.

During the 1998 party-building movement, Mr. Xie stood at the forefront. He traveled across regions, held discussions, organized demonstrations, and applied for official registration. In Hunan alone, several activists were sentenced, including Tong Shidong, Liao Shihua, Zhang Shanguang, Bai Xiaomao, He Zhaohui, and Li Wangyang. Mr. Xie narrowly escaped the first wave of arrests, and afterward, he resolutely took up the responsibility of leading the Hunan Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party.

In the Spring Festival of 2008, when pro-democracy friends from seven or eight provinces and cities gathered, the Changsha “national security” police issued severe warnings. As a tactical move, Mr. Xie gave up hosting that gathering, with the sole purpose of securing more freedom of movement for himself so that he could continue promoting the organization of the China Democracy Party’s first national congress.

In China, engaging in the democracy movement requires a spirit of sacrifice, and Mr. Xie dedicated himself to it wholeheartedly. He accepted a life of poverty and provided financial assistance to no fewer than a hundred fellow activists, in amounts totaling over 100,000 yuan.

When the journalist connected with Mr. Xie for this interview, what appeared was an elderly man with white hair but a youthful face, speaking with vigor. Imprisonment had not eroded his heroic spirit. In conversation, one could once again glimpse the spirited young man of the party-building years—walking upright, resolute, and unyielding on the path forward alone.

(Photo: The journalist in a video call with Mr. Xie Changfa, during which constant interference was present.)

Zhang Zhijun: Mr. Xie, peace and health to you! You are now an Honorary Chief Editor of Opposition Party magazine and one of the main driving forces behind its relaunch. How do you view Opposition Party?

Mr. Xie: If we want to enter a truly democratic society, we must have our own theoretical publication. Theory is like a lighthouse, and Opposition Party provides such thought—it illuminates the road ahead for the Chinese people and points the way toward future possibilities.

Zhang: Did you ever read the early issues of Opposition Party while you were still inside China?

Xie: Yes, I did. Zhu Yufu gave me the magazine. At that time, I thought it was excellent! Since the China Democracy Party is a party competing with the Communist Party of China, it must have its own publication—that gave us a theoretical foundation.

Zhang: When the Hunan Provincial Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party was established, what was going through your mind?

Xie: I had reached private agreements with leaders in Zhejiang, Hunan, Hubei, Shanghai, Beijing, Guizhou, and other places that we must bravely establish the party. In 1998, because I was relatively active publicly, we went ahead and formed the Hunan branch of the Democracy Party. We submitted an application to the Hunan Provincial Civil Affairs Department to register the Hunan Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party. Four of us went together—myself, a professor from Beihang University, a professor from Changsha University, and another from Xiangtan University.

Zhang: When founding the party, you did many things to advance the process, such as traveling to connect with activists in different regions. What forged this ability of yours?

Xie: Back in 1983, when I was an assistant engineer at the Changsha Steel Plant, I founded the “Good Friends Society.” I even hand-wrote its sign with a calligraphy brush. At that time, over 20 democrats came together. The purpose was to seek like-minded comrades, travel, and exchange ideas. During those gatherings, I gradually learned organizational skills. Organization is important, but the prerequisite is good character—without that, you cannot win people’s trust. Such associations laid the foundation for party building. Founding a party and forming associations follow the same principle.

Zhang: What factors made you realize China’s systemic problems and pushed you onto the road of democracy?

Xie: While studying at Central South University, I kept thinking: Article 2 of the PRC Constitution states that all power belongs to the people. Article 35 says citizens enjoy freedom of publication, speech, assembly, and association. We were the first to apply to register a political party in accordance with the Constitution and to form a preparatory committee. But the Communist Party of China did not honor its word—it deceived us. I have studied history extensively and understand that “trust is the safeguard of the nation and the peace of the people.” A country that does not keep its word will face great trouble.

Zhang: You were sentenced to two years of re-education through labor for supporting the students of 1989. How did you oppose the Communist suppression at that time?

Xie: On February 28, 1989, the Changsha Municipal Party Committee mobilized staff from factories to rural poverty-alleviation projects. I was assigned as an engineer to Guandu Township in Liuyang City. I often listened to Voice of America broadcasts and got outside information. On the morning of June 4, when I heard the “gunfire” in Beijing, I realized a revolution might be beginning. Around 7 a.m., I went to Liuyang High School, where I knew several male students. I showed them my work ID and encouraged them: “Beijing has already suppressed the student movement. We must rise up, because we are students too.”

Zhang: Did you only encourage them, and then get arrested? How did the authorities find out what you were doing?

Xie: Those students spontaneously donated money to buy pens, ink, and paper, and wrote many slogans on the streets of Guandu: “Oppose the suppression of the student movement,” “Oppose dictatorship,” and so on. On December 16, the head and deputy head of a section of the Changsha State Security Bureau took me from my factory to the city’s No. 1 Detention Center. I was sentenced to two years of re-education through labor. The section chief who arrested me was named Luo Haijiao.

