The Nobel Peace Prize 1990

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and gentlemen,

This moment is no less emotional for me than the one when I first learned about the decision of the Nobel Committee. For on similar occasions great men addressed humankind - men famous for their courage in working to bring together morality and politics. Among them were my compatriots.

The award of the Nobel Peace Prize makes one think once again about a seemingly simple and clear question: What is peace?

Preparing for my address I found in an old Russian encyclopedia a definition of "peace" as a "commune" - the traditional cell of Russian peasant life. I saw in that definition the people's profound understanding of peace as harmony, concord, mutual help, and cooperation.

This understanding is embodied in the canons of world religions and in the works of philosophers from antiquity to our time. The names of many of them have been mentioned here before. Let me add another one to them. Peace "propagates wealth and justice, which constitute the prosperity of nations;" a peace which is "just a respite from wars ... is not worthy of the name;" peace implies "general counsel". This was written almost 200 years ago by Vasiliy Fyodorovich Malinovskiy - the dean of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum at which the great Pushkin was educated.

Since then, of course, history has added a great deal to the specific content of the concept of peace. In this nuclear age it also means a condition for the survival of the human race. But the essence, as understood both by the popular wisdom and by intellectual leaders, is the same.

Today, peace means the ascent from simple coexistence to cooperation and common creativity among countries and nations.

Peace is movement towards globality and universality of civilization. Never before has the idea that peace is indivisible been so true as it is now.

Peace is not unity in similarity but unity in diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences.

And, ideally, peace means the absence of violence. It is an ethical value. And here we have to recall Rajiv Gandhi, who died so tragically a few days ago.

I consider the decision of your Committee as a recognition of the great international importance of the changes now under way in the Soviet Union, and as an expression of confidence in our policy of new thinking, which is based on the conviction that at the end of the twentieth century force and arms will have to give way as a major instrument in world politics.

I see the decision to award me the Nobel Peace Prize also as an act of solidarity with the monumental undertaking which has already placed enormous demands on the Soviet people in terms of efforts, costs, hardships, willpower, and character. And solidarity is a universal value which is becoming indispensable for progress and for the survival of humankind.

But a modern state has to be worthy of solidarity, in other words, it should pursue, in both domestic and international affairs, policies that bring together the interests of its people and those of the world community. This task, however obvious, is not a simple one. Life is much richer and more complex than even the most perfect plans to make it better. It ultimately takes vengeance for attempts to impose abstract schemes, even with the best of intentions. Perestroika has made us understand this about our past, and the actual experience of recent years has taught us to reckon with the most general laws of civilization.

This, however, came later. But back in March-April 1985 we found ourselves facing a crucial, and I confess, agonizing choice. When I agreed to assume the office of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Central Committee, in effect the highest State office at that time, I realized that we could no longer live as before and that I would not want to remain in that office unless I got support in undertaking major reforms. It was clear to me that we had a long way to go. But of course, I could not imagine how immense were our problems and difficulties. I believe no one at that time could foresee or predict them.

Those who were then governing the country knew what was really happening to it and what we later called "zastoi", roughly translated as "stagnation". They saw that our society was marking time, that it was running the risk of falling hopelessly behind the technologically advanced part of the world. Total domination of centrally-managed state property, the pervasive authoritarian-bureaucratic system, ideology's grip on politics, monopoly in social thought and sciences, militarized industries that siphoned off our best, including the best intellectual resources, the unbearable burden of military expenditures that suffocated civilian industries and undermined the social achievements of the period since the Revolution which were real and of which we used to be proud - such was the actual situation in the country.

As a result, one of the richest countries in the world, endowed with immense overall potential, was already sliding downwards. Our society was declining, both economically and intellectually.

And yet, to a casual observer the country seemed to present a picture of relative well-being, stability and order. The misinformed society under the spell of propaganda was hardly aware of what was going on and what the immediate future had in store for it. The slightest manifestations of protest were suppressed. Most people considered them heretical, slanderous and counter-revolutionary.

Such was the situation in the spring of 1985, and there was a great temptation to leave things as they were, to make only cosmetic changes. This, however, meant continuing to deceive ourselves and the people.

This was the domestic aspect of the dilemma then before us. As for the foreign policy aspect, there was the East-West confrontation, a rigid division into friends and foes, the two hostile camps with a corresponding set of Cold War attributes. Both the East and the West were constrained by the logic of military confrontation, wearing themselves down more and more by the arms race.

The mere thought of dismantling the existing structures did not come easily. However, the realization that we faced inevitable disaster, both domestically and internationally, gave us the strength to make a historic choice, which I have never since regretted.

Perestroika, which once again is returning our people to commonsense, has enabled us to open up to the world, and has restored a normal relationship between the country's internal development and its foreign policy. But all this takes a lot of hard work. To a people which believed that its government's policies had always been true to the cause of peace, we proposed what was in many ways a different policy, which would genuinely serve the cause of peace, while differing from the prevailing view of what it meant and particularly from the established stereotypes as to how one should protect it. We proposed new thinking in foreign policy.

Thus, we embarked on a path of major changes which may turn out to be the most significant in the twentieth century, for our country and for its peoples. But we also did this for the entire world.

I began my book about perestroika and the new thinking with the following words: "We want to be understood". After a while I felt that it was already happening. But now I would like once again to repeat those words here, from this world rostrum. Because to understand us really - to understand so as to believe us - proved to be not at all easy, owing to the immensity of the changes under way in our country. Their magnitude and character are such as to require in-depth analysis. Applying conventional wisdom to perestroika is unproductive. It is also futile and dangerous to set conditions, to say: We'll understand and believe you, as soon as you, the Soviet Union, come completely to resemble "us", the West.

No one is in a position to describe in detail what perestroika will finally produce. But it would certainly be a self-delusion to expect that perestroika will produce "a copy" of anything.

Of course, learning from the experience of others is something we have been doing and will continue to do. But this does not mean that we will come to be exactly like others. Our State will preserve its own identity within the international community. A country like ours, with its uniquely close-knit ethnic composition, cultural diversity and tragic past, the greatness of its historic endeavors and the exploits of its peoples - such a country will find its own path to the civilization of the twenty-first century and its own place in it. Perestroika has to be conceived solely in this context, otherwise it will fail and will be rejected. After all, it is impossible to "shed" the country's thousand-year history - a history, which, we still have to subject to serious analysis in order to find the truth that we shall take into the future.

We want to be an integral part of modern civilization, to live in harmony with mankind's universal values, abide by the norms of international law, follow the "rules of the game" in our economic relations with the outside world. We want to share with all other peoples the burden of responsibility for the future of our common house.

A period of transition to a new quality in all spheres of society's life is accompanied by painful phenomena. When we were initiating perestroika we failed to properly assess and foresee everything. Our society turned out to be hard to move off the ground, not ready for major changes which affect people's vital interests and make them leave behind everything to which they had become accustomed over many years. In the beginning we imprudently generated great expectations, without taking into account the fact that it takes time for people to realize that all have to live and work differently, to stop expecting that new life would be given from above.

Perestroika has now entered its most dramatic phase. Following the transformation of the philosophy of perestroika into real policy, which began literally to explode the old way of life, difficulties began to mount. Many took fright and wanted to return to the past. It was not only those who used to hold the levers of power in the administration, the army and various government agencies and who had to make room, but also many people whose interests and way of life was put to a severe test and who, during the preceding decades, had forgotten how to take the initiative and to be independent, enterprising and self-reliant.

Hence the discontent, the outbursts of protest and the exorbitant, though understandable, demands which, if satisfied right away, would lead to complete chaos. Hence, the rising political passions and, instead of a constructive opposition which is only normal in a democratic system, one that is often destructive and unreasonable, not to mention the extremist forces which are especially cruel and inhuman in areas of inter-ethnic conflict.

