雜記●草稿（空版）

創業家



Phablets score 21% of Q1 2015 smartphone sales in the US, Apple's iPhone 6 Plus leads the pack
報道：phonearena，資料：Kantar Worldpanel


Richard Haass on Tavis Smiley



【布魯金斯學會】
Meeting China halfway: How to defuse the emerging U.S.-China rivalry
Introduction and moderator: Jonathan D. Pollack
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, John L. Thornton China Center, Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Keynote remarks: Lyle Goldstein
Associate Professor, China Maritime Studies Institute, U.S. Naval War College







【又一張南海圖】



【每周工作40小時？正好貧困線】

大家都說一星期幹40個小時，實際上個人工作時間不同，有人收入低，得多幹才能養家糊口，有人要創業，每星期幹上個六七十小時。那如果你隻幹40小時，能養家糊口嗎？

這是彭博據經濟合作與發展組織（Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ，OECD，世界20經濟強國）數據編成的圖表：

（點擊放大）

藍條，每周工作40小時正好越過貧困線，就是說，沒好日子，說不定有一頓沒一頓。你也許大吃一驚，美國、德國和法國都在其內。

窮人，哪都一樣。


【注】
The poverty line is defined as 50 percent of the median wage in any nation.

彭博原文。



【日本經濟】













資料：【1】，【2】，【3】，【4】，【5】

 

【附錄】馬軍（節目專家）說的西部”發展的衝動“，老例子



【路透社】2015.05.05
EU says seeking closer security cooperation with China
Ben Blanchard

Europe aims to improve security and defense cooperation with China, especially in the Middle East and in the fight against human trafficking, the European Union's foreign policy chief said on Tuesday following high-level talks in Beijing.

Federica Mogherini's two-day visit comes as Beijing launches a diplomatic offensive to move Sino-European relations beyond trade and raise China's international profile, buoyed by its success winning European participation in a new Asian bank.

Trade is still at the core of the relationship, worth 467 billion euros ($519 billion) last year, but China's bid to deepen cooperation on world affairs resonates with the EU as it seeks to forge a more unified foreign policy among its 28 member countries.

Mogherini told reporters during a joint appearance with China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, that the two discussed "concrete possibilities" of strengthening security and defense ties, pointing to the example of successful anti-piracy cooperation in the Gulf of Aden.

"We also discussed the situation in Iraq and Syria and briefly in Libya, where the European Union and China share common interests and where our joint efforts could make a real difference," Mogherini said.

She said both sides had reiterated that the conflict in Ukraine can only be solved diplomatically with "full respect for Ukraine's sovereignty".

She praised too China's "precious" role in Iran nuclear talks and said China had an "important role" to play in countering human trafficking as it is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

Mogherini's visit comes ahead of a China-EU summit in Brussels in June, where she said opportunities to work on infrastructure cooperation would also be discussed.

China appears set on reworking existing global governance mechanisms, laying down a challenge to the United States and the institutions that Washington has dominated since World War Two.

Those efforts enjoyed spectacular success recently when the nascent Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) won unexpected backing from European governments who chose, in an ill-coordinated scramble for advantage, to join despite Washington's misgivings.

Still, the EU remains wary of Beijing. It has had an arms embargo on China since the Chinese army bloodily put down pro-democracy protests around Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Human rights rankles too, something Mogherini said she would raise during her visit, an issue China sees as irritating interference in its domestic affairs.

Many activists in Europe have called on her to publicly demand the release of government critics, anti-corruption activists, lawyers and journalists.



【華爾街日報】2015.05.08
Russia, China Forge Closer Ties With New Economic, Financing Accords
Moscow turns to Asian investors to reduce reliance on Europe and the U.S. amid standoff over Ukraine


Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) and Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at a documents signing ceremony during their meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on Friday

MOSCOW—Russia and China signed economic deals and a financing agreement for up to $25 billion for Russian companies from Chinese banks, as Moscow looks to seal closer ties with its southeastern neighbor given its standoff with the West.

President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping oversaw the signing of an agreement here allowing domestic companies to raise funding from Chinese banks against guarantees provided by Moscow, which is cut off from global capital markets by Western sanctions. The two countries also signed a preliminary deal for Russia to supply gas via a pipeline to China, although key details remain to be resolved, as well as agreements in aviation and farming.

“Today, China is our key strategic partner,” Mr. Putin said, seated alongside Mr. Xi as the deals were signed.

Mr. Xi is the highest-profile foreign leader in Moscow for Russia’s celebrations Saturday of the end of World War II. Western leaders aren’t attending the event after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for separatist militants in eastern Ukraine.

Facing Western economic sanctions, Moscow has touted a turn eastward, saying it would seek Asian investors to reduce reliance on Europe and the U.S. But results have been mixed. Russia was disappointed last year that Chinese and other Asian investors didn’t jump in to the void left by Western creditors. The financing deal, signed Friday by the Russian Direct Investment Fund, the Russia-China Investment Fund and China Construction Bank 601939 appears to represent a typical example of China’s hard bargaining, leaving Russia bearing all the risk.

The agreement will allow Russian companies, struggling to repay foreign debts, to raise up to $25 billion in the next two to three years at lower costs than on the domestic market, the spokeswoman for RDIF said.

The state-run RDIF will provide around $1.5 billion to the financial partnership, co-financing future deals and acting as a warrantor in case of possible defaults.

“We will focus on companies that are not under formal sanctions but are having difficulties attracting money. We plan to help companies that as a result of the current geopolitical situation are experiencing problems attracting liquidity,” RDIF chief Kirill Dmitriev said in televised remarks.

“We see excellent opportunities with many Russian companies seeking debt financing from overseas markets, and it is of mutual interest to leverage the strong capital of Chinese banks and financial institutions, which have active plans to invest internationally,” Hu Bing, president of the Russia-China Investment Fund said in a statement.

But there was no evidence of a breakthrough on energy deals, which the Kremlin has placed at the center of its hoped-for eastward turn. Russian state gas giant Gazprom OGZPY signed a preliminary agreement with China National Petroleum Corporation on supplying 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas to China via the so-called “western route,” which would allow it to divert gas from fields that currently serve Europe. But there was no indication of progress on the key issue of price. Gazprom Chief Executive Alexei Miller declined to provide any details on the timing of the project.

Russia wants to sell more gas to Asia as Gazprom is facing competition and regulatory pressure in Europe. But progress has been slow, and analysts question the economic viability of the “Strength of Siberia” pipeline, planned to take gas to eastern China in a deal signed in May 2014 worth $400 billion.

Speaking in the Kremlin after meeting with Mr. Xi, Mr. Putin touted China’s status as Russia’s largest trading partner, as well as the countries’ “common heroic past” in World War II.

As a part of plan to boost the trade in rubles and the yuan, Russia’s largest lender Sberbank agreed with the China Development Bank Corporation to set up a facility agreement worth 6 billion yuan ($970 million) for trade purposes.

Among other deals signed on Friday, Russia and China agreed to set up a $2 billion agriculture fund to invest in agricultural projects in both countries.

Moscow has also secured a deal to supply up to 100 Russian-made Sukhoi Superjet aircraft to both Chinese and Southeast Asian markets over the next three years, the RDIF said.

Russia and China also signed a framework cybersecurity deal. The two countries agreed not to conduct cyberattacks against each other, as well as to jointly counteract technology that could create political or social disturbances.



【美國外交政策雜誌】2015.05.08
Russia’s Stumbling Pivot to Asia
Moscow and Beijing are trying to cement closer ties, but delays in high-profile energy deals highlight lingering tensions between the two American rivals
Keith Johnson

On May 21, 2014, after a marathon negotiating session in Shanghai, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, finally put pen to paper on a $400 billion natural-gas deal widely heralded as the kickstart to Russia’s own pivot to Asia. One year later, though, it’s far from clear that strategic shift is genuinely taking shape.

Despite plenty of smiles and a raft of bilateral economic pacts signed on the sidelines of Russia’s big World War II victory parade this weekend in Moscow, the two countries still seem far from cementing a full-blown rapprochement. Russia’s frosty relations with the West, prompted in large part by its invasion of Ukraine, helped spur Moscow’s lurch to the east. Yet those very woes in Europe are making it even harder for Russia to conclude new accords with China on anything like favorable terms because Beijing knows it can drive hard bargains with a Russia desperate for cash, credit, and new markets. With Moscow reluctant to accept those terms, little real progress has actually been made on expanding the landmark energy deals.

In other words, while analysts in Russia, China, and even the West talk of an ever-closer strategic relationship between Washington’s two bogeymen, in reality competing interests and clashing visions everywhere from Central Asia to China’s own backyard are keeping Moscow and Beijing from consummating their courtship.

“We should not forget there is still a whole lot of distrust between the two countries,” said Sijbren de Jong, an analyst at the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies. “’BFF’ in this case stands for ‘Best Frenemies Forever.’”

