【禁聞】《北京日報》質疑「總書記」權威

【新唐人2012年4月6日訊】由北京市委書記劉淇控制下的官媒《北京日報》，在胡錦濤出訪外國期間，高調發表文章「總書記不能凌駕中央」，但文章被悄悄撤下後，4月5號《北京日報》又出現一篇「牢記胡錦濤總書記的囑託」。有分析認為，《北京日報》在胡錦濤出訪期間公開談黨的總書記並不是權利的最高機構，可以看出中共背後的高層內鬥已經呈現攤牌的跡象。

3月31號，《北京日報》在顯要位置開設「迎接十八大文萃」專欄，開欄第一篇就是這篇題為《我黨最高領導人何時稱"總書記"的》的文章。

文章說，從黨的組織制度發展史來看，黨內最高領導人的職務並非一開始就稱「總書記」，而且，「總書記」也並非黨的最高領導人的專稱。

文章列舉了中共歷屆黨內最高領導人的職務演變過程，及「總書記」的職務由來之後，斷然結論說：「我黨一直重視強調和實行『集體領導』﹔『總書記』雖是黨內最高領導職務，但並非黨的最高領導機關。」

這篇文章發表後，《新華網》等權威黨媒立即全文轉載，在海內外引起廣泛矚目。4月4號，《北京日報》網路版撤下了文章。5號，《新華網》也刪除轉載。

時事評論家石濤分析，這篇文章得以出爐，跟中共高層主管宣傳的江系人馬李長春有關。

時事評論家石濤：「作為李長春來講，他完全有理由這麼做，因為周永康已經成為了矛盾的中心，那周永康完了，原來的江家幫就完了，所謂的『新四人幫』的說法，就是周永康、李長春、吳邦國還有賈慶林。大家看到賈慶林在賴昌星被審的事情上，現在沒有任何消息，但是，李長春會有可能在過去的幾天裡跟周永康聯手，《北京日報》可以被他直接控制。」

石濤分析，李長春逼迫由北京市委書記劉淇控制下的《北京日報》發了這個消息，無意中就把劉淇拉了進來，給江家幫壯膽。

而《希望之聲電臺》特約評論員蘭述表示，李長春掌管的宣傳系統都對《北京日報》這篇文章做了轉載，可以看出，江繫在最後這場權鬥中仍然不願意輸掉。

《希望之聲電臺》特約評論員蘭述：「應該說是劉淇他手上有鎮壓法輪功的血債，他跟江系是跟的很緊的。那麼現在江系和胡溫鬥爭的焦點在周永康那個地方，那在這種情況之下呢，周永康的一個去留成為一個很關鍵的角色，成為這次鬥爭、胡溫與江系之間鬥爭的一個風向標，在這種情況之下，很顯然周永康目前是處於劣勢的。」

蘭述認為，隨著中國社會各方面的矛盾和危機的表面化，胡溫這一派如果不願意為6.4和鎮壓法輪功承擔責任的話，那麼就必須有一部分人出來承擔這個責任。

採訪/周玉林 編輯/周平 後製/肖顏

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

Beijing Daily Challenges Hu's Authority

During President Hu Jintao's foreign visit, Beijing Daily, under

the control of Beijing Party Secretary Liu Qi, published a high-

profile article, “The Party's General Secretary Can not Override

the Central Committee,” which was removed shortly afterward.

April 5, Beijing Daily published another article “Remember

General Secretary Hu Jintao's Exhortations.”

Critics believe that Beijing Daily's open challenge of Hu's

power hints at a showdown between fighting CCP factions.

Mar 31, Beijing Daily opened a special column on CCP's 18th

National Assembly, which starts with the “Hu's power” article.

The article says that CCP's top leaders were not referred to

as General Secretary from the beginning, and that “General Secretary” does not only refer to the top leader of the Party.

The article introduces the development of CCP's central

institutions of leadership, and the history of the General Secretary position.

It concludes that “Our Party has always emphasized 『collective

leadership』; General Secretary is the Party's top leading position, but not the Party's top leading institution.”

This article was immediately cited in full by Xinhua News

Agency and other CCP mouthpieces, attracting attention worldwide.

April 4, Beijing Daily's website removed the article, and Xinhua

followed suit on April 5.

Political Critic Shi Tao says this article's publication was related

to Li Changchun, a Jiang faction official in charge of propaganda.

Political Critic Shi Tao: “It is completely reasonable for Li

Changchun to do so.

As Zhou Yongkang has become the focus of all conflicts,

his failure would mean the failure of the whole Jiang faction.

The so-called New Gang of Four of the Jiang faction includes

Zhou Yongkang, Li Changchun, Wu Bangguo, and Jia Qinglin.

We haven't heard about Jia Qinglin regarding his involvement

in Lai Changxing's case of smuggling and corruption, but

it is quite likely that Li Changchun has joined forces with

Zhou Yongkang. Beijing Daily may have fallen into his firm control.”

Shi Tao says Li Changchun forced Beijing Daily to publish

the article, which actively recruited Beijing Party Secretary Liu Qi to strengthen the Jiang faction.

Lan Shu, commentator at Sound of Hope Radio,

said the propaganda system controlled by Li Changchun

disseminated Beijing Daily's article, exposing the Jiang faction's

final struggle for power.

Lan Shu, commentator at Sound of Hope Radio: “It should

be noted that Liu Qi joined in the persecution of Falun Gong,

and went on to commit serious crimes.

This links him with the Jiang Faction.

Now the focus of Hu and Jiang's power struggle is Zhou

Yongkang, who has played a pivotal role in the changing situation.

At present Zhou Yongkang is obviously at a disadvantage. ”

Lan said with the surfacing of all conflicts and crises in Chinese

society, some people must take responsibility for

the June Fourth massacre and the persecution of Falun Gong

if Hu and Wen are unwilling to be responsible.