During the last six years we have discarded and destroyed much that stood in the way of a renewal and transformation of our society. But when society was given freedom it could not recognize itself, for it had lived too long, as it were, "beyond the looking glass". Contradictions and vices rose to the surface, and even blood has been shed, although we have been able to avoid a bloodbath. The logic of reform has clashed with the logic of rejection, and with the logic of impatience which breeds intolerance.

In this situation, which is one of great opportunity and of major risks, at a high point of perestroika's crisis, our task is to stay the course while also addressing current everyday problems - which are literally tearing this policy apart - and to do it in such a way as to prevent a social and political explosion.

Now about my position. As to the fundamental choice, I have long ago made a final and irrevocable decision. Nothing and no one, no pressure, cither from the right or from the left, will make me abandon the positions of perestroika and new thinking. I do not intend to change my views or convictions. My choice is a final one.

It is my profound conviction that the problems arising in the course of our transformations can be solved solely by constitutional means. That is why I make every effort to keep this process within the confines of democracy and reforms.

This applies also to the problem of self-determination of nations, which is a challenging one for us. We are looking for mechanisms to solve that problem within the framework of a constitutional process; we recognize the peoples' legitimate choice, with the understanding that if a people really decides, through a fair referendum, to withdraw from the Soviet Union, a certain agreed transition period will then be needed.

Steering a peaceful course is not easy in a country where generation after generation of people were led to believe that those who have power or force could throw those who dissent or disagree out of politics or even in jail. For centuries all the country's problems used to be finally resolved by violent means. All this has left an almost indelible mark on our entire "political culture", if the term is at all appropriate in this case.

Our democracy is being born in pain. A political culture is emerging - one that presupposes debate and pluralism, but also legal order and, if democracy is to work, strong government authority based on one law for all. This process is gaining strength. Being resolute in the pursuit of perestroika, a subject of much debate these days, must be measured by the commitment to democratic change. Being resolute does not mean a return to repression, diktat or the suppression of rights and freedoms. I will never agree to having our society split once again into Reds and Whites, into those who claim to speak and act "on behalf of the people" and those who are "enemies of the people". Being resolute today means to act within the framework of political and social pluralism and the rule of law to provide conditions for continued reform and prevent a breakdown of the state and economic collapse, prevent the elements of chaos from becoming catastrophic.

All this requires taking certain tactical steps, to search for various ways of addressing both short- and long-term tasks. Such efforts and political and economic steps, agreements based on reasonable compromise, are there for everyone to see. I am convinced that the One-Plus-Nine Statement will go down in history as one such step, as a great opportunity1. Not all parts of our decisions are readily accepted or correctly understood. For the most part, our decisions are unpopular; they arouse waves of criticism. But life has many more surprises in store for us, just as we will sometimes surprise it. Jumping to conclusions after every step taken by the Soviet leadership, after every decree by the President, trying to figure out whether he is moving left or right, backward or forward, would be an exercise in futility and would not lead to understanding.
We will seek answers to the questions we face only by moving forward, only by continuing and even radicalizing reforms, by consistently democratizing our society. But we will proceed prudently, carefully weighing each step we take.

There is already a consensus in our society that we have to move towards a mixed market economy. There are still differences as to how to do it and how fast we should move. Some are in favor of rushing through a transitional period as fast as possible, no matter what. Although this may smack of adventurism we should not overlook the fact that such views enjoy support. People are tired and are easily swayed by populism. So it would be just as dangerous to move too slowly, to keep people waiting in suspense. For them, life today is difficult, a life of considerable hardship.

Work on a new Union Treaty has entered its final stage. Its adoption will open a new chapter in the history of our multinational state.

After a time of rampant separatism and euphoria, when almost every village proclaimed sovereignty, a centripetal force is beginning to gather momentum, based on a more sensible view of existing realities and the risks involved. And this is what counts most now. There is a growing will to achieve consensus, and a growing understanding that we have a State, a country, a common life. This is what must be preserved first of all. Only then can we afford to start figuring out which party or club to join and what God to worship.

The stormy and contradictory process of perestroika, particularly in the past two years, has made us face squarely the problem of criteria to measure the effectiveness of State leadership. In the new environment of a multiparty system, freedom of thought, rediscovered ethnic identity and sovereignty of the republics, the interests of society must absolutely be put above those of various parties or groups, or any other sectoral, parochial or private interests, even though they also have the right to exist and to be represented in the political process and in public life, and, of course, they must be taken into account in the policies of the State.

Ladies and gentlemen, international politics is another area where a great deal depends on the correct interpretation of what is now happening in the Soviet Union. This is true today, and it will remain so in the future.

We are now approaching what might be the crucial point when the world community and, above all, the States with the greatest potential to influence world developments will have to decide on their stance with regard to the Soviet Union, and to act on that basis.

The more I reflect on the current world developments, the more I become convinced that the world needs perestroika no less than the Soviet Union needs it. Fortunately, the present generation of policy-makers, for the most part, are becoming increasingly aware of this interrelationship, and also of the fact that now that perestroika has entered its critical phase the Soviet Union is entitled to expect large-scale support to assure its success.

Recently, we have been seriously rethinking the substance and the role of our economic cooperation with other countries, above all major Western nations. We realize, of course, that we have to carry out measures that would enable us really to open up to the world economy and become its organic part. But at the same time we come to the conclusion that there is a need for a kind of synchronization of our actions towards that end with those of the Group of Seven and of the European Community2. In other words, we are thinking of a fundamentally new phase in our international cooperation.

In these months much is being decided and will be decided in our country to create the prerequisites for overcoming the systemic crisis and gradually recovering to a normal life.

The multitude of specific tasks to be addressed in this context may be summarized within three main areas:
-    Stabilizing the democratic process on the basis of a broad social consensus and a new constitutional structure of our Union as a genuine, free, and voluntary federation.
-    Intensifying economic reform to establish a mixed market economy based on a new system of property relations.
-    Taking vigorous steps to open the country up to the world economy through ruble convertibility and acceptance of civilized "rules of the game" adopted in the world market, and through membership in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

These three areas are closely interrelated.

Therefore, there is a need for discussion in the Group of Seven and in the European Community. We need a joint program of action to be implemented over a number of years.

If we fail to reach an understanding regarding a new phase of cooperation, we will have to look for other ways, for time is of the essence. But if we are to move to that new phase, those who participate in and even shape world politics also must continue to change, to review their philosophic perception of the changing realities of the world and of its imperatives. Otherwise, there is no point in drawing up a joint program of practical action.

The Soviet leadership, both in the center and in the republics, as well as a large part of the Soviet public, understand this need, although in some parts of our society not everyone is receptive to such ideas. There are some flag-wavers who claim a monopoly of patriotism and think that it means "not getting entangled" with the outside world. Next to them are those who would like to reserve the course altogether. That kind of patriotism is nothing but a self-serving pursuit of one's own interests.

Clearly, as the Soviet Union proceeds with perestroika, its contribution to building a new world will become more constructive and significant. What we have done on the basis of new thinking has made it possible to channel international cooperation along new, peaceful lines. Over these years we have come a long way in the general political cooperation with the West. It stood a difficult test at a time of momentous change in Eastern Europe and of the search for a solution to the German problem. It has withstood the crushing stress of the crisis in the Persian Gulf. There is no doubt that this cooperation, which all of us need, will become more effective and indispensable if our economies become more integrated and start working more or less in synchronized rhythm.

To me, it is self-evident that if Soviet perestroika succeeds, there will be a real chance of building a new world order. And if perestroika fails, the prospect of entering a new peaceful period in history will vanish, at least for the foreseeable future.

I believe that the movement that we have launched towards that goal has fairly good prospects of success. After all, mankind has already benefited greatly in recent years, and this has created a certain positive momentum.

The Cold War is over. The risk of a global nuclear war has practically disappeared. The Iron Curtain is gone. Germany has united, which is a momentous milestone in the history of Europe. There is not a single country on our continent which would not regard itself as fully sovereign and independent.