On Friday, the two presidents met ahead of a gala parade largely boycotted by Western leaders — President Barack Obama is skipping, and the U.S. is instead sending its ambassador to Russia — and took steps meant to reinforce at least the economic terms of their relationship. China and Russia signed billions of dollars worth of potential deals, including Chinese loans to credit-battered Russian firms and joint investment in agricultural and infrastructure projects. Chinese soldiers will take part in the military parade over the weekend, and the two countries will hold joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean next week.

“China today is our strategic key partner,” Putin said after the signing ceremony.

Yet just as revealing is what did not happen at the long-awaited summit. No real progress was made on the second natural-gas export deal to China that Russia spent the past year touting and which is widely seen as the keystone to a strategic energy relationship. The two sides apparently agreed on the outline of terms for Russia to ship gas from Western Siberia to China’s far-western provinces — the so-called Altai route — but could not resolve core differences such as how much China is actually willing to pay for the gas. Price differences in the past pushed back other bilateral energy deals a full decade.

Turning those big energy accords from aspirations into reality matters because energy is at the heart of Russia’s long-planned pivot to the east. For more than a decade, leaders in the Kremlin and inside Russia’s energy giants have been anxious to find hungry new markets for the natural-resource exports that account for half of Russia’s budget.

There are several reasons for the stumbles so far. Russia and its effectively state-run gas giant Gazprom always wanted to ship gas to China from existing gas fields in Western Siberia to Xinjiang; China long insisted that it needed energy in the populous coastal provinces of the east. Thanks to Putin’s direct intervention last May, the two sides finally agreed to build the $60 billion “Power of Siberia” pipeline from Russia’s east to provinces around Beijing.

But Gazprom never quit grumbling and kept eyeing the cheaper, potentially more lucrative western route. Those divisions between Gazprom and the Kremlin came close to torpedoing energy cooperation between the two countries altogether, especially after people close to Gazprom this spring publicly floated the idea of shoving Putin’s pet project to the back burner. “Power of Siberia” was salvaged in extremis last week when the Russian parliament finally rubber-stamped it.

“Frankly speaking, Gazprom is a liability for Putin’s pivot-to-Asia policy,” said Keun Wook Paik, an expert on Sino-Russian energy cooperation at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

While Russia’s open conflict with Europe — including the West’s imposition of tough sanctions on energy firms such as Gazprom and a landmark antitrust investigation by authorities in Brussels — has accelerated Russia’s pivot east, it has also made it harder to carry off. The sanctions have hampered the ability of firms such as Gazprom and Rosneft to raise the billions of dollars they need to build the infrastructure required for the new projects, and the Chinese have slammed shut their wallets so far. Compounding all of Russia’s other financial woes is a sharp decline in the price of oil, and thus natural gas, over the past year, which has battered corporate earnings and national coffers.

“For the Western pipeline to succeed, Russia will need credit and the Chinese will need to provide this. But China is not crazy: It is willing to help, but only on its terms and strictly commercial terms at that,” said de Jong.

Russia’s efforts to reinvent itself in the European market, paradoxically enough, are also hampering its pivot to Asia. Putin’s latest European gambit is an undersea gas pipeline that would ship Russian gas to Turkey, thus bypassing Ukraine but keeping Gazprom’s grip on the huge European market. Russia and Turkey announced an agreement Thursday on the so-called Turkish Stream with ambitious hopes of opening the export route late next year — greased by a hefty discount in the price of natural gas for many private buyers in Turkey.

China, of course, has taken note of those Turkish discounts, as well as other shifts in the global energy landscape that for now have clearly made it a buyer’s market, to squeeze Russia for steep discounts on gas deals between the two countries. That not only delays the final accord but also limits the economic upside for Russia’s energy trade with Asia.

What all this means is that Russia’s full energy pivot to Asia will likely take longer to reach fruition than Moscow initially hoped. That will only entrench Russia and Gazprom’s reliance on the European market. And that could force Russia and Gazprom to reach some sort of deal with European Union authorities who have taken aim at the energy titan’s anticompetitive practices and who could slap the firm with multibillion dollar fines or dismantle its entire business model.

More broadly, the stumbles so far in Russia’s pivot belie the notion that the two countries are close to cementing a profound, ideological alliance that could bring together a has-been superpower with a rising superpower to create a durable anti-American bloc stretching across Eurasia.

“Putin claims Russia is pivoting to Asia, but progress is limited. China is simply cherry-picking from what Russia has to offer,” de Jong said.


【美國外交政策雜誌】2015.04.24
The Middle East’s Pivot to Asia
Allies and adversaries alike are “strategically rebalancing” away from the United States and toward China
David Rothkopf

Remember the pivot to Asia? The big signature move of first-term Obama foreign policy? Some called it a “strategic rebalancing.” We were going to reset our priorities, put the conflicts of the Middle East behind us, and devote big efforts to creating and implementing a strategy to deal with the vital strategic moves America needed to make to account for the rise of the world’s fastest-growing region.

As it happened, and as anyone with eyes could see, after its champions like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon left their jobs in Barack Obama’s administration, the initiative lost steam. Since 2013, there have been little more than assertions that the pivot was still pivoting — even though there was precious little concrete evidence to that effect. (See below for a brief note on one of the few significant Asia-Pacific efforts, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.) The region the administration had so hoped to pivot away from, the Middle East, was still sucking up every bit and bite of excess bandwidth, and top officials in the administration just weren’t able to muster up anything much more than symbolic gestures or relatively small initiatives to demonstrate America’s reprioritization of Asia at the top of its foreign-policy to-do list.

A funny thing happened though. While we went from pivot to pirouette in the Middle East — trying to spin away but being drawn right back around to where we started — the countries in the region, allies and adversaries alike, nonetheless saw an America that was trying to get out, lean back, or lead from behind. When Washington acted, it was in response to a crisis, and even then, mostly what it did was appear to try as hard as possible to do as little as possible. The administration’s one big Middle East initiative, the push for a nuclear deal with Iran, was seen by virtually all of our traditional allies in that neck of the woods as something even worse than the Asia rebalancing that they worried was a sign of American disengagement. To them, from Israel to the Gulf, it was seen as a pivot not out of the region but to an enemy within it.

Unsettled by the spinning, tottering superpower in their midst or perhaps motivated by its apparent dizziness, many of the most important countries of the Middle East decided to do what America apparently would not: They began to execute their own turn to Asia, or in some cases they just accelerated a trend that had already begun.

As one regional leader told me recently, “We need a dependable relationship with a major power. If the United States can’t be counted on, then we will have to turn elsewhere.”

As one regional leader told me recently, “We need a dependable relationship with a major power. If the United States can’t be counted on, then we will have to turn elsewhere.”

The result has been growing, strengthening Chinese (as well as, to a lesser extent, Indian, Japanese, and South Korean) relations with many of the countries of the greater Middle East. While the conflict in Yemen undid recent plans for Chinese President Xi Jinping to visit Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it was only a hiccup in a constant stream of visits of Middle Eastern leaders to China and vice versa. Over the past year, Chinese leaders have been flocking to the Middle East, along with nearby and strategically important neighbors like Pakistan. In fact, Xi’s visit to Islamabad this month is a perfect illustration of the impact of such exchanges. During the trip, the Chinese, who sometimes speak of the Pakistanis as their “iron brothers” and view them as a critical strategic pathway to the resources of the Middle East and a counterbalance to Indian rivals, promised $46 billion in investment in Pakistan — nearly triple the total foreign direct investment injected into Pakistan since 2008, according to the BBC. Projects included big commitments in energy, transportation, and telecommunications.

China’s special relationship with Israel

Pakistan is not an isolated example, even if it is a striking one. China’s commerce minister was an important player at the recent Sharm el-Sheikh summit focusing on investment in Egypt, and the two countries have also conducted multiple recent high-level meetings to promote ties. Last year, a touted “China week” in Israel featuring a visit of China’s deputy prime minister came with new promises of investment and cooperation, including a joint research project between Tel Aviv University and China’s Tsinghua University. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, who traveled to China the year before, has explicitly prioritized strengthening ties with Beijing, a decision one senior Israeli official told me was “clearly intended to send a message to the United States.” During the China week, Netanyahu celebrated what he called the “huge growth of cooperation and connections between Israel and China.” Earlier this month, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth ran an article asserting that the “crisis” in U.S.-Israel relations has pushed China and Israel closer.

The ties take other forms as well. One official from the Gulf noted just last week that when they have trouble getting defense technologies from the United States, one of the first places they turn is China. (The Chinese media this week celebrated the fact that it was Chinese-made PLZ-45 self-propelled missiles that Saudi forces used to attack Houthi militants in Yemen.)

