西方“媒体自由”是无稽之谈，CGTN禁令有损中英人民利益（附公开信）

编者按：3月9日，多位国际知名人士在英国《晨星报》和“拒绝新冷战”机构官方网站联合发表署名公开信，反对英国通信管理局对中国国际电视台（CGTN）的禁令。前伦敦经济政策署署长、中国人民大学重阳金融研究院高级研究员、“拒绝新冷战”倡议组委会成员罗思义（John Ross）发文表示，英国是唯一封禁CGTN的欧洲国家，这说明这一决定完全是受政治原因所驱动，剥夺CGTN的在英播出权不仅有损于中国的利益，也会危害英国人民的利益。后附公开信全文。本文转自3月9日“CGTN”微信公众号。

英国和其他西方国家的知名记者和媒体人联名发布了一封公开信，实名反对英国当局对中国国际电视台（CGTN）实施制裁。该公开信由16位知名记者和媒体人共同签署，他们之所以可以这样做是因为自己有着足够高的声望，不会受到严重迫害。但其他知名度略逊的记者和媒体人则很清楚，如果自己站出来表达反对立场，抗议针对CGTN的禁令，他们就可能失去现在的工作或潜在的、未来的工作机会，导致职业生涯就此止步。

不论是英国对CGTN的禁令还是这些广为人知的迫害风险都清晰表明，西方自我标榜的“媒体自由”完全是无稽之谈。对抗英国的CGTN禁令不仅对于解决该问题本身具有重要性，而且对解决西方广泛存在的类似问题也有重要意义。

西方国家政府和媒体声称自己支持“媒体自由”。但这实际上是有前提的，那就是所有与西方政府政策不一致的观点都成不了气候。一旦批评声音开始获得大量支持，政府就会采取行动压制相关的发声渠道。

英国对CGTN的禁令就证明了这一点。中国的经济发展迅猛。仅在相对较短的一段时间之前，中国还不是重要的全球市场，而且其人均收入按照西方标准衡量还处于非常低的水平。彼时，英国公司并没有与中国做生意的强烈意愿，英国人民也对和中国相关的问题没什么兴趣。既然英国人对中国兴味索然，那么也就没有必要压制CGTN。

但现在，情况发生了改变。中国已是世界第二大经济体，也是到目前为止经济增速最快的大国。2020年，中国是唯一实现正增长的主要经济体。在这种情况下，无数英国公司都对与中国开展业务往来抱有极大兴趣。中国也是全球最大的旅游客源输出国，这对英国这样的热门旅游目的地是极为有益的。中国也是英国大学的主要生源国。

就在几年前，前任首相大卫·卡梅伦还在推动建立中英关系的“黄金时代”。中国人民的生活水平迅速提高，这部分得益于其世界领先的电商产业。这些事实已经变得越来越广为人知。因此，由于英国对中国的兴趣不再局限于少数群体，英国政府无法再容忍与中国有关的“媒体自由”。

一段时期以来，针对客观报道中国的人士所发起的政治迫害不断加码。如今，那些曾在英国媒体上发表过非反中言论的作者遭到孤立。推进中英关系的商业组织在英国媒体上被刻画为心怀不轨的外国势力代理人，而不是追求利润的企业。希望与中国华为合作的英国电信公司也被英国政府禁止合作。因此，禁止CGTN在英播出只是将这种趋势推向了高潮。

英国是唯一封禁CGTN的欧洲国家，这说明这一决定完全是受政治原因所驱动。比如，在英国做出这样的决定后，法国批准了CGTN的广播许可。

法国之所以做出截然相反的决定，其原因显然是该国采取了欧盟的政策方向，寻求与中国建立良好的经济关系。中欧完成全面投资协定的谈判正体现了欧洲的这一立场。相反，英国却越来越追求扈从于美国的政策路线。例如，在美国的压力下，英国推翻了之前允许华为参与英国5G体系建设的决定。

但剥夺CGTN的在英播出权不仅有损于中国的利益，也会危害英国人民的利益。正如公开信所指出的，“这一攻击言论自由的行为发生在西方威胁发动对华新冷战的背景下。在这样的时刻，建立各国人民间的互信和准确理解国际事务主要参与者的立场是至关重要的。剥夺CGTN的发声权利会对此构成阻碍。”

经验表明，美国和英国等国家所采取的的极为危险的政策通常都伴随着对相关信息的钳制。这在美国越战和造成同样灾难性后果的伊拉克侵略战争中都有所体现。在这种背景下，对抗媒体的信息钳制在一定程度上有助于对抗这些危险政策。这同样适用于发动对华新冷战的企图。