The USSR and the USA, the two nuclear superpowers, have moved from confrontation to interaction and, in some important cases, partnership. This has had a decisive effect on the entire international climate. This should be preserved and filled with new substance. The climate of Soviet-US trust should be protected, for it is a common asset of the world community. Any revision of the direction and potential of the Soviet-US relationship would have grave consequences for the entire global process.

The ideas of the Helsinki Final Act have begun to acquire real significance, they are being transformed into real policies and have found a more specific and topical expression in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe3. Institutional forms of European security are beginning to take shape.
Real disarmament has begun. Its first phase is nearing completion, and following the signing, I hope shortly, of the START Treaty4, the time will come to give practical consideration to the ideas which have already been put forward for the future. There seems, however, to be a need to develop a general concept for this new phase, which would embrace all negotiations concerning the principal components of the problem of disarmament and new ideas reflecting the changes in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, a concept that would incorporate recent major initiatives of President Bush and President Mitterand5. We are now thinking about it.

Armed forces and military budgets are being reduced. Foreign troops are leaving the territories of other countries. Their strength is diminishing and their composition is becoming more defense-oriented. First steps have been taken in the conversion of military industries, and what seemed inconceivable is happening: recent Cold War adversaries are establishing cooperation in this area. Their military officials exchange visits, show each other military facilities that only recently used to be top secret and together consider ways to achieve demilitarization.

The information environment has changed beyond recognition throughout Europe and in most of the world, and with it, the scale and intensity and the psychological atmosphere of communication among people of various countries.

De-ideologizing relations among States, which we proclaimed as one of the principles of the new thinking, has brought down many prejudices, biased attitudes and suspicions and has cleared and improved the international atmosphere. I have to note, however, that this process has been more intensive and frank on our part than on the part of the West.

I dare say that the European process has already acquired elements of irreversibility, or at least that conflicts of a scale and nature that were typical of Europe for many centuries and particularly in the twentieth century have been ruled out.

Should it gain the necessary momentum, every nation and every country will have at their disposal in the foreseeable future the potential of a community of unprecedented strength, encompassing the entire upper tier of the globe, provided they make their own contribution.

In such a context, in the process of creating a new Europe, in which erstwhile "curtains" and "walls" will be forever relegated to the past and borders between States will lose their "divisive" purpose, self-determination of sovereign nations will be realized in a completely different way.
However, our vision of the European space from the Atlantic to the Urals is not that of a closed system. Since it includes the Soviet Union, which reaches to the shores of the Pacific, and the transatlantic USA and Canada with inseparable links to the Old World, it goes beyond its nominal geographical boundaries.

The idea is not at all to consolidate a part of our civilization on, so to say, a European platform versus the rest of the world. Suspicions of that kind do exist. But, on the contrary, the idea is to develop and build upon the momentum of integration in Europe, embodied politically in the Charter of Paris for the whole of Europe. This should be done in the context of common movement towards a new and peaceful period in world history, towards new interrelationship and integrity of mankind. As my friend Giulio Andreotti6 so aptly remarked recently in Moscow, "East-West rapprochement alone is not enough for progress of the entire world towards peace. However, agreement between them is a great contribution to the common cause". Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Near and Middle East, all of them, are to play a great role in this common cause whose prospects are difficult to forecast today.

The new integrity of the world, in our view, can be built only on the principles of the freedom of choice and balance of interests. Every State, and now also a number of existing or emerging regional interstate groups, have their own interests. They are all equal and deserve respect.
We consider it dangerously outdated when suspicions are aroused by, for instance, improved Soviet-Chinese or Soviet-German, German-French, Soviet- US or US-Indian relations, etc. In our times, good relations benefit all. Any worsening of relations anywhere is a common loss.

Progress towards the civilization of the 21st century will certainly not be simple or easy. One cannot get rid overnight of the heavy legacy of the past or the dangers created in the post-war years. We are experiencing a turning point in international affairs and are only at the beginning of a new, and I hope mostly peaceful, lengthy period in the history of civilization.

With less East-West confrontation, or even none at all, old contradictions resurface, which seemed of secondary importance compared to the threat of nuclear war. The melting ice of the Cold War reveals old conflicts and claims, and entirely new problems accumulate rapidly.

We can already see many obstacles and dangers on the road to a lasting peace, including:
-    Increased nationalism, separatism, and disintegrational processes in a number of countries and regions;
-    The growing gap in the level and quality of socio-economic development between "rich" and "poor" countries; dire consequences of the poverty of hundreds of millions of people, to whom informational transparency makes it possible to see how people live in developed countries. Hence, the unprecedented passions and brutality and even fanaticism of mass protests. Poverty is also the breeding ground for the spread of terrorism and the emergence and persistence of dictatorial regimes with their unpredictable behavior in relations among States;
-    The dangerously rapid accumulation of the "costs" of previous forms of progress, such as the threat of environmental catastrophe and of the depletion of energy and primary resources, uncontrollable overpopulation, pandemics, drug abuse, and so on;
-    The gap between basically peaceful policies and selfish economies bent on achieving a kind of "technological hegemony". Unless those two vectors are brought together, civilization will tend to break down into incompatible sectors;
-    Further improvements in modern weaponry, even if under the pretext of strengthening security. This may result not only in a new spiral of the arms race and a perilous overabundance of arms in many States, but also in a final divorce between the process of disarmament and development, and, what is more, in an erosion of the foundations and criteria of the emerging new world politics.

How can the world community cope with all this? All these tasks are enormously complex. They cannot be postponed. Tomorrow may be too late.
I am convinced that in order to solve these problems there is no other way but to seek and implement entirely new forms of interaction. We are simply doomed to such interaction, or we shall be unable to consolidate positive trends which have emerged and are gaining strength, and which we simply must not sacrifice.

However, to accomplish this all members of the world community should resolutely discard old stereotypes and motivations nurtured by the Cold War, and give up the habit of seeking each other's weak spots and exploiting them in their own interests. We have to respect the peculiarities and differences which will always exist, even when human rights and freedoms are observed throughout the world. I keep repeating that with the end of confrontation differences can be made a source of healthy competition, an important factor for progress. This is an incentive to study each other, to engage in exchanges, a prerequisite for the growth of mutual trust.

For knowledge and trust are the foundations of a new world order. Hence the necessity, in my view, to learn to forecast the course of events in various regions of the globe, by pooling the efforts of scientists, philosophers and humanitarian thinkers within the UN framework. Policies, even the most prudent and precise, are made by man. We need maximum insurance to guarantee that decisions taken by members of the world community should not affect the security, sovereignty and vital interests of its other members or damage the natural environment and the moral climate of the world.

I am an optimist and I believe that together we shall be able now to make the right historical choice so as not to miss the great chance at the turn of centuries and millenia and make the current extremely difficult transition to a peaceful world order. A balance of interests rather than a balance of power, a search for compromise and concord rather than a search for advantages at other people's expense, and respect for equality rather than claims to leadership - such are the elements which can provide the groundwork for world progress and which should be readily acceptable for reasonable people informed by the experience of the twentieth century.

The future prospect of truly peaceful global politics lies in the creation through joint efforts of a single international democratic space in which States shall be guided by the priority of human rights and welfare for their own citizens and the promotion of the same rights and similar welfare elsewhere. This is an imperative of the growing integrity of the modern world and of the interdependence of its components.

I have been suspected of utopian thinking more than once, and particularly when five years ago I proposed the elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000 and joint efforts to create a system of international security. It may well be that by that date it will not have happened. But look, merely five years have passed and have we not actually and noticeably moved in that direction? Have we not been able to cross the threshold of mistrust, though mistrust has not completely disappeared? Has not the political thinking in the world changed substantially? Does not most of the world community already regard weapons of mass destruction as unacceptable for achieving political objectives?

Ladies and gentlemen, two weeks from today it will be exactly fifty years since the beginning of the Nazi invasion of my country. And in another six months we shall mark fifty years since Pearl Harbor, after which the war turned into a global tragedy7. Memories of it still hurt. But they also urge us to value the chance given to the present generations.