Bit by bit, the deals, visits, and connections all add up to something greater. Today, China is, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, both Iran’s No. 1 trading partner (by far) and also the top partner of Iran’s sworn rivals in Saudi Arabia. It is the No. 2 trading partner of Israel and Pakistan (if you count Hong Kong). China’s oil imports from the region are up, with March imports from Iran 15 percent higher than they were a year ago. Beijing and Tehran have discussed ways to cooperate on civilian nuclear power, and ties between the governments are close and getting closer. China and India are seen as likely leading consumers of new Iranian oil that might come to market once sanctions against that country are lifted in a possible nuclear deal. Indeed, their appetite for oil is such that many analysts have rightly noted that if energy trade grows as expected, both countries would become aggressive opponents to the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran should it violate the nuclear deal. In other words, they might well be in a position to take the “snap” out of any “snap back” provisions the United States might seek to insert in the terms of a final arrangement to roll back and hit pause on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Beijing’s strategic clarity

While the countries of the Middle East have turned to China for economic benefits, arms trade, technology, and the strategic value the ties may bring, the Chinese have not just welcomed the arrangement — they have sought it out. As elsewhere — and unlike the United States just about everywhere — they have a very clear strategy to increase their influence. The Middle East has a central role to play in Beijing’s “One Belt, One Road” strategy to increase land and sea ties to vital economies in Central Asia, in the Middle East, and onward to Europe. Middle Eastern energy resources are absolutely central to this strategy. And the deftness of the Chinese at being able to maintain and strengthen relations with countries at odds with each other — e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel — is a sign of the seriousness with which they approach the mission.

A recent milestone in this strategy is the triumphant announcement of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) — a financial institution created by the Chinese to help extend their influence and foster regional growth. The Obama administration fought the establishment of the AIIB (seeking to bully allies into staying out of it) so ineffectively and maladroitly that one Asian diplomat told me this week that the entire case ought to be studied in schools as an example of how not to conduct foreign policy. Washington appeared reactive, disorganized, and impotent. The Chinese used the institution’s rollout to send a message: Not only did America’s allies like Britain, France, and Germany sign up as founding members, but so did Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. And if that wasn’t enough of a slap in the face, the kicker was the announcement of Iranian membership on April 3 — just as the United States was trying to hold firm on applying economic pressure on Iran in order to secure the final steps in negotiations on the nuclear deal.

Although the Middle East’s pivot to Asia is being reciprocated by the Chinese, don’t think for a second that Beijing wants to assume the role once played by the United States or other major world powers that have sought to influence outcomes in the Middle East. That is because they are smart. They actually read history and think about the long arc of time. It is also because they do not work the same way as the intrusive, heavy-handed powers of the West. China’s leadership today insinuates itself into power; it does not covet the limelight; and it is not interested in the great games of empire or nation-building that have proved so costly and ill-fated for the United States, the British, and others.

Harvard University’s wise scholar Joseph Nye may have landed on a crucial insight in his definition of the utility of soft power. But he also did the world a bit of an unintentional disservice in coining and popularizing the term. Soft power is not something less than hard power — even if it sounds that way. It brings with it real influence and in many ways provides a better foundation for effective long-term relationships than does the use or threat of force.

Fortunately, Beijing has largely eschewed the application of hard power thus far in its current era of ascendancy. But it has carefully gained power of the softer variety through its cultivation of economic and political ties, used sparingly but effectively. It may not have seemed like a big deal to the world when China stopped buying Norwegian salmon after the Nobel Peace Prize was given by a Norwegian parliament-appointed committee to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. But it squeezed Oslo so hard it’s taken almost five years for the Norwegian government to undo the damage.

Stepping up to the plate

Should Washington welcome China’s new role in the Middle East?

Some in the let-the-rest-of-the-world-clean-up-its-own-messes-for-a-while camp might welcome this.

Some in the let-the-rest-of-the-world-clean-up-its-own-messes-for-a-while camp might welcome this. Good luck to the Chinese, they might say, given the costs and frustrations associated with the Middle East. But don’t be too quick to leap to such conclusions. Washington’s loss of influence to China in the still vitally important and volatile region could in the decades ahead prove decisive in a wide variety of potential great-power confrontations or regional crises — and not just to us but to our allies in Europe, India, or Japan.

As China is demonstrating, involvement in the Middle East does not always have to be costly or foolhardy. While Beijing may yet repeat the errors of those that came before in the last hundred years, it is certainly a force to be reckoned with (and not exactly new to the region: Mongol armies reached as far as Gaza in the late 13th century). But China’s growing clout relative to America’s in that part of the world will not be something that is lightly dismissed by anyone with any strategic sensibility at all — anyone who can look beyond today’s headlines and imagine the emerging strategic rivalries and successor conflicts of tomorrow.

As a footnote to the above, it should be noted that the progress the Obama administration has made in the past week toward gaining trade promotion authority, a crucial step toward the ultimate approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, is welcome. This deal does not an Asia pivot make. But it will help integrate the United States more into the region, speed the creation of vital U.S. export-related jobs, and help set standards for the Chinese as they seek to become even more of a global economic leader. The work done by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman on this deal has been tireless and exemplary, and he, along with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Export-Import Bank Chairman and President Fred Hochberg, represent one of the Obama administration’s underappreciated secret weapons — a strong, active, talented, and capable international economic team.



Seymour Hersh on Killing of bin Laden


【Politico】
U.S. officials fuming over Hersh account of Osama bin Laden raid
Former top CIA official (Morell) on bin Laden raid account: 'It's all wrong'
Blogger accuses Seymour Hersh of ‘plagiarism’ for bin Laden raid story
【VOX】
The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory
【Slate】
Explosive, Controversial Report by Seymour Hersh Says Obama Administration Lied About Bin Laden Raid
“I Am Not Backing Off Anything I Said”


【London Review of Books】
The Killing of Osama bin Laden

It’s been four years since a group of US Navy Seals assassinated Osama bin Laden in a night raid on a high-walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The killing was the high point of Obama’s first term, and a major factor in his re-election. The White House still maintains that the mission was an all-American affair, and that the senior generals of Pakistan’s army and Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) were not told of the raid in advance. This is false, as are many other elements of the Obama administration’s account. The White House’s story might have been written by Lewis Carroll: would bin Laden, target of a massive international manhunt, really decide that a resort town forty miles from Islamabad would be the safest place to live and command al-Qaida’s operations? He was hiding in the open. So America said.

The most blatant lie was that Pakistan’s two most senior military leaders – General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of the army staff, and General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the ISI – were never informed of the US mission. This remains the White House position despite an array of reports that have raised questions, including one by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times Magazine of 19 March 2014. Gall, who spent 12 years as the Times correspondent in Afghanistan, wrote that she’d been told by a ‘Pakistani official’ that Pasha had known before the raid that bin Laden was in Abbottabad. The story was denied by US and Pakistani officials, and went no further. In his book Pakistan: Before and after Osama (2012), Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies, a think tank in Islamabad, wrote that he’d spoken to four undercover intelligence officers who – reflecting a widely held local view – asserted that the Pakistani military must have had knowledge of the operation. The issue was raised again in February, when a retired general, Asad Durrani, who was head of the ISI in the early 1990s, told an al-Jazeera interviewer that it was ‘quite possible’ that the senior officers of the ISI did not know where bin Laden had been hiding, ‘but it was more probable that they did [know]. And the idea was that, at the right time, his location would be revealed. And the right time would have been when you can get the necessary quid pro quo – if you have someone like Osama bin Laden, you are not going to simply hand him over to the United States.’

This spring I contacted Durrani and told him in detail what I had learned about the bin Laden assault from American sources: that bin Laden had been a prisoner of the ISI at the Abbottabad compound since 2006; that Kayani and Pasha knew of the raid in advance and had made sure that the two helicopters delivering the Seals to Abbottabad could cross Pakistani airspace without triggering any alarms; that the CIA did not learn of bin Laden’s whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US, and that, while Obama did order the raid and the Seal team did carry it out, many other aspects of the administration’s account were false.

‘When your version comes out – if you do it – people in Pakistan will be tremendously grateful,’ Durrani told me. ‘For a long time people have stopped trusting what comes out about bin Laden from the official mouths. There will be some negative political comment and some anger, but people like to be told the truth, and what you’ve told me is essentially what I have heard from former colleagues who have been on a fact-finding mission since this episode.’ As a former ISI head, he said, he had been told shortly after the raid by ‘people in the “strategic community” who would know’ that there had been an informant who had alerted the US to bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, and that after his killing the US’s betrayed promises left Kayani and Pasha exposed.

The major US source for the account that follows is a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. He also was privy to many aspects of the Seals’ training for the raid, and to the various after-action reports. Two other US sources, who had access to corroborating information, have been longtime consultants to the Special Operations Command. I also received information from inside Pakistan about widespread dismay among the senior ISI and military leadership – echoed later by Durrani – over Obama’s decision to go public immediately with news of bin Laden’s death. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

*

It began with a walk-in. In August 2010 a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer approached Jonathan Bank, then the CIA’s station chief at the US embassy in Islamabad. He offered to tell the CIA where to find bin Laden in return for the reward that Washington had offered in 2001. Walk-ins are assumed by the CIA to be unreliable, and the response from the agency’s headquarters was to fly in a polygraph team. The walk-in passed the test. ‘So now we’ve got a lead on bin Laden living in a compound in Abbottabad, but how do we really know who it is?’ was the CIA’s worry at the time, the retired senior US intelligence official told me.

