亲爱的《纽约时报》，

在这个夜晚，我难以遏抑想要给你们写信的冲动。《New York Times》，a certainly sexy name，是你们让这份久违的闲情雅致重回我怀抱。

你们太爱写信了，尤其爱给我们的男一号写信。据我所知，胡锦涛先生、习近平先生都收到过你们的公开表白。就在几天前，你们发表了著名媒体人，《世界是平的》一书作者托马斯•弗里德曼给习近平主席的公开信，主旨是为西方记者求情讨要签证。

但这不是习大大第一次收信，也不是弗先生第一次写信。所以，双方都是有经验的人。不如来让我说些有经验的话吧。

先说习大大收到的第一封信。在他尚未履职之时，2012年2月10日，你们发表公开信《十问中国接班人》（当时奥巴马也在换届中），作者是美国乔治•华盛顿大学中国政策研究室主任David Shambaugh。他还有一个看上去很粗大的中国名字：沈大伟。

沈大伟措辞粗暴，被时在美国得克萨斯大学任教的陈平教授指为完全不顾基本外交礼仪，近乎挑衅。比如作者问：“习近平具备足够强大的政治影响力来与当前残暴的体制抗衡吗？”“习近平将如何应对非洲、中东和拉丁美洲对中国疯狂掠夺资源的援助和贸易政策所表现出的强烈不满？”盛气凌人，上来就给中国预设罪名，惹得陈平老先生兴起，撰文《十问美国接班人》针锋相对。那是多么富有基情的一次交锋，《纸牌屋》、《唐顿庄园》之类只能望其项背。

不过说实话，亲爱的《纽约时报》，沈大伟的那封信写得真烂。简直把自己降格为喜剧里的滑稽人物。看过中国喜剧明星周星驰骂人的桥段吗？比如“虽然你如此卑鄙下流无耻，但我……”巴拉巴拉之类，可讨人一笑，但上不了大国外交的舞台。

不过，不会有人当真。我们的那位成熟男人只会对此一笑了之。他没有动静，但是他会知道，而且你们也知道他知道。你们也一定知道，出来混总是要还的。

即便如此，在我眼中《纽约时报》始终都是有风情的媒体。沈大伟虽然言辞不堪，但仍有一种粗蛮的土豪魅力，即使学者头衔也掩盖不住他那颗西部牛仔的心。而这一次，弗里德曼卷土重来，却改头换面变了一幅腔调。12月15日，面对已经主掌大局一年的习大大，这个媒体老戏骨表现出了一种既克制又刻薄的王熙凤作风……（弗里德曼读过《红楼梦》没有？毛主席推荐大家都读一读。）

你们对我们的男一号如此执着，惹得我也忍不住要插足一番。

先说弗里德曼的上一封公开信，2011年6月写给胡锦涛主席。那时就已经表现出了这种风情。当时他玩起了角色反串，以中国国家安全局官员的口气劝进胡总：从突尼斯到叙利亚，阿拉伯民众要求的不仅仅是面包、GDP，还有“尊严”，尊严只能以政治自由化和民主化程度为衡量标准。所以中国经济再好，如果不仿效西方的政治体制也是要爆发“北京之春”的。

虽然弗里德曼先生把中国比作中东这很糊涂，而且忘了当时正蓬勃的“华尔街之春”，但我还是欣赏弗里德曼的才情。我在中国优秀情色专栏作家的笔下经常看到此类角色反串，比如一个女人把自己想象成一部电脑桌。在此类情景剧里，山姆大叔一般喜欢扮演穿警服举皮鞭的角色，但这一次却是反披中国制服，实在有一种内奸的性感。

弗里德曼显然模仿了电影《窃听风暴》里的桥段。不过那是在斯诺登曝光棱镜门事件之前，否则他就不会这么干了。

明知道对方不会听你说，但仍然这样表演，这实际是一种妩媚。我当然知道，这封信是写给中国的，或者说写给仰望美国的那部分中国人，也确实会得到他们的pure love，虽然他们的爱比较天真，并不是你们喜欢的成熟类型。

我很喜欢弗氏这封新的表白书。

弗氏首先宣布自己属于全球投资界里看好中国的那一派，区别于唱衰中国的另一派。我喜欢弗氏的直接，他说的是投资界，而不会像希拉里一样说的是普世思想界。为了美国实际的国家利益，弗氏才愿意屈尊做如此表白。这是多么坦诚的感情，没有利益就没有真爱。

