南鵲書廬

By Mark Vlasic   

I served on the prosecution team that built a case against Milosevic at The Hague. During that time, my colleagues and I heard from hundreds of witnesses. All had stories that they carried with them from every corner of the former Yugoslavia to share with the tribunal. Many risked their lives to testify against Milosevic. Needless to say, their stories will not be told during his funeral.

No one will speak of Witness B-1701, a kind and elderly man who traveled from his small village of Glogova, Bosnia. B-1701 described a peaceful town, where Serbs and Muslims lived in harmony for decades until Yugoslav Army soldiers arrived in 1992. Facing Milosevic in the courtroom, B-1701 testified to the horrors of May 9 of that year, when his undefended town was attacked, Muslim houses were burned, and men and boys were rounded up. He recalled being forced at gunpoint, along with his Muslim friends and neighbors, to walk towards the river. And then on a riverbank, on a beautiful Bosnian summer day, Serb forces opened fire, murdering the men in his group. B-1701 described watching his friend's head explode from the gunfire and remembered, like it was yesterday, the feeling of another man's brains being splattered on his body. The old man from Glogova was the only survivor from that massacre and spent hours in the river, pretending to be dead, while surrounded by the remains of his friends and neighbors.  

【…】 

At Milosevic's funeral no one will speak of the lives he ruined or the communities he destroyed. But the final verdict on Milosevic's legacy should not go to his supporters. Perhaps instead it should go to Witness B-1701, whose words in the courtroom concisely and ably summarize the Serb leader's role in history: Everything changed when he came to power. 

詳見新共和：HOW TO REMEMBER MILOSEVIC（2006.3.18）

By Martin Peretz  （editor-in-chief of The New Republic） 

“So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment--but especially if it fails--we need Dubai to succeed." These words have been rattling around in my mind ever since I read them in The New York Times last Wednesday, March 15. (Sorry I got to this so late.) These are Tom Friedman's words. You may have surmised this because Tom's signature thought is that there is some deus ex machina for everything, even apparently for an American failure in Iraq. But this is actually a relatively modest thought of his. He is usually more ambitious. Like when he worries about the destiny of civilization or for a peaceful planet. For these you can count, rest assured, says the wise man, on the Internet and on McDonald's. Both of these are also harbingers of democracy in the world. 

 【…】

Friedman writes, "[I]f Democrats who hate the Bush war in Iraq actually had a peaceful alternative policy for promoting transformation in the Arab-Muslim world, it would be called 'the Dubai policy.'" This, I'm afraid, is sheer crap. 

 【…】

But one thing I do know is that this artificial autocracy of tourism and commerce--tiny, uncurious, self-satisfied--is no viable strategic or, for that matter, moral alternative for real and deeply vexed societies like Egypt or Syria. Dubai is a playland. And Thomas L. Friedman thinks it "is where we should want the Arab world to go." I know that Tom is no "dunce." Dubai must have simply dizzied and dazzled his mind. 

詳見新共和：TOM FRIEDMAN AND DUBAI （2006.3.20）

The biggest beneficiaries of the Doha and Hong Kong proposals for trade liberalization would be China, Japan, the United States, and the EU. Bangladesh and the countries of East Africa and sub-Saharan Africa would be net losers. 

【…】 

The least developed countries would suffer because they don't have the agricultural or the manufacturing capability to compete on the world market. They depend on special preferences that trade liberalization would erode. China and Japan, of course, would suffer losses in agriculture under trade liberalization, but their farmers could find work in a manufacturing sector that would benefit from trade liberalization and from lower food prices that reduce wage pressures. But in Bangladesh or East Africa, small-scale farmers driven out of work would be unlikely to find employment in manufacturing industries.  

【…】 

The WTO, and before that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, has served a very important purpose. By committing the most advanced nations to the reduction of their tariffs, it has prevented the recurrence of the kind of high-tariff trading blocs that helped perpetuate the Great Depression of the 1930s and bring on World War II.  