The US initially kept what it knew from the Pakistanis. ‘The fear was that if the existence of the source was made known, the Pakistanis themselves would move bin Laden to another location. So only a very small number of people were read into the source and his story,’ the retired official said. ‘The CIA’s first goal was to check out the quality of the informant’s information.’ The compound was put under satellite surveillance. The CIA rented a house in Abbottabad to use as a forward observation base and staffed it with Pakistani employees and foreign nationals. Later on, the base would serve as a contact point with the ISI; it attracted little attention because Abbottabad is a holiday spot full of houses rented on short leases. A psychological profile of the informant was prepared. (The informant and his family were smuggled out of Pakistan and relocated in the Washington area. He is now a consultant for the CIA.)

‘By October the military and intelligence community were discussing the possible military options. Do we drop a bunker buster on the compound or take him out with a drone strike? Perhaps send someone to kill him, single assassin style? But then we’d have no proof of who he was,’ the retired official said. ‘We could see some guy is walking around at night, but we have no intercepts because there’s no commo coming from the compound.’

In October, Obama was briefed on the intelligence. His response was cautious, the retired official said. ‘It just made no sense that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad. It was just too crazy. The president’s position was emphatic: “Don’t talk to me about this any more unless you have proof that it really is bin Laden.”’ The immediate goal of the CIA leadership and the Joint Special Operations Command was to get Obama’s support. They believed they would get this if they got DNA evidence, and if they could assure him that a night assault of the compound would carry no risk. The only way to accomplish both things, the retired official said, ‘was to get the Pakistanis on board’.

During the late autumn of 2010, the US continued to keep quiet about the walk-in, and Kayani and Pasha continued to insist to their American counterparts that they had no information about bin Laden’s whereabouts. ‘The next step was to figure out how to ease Kayani and Pasha into it – to tell them that we’ve got intelligence showing that there is a high-value target in the compound, and to ask them what they know about the target,’ the retired official said. ‘The compound was not an armed enclave – no machine guns around, because it was under ISI control.’ The walk-in had told the US that bin Laden had lived undetected from 2001 to 2006 with some of his wives and children in the Hindu Kush mountains, and that ‘the ISI got to him by paying some of the local tribal people to betray him.’ (Reports after the raid placed him elsewhere in Pakistan during this period.) Bank was also told by the walk-in that bin Laden was very ill, and that early on in his confinement at Abbottabad, the ISI had ordered Amir Aziz, a doctor and a major in the Pakistani army, to move nearby to provide treatment. ‘The truth is that bin Laden was an invalid, but we cannot say that,’ the retired official said. ‘“You mean you guys shot a cripple? Who was about to grab his AK-47?”’

‘It didn’t take long to get the co-operation we needed, because the Pakistanis wanted to ensure the continued release of American military aid, a good percentage of which was anti-terrorism funding that finances personal security, such as bullet-proof limousines and security guards and housing for the ISI leadership,’ the retired official said. He added that there were also under-the-table personal ‘incentives’ that were financed by off-the-books Pentagon contingency funds. ‘The intelligence community knew what the Pakistanis needed to agree – there was the carrot. And they chose the carrot. It was a win-win. We also did a little blackmail. We told them we would leak the fact that you’ve got bin Laden in your backyard. We knew their friends and enemies’ – the Taliban and jihadist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan – ‘would not like it.’

A worrying factor at this early point, according to the retired official, was Saudi Arabia, which had been financing bin Laden’s upkeep since his seizure by the Pakistanis. ‘The Saudis didn’t want bin Laden’s presence revealed to us because he was a Saudi, and so they told the Pakistanis to keep him out of the picture. The Saudis feared if we knew we would pressure the Pakistanis to let bin Laden start talking to us about what the Saudis had been doing with al-Qaida. And they were dropping money – lots of it. The Pakistanis, in turn, were concerned that the Saudis might spill the beans about their control of bin Laden. The fear was that if the US found out about bin Laden from Riyadh, all hell would break out. The Americans learning about bin Laden’s imprisonment from a walk-in was not the worst thing.’

Despite their constant public feuding, American and Pakistani military and intelligence services have worked together closely for decades on counterterrorism in South Asia. Both services often find it useful to engage in public feuds ‘to cover their asses’, as the retired official put it, but they continually share intelligence used for drone attacks, and co-operate on covert operations. At the same time, it’s understood in Washington that elements of the ISI believe that maintaining a relationship with the Taliban leadership inside Afghanistan is essential to national security. The ISI’s strategic aim is to balance Indian influence in Kabul; the Taliban is also seen in Pakistan as a source of jihadist shock troops who would back Pakistan against India in a confrontation over Kashmir.

Adding to the tension was the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, often depicted in the Western press as an ‘Islamic bomb’ that might be transferred by Pakistan to an embattled nation in the Middle East in the event of a crisis with Israel. The US looked the other way when Pakistan began building its weapons system in the 1970s and it’s widely believed it now has more than a hundred nuclear warheads. It’s understood in Washington that US security depends on the maintenance of strong military and intelligence ties to Pakistan. The belief is mirrored in Pakistan.

‘The Pakistani army sees itself as family,’ the retired official said. ‘Officers call soldiers their sons and all officers are “brothers”. The attitude is different in the American military. The senior Pakistani officers believe they are the elite and have got to look out for all of the people, as keepers of the flame against Muslim fundamentalism. The Pakistanis also know that their trump card against aggression from India is a strong relationship with the United States. They will never cut their person-to-person ties with us.’

Like all CIA station chiefs, Bank was working undercover, but that ended in early December 2010 when he was publicly accused of murder in a criminal complaint filed in Islamabad by Karim Khan, a Pakistani journalist whose son and brother, according to local news reports, had been killed by a US drone strike. Allowing Bank to be named was a violation of diplomatic protocol on the part of the Pakistani authorities, and it brought a wave of unwanted publicity. Bank was ordered to leave Pakistan by the CIA, whose officials subsequently told the Associated Press he was transferred because of concerns for his safety. The New York Times reported that there was ‘strong suspicion’ the ISI had played a role in leaking Bank’s name to Khan. There was speculation that he was outed as payback for the publication in a New York lawsuit a month earlier of the names of ISI chiefs in connection with the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008. But there was a collateral reason, the retired official said, for the CIA’s willingness to send Bank back to America. The Pakistanis needed cover in case their co-operation with the Americans in getting rid of bin Laden became known. The Pakistanis could say: “You’re talking about me? We just kicked out your station chief.”’

*

The bin Laden compound was less than two miles from the Pakistan Military Academy, and a Pakistani army combat battalion headquarters was another mile or so away. Abbottabad is less than 15 minutes by helicopter from Tarbela Ghazi, an important base for ISI covert operations and the facility where those who guard Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal are trained. ‘Ghazi is why the ISI put bin Laden in Abbottabad in the first place,’ the retired official said, ‘to keep him under constant supervision.’

The risks for Obama were high at this early stage, especially because there was a troubling precedent: the failed 1980 attempt to rescue the American hostages in Tehran. That failure was a factor in Jimmy Carter’s loss to Ronald Reagan. Obama’s worries were realistic, the retired official said. ‘Was bin Laden ever there? Was the whole story a product of Pakistani deception? What about political blowback in case of failure?’ After all, as the retired official said, ‘If the mission fails, Obama’s just a black Jimmy Carter and it’s all over for re-election.’

Obama was anxious for reassurance that the US was going to get the right man. The proof was to come in the form of bin Laden’s DNA. The planners turned for help to Kayani and Pasha, who asked Aziz to obtain the specimens. Soon after the raid the press found out that Aziz had been living in a house near the bin Laden compound: local reporters discovered his name in Urdu on a plate on the door. Pakistani officials denied that Aziz had any connection to bin Laden, but the retired official told me that Aziz had been rewarded with a share of the $25 million reward the US had put up because the DNA sample had showed conclusively that it was bin Laden in Abbottabad. (In his subsequent testimony to a Pakistani commission investigating the bin Laden raid, Aziz said that he had witnessed the attack on Abbottabad, but had no knowledge of who was living in the compound and had been ordered by a superior officer to stay away from the scene.)

Bargaining continued over the way the mission would be executed. ‘Kayani eventually tells us yes, but he says you can’t have a big strike force. You have to come in lean and mean. And you have to kill him, or there is no deal,’ the retired official said. The agreement was struck by the end of January 2011, and Joint Special Operations Command prepared a list of questions to be answered by the Pakistanis: ‘How can we be assured of no outside intervention? What are the defences inside the compound and its exact dimensions? Where are bin Laden’s rooms and exactly how big are they? How many steps in the stairway? Where are the doors to his rooms, and are they reinforced with steel? How thick?’ The Pakistanis agreed to permit a four-man American cell – a Navy Seal, a CIA case officer and two communications specialists – to set up a liaison office at Tarbela Ghazi for the coming assault. By then, the military had constructed a mock-up of the compound in Abbottabad at a secret former nuclear test site in Nevada, and an elite Seal team had begun rehearsing for the attack.