紧接着，弗氏弱弱地说，最近中国的一些举动让他怀疑习大大治下的系统没有他想的那么稳固，也就是说有两家美国媒体中文版被封，有20多位记者尚未获得延期签证。然后开始以小见大——记者受到如此对待是因为他们揭露了中国的高层腐败。不过习大大不应该怪罪记者，这只是网络科技发达和官员腐败带来的必然后果。在全球化时代，西方记者不能不关注这些事情。“《纽约时报》和彭博社对此类事件的曝光极大地帮助了您的领导工作。这是心脏病发作前的一种警告。”

心脏病？弗里德曼真了解中国，这可是市井吵架常用的诅咒。弗氏在示爱之后才开始表达自己的小小不满，做深明大义状，一边示爱又一边刻薄。这简直是赛金花才能达到的境界。

他继而小心翼翼地警告：倘若得不到签证，记者们就会在香港台湾韩国继续报道，而且因为失去现场考察机会，报道会更加不平衡。这几乎是在暗示做交易了——“给我签证，我们在报道腐败的时候可以配合你们。”他最后提问：“当财富集中在顶层、权力在底层散布、透明度无处不在的时候，会发生一些什么事情。”会发生什么事情呢？弗氏给的答案是占领华尔街、斯诺登事件。这太有趣了。

我得承认，弗里德曼的手段甚至让我都有些晕头转向了。我不知道，这到底是他为了礼貌而先说自己国家的阴暗面以“起兴”呢，还是实际上他本来就是想借着给习写信来讽谏你们美国？我理解像弗里德曼这样美国有识之士的焦虑。他刚刚赞美过上海的中学教育，焦灼于美国教育的落后，他甚至深谙美国的“体制问题”，以至于说“过去任何时候去中国和新加坡，要为民主问题辩解的总是当地人。现在，唯恐避之不及的变成了美国人。”可能，你们内心已经感觉到要犯心脏病的是美国，只是难以直接说出口？

无论如何，我尊重弗里德曼先生为美国国家利益所做的努力，就像我和我的同伴们也会为中国人民的利益做点努力。在一个不再有“共产国际”的世界上，一个美国人不远千里跑来发言声称是为了中国利益，也可以算是国际主义精神了。但是他这么焦急，显得有点大题小做，而且还有点……我实在不好意思说出口，考虑到著名的《经济学人》杂志今年曾经把我国男一号画成穿龙袍的样子，表达了你们心目中对习大大的实际崇拜，所以一句中国古话就呼之欲出了，叫做“□□不急□□急”。

至于部分记者的遭遇，说实话，我不清楚。我见过其中的一些人，确实很优秀。我个人希望能很快再次见到他们。我想双方都需要各自有所调整。只是，让我告诉你们，你们致信的那位，以我通过媒体获得的观察来看，颇似受到贵国电影《黑衣人》里威尔•史密斯的影响。史密斯对一个向自己示爱的女人说：“必须我主动！”所以《纽约时报》们不要着急，不要太主动。（下一个来表白的会是谁？克鲁格曼先生？）

至于腐败问题，以我的身份只能说：要相信中国政府和媒体处理腐败的能力。何况弗里德曼近期的一系列文章都清楚表明，他认为中国政府这方面的能力胜过了美国。

《纽约时报》也应该高兴，如果你在中国被封（实际我们还有很多办法看到你的容颜），也从另一面肯定了你们设置议程的能力。《环球时报》认为你们想成为掌控中国舆论的超级媒体帝国——我不完全同意。我个人认为，你们的记者乃至大使并不一定有弗里德曼的见识，他们对舆论的操控超越了分寸，演化成宣传和恐吓。你看看，一个小小的pm2.5，在工业社会本不是稀奇事，也可以逐步解决，现在已经被炒作成了一个大议程，炒作成了中国中产阶级的噩梦，人快没法活了。他们天天嚷嚷着要移民，完全忘了当今世界大势是，聪明人争着到中国生活，“民主灯塔”台湾现在有150万人来了大陆就不肯走。美国人也不少。至于你们宣称，作为报复，正在考虑要不要拒签中国记者，我个人建议是没什么问题的，那样可以避免我们“浪费纳税人的钱”。

如果我们不能很快相见，不如就暂时分开一阵。距离产生美，让我们都有空间来反思一下我们彼此的感情。我们也想好好面对自身媒体能力的不足。你们的来信也提醒我们要拿捏好分寸，甄别对待，不要打击了那些真心热爱中国的国际友人。

期待和你们再次相逢。Just here waiting for you！

祝健康！

一个中国好朋友

英文版（the english version）见下一页

How Could I Not Write to you, New York Times

This night, I can’t help writing to you. It’s you, New York Times, a certainly charming name, that makes such leisure return to me after a long time.

