中国观察 

 

毛泽东秘书日记的归属 中美间一场关于“历史纪念碑”的法律之战

 

据信北京是这场旨在封锁共产党高层内幕诉讼的幕后推手

艾米·霍金斯 资深中国问题记者 

2024.8.18（星期日）

1989 年 6 月 4 日凌晨，中共老党员李锐站在北京市中心长安街公寓的阳台上。他看到坦克驶向天安门广场。 数周以来，多达一百万抗议者在北京广场和平集会，要求进行政治改革。但他们失败了。相反，正如李锐从他独特的有利位置观察到的那样，军队开火，造成数千名平民死亡。这是中国近代史上最严重的大屠杀。“士兵们用机枪乱射，有时向地面射击，有时向天空射击，”李锐在日记中写道，一个“黑色的周末”。这一历史事件不过是中国政府一直试图系统地扭曲和抹去的上千历史事件中的一个。很少有人，尤其是像李这样的人，从 1938 年到 2018 年，一丝不苟，日复一日地详细地记录下中国历史动荡年代中他自己的亲身经历。现在，这些日记成了一场激烈诉讼的焦点，该诉讼将于周一开庭审理。

李锐生于 1917 年，年轻时是个理想主义者，后来加入了共产党。1949 年共产党夺取政权后，他一步步晋升，于 1958 年成为毛泽东的私人秘书。但好景不长。在文化大革命的动乱中，李锐遭受政治迫害，包括被单独监禁八年多（南央注：此处与事实有出入，李锐是1959年庐山会议后即被开除党籍，受到迫害）。直到 1976 年毛泽东去世，（南央注：毛泽东去世两年多后的1979年初）李锐才重返党内高层。他后来成为自由派、改革派中最直言不讳的成员之一，从内部观察了他所熟悉的习近平的统治下，压制异见的情况愈演愈烈。

因此，李锐的这些日记是至关重要的档案。“无论怎么强调它们的重要性都不为过，”斯坦福大学胡佛研究所研究员约瑟夫·托里吉安 (Joseph Torigian) 表示。本周一，加利福尼亚州的一家法院（而不是中国）将开庭审理李锐日记归属权一案，这是自李锐于 2019 年 2 月去世（享年 101 岁）后，五年以来围绕着他的精神遗产的法律纠纷的高潮。

在李锐去世前的几年里，居住在美国的女儿李南央一直在扫描、抄录和编目父亲的资料，并最终将它们转移到胡佛研究所，该研究所是美国最大的中共历史档案馆。李南央和斯坦福大学声称，这是李锐的意愿。例如，李锐在他2017 年 1 月 30 日的日记中记述了与妻子张玉珍讨论“我的日记问题”的谈话，张玉珍说：“同意我的决定……让胡佛保留日记。” 但是 2019 年 3 月 21 日，李锐遗孀的律师却写信给斯坦福大学，声称她拥有这些日记，并要求归还。这位 89 岁的老人很快在北京提起诉讼，称她是李锐遗产的合法继承人。同年 5 月，斯坦福大学在加州提起诉讼，要求撤销张玉珍对这些资料的所有权。世界顶级大学与一位年迈寡妇之间的法律纠纷由此展开。斯坦福大学认为，这位寡妇不过是中国政府的幌子，如今已年逾九旬的张女士为何要花费数年时间和数百万美元争夺一批日记？ 

张女士的律师没有回应采访请求，只是表示，这些资料事关隐私，辩称，这些材料含有“非常隐私”的内容，包括“私人亲密内容的通信”。对张玉珍隐私的“持续侵犯”已造成对她“严重的情感困扰”。 但其他人对此表示怀疑。斯坦福大学的律师辩称：“种种迹象表明……中华人民共和国正在幕后操纵这场诉讼。简而言之，张女士没有能力支付她聘请的律师费。”张女士的律师否认中国政府有任何干预。

“这完全是为了控制，”伊恩·约翰逊 (Ian Johnson) 说，他曾写过一本关于类似李锐那样的一些非官方中国历史学家的书。在中国领导人习近平的领导下，党明确表示“不能允许对过去发生的事情有不同的叙述”。 在许多国家，政治领导人的日记会被存放在档案馆中，供研究人员或公众查阅。在中国，情况恰恰相反。2013 年，习近平警告不要“历史虚无主义”。对于历史学家来说，这意味着，在一段相对开放的时期之后，档案馆一个接一个地被关闭。2012 年，外交部档案馆即被突然关闭，次年重新开放时，90% 的材料已被删改。 这使得李锐的日记对研究者来说更具有特别的价值。

“细节令人难以置信，”历史学家弗兰克·冯客说。关于精英政治的见解隐藏在他在游泳池里游了多少圈、晚上起床上多少次厕所的笔记中。仅就记述了那些国内事务的细节而言，冯客说，李锐日记在今天的中国向公众开放即是一件无法想像的事情。“当你垄断权力时，你就会对保密产生痴迷。” 