In conclusion, let me say again that I view the award of the Nobel Prize to me as an expression of understanding of my intentions, my aspirations, the objectives of the profound transformation we have begun in our country, and the ideas of new thinking. I see it as your acknowledgment of my commitment to peaceful means of implementing the objectives of perestroika.

I am grateful for this to the members of the Committee and wish to assure them that if I understand correctly their motives, they are not mistaken.

1. On April 23, 1991, nine presidents of Soviet republics plus Gorbachev, President of the Soviet Union, (1+9), agreed that within six months a new union treaty and constitution would be formulated to restructure the Soviet Union.
2. The Group of Seven industrialized states include the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada and Italy. The European Community is the economic and political association of European nations.
3. At the meeting in Helsinki, Finland, in 1975, the final acts were ratified of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). In the Helsinki accords, signed by 34 states, including all European states except Albania, as well as the United States and Canada, the signatories settled European border problems and agreed to respect the human rights of their citizens and to take certain steps to promote international cooperation. Subsequent meetings were held, the last in Vienna, which ended in 1990. In November 1990 CSCE statesmen signed the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, committing their countries to democracy and human rights and recognizing no East-West divisions.
4. The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks between the United States and the USSR led to the START treaty, which was signed at a Bush-Gorbachev summit meeting in Moscow, July 30-31, 1991.
5. Francois Maurice Mitterand was then President of France, George Bush President of the United States.
6. Giulio Andreotti was then Prime Minister of Italy.
7. The European war became World War II in 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22 and Japan attacked the American naval base in Hawaii on December 7.

Yale - San Francisco - Los Angeles - Cornell, Ithaca

I was reading “The World is Flat” on the flight to New York City, and the guy sitting next to me asked “So, is globalization a good thing or bad thing?”

I can hardly tell. Globalization itself is a resource reallocation process with a whole new technology platform. However the resource re-allocated could make both the GDP higher and the poor poorer, the technology platform could connect people better while build a higher wall between individuals.

So technology, or more generally, knowing how to work better itself doesn’t make us better off.

My dad lost patience very easily to people who think about how to get into the top school to be top talents, get the best camera to be top photographers, even get the best recipes to be great chefs. “Knowing WHY is better than knowing HOW!” Another friend told me “Being smart itself doesn’t take you anywhere.” Tools don’t make the difference by themselves.

I was busy with LC visits for the past 3 weeks. Jingwei used to tell me, “When I was doing country visit as AI director, I always felt like I was Mulan going to the battle field.” I felt pretty much the same way. How am I, a foreigner, supposed to come up with solutions for Yale, Cornell, DC, etc, etc?

Then I discovered the solution is not to teach them how to run info session, interview or partnerships. I am dealing with some of the most well trained business minds in the world’s universities. The solution is not to find technical solution for them. The solution, instead, is get them excited about growth and change, about improving themselves and others, about opening up to new possibilities, then naturally, they work out the technical part by themselves.

I like one example by Friedman in his book – a social entrepreneur combines a business school brain with a social worker’s heart.

While minds determine the pace, hearts steer the direction. The education makes a difference here – are we educating on the minds, or the hearts? How are we shaping the hearts of youth?

Looking back, I’m glad whenever I need to make a decision, my mind works on the options, and my heart makes the choice.

领导人们站在天安门城楼上看着这盛世，心里到底在想什么呢？“社会主义好”？

这场show到底给谁看的呢，是领导人耍给大众看，还是大众耍给领导人看？

这一部分的祖国，我一点也不想念。

Biggest culture shock for all the foreign language teachers I had in high school - “When I ask someone ‘how are you doing?’, people only say Fine. And you?’…We don’t ask just to be polite, we seriously want to know how you are doing!”

I wasn’t quite convinced by this until I knew Daniel, the UK dude, who gave me a really tough time by asking “how are you doing, Roxie?” every time he saw me. He would stare at me with his eye wide-open as if he was trying to squeeze some answer out of me, and if I simply said “not bad” or something like that he would say “come on, I mean how are you REALLY doing???”

So I tried very hard – there was a time I saw him almost everyday, and you cannot imagine how hard it was for me to search for words to describe how I felt! Then after 1 year or so whenever people asked me the same questions, I finally felt comfortable to say “Well so so, because such and such.” or even “Terrible! Because of bla bla bla” I was pleased with myself – now I can talk like a native, ha!

Then I found out THEY ALL LIED!!!

There was this morning in our NYC office, people asking each other “how is your day?” After a round of “Excellent”, "Fantastic”, "Amazing”, I started with “Not so well. This & that happened…” All these native fellows started at me, apparently incredulous, and said “You know what, I like your honesty! That’s really special!”

…!!! Don’t you want to know how I REALLY feel!

I guess this has a lot to do with how people define “I’m doing great” and how honest they are with their feelings. To me, I have to feel incredibly GREAT and have seriously nothing to improve to tell people I’m doing great, which seldomly happens in my life. That’s why Daniel had so much fun asking me how I was doing, because it was 1000000 time harder for me to feel “great” than other people, and I had such big trouble expressing my negative feeling as an introverted Chinese.

So I myself was surprised this Sunday, in Bryant Park, when some random people started talking to me and asked “So you are a foreigner! How do you like your life here?” With a big smile, I responded so naturally “It’s been great! I love it!”

Wow!

1 month ago, I was still bothered by lots of stuff I saw, I did, or I heard of. And my life has been full of “so so” or “terrible” feelings for more than one year.

I just learned how to shift my focus – from the things I COULD care about to those I SHOULD care about. Surprisingly I found out there aren’t so much falling into that category. The criterion is extremely simple: does it make me HAPPY if -

• I do what others expect me to do instead of what I really want to do
• I tell people what they want to hear instead of what I really mean
• I spend time on others’ priorities instead of my own
• I make judgment based on other’s opinion instead of mine
• I do nice things, instead of useful things

???

I am reading this great book, “The 4-hour Workweek”, which talks about eliminating all the unnecessary work/concerns/relationship/influence/rules and focusing only on the things excite you. You can eliminate or outsource 90% of what you are doing/have to do now and feel 900% happier.

Only talk to the people that help you learn, do the tasks that push your result happen, build relationships that inspire you, think about problems that you can change in 1 month, and ask only yourself whether you are happy with what you do.

“Less is More”.

There are 6 billion people on the earth, 880 friends on my facebook, a dozen really close friends, several co-workers, and a few family members, but I should really care about the feeling of only one person – that is myself.

I learnt from Daniel that I need to be honest to others. Now I’m learning to be honest to myself – ask only myself what I really want.

“How are you doing Roxie?”

I am honest & I am happy with my life :)

Peter has got a keyboard, and we took it to girl’s apartment since he is away. Immediately our little apartment is filled with awkward chords: Tiffany trying to learn playing keyboard, and me guitar. We could have played much better music simply by exchanging instruments – Tiffany can do guitar pretty well and I played piano for 10 years.

I didn’t expect myself to touch a keyboard ever again. It surprised me that I can still play the keyboard and master my fingers without much difficulty, given the fact that I stopped playing piano 6 years ago, as soon as I found a decent excuse to quit. My grandpa always tells me how he regrets not being able to master an instrument when he was young, and how reckless I was to give up piano.

However reckless it was, my reason to quit is simple. Playing piano is never something I enjoyed doing, even though I committed (kind of forced to) to it for 10 years. I didn’t find the music I played anyhow close to be “beautiful”. To me, the music from my piano is not “music”, but a impressionless translation of the composition. I simply hated doing it everyday, and I hated the composers, all of them. Not until after I quited playing and listened to other pianists playing did I start to realize the beauty of piano, and try to understand the musician’s voice through their music.

Surprisingly, the fact that I never understood piano didn’t stop me from getting a certificate of 8th grade amateur pianist (the highest grade is 9). Why? Because people don’t judge your qualification by your understanding, feeling and passion towards music, but solely by your techniques. So long as you are willing to spend years practicing a few opuses appointed by the music academic, you can get the certificate. How ridiculous it is for people to believe they can produce musicians like a factory produces cars?