因此，“拒绝新冷战”倡议热烈欢迎知名媒体人士发声，反对英国对CGTN的禁令。

以下为英文版

The CGTN headquarters in Beijing. /Getty

Renowned journalists and media figures from the UK and other western countires jointly signed an open lettter, opposing the ban by British authorities on China Global Television Network (CGTN). They include multiple award-winning journalist John Pilger, three-time Oscar winner screenwriter and director Oliver Stone, prominent international anti-war campaigner Tariq Ali and other editors, journalists and media personalities. These individuals are only able to do this because they are sufficiently eminent that it is impossible for them to be effectively victimized. It is well understood by other less eminent journalists and media figures that were they to protest against the ban on CGTN, which they oppose, their careers would be brought to a halt by their present or potential future employers.

Both Britain's ban on CGTN, and these well-understood threats of victimization, show clearly that the claim that what exists in the West is a "free media" is entirely untrue.The struggle against the British ban on CGTN is important not only as an issue in itself but as part of more general situation in the West.

The Western governments and media claim that they support a "free media." But in reality, this is only maintained provided that views outside the policies of Western governments are considered marginal.The moment critical voices begin to achieve significant support efforts will be made to suppress outlets for them.

Britain's ban on CGTN illustrates this. China's economic development has been so rapid that a relatively short period of time ago China was not considered an important market and its population was considered as very low-paid by Western standards. At that time British companies were not very concerned to do business with China and the British people were not very interested in the issue of China. Therefore, as those in Britain who were interested in China were marginal, there was no need to suppress CGTN.

But this situation has now changed.China is the world's second largest economy and by far the most rapidly growing major one. In 2020 it was the only one to experience positive growth.Under these conditions numerous British companies are extremely interested in doing business with China. China has become the world's greatest source of outward-bound tourism – of great interest to such a frequently visited country as Britain. Chinese students are a mainstay of British universities.

It was only a few years ago that Prime Minister David Cameron was promoting a "golden" period of Britain-China relations. Facts related to China's rapidly rising living standards, such as its world leading position in e-commerce, are becoming better known.Under these conditions, interest in China in Britain is no longer confined to extremely marginal groups. Consequently, a policy of a "free media" in regard to China could no longer be tolerated by the British government.

A witch hunt against groups giving objective information on China has therefore been growing for some time. Writers presenting alternatives to anti-China narratives in the British press, who in the past were published, are now excluded. Business organizations promoting relations with China have been presented in the British media as malign agents of foreign influence, rather than companies wanting to make profits. British telecommunications companies, which wanted to do business with China's Huawei, have been forbidden to do so by the British government. The ban on CGTN broadcasting in Britain is therefore only the culmination of a process.

It is an indication of the purely political character of this government decision that Britain is the only European country to ban CGTN.France, for example, even after the UK decision, ratified the broadcasting license for CGTN.

The difference between these two decisions is clearly that France has been pursuing the EU policy of seeking good economic relations with China as symbolized by this year's signing of the comprehensive China-EU investment treaty. Britain, in contrast, has increasingly pursued a policy of subordination to the U.S. – for example, under U.S. pressure, overturning its previous decision to allow Huawei to participate in the development of Britain's 5G telecommunications system.

But this suppression of the British broadcasting rights of CGTN is damaging not only to China but to the British people.As the open letter notes we are in "the context of the threat of a new cold war against China. At such a moment, it is crucial to… accurately comprehend the positions of the chief actors in the global situation. Denying a voice to China's CGTN hampers this."

Experience shows that very dangerous policies, in countries such as the U.S. and UK, are accompanied by attempts to suppress information regarding the international situation.This was seen in the run up to both the U.S. Vietnam War and the equally disastrous invasion of Iraq. In such cases the fight against the suppression of information in the media was part of the fight against these dangerous policies. The same applies to the attempted new Cold War against China.

That is why the No Cold War campaign strongly welcomes leading media figures speaking out against the British ban on CGTN.

（John Ross is a senior fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. ）

The office block that houses the offices of CGTN Europe in Chiswick Park, west London, UK, February 4, 2021. /VCG

公开信全文（双语）

Opposing Ofcom’s Ban on CGTN and Defending Free Speech

反对英国通信管理局对CGTN的禁令 捍卫言论自由

Ofcom’s decision to remove the broadcasting license of CGTN – China’s English language TV channel – is an act of censorship which is not in the interests of Britain and its people. It is well known, and publicly acknowledged, that CGTN is a Chinese state broadcaster and viewers can therefore take this into account in judging its services and broadcasts. As a state television broadcaster, CGTN’s status is similar to that of the BBC, France Télévisions, NHK (Japan), and others.