The US had begun to cut back on aid to Pakistan – to ‘turn off the spigot’, in the retired official’s words. The provision of 18 new F-16 fighter aircraft was delayed, and under-the-table cash payments to the senior leaders were suspended. In April 2011 Pasha met the CIA director, Leon Panetta, at agency headquarters. ‘Pasha got a commitment that the United States would turn the money back on, and we got a guarantee that there would be no Pakistani opposition during the mission,’ the retired official said. ‘Pasha also insisted that Washington stop complaining about Pakistan’s lack of co-operation with the American war on terrorism.’ At one point that spring, Pasha offered the Americans a blunt explanation of the reason Pakistan kept bin Laden’s capture a secret, and why it was imperative for the ISI role to remain secret: ‘We needed a hostage to keep tabs on al-Qaida and the Taliban,’ Pasha said, according to the retired official. ‘The ISI was using bin Laden as leverage against Taliban and al-Qaida activities inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. They let the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership know that if they ran operations that clashed with the interests of the ISI, they would turn bin Laden over to us. So if it became known that the Pakistanis had worked with us to get bin Laden at Abbottabad, there would be hell to pay.’

At one of his meetings with Panetta, according to the retired official and a source within the CIA, Pasha was asked by a senior CIA official whether he saw himself as acting in essence as an agent for al-Qaida and the Taliban. ‘He answered no, but said the ISI needed to have some control.’ The message, as the CIA saw it, according to the retired official, was that Kayani and Pasha viewed bin Laden ‘as a resource, and they were more interested in their [own] survival than they were in the United States’.

A Pakistani with close ties to the senior leadership of the ISI told me that ‘there was a deal with your top guys. We were very reluctant, but it had to be done – not because of personal enrichment, but because all of the American aid programmes would be cut off. Your guys said we will starve you out if you don’t do it, and the okay was given while Pasha was in Washington. The deal was not only to keep the taps open, but Pasha was told there would be more goodies for us.’ The Pakistani said that Pasha’s visit also resulted in a commitment from the US to give Pakistan ‘a freer hand’ in Afghanistan as it began its military draw-down there. ‘And so our top dogs justified the deal by saying this is for our country.’

*

Pasha and Kayani were responsible for ensuring that Pakistan’s army and air defence command would not track or engage with the US helicopters used on the mission. The American cell at Tarbela Ghazi was charged with co-ordinating communications between the ISI, the senior US officers at their command post in Afghanistan, and the two Black Hawk helicopters; the goal was to ensure that no stray Pakistani fighter plane on border patrol spotted the intruders and took action to stop them. The initial plan said that news of the raid shouldn’t be announced straightaway. All units in the Joint Special Operations Command operate under stringent secrecy and the JSOC leadership believed, as did Kayani and Pasha, that the killing of bin Laden would not be made public for as long as seven days, maybe longer. Then a carefully constructed cover story would be issued: Obama would announce that DNA analysis confirmed that bin Laden had been killed in a drone raid in the Hindu Kush, on Afghanistan’s side of the border. The Americans who planned the mission assured Kayani and Pasha that their co-operation would never be made public. It was understood by all that if the Pakistani role became known, there would be violent protests – bin Laden was considered a hero by many Pakistanis – and Pasha and Kayani and their families would be in danger, and the Pakistani army publicly disgraced.

It was clear to all by this point, the retired official said, that bin Laden would not survive: ‘Pasha told us at a meeting in April that he could not risk leaving bin Laden in the compound now that we know he’s there. Too many people in the Pakistani chain of command know about the mission. He and Kayani had to tell the whole story to the directors of the air defence command and to a few local commanders.

‘Of course the guys knew the target was bin Laden and he was there under Pakistani control,’ the retired official said. ‘Otherwise, they would not have done the mission without air cover. It was clearly and absolutely a premeditated murder.’ A former Seal commander, who has led and participated in dozens of similar missions over the past decade, assured me that ‘we were not going to keep bin Laden alive – to allow the terrorist to live. By law, we know what we’re doing inside Pakistan is a homicide. We’ve come to grips with that. Each one of us, when we do these missions, say to ourselves, “Let’s face it. We’re going to commit a murder.”’ The White House’s initial account claimed that bin Laden had been brandishing a weapon; the story was aimed at deflecting those who questioned the legality of the US administration’s targeted assassination programme. The US has consistently maintained, despite widely reported remarks by people involved with the mission, that bin Laden would have been taken alive if he had immediately surrendered.

*

At the Abbottabad compound ISI guards were posted around the clock to keep watch over bin Laden and his wives and children. They were under orders to leave as soon as they heard the rotors of the US helicopters. The town was dark: the electricity supply had been cut off on the orders of the ISI hours before the raid began. One of the Black Hawks crashed inside the walls of the compound, injuring many on board. ‘The guys knew the TOT [time on target] had to be tight because they would wake up the whole town going in,’ the retired official said. The cockpit of the crashed Black Hawk, with its communication and navigational gear, had to be destroyed by concussion grenades, and this would create a series of explosions and a fire visible for miles. Two Chinook helicopters had flown from Afghanistan to a nearby Pakistani intelligence base to provide logistical support, and one of them was immediately dispatched to Abbottabad. But because the helicopter had been equipped with a bladder loaded with extra fuel for the two Black Hawks, it first had to be reconfigured as a troop carrier. The crash of the Black Hawk and the need to fly in a replacement were nerve-wracking and time-consuming setbacks, but the Seals continued with their mission. There was no firefight as they moved into the compound; the ISI guards had gone. ‘Everyone in Pakistan has a gun and high-profile, wealthy folks like those who live in Abbottabad have armed bodyguards, and yet there were no weapons in the compound,’ the retired official pointed out. Had there been any opposition, the team would have been highly vulnerable. Instead, the retired official said, an ISI liaison officer flying with the Seals guided them into the darkened house and up a staircase to bin Laden’s quarters. The Seals had been warned by the Pakistanis that heavy steel doors blocked the stairwell on the first and second-floor landings; bin Laden’s rooms were on the third floor. The Seal squad used explosives to blow the doors open, without injuring anyone. One of bin Laden’s wives was screaming hysterically and a bullet – perhaps a stray round – struck her knee. Aside from those that hit bin Laden, no other shots were fired. (The Obama administration’s account would hold otherwise.)

‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence? The house was shabby and bin Laden was living in a cell with bars on the window and barbed wire on the roof. The rules of engagement were that if bin Laden put up any opposition they were authorised to take lethal action. But if they suspected he might have some means of opposition, like an explosive vest under his robe, they could also kill him. So here’s this guy in a mystery robe and they shot him. It’s not because he was reaching for a weapon. The rules gave them absolute authority to kill the guy.’ The later White House claim that only one or two bullets were fired into his head was ‘bullshit’, the retired official said. ‘The squad came through the door and obliterated him. As the Seals say, “We kicked his ass and took his gas.”’

After they killed bin Laden, ‘the Seals were just there, some with physical injuries from the crash, waiting for the relief chopper,’ the retired official said. ‘Twenty tense minutes. The Black Hawk is still burning. There are no city lights. No electricity. No police. No fire trucks. They have no prisoners.’ Bin Laden’s wives and children were left for the ISI to interrogate and relocate. ‘Despite all the talk,’ the retired official continued, there were ‘no garbage bags full of computers and storage devices. The guys just stuffed some books and papers they found in his room in their backpacks. The Seals weren’t there because they thought bin Laden was running a command centre for al-Qaida operations, as the White House would later tell the media. And they were not intelligence experts gathering information inside that house.’

On a normal assault mission, the retired official said, there would be no waiting around if a chopper went down. ‘The Seals would have finished the mission, thrown off their guns and gear, and jammed into the remaining Black Hawk and di-di-maued’ – Vietnamese slang for leaving in a rush – ‘out of there, with guys hanging out of the doors. They would not have blown the chopper – no commo gear is worth a dozen lives – unless they knew they were safe. Instead they stood around outside the compound, waiting for the bus to arrive.’ Pasha and Kayani had delivered on all their promises.

*

The backroom argument inside the White House began as soon as it was clear that the mission had succeeded. Bin Laden’s body was presumed to be on its way to Afghanistan. Should Obama stand by the agreement with Kayani and Pasha and pretend a week or so later that bin Laden had been killed in a drone attack in the mountains, or should he go public immediately? The downed helicopter made it easy for Obama’s political advisers to urge the latter plan. The explosion and fireball would be impossible to hide, and word of what had happened was bound to leak. Obama had to ‘get out in front of the story’ before someone in the Pentagon did: waiting would diminish the political impact.