Many of the Chinese children shared the similar experience with me – started playing some kind of instruments (the most popular ones being piano and violin) at a very early age, (I started at 6 which is already considered late), was educated on how to get a certificate, hoped to gain some credits to be admitted to a famous school, and quitted playing as soon as they didn’t need it anymore. If you walk around my university and grab some random students to talk, you’ve got little chance to find someone never learned playing instrument. The chance is even slimmer for you to find someone learned playing, but can talk actually about the beauty of it.

Same happened to learning painting, sports. or dancing. Not that none of the people actually enjoy it, but most of the people didn’t get what they deserve to learn – WHY to do it, instead of HOW to do it. If any of my teachers have had spent some time telling me how to put emotion into the music as well as techniques, I would have sticked to my piano much longer and got much more out of it.

My parents or my piano teachers never intended to waste my time, even though they made me spend 10 years playing soulless music. The whole purpose is not to develop my passion towards music, instead, it’s all about becoming competitive in the industrialized education system. It’s not only about piano, or the education out of school – it’s happening to everyone, everywhere. People are taught HOW to write an article, speak a language, and solve science problems, but never WHY. They are told to DO it, but not UNDERSTAND, or ENJOY it. Not that my parents and teachers didn’t see how much I was tortured by playing to get a certificate, they are just forced to do so – how am I supposed to WIN when all the others are doing it?

But, are people really getting competitive in this system? Or, rather, is our society becoming competitive or sustainable with all the people who are building it? What kind of talents are we supplying to the society? How can people work to bring anything to next level if they don’t enjoy doing it at all? What is the purpose of education? Issue certificate or inspire ideas? Encourage people to think differently or alike? Provide talents as solution or copy machine?

People are self-educated when they are driven by passion. However we are centralizing all the resources to take out proactiveness from the system and educate people NOT to be passionate about what they are doing. What do we expect from the people extremely priviledged to complete a higher education, but the only thing they learnt is to do as told? Our education is the most horrifying waste of resources I’ve ever seen!

What can we do about it? In this competitive environment, how to create an education system that inspires people to learn out of passion? When the resources are so scarce and centralized, how do we impact more people? Where should we start?

I’m haunted by those questions everyday.

While I was writing this blog, Tiffany was playing the chords over and over again. Apparently the joy she was gaining is much more than what I got in 10 years, even though she will never get a certificate.

For a while, I was taken away by the music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO92REraUo

You think AIESEC is unique and the first choise for students?

Not really.

This is how you can easily create another AIESEC and become a powerful competitor:

First of all, create a vision – anything similar to develop youth leadership in a global network would work fine. People love that crap more than you think.

Secondly,  organize some oversea events – workshop, training camp or organization visit for 2 weeks, etc. Make sure people can go to US, Europe, at least Canada, for those events. There are tons of agencies in those countries willing to organize such activities. Don’t worry about cost – remember this is the era of globalization and people will pay for going to those countries to learn about it.

Then, identify several universities/high schools/actually we should start considering primary school, and promote your oversea activity there. Of course you need to have network there but that’s not hard to work on. Hold some seminars around youth development to grab attention. Make sure you invite some foreigners to talk. University students will be just good enough. When you become famous you can invite externals. Hold conference & global village. Talk about your vision, globalization and gaining a winning position in life. Train people on leadership skills and cross culture communication. Talk to the students and the parents about “Make a difference in your life (or your child’s life)”. People love hearing it. You will be surprised how easily they get motivated. Oh, what’s more, teach people how to do roll calls. People will feel like living a new lifestyle. “Life changing experience”, isn’t it? Use powerful words. You know all that AIESEC tricks to brainwash people.

Then it’s easy – just get people sign up and pay good money to go to US. Remember keep feeding them motivating speeches through various events.

It’s not the end! After they come back, recruit them as “Members” of your organization so that they can keep the program going on their campus and keep “exploring their leadership potential”.

Piece of cake, isn’t it?

People are already doing it. And making it big. This is a typical Chinese model but according to my observation, shouldn’t be too hard to create similar model in other countries.

That makes me wonder – what if someone keeps doing this and expanding to more & more countries, say, 100 countries, and completely takes over AIESEC’s market? Don’t think it’s impossible, AIESEC did it in 60 years by part-time work, and AIESEC is not one of the most efficient/business focused organizations I’ve seen. What is AIESEC’s competitiveness? How do we convince the best people to join AIESEC instead of other organizations? People will get leadership experience, oversea experience and global netwrok in OTHER places.

So the question is, if everything in AIESEC can be copied so easily, (and trust me, people can do it much better than AIESECers), what’s our competitive edge?

AIESEC leadership opportunity is unique because it’s around real business, not because of our conference, training and seminars. AIESEC global learning environment is unique because it enables people to network through business cooperation. Everything is around the core – exchange. Not that exchange program cannot be copied – but it takes much more time to establish the connection with thousands of traineeship provider in over 100 countries. And we need to agressively expand that business network to keep our winning position in the competition. New markets. New products. New partners. Everyday.

But are we spending enough time and energy in becoming a real expert in global exchange program today? How much time are wasted talking repeatedly about all the vision, seminar, leadership workshop, training stuff, which can be copied overnight? In the end of the day it’s not copyright that will keep our market position. It’s the growth of our real business.

Are we clear about what keeps us unique and growing in 60 years as an organization? Do we talk about it enough? Are we strengthening it? Are we taking action fast enough against all that competitions?

View AIESEC as a business, isn’t it clear we are not focusing on the core of our business? On the other hand, if we aim to develop future business leaders, isn’t it essential for our members to learn run AIESEC as a business TODAY?

李开复

时光荏苒，时光匆匆走过了一个四年，回望过去四年我在谷歌的职业生涯，所有的快乐、成就以及曾经面对的困难与挫折，所有的这一切如同一部电影在我的脑海里不断地闪过。在这离别之际，我不禁百感交集。在这四年时光里，谷歌中国从一个很小的雏形一直慢慢发展壮大，一直到今天，它成为了一家平稳，成熟，走上轨道的公司。

在整整四年的时光里，我努力地把Google“平等、创新、快乐、无畏”的精神带到中国。这个过程并非一帆风顺，但是我们坚持着自己的信念与价值观，保持着超强的耐心精耕细作。

我们压抑着做更酷、更炫的产品的欲望，努力耕耘最佳中文搜索。今天，谷歌中国的搜索质量已堪称最精确、最完整、最即时。优化中文搜索后，我们又开启了数十个产品，让谷歌中国的版图渐渐清晰。其中谷歌地图、谷歌手机地图、谷歌手机搜索、谷歌翻译都已经达到中国第一。另外，音乐搜索的推出，可以让网民首次享受到正版免费的音乐，创立了全球音乐下载的崭新模式。

特别令我难忘的是我们热爱中国的员工面临雪灾、地震、风灾做出的及时产品和贡献，证实了谷歌中国人爱谷歌也爱中国，证实了谷歌中国人既能创新又有爱心。

当我随意走进咖啡馆，看到年轻人在用谷歌的整合搜索查询信息，用地图查看实时交通流量，在iGoogle上挑选自己喜欢的“皮肤”（计算机界面），或者在用谷歌音乐听正版歌曲时，我都会露出发自内心的微笑。

谷歌是一个伟大又可爱的公司，我非常感谢有这么一个千载难逢的机会，来从无到有地打造谷歌中国。在谷歌，我学到太多太多，无论是互联网技术、创新模式、价值观。

对于谷歌，我现在已经没有遗憾，但我的人生还有一个缺憾没有实现，我想去弥补它。在过去的20年，我有幸在乔布斯、盖茨、施密特等身边学习成长，我有幸在PC时代历经苹果微软，我有幸在互联网时代历经谷歌，我有幸看到三个世界一流的公司的成长成功，我有幸在美国硅谷和中国的中关村崛起时，在这两个地方做过最有创意的工作。我拥有更多的是在科技领域的知识，更了解是企业成功的秘笈。这些职业经验才是我最有价值的资产，我非常希望能够把这些资产传授给中国青年。

