香港占中事件日前露出的曙光於星期四晚間又蒙上陰影,預計於昨日展開的會談港府稱對話基礎遭破壞而撤回。如今特首梁振英陷入貪汙疑雲,香港、澳洲雙邊正積極介入調查,民主黨亦準備進行彈劾。美國《外交政策》(Foreign Policy)雜誌請來專家學者分析兩者之間的關聯,並給予學生建言。
專家表示港府的臨陣變臉只會激怒示威者
FP採訪數名在香港、中國歷史和中國政治領域中的專家學者,詢問他們對於占中事件的意見及預測。陳澍(George Chen)是經常撰寫有關中國和香港事務的Yale World Fellow(耶魯國際菁英);白潔曦(Jessica Chen Weiss)是耶魯大學政治學助理教授;Jeffrey Wasserstrom加州大學歐文分校的歷史教授;Allen Carlson康奈爾大學政治學副教授;William Hurst西北大學政治學副教授。
FP:你對於政府取消週五與學生會談的理由有什麼看法?
Wasserstrom:我覺得那是一個難以理解又缺乏說服力的理由,因為從宣布計畫展開會談開始,學生的立場幾乎沒有改變。
白潔曦:政府決定取消會談是在走回頭路。即便此會談未能達成實質性進展,會談本身亦能展現出政府接受協商和讓步的善意。雖然在初步討論中政府立場與學生訴求之間存在巨大鴻溝,先發制人地取消週五會晤使政府看來蠻橫,並進一步加劇緊張情勢。
FP:昨日突然取消會談是否早有預謀?背後又暗藏著什麼策略(如果有的話)?
陳:我不認為這是一開始就計畫好的。政府可能會覺得能夠說服學生放棄兩項“非法”主張:要求北京當局撤回關於選舉改革的決議[北京政府得預先審查香港特首候選人]及占領中環[封鎖城市主要道路]。顯然地,當政府和學生開始籌畫會談後,雙方都覺得立場差距太大。
政府撤銷會議背後的策略明顯是要向學生施壓。隨著對占中感到不滿的聲音逐漸增加[因抗議行動造成的生活不便],政府試圖將學生們描繪成一群拒絕合作的小孩。
Hurst:我不認為早有預謀。我認為這有可能是因為目前圍繞於梁振英身上的貪汙疑雲使香港政府內部動盪,導致決定如何處理占中的關鍵人物們意見分歧,並可能使北京對於讓步空間所下達的指示混雜或晦暗不明。換言之,背後或許沒有其他計謀,政府也許只是想拖延時間以求對策。但也有可能政務司司長林鄭月娥所述只是檯面上的說法,事實上這是在此種情境下經常可見的戰略性僵局[註]。
Carlson:如果是,至少就幾天前的事件發展而言,香港政府和北京當局這招可說頗為高明。當本週稍早首次宣布展開會談時,確實讓占中行動這顆大氣球洩氣許多。然而,此項推論存在兩個相當明顯的問題。首先,這項決定展現出一定程度的政策協調與合作,更不提其料敵機先,這在我看來是非同尋常的。香港特工何時已有如此實力能夠過解開如此複雜的變數方程?我很懷疑;相反的,我們所看到的很可能是政府內部對於如何應對占中意見分歧的結果。其次,如果的確是戰略選擇,我覺得將抗議行動由本週稍早的刀鋒邊緣拉回的短期效益,將遠不及破壞香港人對當權者的信任所帶來的長期損失。
FP:你對於示威者的下一步行動有什麼建議?
Wasserstrom:許多關鍵他們都已經有掌握,譬如努力以有秩序且冷靜的方式進行抗議行動,使政府口中的"混亂暴動"顯得諷刺。
Carlson:目前而言,我會告訴他們以不變應萬變。如果談判桌的桌腳正如目前所見已被毫不客氣地折斷,這只會讓港府和北京當局在大眾眼中顯得難以置信的虛偽、笨拙和冥頑不靈。換句話說,這可能使政府的民意支持度嚴重下滑。此時,示威者任何舉措,以走上街頭的層面而言,只會使政府犯下的這種再明顯不過的愚蠢錯誤失去焦點。然而,一旦塵埃落定,示威者將處於更有利的位置,向香港市民和世界各國說明他們對於此無信政府的合理擔憂和疑慮。
陳:學生們應反思一下他們的訴求。協商並非關於yes或no。協商始終是一種供需問題──你能提供什麼以及你希望獲得什麼。是否有空間讓學生和政府坐下來談,並首先取得希望改善現有政治體制的共識,然後互相合作去重新制定或重新定義北京的決議代表的真正含義?我相信對於如何重新制定與重新定義北京的立場應該有談判空間。我們可以根據基本法[香港憲法]條文討論所謂的"廣泛代表性"。如果不能由公民提名候選人,那麼有什麼其他的替代方案能獲得最大的廣泛代表性,且符合當前的社會體制?