李锐敏锐地意识到了这种趋势。2013 年，他在一次采访中说：“党内有关文化大革命的机密材料……我听说它们全都烧掉了。”斯坦福大学利用李锐的这些谈话聊天，证明将他的文字资料保存在胡佛研究所是他本人的意愿。但张的律师在李锐的不少文字和采访中找到了他们自己的证据。2014 年，李锐[在接受一次参访时]说：“李南央是李南央，我是我，我的想法和观点众所周知，并在我的书籍和文章中都有表达。李南央是我的女儿，但她不能代表我，我也不允许她代表我。” 

李南央本人是中共的激烈批评者，她并不否认自己和父亲并不总是意见一致。“他想救党。这不是我的想法……但这并不表明我父亲不会和我合作[捐赠]他的史料。” 张否认将李锐日记隐藏起来不让公众知道是一种密谋。她的法律诉讼文件指出，她只是要求归还李锐手写的原始日记，而不是胡佛存有的全部文件，胡佛可以自由地为研究人员复印。（南央：张玉珍在中国法庭的诉讼标是李锐资料原件，那时中共并不知道胡佛还存有李锐日记的扫描件和录入件等其他形式的资料。当胡佛在2019年4月22日举办了李锐资料发佈会后，中共了解到了其他形式资料的存在，在美国提起的反诉中，张玉珍将所有形式的李锐资料都包括在了要求归还的诉讼标内。） 

但历史学家表示，原始手稿至关重要，尤其是在历史存在争议时。“手写日记至关重要，”冯客说。“因为，最终，这才是整个事情的依据。可信度取决于此。” 李锐“应该知道 [日记] 在中国公开有多难，”约翰逊说。“我认为他非常想把它们捐给胡佛。” 

李去世时没有留下遗嘱。他的女儿说，这是因为如果他公开自己的意愿，包括正式公证遗嘱，他将面临政府的麻烦。张的律师引用了一份[打印的]遗嘱草稿，其中李锐说他的子女“不得参与出版我的日记”。斯坦福大学表示从未见过这份草稿的证据。北京一家法院很久以前就判决张胜诉。李南央的妹妹在北京提起了第二起诉讼，要求归还与他们的母亲（李锐的第一任妻子）有关的文件，法庭判决归还这些材料。但是40 个装满李锐密密麻麻的手迹，记录了 20 世纪中国戏剧性且常常令人沮丧的发展的箱子，目前仍存放在斯坦福大学。一些法律专家指出，本周的审判其实只是一个简单的问题，即美国法院是否应该尊重外国司法管辖区的裁决。但对于学者来说，风险是无法承担之高。冯客称这些日记是“历史的纪念碑”。

 

The Observer China 

‘Monument to history‘ battle between 

US and China over future of Mao’s secretary’s diary 

Beijing is believed to be behind court bid to secure account of life inside Communist HQ 

Amy Hawkins Senior China correspondent 

Sun 18 Aug 2024 00.00 EDT 

In the early hours of 4 June 1989, Li Rui, a veteran of the Chinese Communist party (CCP), was standing on the balcony of his apartment on Chang’an Boulevard in central Beijing. He could see tanks rolling towards Tiananmen Square. 

For weeks, up to a million protesters had been gathering peacefully in Beijing’s plaza, demanding political reform. But they failed. Instead, as Li observed from his unique vantage point, troops opened fire, killing an estimated several thousands of civilians. It was the worst massacre in recent Chinese history. “Soldiers firing randomly with their machine guns, sometimes shooting the ground and sometimes shooting toward the sky,” Li wrote in his diary. A “black weekend“. 

The first–hand account of an event that the Chinese government has systematically tried to distort and erase from the historical record is one of thousands of observations noted in Li’s diaries, which he kept meticulously between 1938 and 2018. Few people, especially not of Li’s stature, have kept such detailed records of this tumultuous era in Chinese history. Now those diaries are the subject of a hotly disputed lawsuit, the trial of which begins on Monday. 

Born in 1917, Li joined the Communist party as a young idealist. After the communists seized power in 1949, he rose through the ranks to become Mao’s personal secretary in 1958. But it wasn’t to last. Amid the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution, Li was subjected to political persecution, including more than eight years in solitary confinement. It wasn’t until Mao died in 1976 that Li returned to the senior party ranks. He went on to become one of the most outspoken members of the liberal, reformist faction, observing from the inside the silencing of dissent that has intensified under the rule of his personal acquaintance Xi Jinping. 

Li’s papers are, therefore, thus a crucial archive. “It’s hard to overstate their significance,” says Joseph Torigian, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. But on Monday, a court in California, not China, will begin hearing a trial about the fate of those diaries, the culmination of five years of legal wrangling that have complicated Li’s legacy since he died in February 2019, at the age of 101. 