我的下一步就是和中国青年人一起打造新奇的技术奇迹，我想用自己的主动性做一个掌控全局的工作。我已经到了这个人生阶段，再不去做，我真的很怕来不及了。

所以，尽管加州的山景城再次向我伸出了橄榄枝，希望我再续约四年，但是我却在此刻做出了发自内心的选择，我希望帮助年轻人圆梦的同时也圆自己的创业梦想。

这个周末，我终于能够从业务发展、战略策划、离职宣布、工作交接中松一口气。这个周末，我会把我的思路理顺。下周，我会和大家分享的我的“从心选择”计划。

每当我想到我将迈出的一步，我就会想起苹果创始人乔布斯的名言：

“最重要的，拥有跟随内心与直觉的勇气，你的内心与直觉多少已经知道你真正想要成为什么样的人。任何其它事物都是次要的。”

把青蛙放进沸水里，它会立刻跳出来；如果放进温水里再慢慢加温，它就会坐在那里一动不动直到变成田鸡汤了。

IC Malaysia被人问到最多的问题是：你会去选AIESEC International吗？——不，因为我不想slow down。

在IC和人讨论的话题最终都归结到institutionalize：即使在如是的一个青年组织，人的思想也仍然随着组织规模的增大和层级的复杂化而逐渐固化，在大多数的国家，member新鲜的创造力因为管理层的思想顽固和执行不力而失活。4年之后，我愤怒又有些悲哀的发现，在AIESEC也可以看到John Wood写到的自视甚高而整日空谈的NGO的影子。

幸运如我，成长在一个飞速发展变化的国家，拥有选择和行动的权利去创造不断加速的生活，在AIESEC，也置身于日新月异的Mainland China和处于革命期的US。每天的主题都是变化，更快的变化，更多的变化。人就是在这种环境中变得更为警醒，灵活，不安于室，直抒己见，从而释放出更多的动力去推动环境的变革。你能感觉到那种躁动和兴奋吗？

我想我不用谈太多一个组织是怎么失活的。Stay positive，下一个问题是，如何去寻找恒沸的水呢？

长远看来，只有靠自己煽风点火呀。

一样的是花花绿绿的agenda，不一样的是来自10国的庞大的faci team

一样的是Global Village，不一样的是来自中东的实习生

一样的是party到天明，不一样的是热舞和酒精

一样的是LCP们，不一样的是关注的话题

一样的是AIESEC，不一样的是……

***Summer Conference @ Madison, Wisconsin***

谁说只有中国靠关系，在任何地方，到头来都是在和人打交道。AIESEC的发展可以是一个技术问题，但是，是一个建立在人际关系上的技术问题。美国的孩子们不懂business吗，不懂sales吗，不懂HR吗，不懂市场吗，他们其实都懂，他们只不过不做，或者说，没有找到去做的兴奋点。

来到美国，我没有遇到任何技术上的challenge-中国的OGX到哪里都不会有技术上的问题。挑战来自另一方面，就是如何让人们愿意运用这些技术，也就是了解他们的motivation。Li Zhen去了AI之后总是说这是情商问题。如何把自己置于他人的处境之中，之后把自己的想法移植到别人脑中去。

在AIESEC4年我一直是更关注技术的，怎样优化流程，提高效率，奖勤罚懒，也是因为来自相同的文化背景，不用花太大心思就可以把中国人motivate了。在香港conference的时候和Shantanu，Mauricio和Li Zhen讨论growth的概念，一个没在AIESEC待过的external说你们为什么在说技术，我在这里和每个人聊他们为什么喜欢AIESEC，没人提起professional skill，全都说的是emotion。

一个永恒的话题：Manager和Leader的区别是什么？我的答案是Manager利用硬性的管理技术产出结果，Leader利用人的情感产出结果。

这次conference没在comfort zone。我在session里滔滔不绝，但是总感觉抓不住他们的兴奋点。美国人可以勤奋工作，但是和中国人相比，他们更难聚焦在一个重点上。他们最需要的不是技术，而是a sense of purpose，而且不是像中国一样lecture就能学到的purpose。有人说通往男人的心的路必须经过胃，那么通往美国@er的心的路则经过一条布满party和hang-out的路。我刚来时痛恨（现在也仍然不能轻松应对）的闲扯+水烟+酒精文化，现在看来却是异常重要的沟通平台了。

怎么样开好conference？多少faci，什么时间表，怎么安排agenda，其实不是最重要的，最重要的是能不能让delegate体会到sense of  purpose。

另一个情商的challenge来自于团队合作。我是愤怒青年+完美主义者，总是被别人的办事不力激怒。天生爱看到不足点，其实也算是个优点，有critical thinking，而之后对待不足点的态度就不够成熟了。因为做事不力就被我打入十八层地狱的人不在少数，其实大可不必。我带过最好的team不是精英团队，反而比个个精英组成的团队更有成效。只因为每个人都可以发挥他们的优点。

我尚需修炼。

-----------------

最后再写点和conference无关的。

Madison可以算是一个大学城，频临两大湖，大学的student union就像一个旅游集散地，悠闲舒适便利，也难怪这儿的人都变懒了。Madison LC是个party LC，一个周末的狂欢差点把我的小命要了。