英国通信管理局（Ofcom）撤销中国国际电视台（CGTN）在英广播许可的决定是有悖于英国及其民众利益的审查行为。众所周知，CGTN是受公众认可的中国国家广播机构。观众可以以此为依据判断其服务和广播电视节目质量。作为国有广播电视媒体，CGTN与英国广播公司(BBC)，法国电视台(France Télévisions)和日本放送协会(NHK)等媒体的地位相当。

Ofcom’s justification for taking CGTN off air is that any holder of a broadcasting licence in Britain must not be controlled by political bodies. However, this law is only selectively applied. Numerous private and state channels have clear political agendas or control – the BBC itself, for example, which had its staff vetted by MI5 has not had its broadcasting licence revoked.

英国通信管理局称，不允许CGTN在英继续播放是因为任何英国广播执照的持有者都不应受到政治机构的控制。但这一法规的执行却是有选择性的。众多私营和国有电视频道都有明确的政治议程或受其控制。BBC本身就是一个例子。虽然BBC的所有员工都必须接受军情五处的审查，但其广播执照从未被吊销过。

This attack on free speech also takes place in the context of the threat of a new cold war against China. At such a moment, it is crucial to build mutual understanding between peoples and also to accurately comprehend the positions of the chief actors in the global situation. Denying a voice to China’s CGTN hampers this.

这一攻击言论自由的行为发生在西方威胁发动对华新冷战的背景之下。在这样的时刻，建立各国人民间的互信和准确理解国际事务主要参与者的立场是至关重要的。剥夺CGTN的发声权利会对此构成阻碍。

Britain’s claim to be a free society is undermined by Ofcom’s decision to shut down CGTN. We call upon the British authorities to reverse this decision and to reinstate CGTN’s broadcasting licence.

英国通信管理局停播CGTN的决定也有损于英国自由社会的自我定位。我们呼吁英国当局撤销这一决定并恢复CGTN的广播许可。

John Pilger,prize winning journalist

约翰·皮尔格，获奖记者

Oliver Stone,three-time Oscar winning director, producer and screenwriter

奥利佛·斯通，三次获得奥斯卡奖的导演、制片人、编剧

Tariq Ali,writer, filmmaker and New Left Review Editorial Board

塔里克·阿里，作家、电影制作人、《新左派评论》编委会成员

Kerry-Anne Mendoza,Editor of The Canary

克里-安妮·门多萨，英国左翼网站The Canary编辑

Ben Chacko,Editor of the Morning Star

本·查科，《晨星报》编辑

Vijay Prashad,Chief Correspondent of Globetrotter

维贾•普拉沙德，Globetrotter首席记者

Ken Loach,award-winning filmmaker

肯·洛奇，获奖电影制作人

Jonathan Cook,award-winning author and journalist

乔纳森·库克，获奖作家、记者

Lowkey,Musician and activist

洛基，音乐人、活动家

Anna Chen,Writer, poet and broadcaster

安娜·陈，作家、诗人、播音员

Asa Winstanley,journalist

阿萨·温斯坦利，记者

Alan Macleod,Senior Staff Writer at MintPress News

艾伦·麦克劳德，敏特新闻出版社高级特约撰稿人

John McEvoy,journalist

约翰·麦克沃伊，记者

Mohamed Elmaazi,journalist

默哈默德·艾尔玛奇，记者

Pablo Navarette,journalist and documentary filmmaker

巴布洛·那瓦利特，记者、纪录片制作人

Fiona Edwards,No Cold War campaign

菲奥娜·爱德华兹，“拒绝新冷战”组织成员

// 人大重阳

///

RDCY

中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（人大重阳）成立于2013年1月19日，是重阳投资向中国人民大学捐赠并设立教育基金运营的主要资助项目。

作为中国特色新型智库，人大重阳聘请了全球数十位前政要、银行家、知名学者为高级研究员，旨在关注现实、建言国家、服务人民。目前，人大重阳下设7个部门、运营管理4个中心(生态金融研究中心、全球治理研究中心、中美人文交流研究中心、中俄人文交流研究中心)。近年来，人大重阳在金融发展、全球治理、大国关系、宏观政策等研究领域在国内外均具有较高认可度。