Not everyone agreed. Robert Gates, the secretary of defence, was the most outspoken of those who insisted that the agreements with Pakistan had to be honoured. In his memoir, Duty, Gates did not mask his anger:

    Before we broke up and the president headed upstairs to tell the American people what had just happened, I reminded everyone that the techniques, tactics and procedures the Seals had used in the bin Laden operation were used every night in Afghanistan … it was therefore essential that we agree not to release any operational details of the raid. That we killed him, I said, is all we needed to say. Everybody in that room agreed to keep mum on details. That commitment lasted about five hours. The initial leaks came from the White House and CIA. They just couldn’t wait to brag and to claim credit. The facts were often wrong … Nonetheless the information just kept pouring out. I was outraged and at one point, told [the national security adviser, Tom] Donilon, ‘Why doesn’t everybody just shut the fuck up?’ To no avail.

Obama’s speech was put together in a rush, the retired official said, and was viewed by his advisers as a political document, not a message that needed to be submitted for clearance to the national security bureaucracy. This series of self-serving and inaccurate statements would create chaos in the weeks following. Obama said that his administration had discovered that bin Laden was in Pakistan through ‘a possible lead’ the previous August; to many in the CIA the statement suggested a specific event, such as a walk-in. The remark led to a new cover story claiming that the CIA’s brilliant analysts had unmasked a courier network handling bin Laden’s continuing flow of operational orders to al-Qaida. Obama also praised ‘a small team of Americans’ for their care in avoiding civilian deaths and said: ‘After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.’ Two more details now had to be supplied for the cover story: a description of the firefight that never happened, and a story about what happened to the corpse. Obama went on to praise the Pakistanis: ‘It’s important to note that our counterterrorism co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.’ That statement risked exposing Kayani and Pasha. The White House’s solution was to ignore what Obama had said and order anyone talking to the press to insist that the Pakistanis had played no role in killing bin Laden. Obama left the clear impression that he and his advisers hadn’t known for sure that bin Laden was in Abbottabad, but only had information ‘about the possibility’. This led first to the story that the Seals had determined they’d killed the right man by having a six-foot-tall Seal lie next to the corpse for comparison (bin Laden was known to be six foot four); and then to the claim that a DNA test had been performed on the corpse and demonstrated conclusively that the Seals had killed bin Laden. But, according to the retired official, it wasn’t clear from the Seals’ early reports whether all of bin Laden’s body, or any of it, made it back to Afghanistan.

Gates wasn’t the only official who was distressed by Obama’s decision to speak without clearing his remarks in advance, the retired official said, ‘but he was the only one protesting. Obama didn’t just double-cross Gates, he double-crossed everyone. This was not the fog of war. The fact that there was an agreement with the Pakistanis and no contingency analysis of what was to be disclosed if something went wrong – that wasn’t even discussed. And once it went wrong, they had to make up a new cover story on the fly.’ There was a legitimate reason for some deception: the role of the Pakistani walk-in had to be protected.

The White House press corps was told in a briefing shortly after Obama’s announcement that the death of bin Laden was ‘the culmination of years of careful and highly advanced intelligence work’ that focused on tracking a group of couriers, including one who was known to be close to bin Laden. Reporters were told that a team of specially assembled CIA and National Security Agency analysts had traced the courier to a highly secure million-dollar compound in Abbottabad. After months of observation, the American intelligence community had ‘high confidence’ that a high-value target was living in the compound, and it was ‘assessed that there was a strong probability that [it] was Osama bin Laden’. The US assault team ran into a firefight on entering the compound and three adult males – two of them believed to be the couriers – were slain, along with bin Laden. Asked if bin Laden had defended himself, one of the briefers said yes: ‘He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight.’

The next day John Brennan, then Obama’s senior adviser for counterterrorism, had the task of talking up Obama’s valour while trying to smooth over the misstatements in his speech. He provided a more detailed but equally misleading account of the raid and its planning. Speaking on the record, which he rarely does, Brennan said that the mission was carried out by a group of Navy Seals who had been instructed to take bin Laden alive, if possible. He said the US had no information suggesting that anyone in the Pakistani government or military knew bin Laden’s whereabouts: ‘We didn’t contact the Pakistanis until after all of our people, all of our aircraft were out of Pakistani airspace.’ He emphasised the courage of Obama’s decision to order the strike, and said that the White House had no information ‘that confirmed that bin Laden was at the compound’ before the raid began. Obama, he said, ‘made what I believe was one of the gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory’. Brennan increased the number killed by the Seals inside the compound to five: bin Laden, a courier, his brother, a bin Laden son, and one of the women said to be shielding bin Laden.

Asked whether bin Laden had fired on the Seals, as some reporters had been told, Brennan repeated what would become a White House mantra: ‘He was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know … Here is bin Laden, who has been calling for these attacks … living in an area that is far removed from the front, hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield … [It] just speaks to I think the nature of the individual he was.’

Gates also objected to the idea, pushed by Brennan and Leon Panetta, that US intelligence had learned of bin Laden’s whereabouts from information acquired by waterboarding and other forms of torture. ‘All of this is going on as the Seals are flying home from their mission. The agency guys know the whole story,’ the retired official said. ‘It was a group of annuitants who did it.’ (Annuitants are retired CIA officers who remain active on contract.) ‘They had been called in by some of the mission planners in the agency to help with the cover story. So the old-timers come in and say why not admit that we got some of the information about bin Laden from enhanced interrogation?’ At the time, there was still talk in Washington about the possible prosecution of CIA agents who had conducted torture.

‘Gates told them this was not going to work,’ the retired official said. ‘He was never on the team. He knew at the eleventh hour of his career not to be a party to this nonsense. But State, the agency and the Pentagon had bought in on the cover story. None of the Seals thought that Obama was going to get on national TV and announce the raid. The Special Forces command was apoplectic. They prided themselves on keeping operational security.’ There was fear in Special Operations, the retired official said, that ‘if the true story of the missions leaked out, the White House bureaucracy was going to blame it on the Seals.’

The White House’s solution was to silence the Seals. On 5 May, every member of the Seal hit team – they had returned to their base in southern Virginia – and some members of the Joint Special Operations Command leadership were presented with a nondisclosure form drafted by the White House’s legal office; it promised civil penalties and a lawsuit for anyone who discussed the mission, in public or private. ‘The Seals were not happy,’ the retired official said. But most of them kept quiet, as did Admiral William McRaven, who was then in charge of JSOC. ‘McRaven was apoplectic. He knew he was fucked by the White House, but he’s a dyed-in-the-wool Seal, and not then a political operator, and he knew there’s no glory in blowing the whistle on the president. When Obama went public with bin Laden’s death, everyone had to scramble around for a new story that made sense, and the planners were stuck holding the bag.’

Within days, some of the early exaggerations and distortions had become obvious and the Pentagon issued a series of clarifying statements. No, bin Laden was not armed when he was shot and killed. And no, bin Laden did not use one of his wives as a shield. The press by and large accepted the explanation that the errors were the inevitable by-product of the White House’s desire to accommodate reporters frantic for details of the mission.

One lie that has endured is that the Seals had to fight their way to their target. Only two Seals have made any public statement: No Easy Day, a first-hand account of the raid by Matt Bissonnette, was published in September 2012; and two years later Rob O’Neill was interviewed by Fox News. Both men had resigned from the navy; both had fired at bin Laden. Their accounts contradicted each other on many details, but their stories generally supported the White House version, especially when it came to the need to kill or be killed as the Seals fought their way to bin Laden. O’Neill even told Fox News that he and his fellow Seals thought ‘We were going to die.’ ‘The more we trained on it, the more we realised … this is going to be a one-way mission.’

But the retired official told me that in their initial debriefings the Seals made no mention of a firefight, or indeed of any opposition. The drama and danger portrayed by Bissonnette and O’Neill met a deep-seated need, the retired official said: ‘Seals cannot live with the fact that they killed bin Laden totally unopposed, and so there has to be an account of their courage in the face of danger. The guys are going to sit around the bar and say it was an easy day? That’s not going to happen.’

There was another reason to claim there had been a firefight inside the compound, the retired official said: to avoid the inevitable question that would arise from an uncontested assault. Where were bin Laden’s guards? Surely, the most sought-after terrorist in the world would have around-the-clock protection. ‘And one of those killed had to be the courier, because he didn’t exist and we couldn’t produce him. The Pakistanis had no choice but to play along with it.’ (Two days after the raid, Reuters published photographs of three dead men that it said it had purchased from an ISI official. Two of the men were later identified by an ISI spokesman as being the alleged courier and his brother.)

*

Five days after the raid the Pentagon press corps was provided with a series of videotapes that were said by US officials to have been taken from a large collection the Seals had removed from the compound, along with as many as 15 computers. Snippets from one of the videos showed a solitary bin Laden looking wan and wrapped in a blanket, watching what appeared to be a video of himself on television. An unnamed official told reporters that the raid produced a ‘treasure trove … the single largest collection of senior terrorist materials ever’, which would provide vital insights into al-Qaida’s plans. The official said the material showed that bin Laden ‘remained an active leader in al-Qaida, providing strategic, operational and tactical instructions to the group … He was far from a figurehead [and] continued to direct even tactical details of the group’s management and to encourage plotting’ from what was described as a command-and-control centre in Abbottabad. ‘He was an active player, making the recent operation even more essential for our nation’s security,’ the official said. The information was so vital, he added, that the administration was setting up an inter-agency task force to process it: ‘He was not simply someone who was penning al-Qaida strategy. He was throwing operational ideas out there and he was also specifically directing other al-Qaida members.’