当地人的最爱是啤酒，乳酪，和全国最大的州首府。

Don't give me no tea

Don't give me no pork

Just give me some milk

Wisconsin milk

《七十年代》　　北岛 李陀主编　　牛津大学出版社（中国）有限公司　　2008年12月第一版
　　　　毛 尖

　　　　三十年过去，如果我们还只停留在那个年代的水平线思考问题，如果我们还能无视这些年沧海桑田里的中国问题，那么，用蔡翔文章结尾的话说，“很自私”。

　　　　北岛和李陀主编的《七十年代》是华山论剑的阵容，徐冰北岛阿城陈丹青王安忆张朗朗，蔡翔李零邓刚阎连科翟永明韩少功，严力柏桦范迁黄子平王小妮赵越胜。所以，这书，真是用不着封面设计，三十个作者名头搁那儿，不战而屈人之兵。
　　　　三十人头马作者，再加上四个大红字书名，我打开书的时候，简直有些看手抄本的激动，就好像少年阎连科拿到《红楼梦》学生韩少功读到《赫鲁晓夫主义》。我先把书里的照片研究了一遍，呀，王安忆这么漂亮！除了翟永明，诗人长得都不咋样。阿城的衬衫还双上兜，一左一右，塞得鼓鼓，色情兮兮。张朗朗英俊，陈建华多情，徐冰很清秀，可惜没看到我的偶像蔡翔老师年轻时候的照片。
　　　　近六百页的书，一天一夜看完，用的是我以前披星戴月看金庸时的激情和速度。不过，看完后，说实话，感觉郁闷。
　　　　三十个作者，除了蔡翔阎连科等少数几个，皆出身高眉，当然，所有作者拿起笔的时候都高高眉了。而在作者的履历中，我们看到，一大半的人去国千里留洋的留洋海外的海外，其余的，不是作家，就是名校大师江湖高人。
　　　　我相信，多数读者和我一样，出身平民，喜欢了解并且向往高端生活，啧啧，这沙龙那沙龙的，都吃的什么聊的什么看的什么？中国的宫廷剧这么火，当然有它的群众基础。所以，听这些人头马顺口溜一样提到，“大小刘麻子”英若诚和他太太吴世良，中央乐团的首席小提琴杨秉荪，陈伯达的儿子，我们对张朗朗们真是有敬意啊。哎呀，有什么办法，张朗朗们可以说“鲁迅老头儿”，我们不敢。他们出入的不是学部，邻居不是翻译普希金的，就是机关大院，最小的角色也是大内高手的后代。不过，我们的确喜欢，比如李零笔下的那些个人名，张木生，刘晓军，岳小莲，打心眼里，我也希望和李零同学，然后有很多茅台级同学，不为鸡犬升天，只为共同拥有。
　　　　没错，被北岛李陀召集到这本《七十年代》里来的人，共同拥有一段“《今天》式”或“类《今天》”岁月，一个方便的检阅就是看他们怎么描写1976年9月9日。
　　　　“一九七六年九月九日下午，我和严力在芒克家聊天。芒克跟父母一起住计委大院，父亲是高级工程师，母亲是复兴医院护士长。”这是北岛关于那天的开场，他喜欢交代诸如“高级工程师”这样的细节，而这也成为《七十年代》全书的一个特色。然后，护士长让他们下午四点听重要广播。
　　　　听完广播，“我们对视了几秒钟，会意一笑，但笑得有点怪，有点变形，好像被一拳打歪——这一时刻让人猝不及防。芒克顺手从床底下摸出半瓶‘二锅头’，到厨房取来三个酒盅。”同时，陈丹青，人在西藏，听到消息时，和两个朋友一起，“刻意扯些别的话题，闪避目光，不敢对视，抑制嘴角的痉挛，只怕猝不及防，笑出来”。
　　　　两个“猝不及防”，两次“笑”，他们在人群中一定能互相辨认。这个“他们”似乎就是《七十年代》的大众，因为很可惜，在这本书里，和北岛等构成张力的叙述，比如蔡翔和阎连科的文章，都没有提到1976年9月9日。不过，虽然我本人长期以来是阿城陈丹青和北岛极为忠实的读者，甚至，毫不夸张地说，我整个的青春期都回响着“我不相信”的调子，我还是觉得，光有北岛的笑，是不能称为《七十年代》的。用封底选用的李零的话来说，“八十年代开花，九十年代结果，什么事都酝酿于七十年代”，从现在的历史看，今天显然不是“三个酒盅”“会意一笑”的逻辑展开能够抵达。因此，虽然李陀在序言里检讨了此书作者的失重，我还是认为，这样的一个严重缺陷，不仅导致了北岛们突然成了多数派，北岛们的回忆失去了历史感，而且，读者在不断地看到他们的牢狱之灾和担惊受怕后，会对他们的高端诉苦也产生厌倦和怀疑，而更大的问题是，在合上书的时候，我突然疑惑，北岛是否还合适来主编这样一本讲述中国历史的回忆录？
　　　　2003年，《书城》上有一篇关于北岛的访谈。记者问北岛，“你怎么看自己早期的诗歌？”北岛回答：“现在如果有人向我提起《回答》，我会觉得惭愧，我对那类的诗基本持否定态度。在某种意义上，它是官方话语的一种回声。那时候我们的写作和革命诗歌关系密切，多是高音调的，用很大的词，带有语言的暴力倾向。我们是从那个时代过来的，没法不受影响，这些年来，我一直在写作中反省，设法摆脱那种话语的影响。对于我们这代人来说，这是一辈子的事。”很显然，北岛不仅要悔其少作，而且坦言，“有时朗诵会上碰到中国听众，他们说更喜欢我早期的诗，我能感到和读者的距离在拉大。”然后记者追问：“介不介意这种距离？”北岛：“不介意。”
　　　　我看到这里觉得心冷。每年春天，我都在大学课堂给一年级学生讲朦胧诗，每年，都有最多的同学选择上台朗诵《回答》，“如果海洋注定要决堤，/ 就让所有苦水都注入我心中；/ 如果陆地注定要上升，/ 就让人类重新选择生存的峰顶。”这些句子，年复一年，我听了不下一百遍，但每一次，它们依然在我心头产生放电的感觉。可是，我们热爱了多年的诗作者，今天宣布，他惭愧他写了《回答》。而因为这个惭愧，他说他不同意关于“文化的根”的说法。好像是，他现在的写作动力，就来自“语言上的忠诚和文化上的反叛”所形成的“紧张关系”，因此他号称，“中文是惟一的行李”。
　　　　只是中文，没有中国，并且，他不再介意他的中国读者。这样，在前不久香港召开的当代文学六十年研讨会上，北岛毫无负担并很有把握地对记者说，觉得大陆前三十年是毛泽东风格的文体一直影响着我们的汉语写作，在这种文体下，“我们已经没有谈恋爱的语言了，更不要说写作。”但是，在《七十年代》这本书里，我们读到最有意思的那些章节恰是用这种文体写下的爱情。比如，邓刚说，三十岁的他，爱上了一个十九岁的女孩。姑娘是共产党员家庭，他是反革命家庭，这种结合，比国共合作还要艰难，然而，“我顾不得许多了，这是背水一战，没有后路也没有侧路根本就没有路”。
　　　　没有路的情况下，邓刚的“狼子野心”居然得逞，这样，为了心爱的姑娘，他决定在物质匮乏的年代，给姑娘摆上山珍海味的酒席，因为他是堂堂海碰子，他准备“亲自潜进海里拼命，而且必须潜进当时被军管了的海港里”。如此，在隔一天就要结婚的下午，他像特务似的潜水了，但因为太贪心，他发现自己回不了岸了。最后，在他处于半昏迷状态时，一艘小快艇驶来，“上面正高高地站着一个面孔阴沉的警察，那真真是政治宣传上说的‘无产阶级专政的柱石铁塔般耸立 ’，他两眼放射着正义的光芒，正等着我自投罗网”。
　　　　结局是，警察救了邓刚，而且，把足够他结两次婚的海参鲍鱼也扔给了他。
　　　　我喜欢这个故事。事实上，整本《七十年代》，如果没有徐冰、蔡翔、阎连科等人的文章，这就是一叠贵族诉苦，当然其中也有日瓦格医生式的甜蜜，而徐冰，因为和北岛等人同处北京文化圈，他的态度就显得尤为珍贵。
　　　　徐冰说，他的同学中不是缺爹就是缺妈的，或者就是姐姐成了神经病的，但是，他没有像北岛那样被那个时代压得变形，他很认真地总结说：“我们之中没有一个玩世不恭的，这成了我们的性格。”
　　　　他还写到，下乡时候，每天带着画箱，带着书上山，可还没几天，就没什么书好带了。“有一天，只好拿了本《毛选》。毛的精彩篇章过去背过，熟到完全感觉不到内容的程度。”接着，徐冰另起一段，郑重写道：“可那天在杏树下，读《毛选》的感动和收获，是我读书经验中少有的，至今记忆犹新。”“那天的收获，被埋藏在一个业余画家的心里，并占据了一块很重要的位置。”
　　　　事实上，徐冰这篇文章的结尾，很可以拿来批评这本《七十年代》。在谈到“星星”对美院的震撼时，他说，那时，研究法国荒诞派的王克平等“星星 ”“是异数的，而我们是复数的；和大多数是一样的。我和‘我们’确实是相当愚昧的，但愚昧的经验值得注意，这是所有中国大陆人的共同经验。多数人的经验更具有普遍性和阐释性，是必须面对的，否则我们就什么都没有了”。
　　　　就此而言，如果北岛不能穿透笼罩内心的“憎恶”，反而给这“憎恶”找上西方的理由和同志，那么，他背叛的就不仅是过去的历史，还有未来的生活。这里，让我抄录我非常喜欢的徐冰的一段话：
　　　　除个别先知先觉者外，我们这代人思维的来源与方法的核心，是那个年代的。从环境中，从父母和周围的人在这个环境中待人接物的分寸中，从毛的思想方法中，我们获得了变异又不失精髓的、传统智慧的方法，并成为我们的世界观和性格的一部分。这东西深藏且顽固，以至于后来的任何理论都要让它三分。
　　　　所以，在纽约，当有人问徐冰：“你来自这么保守的国家，怎么搞这么前卫的东西？”徐冰可以非常从容地回答他：“你们是波易斯教出来的，我是毛泽东教出来的。波比起毛，可是小巫见大巫了。”
　　　　可惜，北岛是决意舍大巫就小巫了。我这么讲，决不是批评北岛的文章，坦白说，单篇文章而论，北岛依然写着眼下最美的中文文章，而且，文中时常还回荡着他过去年代的激情，比如结尾时，他说，“我想起头一次听到的郭路生的诗句，眼中充满泪水。迎向死亡的感觉真美。青春真美。”但是，“青春真美”这话时隔三十年，在《今天》和“今天群”失去语境的今天，无疑也消散了其冲击力。所以，北岛的文章美则美矣，却也无力穿透我们今天更为复杂的存在。
　　　　也许，多少抱着烈士暮年的心态吧，北岛以孤注一掷的姿势，集合起当年的《今天》和“星星”和地下沙龙的龙主，要向今天再次反戈。而令人郁闷的正是其反戈的姿势，当年他的壮志有多么崇高，今天的复仇就显得多么苍白，因为虽然是复调形式的“说吧，记忆”，但厚厚六百页却显得单薄，是三十年前的老姿态，还是那种小团体作战的方式，还是那点“舍我其谁”的意思，只不过这个“我”，已经无力吹响集结号。
　　　　中文不是行李，这是北岛在主编此书时的一个前提错误，由此，此书的厚重也令人质疑。
　　　　对此书的单薄作了拯救的，除了徐冰，还有，就是蔡翔。蔡翔的文章是这三十篇中最出色的，基本上，他四两拨千斤地扭转过本书的航程，尤其是他文章最后的一节，很短，但很有力量。“社会发展很快，但付出的代价也真的不小，这些代价里面，包括一个阶级的尊严。”但这个阶级的尊严，不在《今天》的视野里，也不在本书主编的视野里，所以，在讨论“七十年代”如此严重的命题时，阎连科的重大疑问，却成了本书的一个小问号，我觉得这是荒谬的。
　　　　阎连科说：“八十年代之初，中国文坛轰然兴起的‘知青文学’，把下乡视为下狱。把一切苦难，多都直接、简单地归为某块土地和那土地上的一些愚昧。这就让我常想，知青下乡，确实是一代人和一个民族的灾难。可在知青下乡之前，包括其间，那些土地上的人们，他们的生活、生存，他们数千年的命运，那又算不算是一种灾难？”
　　　　毛泽东在试图回答阎连科的问题时，迎面碰上了北岛，三十年过去，如果我们还只停留在那个年代的水平线思考问题，如果我们还能无视这些年沧海桑田里的中国问题，那么，用蔡翔文章结尾的话说，“很自私”。■