For several years before his death, Li’s daughter Li Nanyang, who lives in the US, had been scanning, transcribing and cataloguing her father’s papers, and ultimately transferred them to the Hoover Institution, the leading archive for CCP history in the US. Li Nanyang and Stanford claim that this was in line with Li’s wishes. On 30 January 2017, for example, he recorded a meeting with his wife, Zhang Yuzhen, to talk about “the issue of my diaries“. Zhang “agreed with my decision … having Hoover retain the diaries“, he wrote. 

But on 21 March 2019, a lawyer for Li’s widow wrote to Stanford, asserting her ownership of the diaries and seeking their return. The 89–year–old soon filed a lawsuit in Beijing, arguing that she was the rightful heir to Li’s estate. In May that year, Stanford filed a countersuit in California to eliminate Zhang’s claims to the materials. And so began a legal battle between one of the world’s top universities and an ageing widow – who, Stanford argues, is a front for the Chinese government. 

Why would Zhang, who is now well into her 90s, spend several years and millions of dollars fighting over a collection of diaries? 

Lawyers for Zhang, who did not respond to interview requests, say it is about privacy. The materials reflect “deeply personal” affairs, including “intimate correspondence“, her lawyers argue. The “ongoing violations” of her privacy have caused “severe emotional distress“. 

But others are sceptical. “By all indications… the PRC [People’s Republic of China] is running this litigation behind the scenes,” lawyers for Stanford have argued. “To put it simply, Ms Zhang lacks the financial ability to pay the attorneys‘ fees being incurred on her behalf.” Zhang’s lawyers deny there has been any interference from the Chinese government. 

“It’s simply about control,” says Ian Johnson, author of a book about China’s unofficial historians, such as Li. Under Xi Jinping, China’s leader, the party has made it clear that it “can’t allow competing narratives of what happened in the past“. 

In many countries, the diaries of a political leader would be housed in an archive, available to researchers or the public. In China, the opposite is true. In 2013, Xi warned against “historical nihilism“. For historians, that has meant that, after a period of relative openness, archive after archive has been shuttered. In 2012, the archives of the foreign ministry 

abruptly closed, reopening the following year with 90% of the materials redacted. 

That makes Li’s diaries particularly valuable to researchers. “The detail is mind–boggling,” says Frank Dikötter, a historian. Insights into elite politics are buried among notes about how many laps he swam in the pool, and how many times he got up to use the bathroom at night. Domestic details notwithstanding, Dikötter says it’s unimaginable that his diaries could be displayed in today’s China. “When you have a monopoly over power, you develop an obsession with secrecy.” 

Li was keenly aware of this trend. In 2013, he said in an interview: “There are classified materials of the party about the Cultural Revolution… I heard it was all burned.” Such titbits have been marshalled by Stanford to argue that Li wanted his papers preserved at Hoover. But Zhang’s lawyers have found their own bits of evidence in Li’s voluminous writings and interviews. In 2014, he said, “Li Nanyang is Li Nanyang, and I am myself. My thoughts and opinions are well known and expressed in my books and articles. Li Nanyang is my daughter, but she can’t represent me, and I don’t allow her to represent me.” 

Li Nanyang, a fierce CCP critic herself, doesn’t dispute the fact that she and her father didn’t always see eye to eye. “He wanted to save the party. That’s not my idea… This is not something that demonstrates that my father won’t work with me [to donate] his historical materials.” 

Zhang denies that there is a plot to hide the Li Rui diaries from the public. Her legal filings note that she is only seeking the return of his original handwritten diaries, not the full collection of papers at Hoover, and that Hoover is free to make copies for researchers. 

But historians say that original manuscripts are vital, especially when history is contested. It’s “crucial that you have the handwritten ones,” says Dikötter. 

“Because, ultimately, that’s what the whole thing relies on. The credibility relies on that.” 

Li “would have known how difficult it would have been for [the diaries] to see the light of day [in China],” says Johnson. “I think very much that he wanted to donate them to Hoover.” 

Li died without a will. His daughter says that this is because if he had made his intention public, including getting a will formally notarised, he would have faced trouble from the government. Zhang’s lawyers have quoted from a draft will, in which Li stated that his children “must not participate in the publication of my diaries“. Stanford says it has never seen evidence of this draft. 

A court in Beijing long ago ruled in Zhang’s favour. A second lawsuit filed in Beijing by Li Nanyang’s sister, seeking the return of the papers relating to their mother, Li Rui’s first wife, also resulted in a judgment that the materials should be returned. But the 40 boxes full of pages and pages of Li’s dense scrawl, documenting the dramatic and often darkening developments of China in the 20th century, for now remain at Stanford. Some legal experts 

have pointed out that this week’s trial could simply be a question of whether a US court should respect a ruling made in a foreign jurisdiction. But for scholars, the stakes are higher. The diaries are “a monument to history”, says Dikötter. 

 

原文连接：https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/18/monument-to-history-battle-between-us-and-china-over-future-of-maos-secretarys-diary