These claims were fabrications: there wasn’t much activity for bin Laden to exercise command and control over. The retired intelligence official said that the CIA’s internal reporting shows that since bin Laden moved to Abbottabad in 2006 only a handful of terrorist attacks could be linked to the remnants of bin Laden’s al-Qaida. ‘We were told at first,’ the retired official said, ‘that the Seals produced garbage bags of stuff and that the community is generating daily intelligence reports out of this stuff. And then we were told that the community is gathering everything together and needs to translate it. But nothing has come of it. Every single thing they have created turns out not to be true. It’s a great hoax – like the Piltdown man.’ The retired official said that most of the materials from Abbottabad were turned over to the US by the Pakistanis, who later razed the building. The ISI took responsibility for the wives and children of bin Laden, none of whom was made available to the US for questioning.

‘Why create the treasure trove story?’ the retired official said. ‘The White House had to give the impression that bin Laden was still operationally important. Otherwise, why kill him? A cover story was created – that there was a network of couriers coming and going with memory sticks and instructions. All to show that bin Laden remained important.’

In July 2011, the Washington Post published what purported to be a summary of some of these materials. The story’s contradictions were glaring. It said the documents had resulted in more than four hundred intelligence reports within six weeks; it warned of unspecified al-Qaida plots; and it mentioned arrests of suspects ‘who are named or described in emails that bin Laden received’. The Post didn’t identify the suspects or reconcile that detail with the administration’s previous assertions that the Abbottabad compound had no internet connection. Despite their claims that the documents had produced hundreds of reports, the Post also quoted officials saying that their main value wasn’t the actionable intelligence they contained, but that they enabled ‘analysts to construct a more comprehensive portrait of al-Qaida’.

In May 2012, the Combating Terrrorism Centre at West Point, a private research group, released translations it had made under a federal government contract of 175 pages of bin Laden documents. Reporters found none of the drama that had been touted in the days after the raid. Patrick Cockburn wrote about the contrast between the administration’s initial claims that bin Laden was the ‘spider at the centre of a conspiratorial web’ and what the translations actually showed: that bin Laden was ‘delusional’ and had ‘limited contact with the outside world outside his compound’.

The retired official disputed the authencity of the West Point materials: ‘There is no linkage between these documents and the counterterrorism centre at the agency. No intelligence community analysis. When was the last time the CIA: 1) announced it had a significant intelligence find; 2) revealed the source; 3) described the method for processing the materials; 4) revealed the time-line for production; 5) described by whom and where the analysis was taking place, and 6) published the sensitive results before the information had been acted on? No agency professional would support this fairy tale.’

*

In June 2011, it was reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post and all over the Pakistani press that Amir Aziz had been held for questioning in Pakistan; he was, it was said, a CIA informant who had been spying on the comings and goings at the bin Laden compound. Aziz was released, but the retired official said that US intelligence was unable to learn who leaked the highly classified information about his involvement with the mission. Officials in Washington decided they ‘could not take a chance that Aziz’s role in obtaining bin Laden’s DNA also would become known’. A sacrificial lamb was needed, and the one chosen was Shakil Afridi, a 48-year-old Pakistani doctor and sometime CIA asset, who had been arrested by the Pakistanis in late May and accused of assisting the agency. ‘We went to the Pakistanis and said go after Afridi,’ the retired official said. ‘We had to cover the whole issue of how we got the DNA.’ It was soon reported that the CIA had organised a fake vaccination programme in Abbottabad with Afridi’s help in a failed attempt to obtain bin Laden’s DNA. Afridi’s legitimate medical operation was run independently of local health authorities, was well financed and offered free vaccinations against hepatitis B. Posters advertising the programme were displayed throughout the area. Afridi was later accused of treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison because of his ties to an extremist. News of the CIA-sponsored programme created widespread anger in Pakistan, and led to the cancellation of other international vaccination programmes that were now seen as cover for American spying.

The retired official said that Afridi had been recruited long before the bin Laden mission as part of a separate intelligence effort to get information about suspected terrorists in Abbottabad and the surrounding area. ‘The plan was to use vaccinations as a way to get the blood of terrorism suspects in the villages.’ Afridi made no attempt to obtain DNA from the residents of the bin Laden compound. The report that he did so was a hurriedly put together ‘CIA cover story creating “facts”’ in a clumsy attempt to protect Aziz and his real mission. ‘Now we have the consequences,’ the retired official said. ‘A great humanitarian project to do something meaningful for the peasants has been compromised as a cynical hoax.’ Afridi’s conviction was overturned, but he remains in prison on a murder charge.

*

In his address announcing the raid, Obama said that after killing bin Laden the Seals ‘took custody of his body’. The statement created a problem. In the initial plan it was to be announced a week or so after the fact that bin Laden was killed in a drone strike somewhere in the mountains on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and that his remains had been identified by DNA testing. But with Obama’s announcement of his killing by the Seals everyone now expected a body to be produced. Instead, reporters were told that bin Laden’s body had been flown by the Seals to an American military airfield in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and then straight to the USS Carl Vinson, a supercarrier on routine patrol in the North Arabian Sea. Bin Laden had then been buried at sea, just hours after his death. The press corps’s only sceptical moments at John Brennan’s briefing on 2 May were to do with the burial. The questions were short, to the point, and rarely answered. ‘When was the decision made that he would be buried at sea if killed?’ ‘Was this part of the plan all along?’ ‘Can you just tell us why that was a good idea?’ ‘John, did you consult a Muslim expert on that?’ ‘Is there a visual recording of this burial?’ When this last question was asked, Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary, came to Brennan’s rescue: ‘We’ve got to give other people a chance here.’

‘We thought the best way to ensure that his body was given an appropriate Islamic burial,’ Brennan said, ‘was to take those actions that would allow us to do that burial at sea.’ He said ‘appropriate specialists and experts’ were consulted, and that the US military was fully capable of carrying out the burial ‘consistent with Islamic law’. Brennan didn’t mention that Muslim law calls for the burial service to be conducted in the presence of an imam, and there was no suggestion that one happened to be on board the Carl Vinson.

In a reconstruction of the bin Laden operation for Vanity Fair, Mark Bowden, who spoke to many senior administration officials, wrote that bin Laden’s body was cleaned and photographed at Jalalabad. Further procedures necessary for a Muslim burial were performed on the carrier, he wrote, ‘with bin Laden’s body being washed again and wrapped in a white shroud. A navy photographer recorded the burial in full sunlight, Monday morning, May 2.’ Bowden described the photos:

    One frame shows the body wrapped in a weighted shroud. The next shows it lying diagonally on a chute, feet overboard. In the next frame the body is hitting the water. In the next it is visible just below the surface, ripples spreading outward. In the last frame there are only circular ripples on the surface. The mortal remains of Osama bin Laden were gone for good.

Bowden was careful not to claim that he had actually seen the photographs he described, and he recently told me he hadn’t seen them: ‘I’m always disappointed when I can’t look at something myself, but I spoke with someone I trusted who said he had seen them himself and described them in detail.’ Bowden’s statement adds to the questions about the alleged burial at sea, which has provoked a flood of Freedom of Information Act requests, most of which produced no information. One of them sought access to the photographs. The Pentagon responded that a search of all available records had found no evidence that any photographs had been taken of the burial. Requests on other issues related to the raid were equally unproductive. The reason for the lack of response became clear after the Pentagon held an inquiry into allegations that the Obama administration had provided access to classified materials to the makers of the film Zero Dark Thirty. The Pentagon report, which was put online in June 2013, noted that Admiral McRaven had ordered the files on the raid to be deleted from all military computers and moved to the CIA, where they would be shielded from FOIA requests by the agency’s ‘operational exemption’.

McRaven’s action meant that outsiders could not get access to the Carl Vinson’s unclassified logs. Logs are sacrosanct in the navy, and separate ones are kept for air operations, the deck, the engineering department, the medical office, and for command information and control. They show the sequence of events day by day aboard the ship; if there has been a burial at sea aboard the Carl Vinson, it would have been recorded.

There wasn’t any gossip about a burial among the Carl Vinson’s sailors. The carrier concluded its six-month deployment in June 2011. When the ship docked at its home base in Coronado, California, Rear Admiral Samuel Perez, commander of the Carl Vinson carrier strike group, told reporters that the crew had been ordered not to talk about the burial. Captain Bruce Lindsey, skipper of the Carl Vinson, told reporters he was unable to discuss it. Cameron Short, one of the crew of the Carl Vinson, told the Commercial-News of Danville, Illinois, that the crew had not been told anything about the burial. ‘All he knows is what he’s seen on the news,’ the newspaper reported.