Came across this when JJ & I were trying to verify is China eating the most vegetables per person in the world

http://www.worldometers.info/

Including many interesting statistics!

这周末主要的成就是到处瞎走实践从kenrockwell学来的照相技巧。最近喜欢这个调调：

作为一个深信勤奋创造财富的中国人，最近有感于美国人朝九晚五的小日子过得这么滋润怎么还能创造如是财富呢？和老妈照搬了10%的勤奋美国佬创造了90%懒惰美国佬的幸福生活的理论之后，我妈说（不愧是我妈）“那只要你比他们再勤奋一点点就可以很有成就啦！”果然印证了Uncle Li的中文：“it is the aged ginger that is spicy!”

去看了哈波6之后好生郁闷，总结起来就是99%的时间讲述了原著里我最不喜欢的1%的内容，剩下的1%还拍的不伦不类，看来哈利在罗琳手下没死成，导演已经快把电影系列谋杀成功了##·#￥%……—*（！！！唯一的亮点是看到了Where the Wild Things Are的预告片，期待ing: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XODAzMTYzNDA=.html

- Warren Buffett, The Snowball

I feel like I'm on my back, and there's the Sistine Chapel, and I'm painting away. I like it when people say, "Gee, that's a pretty good-looking painting." But it's my painting, and when somebody says, "Why don't you use more red instead of blue?" Good-bye. It's my painting. And I don't care what they sell it for. The painting itself will never be finished. That's one of the great things about it.

The big question about how people behave is whether they've got an Inner Scorecard or an Outer Scorecard. It helps if you can be satisfied with an Inner Scorecard. I always post it this way. I say: "Look. Would you rather be the world's greatest lover, but have everyone think you're the world's worst lover? Or would you rather be the world's worst lover but have everyone think you're the world's greatest lover?" Now, that's an interesting question.

Here's another one. If the world couldn't see your results, would you rather be thought of as the world's greatest investor but in reality have the world's worst record? Or be thought of as world's worst investor when you were actually the best?

In teaching your kids, I think the lesson they're learning at a very, very early age is what their parents put the emphasis on. If all the emphasis is on what the world's going to think about you, forgetting about how you really behave, you'll wind up with an Outer Scorecard. Now my dad: He was a hundred percent Inner Scorecard guy.

He was really a maverick. But he wasn't a maverick for the sake of being a maverick. He just didn't care what other people thought. My dad taught me how life should be lived. I've never seen anybody quite like him.

MoMA周五傍晚免费，就又蹭进去了。

没想到在三楼中厅，遇见了熟悉的中国……

展品来自中国艺术家宋冬的母亲一生积攒的生活用品，名为“物尽其用”。

前言写道：

”曾几何时，由于物质的乏匮，由于对世事变幻的忧患，也由于传统的节俭美德，人们把暂时无用但可能“一朝有用”的物品竭尽心力地保存下来，经过不断地积累逐渐形成了一种特殊私人财产。无论是裁衣所剩的布头还是灰尘覆盖的瓶瓶罐罐，无论是拆房留下的残砖烂木还是陈旧过时的书刊图片。日复一日，年复一年，这些零碎什物逐渐充满了有限的家庭空间，成为人们日常生活的环境。今天的年轻人很难理解这种“收集”中的酸甜苦辣：如此众多毫无价值的零零碎碎，难道真能构成一个蚕茧般的私人世界，提供虚幻的安全和温暖，甚至引发一丝丝亲密的回忆？但对于这类收藏的许多所有者而言，生活状况和物质条件的改变并无法取代几十年来习惯了的环境和心态，因此他们继续收集——继续拒绝抛弃暂时无用但可能一朝有用的东西。

据我所知，宋冬的这个展览是表现和反思这种生活态度和历史经验的首次尝试。把“物尽其用”转化为艺术契机，他所使用的全部材料都来自他母亲赵湘源多年收存的物品。20世纪的过来人无疑会在这些平凡无奇的陈列品中听到历史的回响，但是单纯的“怀旧”却绝非是艺术家的目的。概而言之，这个展览意在利用当代艺术的手段促成三种转化，以尝试建立艺术与生活之间的新型联系。第一种转化的主体是“物”：赵湘源收集的实用品变成了艺术材料，从私人空间转移到公众空间。……第二种转化的主题是“人”：构成这个展览的并不仅是赵湘源的收集品，而且是她本人。是她为了这个计划重新发掘和整理了自己的物质世界，将其呈现在公众的目光之前，……。第三种转化的主体是人的关系：儿子和母亲成为一项实验艺术计划中的合作者。它们合作和实验的目的超越了狭义上的“艺术”，而是希望在艺术的名义下强化中国文化中的深厚的家庭伦理传统，由此为当代中国艺术中增加了一个新的品种。

任何转化都必须在“时间”中完成，这个展览因此区别于具有明确开幕和闭幕期限的常规艺术展览。在我们的设想中，当赵湘源的私人收集品被陆陆续续地运到展场，当她开始在那里对这些物件进行整理和分类，当宋冬和她围绕着这些物件开始发生一种新的关系，这个展览就已经开始了。观众可以随时进入这个场地，目睹两位艺术家的交流和工作。同样的互动机制也使“撤展”变成展览的一个有机组成部分，因为“物”和“人”的转化在展品逐渐消失的过程中仍将继续。”

又长见识了 - 这就是艺术家和凡人的区别，凡人看见碎布头，而人家艺术家就看见了一个世界。我姥姥也能做艺术家的，怪我这个凡人后辈没觉悟啊……