You really love writing letters , especially to our number one leading roles. As far as I know, both Mr. Hu Jintao and Mr. Xi Jinping have received your public expression. Just a few days ago, you posted Dear President of China by Thomas Friedman, the famous journalist, author of The World Is Flat, aiming to plead for visas for several western journalists.

But this was not the first time that Mr. Xi received a letter, nor was it the first time that Mr. Friedman wrote a letter. In that case, both are experienced. So, Why not let me say something of experience.

Let’s talk about Mr. Xi’s first received letter. Before Mr. Xi took office, you published an open letter Ten Questions for China's Heir Presumptive on February 10th, 2012, while Obama was to participate in a new presidential campaign. The author was David Shambaugh, Director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University. And he has a gross Chinese name: Shen Dawei (沈大伟).

Shambaugh wrote harshly,was criticized for his total ignorance of diplomatic etiquette and his provocation by Professor Chen Ping, who was then a visiting scholar at the University of Texas. For instance, the autor asked, “Will Xi be sufficiently confident to all the relaxation of tightened controls on mainstream media, social media, the Internet and educational institutions?”, ”How will Xi handle the growing discontent across Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America over China’s rapacious and mercantilist energy, aid and trade policies?”

In such a domineering manner, Shambaugh pre-convicted China. Mr. Chen Ping was therefore irritated and wrote Ten questions for the US leader presumptive, tit for tat. Such a mazing would even leave the dramas like House of Cards, Downton Abbey far behind.

But indeed, dear NYT, Shambaugh’s letter was so terrible . He almost degraded himself to a clownish comic role. Have you ever watched how the Chinese comic star Stephen Chow swears in his movies, including “although you are so mean and shameless, I still…”? Blah blah. It may amuse people, but could not be put on the stage of great diplomacy.

However, nobody would take it seriously. That mature man of ours would only smile at it. It seemed that he did not take any reaction, but he would know, and you all knew that he knew.

Even so, NYT has always been a charming media in my eyes. Though Shambaugh’s words were harsh，there was still a crude fascination of tuhao. Even the title of scholar can’t conceal his cowboy mind. But this time, Friedman staged a comeback, whereas with a new tone. On December 15th, Friedman, facing Mr. Xi, who has been in power for one year, presented a Wang-Xifeng style of restraint and acrimony. (Has Friedman read Dream of the Red Chamber? Chairman Mao once recommended everybody reading it.)

Your enthusiasm on our Big man was so strong that it lured me to join.

To start with Friedman’s last open letter, written to President Hu Jintao in June, 2011. He played a travesty role as a Chinese official in the Ministry of State Security and advised to Mr. Hu that the Arabians requested not only for bread or GDP, but also for “dignity”, while dignity could only be measured by the votes. Therefore, however prosperous Chinese economy was, uprisings like “the Beijing Spring” might happen if China didn’t follow the western political system.

Mr. Friedman compared China as the Middle East, which was a wooly-headed idea, and forgot the booming “Wallstreet Spring” at the same time. Even so, I still admire his talent. I always see such travesty roles in works by excellent columnists of erotic literature. For example, a woman would imagine herself to be a computer desk. In such kind of dramas, Uncle Sam usually enjoys playing a role in cop costumes, holding a whip. While this time, he puts on a Chinese suit, showing a sexy feeling as a traitor.

Friedman apparently copied the film The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen). But that was before the exposure of the US surveillance program PRISM by Edward Snowden, or else he wouldn’t have done so.

Clearly aware of your not being heard, you still insisted on performing in such a way. This is actually fascinating. Of course I know that the letter was written to China, or rather, to those Chinese people who looked up to the U.S.. I think you can be sure of getting their pure love, which is na?ve, instead of the mature type that you like.

I like this new open letter by Mr. Friedman very much.

He first claimed that he led toward the camp in the global investment community that was optimistic about China, different from the other camp that screams short of China. I love his straightforwardness. Unlike Hilary always mentioned the universal value, Friedman referred to the business. It was for the actual state interests of the U.S. that Friedman would confess in a condescending manner. How frank it was. Without interests, love is never true love.

Then, Mr. Friedman murmured that the system under control of Mr. Xi was not as stable as he had imagined, according to what China did recently, i.e., two Chinese-language websites of U.S. media were blocked, and more than 20 journalists in China got refused for their visa renewal. He then expressed the whole through details – the journalist were treated like this because they disclosed the corruption among the high level government officials. However, Mr. Xi shouldn’t have blame the journalists. It was a necessary result of developed internet technology and corruption of the officials. In the era of globalization, the western journalists have to pay attention to these. “The Times and Bloomberg did your leadership a huge service in exposing this. It was a warning heart attack.”