But it is one thing to prevent a trade war between the United States and the EU and quite another thing to alleviate poverty in Bangladesh or East Africa. It may be hard for the proponents of classical economics to admit it, but the poorest nations of the world are not in need of free trade. What they need most is aid and investment and the protection of their fledging industries. And they are not going to get any of these things from the current proposals being put forward in the WTO's Doha Round.  

詳見新共和：Trade Imbalance（2006.3.14） 

南飛烏鵲曰：
自由貿易說得好聽，到頭來是富者越富而貧者無立錐之地。

不只是官逼民反──從馬英九對二二八事件的認知談起（摘錄） 

文：許文泰（明尼蘇達大學經濟系博士生） 

我非常佩服馬英九。他展現了一個其他泛藍政治人物沒有的氣度與視野。他讓國民黨機器運作一些二二八的活動，不再只訴諸寬容，而更直接去面對一些歷史資料。過去我很厭惡國民黨或其他泛藍政治人物在不了解什麼是什麼以前，就要求人家寬恕的行徑。但是馬英九，是第一個國民黨的掌權人直接面對這件事。（喔，李登輝應該是第一個，不過我想馬英九有另一種「第一個」的意義）。 

【…】 

如果說，日本人是官、台灣人是民，那麼當日本人走了以後，事實上變成外省人是官、台灣人還是民。這種官民的區分跟族群的區分高度相關在當時是個事實。對於日本人獨佔大量資源長期不滿的台灣人，並沒有辦法把對於光復的美麗想像，跟這種官民─族群結構很輕鬆的放在一起。台灣人被當時來台的某些官員看成是某種程度上的日本人。這種隔閡，很顯然，不是台灣人主動去隔開外省人，而是互相的。而這種官民關係之下，實際上製造出了大量的失業以及惡性通貨膨脹。過去是日本人的企業，不論是公的或私的，在戰後全都變成政府的。成了公營企業，卻胡亂經營一通，產量銳減，造成了失業率上升。（最顯著的例子是台糖公司在戰後的成立）。政府財政浮濫，利用貨幣發行融通，造成惡性通貨膨脹。如果我們說很多事情，是戰後環境不好，卻不容易說人治的因素沒有惡化時局。 

【…】 

當然，不是所有來台的外省人都參與了這個龐大的掠奪行動，可是，對於當時生活困頓的台灣人來說，怎麼有辦法理智地去細分這些人，又何況根本就難以溝通。分類與簡化，是人類社會認識自身的必然。雖然很不幸，但這是個事實。  

詳見南方電子報

By William J. Stuntz（professor at Harvard Law School） 

There is little reason to believe that undergrads and graduate students are better educated today than a generation ago. More likely the opposite. Teaching loads of senior professors have declined; probably teaching quality has declined with it. The culture of research universities has grown ever more contemptuous of students, especially undergraduates, who are seen as an interruption of one's real work rather than the reason for the enterprise. Which means that, year by year, students and their parents pay more for less. That isn't a sustainable business plan.  

If undergraduate education is too often an afterthought, graduate education is too often a con game. A sizeable percentage of PhDs will never get tenure-track teaching jobs, which are the only jobs for which their education trains them. Since no jobs await them, they hang around longer getting their degrees, all the while teaching classes and doing research for their academic sponsors. It's a great deal--for the sponsors. For the grad students, it's akin to buying a daily lottery ticket as a retirement plan. The grad students keep coming, but eventually that well will dry up; the quality of the talent pool will decline. No system that depends on systematic irrationality can long survive, much less succeed.  

The problems go beyond education to the production of knowledge itself. Universities compartmentalize knowledge, chopping it up into ever more and smaller pieces. I teach and write about American criminal justice. Scholarship on crime and criminal justice is divided among a half-dozen different schools and departments: law, political science, economics, sociology, anthropology, and public health. Scholars in each of those areas know next to nothing about scholarship in all the others. (I'm no better than anyone else on this score.) No wonder our work is ignored by policymakers; each of us can elaborately describe his own piece of the elephant but none sees the beast whole. One could tell the same story with respect to dozens of other fields of study.  

