我们通常把4月15日胡耀邦逝世日作为纪念“六四”的开端。不过，今年，这个开端早了3天。今天，美国证券交易委员会U.S. Security & Exchange Committee (SEC)和高盛Goldman Sachs Group公司同时发布了高盛2013年股东大会的内容，其中的第5号提案（前4个是董事会的提案）就是我的设立人权委员会提案[1]，全文如下：

Resolution for the 2013 Shareholders Meeting on Human Rights Committee

Resolved:  Shareholders recommend that Goldman Sachs Group establish a Human Rights Committee to review, assess, disclose, and make recommendations to enhance the company’s corporate policy and practice on human rights. The board of directors is recommended, by resolution, in its discretion and consistent with applicable laws to: (1) adopt Goldman Sachs Human Rights Principles, (2) designate the members of the committee, including outside relevant human rights experts, (3) provide the committee with sufficient funds for operating expenses, (4) adopt a charter to specify the powers of the committee, (5) empower the committee to solicit public input and to issue periodic reports to shareholders and the public, on the committee’s activities, findings and recommendations, and (6) adopt any other measures.

Supporting Statement

From the Chinese Tiananmen tragedy in 1989 to the “Arab Spring” movement today, human rights issues have become the most important international concerns for every corporation doing business globally.  Human rights violations also occurred by big corporations in advanced democratic society. For example, News Corp. opposed my human rights proposal at the 2010 shareholders meeting before its scandals were exposed to the public.  The human rights concern of international companies doing business in repressive countries is from the core issue of legitimacy.  Goldman Sachs Statement on Human Rights only applies to countries where "national governments bear the primary responsibility for ensuring human rights".  However, since human rights concerns mainly happen in countries where governments do not "bear the primary responsibility for ensuring human rights," our company needs to establish a human rights committee for our business in countries where the governments are not democratically elected or the authorities are not accountable to or responsible for their people. 

In regard to China, our CEO and Audit Committee Chair listed their positions at Tsinghua University (where I was a Nuclear Physics student against the US and the Soviet Union in 1980-85) as a qualification for re-election.  The book "On the Brink: inside the race to stop the collapse of the global financial system" by our former CEO Henry Paulson said, "from having virtually no presence there at all in 1992, we went to having perhaps 1,500 people in the country when I left Goldman in 2006. In that time I made about 70 trips to China."  "I had been invited to an upcoming lunch on April 20 at the White House in honor of Chinese president Hu Jintao."  "I flew to Washington for the Hu Jintao lunch, and I met beforehand with Zhou Xiaochuan, the Chinese central bank governor."  "In my concluding meeting with President Hu Jintao... Hu and I then adjourned to a private meeting."   These strongly demonstrate our business in China, where people’s basic human rights are severely violated (for example, I was deprived of my citizenship without any written document, because I organized human rights activities in Japan during the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre). 

我在“改进Goldman Sachs Group高盛集团的社会政策的尝试”[2]一文中“说明高盛在中国从国家社会主义向国家资本主义的历史性转换中起到了任何别的机构都不能替代的政治、经济和社会功能。”“我以1989年天安门事件和近来阿拉伯之春为例，指出公司应该制定全球性的企业社会责任政策。特别就中国而言，公司的两名重要董事（CEO和审计委员会主席）都把在清华大学的头衔作为参选董事的资格之一[3]，却没有任何社会政策考虑间接受害于公司业务的中国普通民众，面临着legitimacy（正当性）的问题。”“指出现有的人权声明先把人权的责任推给政府，很不严肃，因为对人权的最大侵害担忧就是来自政府，公司的人权政策就是要制定出如何在民主或非民主的国家做生意时不违反人权原则，以及在违犯的情况下如何补救的机制。……特别指出：公司与基辛格、江泽民、胡锦涛、朱镕基、周小川、清华大学等的关系无法增加公司在中国做生意的正当性，只有设立人权委员会可以做到这一点，而我们有意愿和能力帮助公司。”“我特意加入高盛原CEO、也是2008年金融危机时美国财政部长Henry Paulson在其大著 "On the Brink: inside the race to stop the collapse of the global financial system"中的豪言：‘从1992年到我离开高盛时的2006年，我们在中国从无到有1千5百名员工，其间我去了中国70趟。’‘我4月20日被邀请去白宫与中国国家主席胡锦涛共进午餐。’‘我和胡锦涛会议完后，胡和我私下会见。’”

不过，高盛同时影响美国两大政党，甚至直接出马执掌财务大臣的时代过去了，我乐观地估计高盛不会拒绝我的提案。没想到，高盛2012年12月21日向SEC发出排除我的提案的信件，列举三大理由，其中还包括对我参与人权运动经历的疑问[4]。我12月28日立即向SEC提出反驳[5]，同时指出高盛在这样严肃的文件中连基本的due diligence尽职调查也没有履行：如果高盛有诚意，我可以提供我的清华毕业证书、日本媒体（包括《朝日新闻》2009年6月8日为纪念“六四”20周年对我当年受到日本当局迫害的采访）报道、以及我2009年9月23日致函刚上台的首相鸠山要求他的民主党政府公开当年自民党政府迫害我们中国留学生的档案资料[6]等。

今年3月8日，我接到SEC署名2月7日的回复文件[7]。仔细阅读之后，我不禁放声大笑：SEC的律师们毕竟没有白吃我们的税金、美国的民主毕竟还有活力！在这封信里，Attorney-Adviser律师-顾问Kate Beukenkamp驳斥了高盛的两大排除理由，只对其中之一表示“appears to be some basis好象有点道理”。要是在以往，这就枪毙了我的提案，只好明年再挑战了。但今年，这封信接着说：“It appears that this defect could be cured, however但是，这个缺欠好像能够被改好”。只要我在7天之内把带有法律必须口气的require强求一词改为中性的request要求或更柔软的recommend推荐，就可以改正“缺欠”了！看来，SEC的律师照顾到英文是我的第三语言，容许我在这样关键的地步提高我的英文水平。我立即照办，致函高盛和SEC改正了提案中的这个“缺欠”。

高盛3月13日致函SEC和我，只得接受把我的提案列入今年的股东大会表决，却马上很不严肃地用已经被SEC回绝的理由作为董事会声明反对我的提案[8]！董事会这样做，大概是认为或期待高盛的绝大多数股东或者没有头脑、或者对人权意识麻木不仁。而且，董事会把会场从联合国等国际人权机构林立的公司曼哈顿总部变到了宗教保守、人口稀少的尤他州的盐湖地带，难道一个极小股东的人权提案就那么可怕？

几年前我就买下高盛的股票，但没有找到合适的战友代理我出席它在纽约的股东大会[9]。今天，终于实现了利用这些与中国有特殊关系的国际大公司的股东大会纪念“六四”等人权运动的战略目的。全世界几百万股东（包括中国的政府投资基金）会读到这份对于“六四”最好的公共教育文献，我或我的代表将在“六四”前夕的5月23日举行的高盛股东大会上，加入纪念“六四”24周年的谈话，请大家在当天尤他州上午9点半上网观看会议实况吧！

[赵京，中日美比较政策研究所，2013年4月12日]