Zhang: Was there anything especially unforgettable during your time in the labor camp?

Xie: According to the system then, they withheld part of my factory wages to “offset” my sentence—that was a form of corruption. In our cell there were 45 political prisoners from across the country, including professors. Compared to ordinary criminals, our labor was relatively light—we only worked half-days, while the others had to work all day.

Zhang: During your second imprisonment of thirteen years, did you experience mistreatment?

Xie: The guards read my writings—one even admired me—so my treatment was relatively decent. I also received outside support: people sent funds, and with money you could buy better food inside prison. Plus, I know how to deal with people, so most treated me well. Early on, I was slapped once.

At Chishan Prison in Hunan, a guard named Liu Hong once struck me on the head with a plastic board. It wasn’t heavy, but it was malicious. My younger brother bravely protested by holding banners at Yuelu Mountain’s Yunlu Palace and outside the prison gate reading “Challenge the wicked guard Liu Hong one-on-one!” Because of this action and outside support, I heard both the prison warden and Liu Hong were transferred, though I don’t know if they were punished.

Another activist I knew, Li Wangyang from Shaoyang, was tortured until he was deaf and blind. Those with better finances could survive more easily; the poor sometimes could not bear it and attempted suicide.

Zhang: What was your mental state when you were arrested for party building?

Xie: My mindset was good. As the Buddhists say: “If I don’t go to hell, who will?” Since I had chosen this road, I was prepared. During my first re-education, one cadre admired something I wrote: “If an excellent party does not have a strong institution to supervise it, it will eventually become corrupt and degenerate.” And: “A party that forbids truth will collapse.” I was doing the right thing, so I had no regrets.

Zhang: Mr. Zhu Yufu once said you invested the money you earned from business entirely into the democratic movement.

Xie: In 1999, I started small businesses and traveled to 26 provinces and regions to encourage others. I majored in rolling steel in university, so I used my expertise to promote and sell nationwide. On those trips, I also talked about policy and party building. To achieve great things, one must work tirelessly. To attract talent, one must grow like a snowball. We must grasp the tide of history.

Zhang: What was the main charge the CCP used when sentencing you to 13 years?

Xie: “Subversion of state power.” They saw me gathering many people and traveling to so many places. From 1999 to June 2008, I worked relatively covertly.

Zhang: For nearly a decade, they didn’t know what you were doing?

Xie: At first, they didn’t. Earlier, I met a student in Gansu named Wang Fengshan—his brother was the Party Secretary of Harbin. Wang told me about another activist, Yue Tianxiang, who had been sentenced to 10 years for “inciting subversion.” I invited them to Changsha on June 8. Wang, his brother, and Yue came. While eating and chatting, I discussed ideas for convening the Democracy Party’s first national congress. That information spread, and soon after, I was arrested.

Zhang: After being released, how have you been?

Xie: My condition has been fairly good. On February 20, 2023, I suddenly developed diabetes. My younger brother has helped me greatly. Although the illness has eased, I still have mild aftereffects and must continue taking medicine. I now live alone, but my family has been supportive. On weekends I attend church services.

Zhang: Do you have any words for young people today?

Xie: Young people of good character and proper upbringing must bravely unite. I think what Chinese people most lack is the spirit of courageous unity. As long as people unite and more and more excellent compatriots bring their strengths, we can compete to create a democratic and free society.

Young people should pursue their specialties and ideals, and those with great aspirations can be guided, inspired, and encouraged. They should also apply their learning—study how Germany developed its economy, how the U.S. established separation of powers, keep learning and applying. Only then will China’s democratic path have hope.

Zhang: Mr. Xie, after everything you’ve endured, if you could live your life again, would you take the same path in the democracy movement?

Xie: One must begin well and end well. If you choose a great cause, you must never regret it. I do not regret my actions, and I have confidence in ultimate victory. I know this is a great historical trend. We must continue the democratic cause, unite more young people of good character, culture, and knowledge, and we will win. We will be able to compete for a truly democratic and free society—we will win the hearts of the people.

Journalist’s Note:At this point in the interview, I realized that words alone cannot fully capture the storms and hardships Mr. Xie has endured. His steadfastness and faith have already left an indelible mark in the long struggle against tyranny. The road ahead remains perilous, yet it is precisely because of people like Mr. Xie that the dream of democracy in China has never been extinguished. His final words to the youth and his vision of an ideal nation reflect the hopes of generations of righteous men and women who have guarded justice in China.

May those who read this interview ignite their own small light within, passing the flame forward.

(Photo: Mr. Xie Changfa, far left, during the founding period of the China Democracy Party in 1998, taken in Hangzhou. In the back row, center is Mr. Mao Qingxiang, and on the right is Mr. Zhu Yufu.)