Overspecialization breeds self-indulgent scholasticism. Too many scholars write for an audience of dozens (if that--a good friend of mine says he writes for six people), and far too few write for thousands, fewer still for millions. In a bygone era, the best intellectuals wrote for educated people generally, not for a handful of specialists. American universities are chock full of brilliant minds that keep their brilliance locked up in a closet, talking only to people in their small corner of the intellectual world. Graduate education and academic promotion standards push scholars to fine-tune their disciplines' methodologies. (The very word--it means "methods"--captures something of the disease: In universities, as elsewhere, there is an inverse relationship between the pretentiousness with which a task is described and the quality with which the task is performed.) Broadening one's field of vision tends to be a bad career move.  

【…】 

The newspapers have been filled with stories of Summers's supposed obnoxiousness. Few of the stories note the coin's other side: The academic world has never seen a university president so eager to hear and engage opposing arguments. Summers might indeed tell you you're flat wrong, an experience people in my job too rarely have. But you could tell him that he's full of shit--and he'd smile and argue back.  

Problem is, university faculty don't want to talk back to their bosses; they don't want to have bosses. 

詳見新共和：SUMMERS AND THE FUTURE OF HIGHER ED. （2006.2.27）

米氏係史上第一位因在位期間所犯罪行而接受國際法庭審判的國家元首，也是二次大戰後審訊納粹戰犯的紐倫堡大審以來，國際社會規模最大的一宗戰爭罪行審判。如今米氏死亡，這宗審判也將無疾而終。

【…】

依據國際法庭的起訴狀，米氏最嚴重的罪名是「種族屠殺」，係於一九九二年至九五年波士尼亞內戰期間犯下，他不但涉嫌驅離並囚禁約二十五萬名波士尼亞回民，且於一九九五年七月指使其部隊在雪布尼查屠殺約七千名波士尼亞回民，涉嫌蓄意對波士尼亞整個回民進行種族滅絕。     

米氏被指控的罪名還包括，一九九一年至一九九二年入侵克羅埃西亞，造成成百上千人死亡並導致近十七萬人淪為難民；另外他在一九九八年至一九九九年入侵科索沃，涉嫌與四名塞裔領袖合謀，殺害當地約九百名阿爾巴尼亞裔人，並將八十萬阿裔驅離家園。

詳見中國時報：南斯拉夫前總統米羅塞維奇 死於獄中
相關新聞：統治13年 半島屠夫留罵名
                      還沒判刑就死 有人覺可惜 

南斯拉夫前總統米洛謝維契鐵腕統治南斯拉夫十三年，打輸了四次戰爭、使南斯拉夫經濟破敗、民不聊生；但他遊走巴爾幹半島詭譎的政治界，被扣上「巴爾幹強人」、「巴爾幹屠夫」等渾號。

【…】

一九九七年，米洛謝維契的塞爾維亞總統任期行將屆滿，依法不得連任，於是他鑽法律漏洞競選南斯拉夫總統，結果當選。當時的南斯拉夫聯邦已從最早六個加盟共和國變成剩下塞爾維亞和蒙特尼哥羅兩個。

在他權勢如日中天的同時，棘手的科索伏省也埋下他垮台的導火線。一九九八年二月，米洛謝維契揮軍科省，敉平阿爾巴尼亞裔科人的叛亂。包括美國在內的西方國家表示反對，並於翌年對南斯拉夫進行長達七十八天的懲罰性空中轟炸。米洛謝維契不但不屈服，反而加強掃蕩阿裔科人，直到最後決定接受和約，於一九九九年六月將科省交給聯合國和北約共管。這次戰亂造成八十萬以上科索伏人流離他鄉。這年五月，米洛謝維契被海牙聯合國國際法庭以戰犯等罪名起訴，使他成為歷史上第一個因為這種罪名被起訴的在位國家元首。

詳見聯合報：其人其事》「巴爾幹屠夫」米洛謝維契
相關新聞： 南斯拉夫前總統 米洛謝維契死亡         

南飛烏鵲曰：
想起某位先生，此公當起總統來，不只余又任、吾三連，一任接一任，甚至身死傳子，要傳江山萬萬年。

For all the difficulties Muslim immigrants face, Europe's most-abused group is still, by far, the Gypsies. They are compelled to live in slums, shunted off to inferior schools and denied jobs. They are subjected to pogroms, forced sterilization and police abuse.