白潔曦: 對於協調占中行動與訴求若能有更統一一致的程序將提高成功機率。即使是支持該行動主張的人士亦擔憂,缺乏權威性和代表性的領導者可能難以在和政府的協商中取得進展。
註:tactical impasse - occurs when parties deliberately refuse to proceed with negotiation as a way to gain leverage or put pressure on the other party to make concessions
當事者其中一方故意拒絕進行談判已取得優勢或對另一方施壓以求讓步
'A New Era for Hong Kong'
The city government's wait-and-switch may only galvanize protesters, experts say.
FP solicited opinions and predictions from several experts on Hong Kong, Chinese history, and Chinese politics. George Chen is a Yale World Fellow who writes regularly about China and Hong Kong affairs; Jessica Chen Weiss is assistant professor of political science at Yale; Jeffrey Wasserstrom is a professor of history at U.C. Irvine; Allen Carlson is an associate professor of government at Cornell; and William Hurst is a associate professor of political science at Northwestern.
FP: What do you make of the government's
rationale for cancelling Friday's scheduled talks?
Wasserstrom: I find it a curious and unconvincing rationale, given how little has changed, on the side of the students, since the plan to hold the talks was announced.
Weiss: The government's decision to cancel the talks is a step backward. Even if the talks failed to make concrete progress, their existence helped demonstrate a good-faith effort at consultation and compromise. Although there was a wide gulf between the government's stance and the students' demands in preliminary discussions, the preemptive cancellation of Friday's scheduled talks makes the government look recalcitrant and will fuel further tensions.
FP: Do you think this late cancellation was planned in advance? What strategy is at play behind this (if any)?
Chen: I don’t think the cancellation was planned at the very beginning. The government may feel it can persuade the students to give up their two “unlawful” positions: their demand that Beijing to withdraw its decision on electoral reform [which requires Beijing to pre-vet candidates for Hong Kong's head of government] and Occupy Central [which has blocked certain key roads]. Apparently, when the government and students began to plan their meeting, both sides felt the gap was too big.
The strategy behind the government's calling off the meeting is clearly to put more pressure on the students. The government tried to paint the students as a bunch of uncooperative kids amid growing dissatisfaction among ordinary Hong Kongers [due to the disruption caused by protests].
Hurst: I do not think it was pre-planned. I think it is possible that there is turmoil within the Hong Kong government, between the corruption allegations now swirling around C.Y. Leung, possible splits among key actors over how to handle the protests, and perhaps mixed or unclear signals from Beijing on what concessions are feasible. In other words, there may be no strategy and the government could thus be playing for time to figure out what to do. But it is also possible that we should take what Chief Secretary Lam said in her remarks at face value, suggesting that we are at the same kind of tactical impasse we so often observe in such situations.
Carlson: If it was, at least in terms of developments over the previous few days, it was a brilliant move on the part of the Hong Kong government and Beijing. Earlier in the week, when talks were first announced, they had the effect of taking quite a bit of air out of the protest movement’s collective balloon. There are, though, two rather glaring problems with such a line of reasoning. First, it suggests a level of policy coordination and cooperation, not to mention strategic foresight, that strikes me as quite extraordinary. How is it possible that they [in Hong Kong government] have now become such skilled operatives that they can game out such a complex, and unfolding, set of variables. I doubt they have; rather, what we are likely seeing is more the result of divisions and differences within the halls of power over how to handle the protests. Second, if it is, indeed, a strategic choice, I suspect that the short-term benefit of pulling the protests back from the brink earlier this week will be far outweighed by the long-term costs of an even greater erosion of trust on the part of the Hong Kong people toward those who govern them.
FP: If you were advising the protesters, what would you urge their next move be?
Wasserstrom: They have been doing a lot of the key things already, such as working hard to mobilize in orderly and calm ways that undermine the government line on the protests being chaotic acts.
Carlson: For now, I would tell them to do nothing. If the rug is being as unceremoniously pulled out from beneath the talks as now appears to be the case, it is the Hong Kong government and Beijing that will look to all as incredibly disingenuous, clumsy, and uncompromising. In other words, this has the potential to be a public relations disaster for the government. Anything the protesters do, in terms of taking to the streets, would only, for the time being, undermine the crystal clear nature of such a blundering move. This being said, once the dust settles the protesters will be in a stronger position to make their case to the people of Hong Kong and the rest of the world about the legitimacy of their concerns and misgivings about a government that they no longer trust.
Chen: The students should rethink their demands. Negotiation is not about yes or no. Negotiation is always about supply and demand -- what you can offer and what you want to get. Is there any room for students and the government to sit down and to first agree that they want to improve the existing political system, and let’s work together to reframe or redefine what Beijing’s decision really means? I believe there should be room for negotiation to focus on how to reframe and redefine Beijing’s position. We can argue what “representative” means, based on the articles of the Basic Law [Hong Kong's constitution]. If not a civic nomination, then what is the other alternative to get the widest possible nomination process that fits the current social reality?
Weiss: A more unified process for coordinating the movement's actions and demands would improve its chances of success. Even those who support the movement's objectives have expressed concern that the lack of an authoritative and representative leadership may make progress in negotiations with the government difficult.