Heart attack? How well Friedman knows about China. This is a common curse in quarrels on the streets. After showing his love, Mr. Friedman began to express his discontent, as if deeply conscious of everything, lovingly and meanly. Indeed, only Sai Jinhua(Seth Meyers, you know that woman ) could reach such a level.

Then he carefully warned: if the reporters did not get the visas, they would continue to report in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, and their reports would be more unbalanced as they could not be on site. It was almost implying business,, ”Give me the visa, then we can cooperate with you in reporting corruption." Finally he asked,what would happen “when wealth gets concentrated at the top, power gets distributed at the bottom and transparency gets injected everywhere" So what will happen? Friedman’s answer is Occupation of Wall Street and the Snowden event. How funny!

I have to admit that Friedman's means even makes me somewhat dizzy. I don’t know what’s his purpose of disclosing America’s dark side. Was it just for politeness so that he could criticize more about China, or he was intended to satirize the United States by writing to Xi？But I really know the anxiety of such sober people like Friedman in the United States. He was just praising Shanghai’s secondary school education, and was anxious about the backward of American education. He even knows it is an ”Institutional issue” in the U.S., and said "it is always the locals defending democracy when going to China and Singapore any time in the past, but now, it is the Americans instead." I guess, are you too embarrassed to say it out even if you have already been aware that the United States is to undergo heart attack?

Anyhow, I respect Mr. Friedman’s efforts for America’s national interests.My companions and I are doing the same for China. In a world without Comintern, an American spares no effort to make the statement and claimed that all that he said was for China's interests, which may also be regarded as internationalist spirit. However, his anxiety seemed really exaggerating and it’s somewhat...It is really awkward for me to say. Given the famous magazine the Economist this year depicted President X JP wearing Imperial Robe expressing that you are actually worshiping him in your mind.,a Chinese old saying could be vividly portrayed, which is "The emperor doesn’t worry while his e□□u□h worries."

As with what had happened to some reporters, to be honest, I do not know. I've met some of them who are really outstanding. Personally, I hope to see them again soon. I think both sides need some adjustment. But let me tell you, from my perspective, the one to whom you wrote, might be influenced by your country’s movie “Men in Black" in which Will Smith said to a woman who was showing love to him: "I should take the initiative!" So， "New York Times"， take it easy! Don't be too proactive. (who will be the next to make confession? Mr. Krugman? )

As for corruption, in my stand ，I can only says that you’d better trust the capability of Chinese government and media’s to deal with it. Besides, Mr. Friedman’s recent series of articles have made ??it clear that he believes the Chinese government is more able to deal with this issue than the U.S.

On the other hand, the New York times should be happy, as your being blocked in China (actually we have various ways to see your beautiful face), is the affirmation of your ability to set the agenda. The Global Times believes that you want to be the super media empire to control China's public opinion, which I don't entirely agree. Personally, I don’t think your correspondents or even ambassador have Friedman's insight, as their excessive manipulation of public opinion was beyond the limit, and evolved into propaganda and intimidation. As you can see,. the pm2.5issue in an industrial society is not surprising at all and it can also be solved gradually. And yet it has become a big issueby sensationalization,becoming a nightmare for the Chinese middle class. who clamor every day that they cannot live through in China unless migrate, totally ignoring the fact -that in currentt world, wise people are scrambling to live in China. At present, about 1.5 million Taiwanese refused to go back to their "democratic beacon" after living in Mainland China. There are also many Americans thinking the same way. As to your claim,you are considering refusal to Chinese journalists’ visa as revenge, my personal perspective is that it’s completely okay, so that we can avoid “wasting taxpayers' money”.

If we can't meet soon, it would be better to separate for a while. Distance creates beauty. Both sides may have space to introspect our feelings. Your letter also reminds us of taking good discretion and discriminate carefully, avoiding hurting those international friends who really love China.

Look forward to meet you again! Just here waiting for you!

Good health!

A good fella from China

________________________________________________

Author: Yuliang, the chief commentator of the Observer Post (www.observersnews.com)

observersnews.com is the famous civil media in China which foucs on the political and economic news ,especially ‘Chinese model’ . Eric.Li and Zhangweiwei,who are columnists of NYT and The Huffington Post used to first published all their aricles(Chinese version) on observersnews.com.

————————————————————————————

NOTICE: This letter is written in Chinglish, the most powerful language in future,so if you can't understand it well for now,don't worry.You would get it.