【…】

Decades ago, America painfully learned that government policies and social attitudes could keep an underclass down, and that discrimination might exist even though laws seemed fair. Europe has not yet absorbed these ideas. The Court of Human Rights has long been reluctant to prohibit biased practices without proof of intent to discriminate, allowing discrimination to hide behind another name. The court should seize the opportunity to modernize and reverse a decision that has anchored European race relations today well behind where America was in 1954.

詳見紐約時報社論：Separate and Unequal for Gypsies

Bill Gates retains his title as the world’s richest person for the twelfth straight year, proving that while it’s getting easier to make a billion, the same can’t be said for making $50 billion.

原始圖片出處：（1）

詳見富比士雜誌：Billionaire Bacchanalia

變色的綠政權？（摘錄）

文：陳玉峰（靜宜大學生態學系教授）

蘇貞昌新院長於2月21日，以保守謹慎的姿態，在立院第6屆第3會期首度作施政報告，楬櫫「經濟繁榮第一」、「社會安寧至上」、「強力伸張公權力」、「體貼照顧弱勢者」、「確保國家利益和國家尊嚴」，以及「朝野攜手面對人民和歷史」等6大施政方針或主軸。　　

開宗明義「經濟繁榮第一」，相當於正式宣告台灣將重拾「經濟掛帥」老路；其口頭報告書面全稿，通篇未曾提及任何環境、環保、保育字眼，更且，具體的行動早在施政報告前展開，蘇院長甫一上任，順著前朝總辭，立即「幹掉」綠色執政最具理想性指標人物之一的政務委員林盛豐，「行政院永續發展委員會」執行長葉俊榮亦於2月23日被替換，而且，頃成立「行政院財經小組」，由強勢副院長蔡英文擔綱，「協調」重要財經方案，復指派何美玥政務委員，擔任行政院中、南部聯合服務中心主任，要「全力發展、活絡經濟」，夥同經濟部長等，三要角緊盯環保署。

【…】

民進黨執政這6年，在朝野極度對立的內耗、空轉窘境下，令國人不安與痛心，政客、資商混水摸魚、暗渡陳倉，繼高捷弊案之後，ETC爛帳必將醱酵，誠如蘇院長的口頭報告強調：「國家諸多政策是延續的，沒有人可以顧盼自雄…，行政團隊將會以台灣的永續發展及下一代的民生福祉為考量」，因而我們也不忍將責任全然歸咎現今執政黨，然而，三合一大敗選之後，扁總統回歸基本盤，表面上要重振綠色改革雄風，實質上卻走回頭路，將1980年代以降「環保與經濟對決」的錯誤假象重演，似乎欲藉助「環保反商」的大帽，轉移對施政無能的焦點，試問「綠色矽島」的顏色，曾幾何時大逆轉至此？

【…】

如今，蘇院長隻字不提環保，是否代表即將放棄真正的綠色區塊，我們不得而知，但盱衡眼前形勢，綠色殆已急轉為墨綠，良知試紙很可能瞬息變黑，屆時，「官逼民反」的烽火必將揭竿再起；李前總統講得好，反正已是民主時代，國民黨再執政也沒關係。建言扁政府深思，基本盤的本質與精義，在世代良知的發揚、傳承與創造，絕不在短暫2年的「拚經濟」；「拚經濟」該拚的是普羅大眾分配的社會公義，而不在謀取官商財閥聯體怪獸的自肥。扁蘇政權放棄綠政與否，很快地必將揭曉。寄語環保署張署長，您的脊椎骨必須挺得住綠色良知最後的一根稻草！

詳見生態學會電子報　第110期（2006.3.1）