The Pentagon did release a series of emails to the Associated Press. In one of them, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette reported that the service followed ‘traditional procedures for Islamic burial’, and said none of the sailors on board had been permitted to observe the proceedings. But there was no indication of who washed and wrapped the body, or of which Arabic speaker conducted the service.

Within weeks of the raid, I had been told by two longtime consultants to Special Operations Command, who have access to current intelligence, that the funeral aboard the Carl Vinson didn’t take place. One consultant told me that bin Laden’s remains were photographed and identified after being flown back to Afghanistan. The consultant added: ‘At that point, the CIA took control of the body. The cover story was that it had been flown to the Carl Vinson.’ The second consultant agreed that there had been ‘no burial at sea’. He added that ‘the killing of bin Laden was political theatre designed to burnish Obama’s military credentials … The Seals should have expected the political grandstanding. It’s irresistible to a politician. Bin Laden became a working asset.’ Early this year, speaking again to the second consultant, I returned to the burial at sea. The consultant laughed and said: ‘You mean, he didn’t make it to the water?’

The retired official said there had been another complication: some members of the Seal team had bragged to colleagues and others that they had torn bin Laden’s body to pieces with rifle fire. The remains, including his head, which had only a few bullet holes in it, were thrown into a body bag and, during the helicopter flight back to Jalalabad, some body parts were tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains – or so the Seals claimed. At the time, the retired official said, the Seals did not think their mission would be made public by Obama within a few hours: ‘If the president had gone ahead with the cover story, there would have been no need to have a funeral within hours of the killing. Once the cover story was blown, and the death was made public, the White House had a serious “Where’s the body?” problem. The world knew US forces had killed bin Laden in Abbottabad. Panic city. What to do? We need a “functional body” because we have to be able to say we identified bin Laden via a DNA analysis. It would be navy officers who came up with the “burial at sea” idea. Perfect. No body. Honourable burial following sharia law. Burial is made public in great detail, but Freedom of Information documents confirming the burial are denied for reasons of “national security”. It’s the classic unravelling of a poorly constructed cover story – it solves an immediate problem but, given the slighest inspection, there is no back-up support. There never was a plan, initially, to take the body to sea, and no burial of bin Laden at sea took place.’ The retired official said that if the Seals’ first accounts are to be believed, there wouldn’t have been much left of bin Laden to put into the sea in any case.

*

It was inevitable that the Obama administration’s lies, misstatements and betrayals would create a backlash. ‘We’ve had a four-year lapse in co-operation,’ the retired official said. ‘It’s taken that long for the Pakistanis to trust us again in the military-to-military counterterrorism relationship – while terrorism was rising all over the world … They felt Obama sold them down the river. They’re just now coming back because the threat from Isis, which is now showing up there, is a lot greater and the bin Laden event is far enough away to enable someone like General Durrani to come out and talk about it.’ Generals Pasha and Kayani have retired and both are reported to be under investigation for corruption during their time in office.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s long-delayed report on CIA torture, released last December, documented repeated instances of official lying, and suggested that the CIA’s knowledge of bin Laden’s courier was sketchy at best and predated its use of waterboarding and other forms of torture. The report led to international headlines about brutality and waterboarding, along with gruesome details about rectal feeding tubes, ice baths and threats to rape or murder family members of detainees who were believed to be withholding information. Despite the bad publicity, the report was a victory for the CIA. Its major finding – that the use of torture didn’t lead to discovering the truth – had already been the subject of public debate for more than a decade. Another key finding – that the torture conducted was more brutal than Congress had been told – was risible, given the extent of public reporting and published exposés by former interrogators and retired CIA officers. The report depicted tortures that were obviously contrary to international law as violations of rules or ‘inappropriate activities’ or, in some cases, ‘management failures’. Whether the actions described constitute war crimes was not discussed, and the report did not suggest that any of the CIA interrogators or their superiors should be investigated for criminal activity. The agency faced no meaningful consequences as a result of the report.

The retired official told me that the CIA leadership had become experts in derailing serious threats from Congress: ‘They create something that is horrible but not that bad. Give them something that sounds terrible. “Oh my God, we were shoving food up a prisoner’s ass!” Meanwhile, they’re not telling the committee about murders, other war crimes, and secret prisons like we still have in Diego Garcia. The goal also was to stall it as long as possible, which they did.’

The main theme of the committee’s 499-page executive summary is that the CIA lied systematically about the effectiveness of its torture programme in gaining intelligence that would stop future terrorist attacks in the US. The lies included some vital details about the uncovering of an al-Qaida operative called Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, who was said to be the key al-Qaida courier, and the subsequent tracking of him to Abbottabad in early 2011. The agency’s alleged intelligence, patience and skill in finding al-Kuwaiti became legend after it was dramatised in Zero Dark Thirty.

The Senate report repeatedly raised questions about the quality and reliability of the CIA’s intelligence about al-Kuwaiti. In 2005 an internal CIA report on the hunt for bin Laden noted that ‘detainees provide few actionable leads, and we have to consider the possibility that they are creating fictitious characters to distract us or to absolve themselves of direct knowledge about bin Ladin [sic].’ A CIA cable a year later stated that ‘we have had no success in eliciting actionable intelligence on bin Laden’s location from any detainees.’ The report also highlighted several instances of CIA officers, including Panetta, making false statements to Congress and the public about the value of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ in the search for bin Laden’s couriers.

Obama today is not facing re-election as he was in the spring of 2011. His principled stand on behalf of the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran says much, as does his decision to operate without the support of the conservative Republicans in Congress. High-level lying nevertheless remains the modus operandi of US policy, along with secret prisons, drone attacks, Special Forces night raids, bypassing the chain of command, and cutting out those who might say no.



【紐約時報點評美國防部中國軍情報告】
中國軍隊到底有多強？
傅才德 2015年05月12日

每年，美國國防部都必須就“涉華軍事與安全發展”向國會提交一份報告——分保密和非保密兩個版本。今年的非保密報告已於上周發布，篇幅為89頁。報告分析了中國不斷演變的軍事目標和戰略，及其海上、空中和地麵能力的新發展。報告通常會遭到中國官方的指責，今年也不例外。外交部發言人華春瑩在周日表示，美國應該“摒棄冷戰思維，摘下有色眼鏡，客觀、理性看待中國的軍事發展”。

在接受采訪時，美國海軍戰爭學院(United States Naval War College)副教授、哈佛大學費正清中國研究中心(Harvard University’s John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies)學者艾立信(Andrew S. Erickson)對這份報告、北京的野心以及中國拉近與美軍力差距的可能性進行了討論。

問：報告似乎非常謹慎、折衷，完全談不上危言聳聽。在你看來，有什麽特別突出的嗎，尤其是和過去的報告相比？

答：我完全同意。用中文的說法，報告的確代表了一次“實事求是”的努力。這是一年一度的政治儀式。中國官方喉舌對報告表示譴責，但幾乎完全未提及報告的實際內容，更別說反駁任何細節了。

和以前的老生常談相比，一個特別的演變是，國防部強調了中國人民解放軍開始在東亞以外地區的行動規模。報告顯示，在2013至2014年之間，中國首次向印度洋派出潛水艇，表麵上是為了協助亞丁灣打擊海盜的行動，但更重要的是為了獲得無可替代的行動經驗。報告大膽預測，10年之內，北京將在印度洋“建立多個入口”，以支持加油補給、低級維護和人員休整。目前已有媒體報道引吉布提總統的話說，他領導的國家正在與中國就建立這些入口舉行商討。盡管如此，北京在軍事上的重點仍然是在本土。

問：報告用了相當大的篇幅來分析中國在南海和東海的舉動。過去一年裏，我們看到南海的填海造陸活動升級。中國目的何在？這一點對該地區戰略形勢有何影響?

答：這正是中國軍力發展最有力的地方，也是外國擔憂的焦點。這種擔憂是合理的。4月9日，外交部發言人華春瑩聲稱斯普拉特利群島（Spratly Island，中國稱南沙群島——譯注）的工程是為了“滿足必要的軍事防衛需求”。5月8日，華春瑩又表示，“中方建設活動的規模與大國的責任和義務相稱”。北京方麵似乎正在為駐紮在人造島嶼上的人員修建更好的設施，以及供後勤、準軍事和軍事船隻使用的港口、民用和軍用飛機跑道、能對南海大部分區域進行監控的雷達係統。

中國的海警船比所有鄰國加起來的還多。同時，中國還是世界上少數擁有海上民兵的國家之一。這正在迅速地讓中國在軍事影響和實力方麵，與南海鄰國處於完全不同的級別。北京不希望打仗，但它的確想利用占優勢的實力，按照自己的意願去和比它小的鄰國解決雙邊爭端。更廣泛地說，看起來中國正夢想著恢複在東亞地區的主導地位。在這一點上，中國領導人似乎認為，國際規範應該服從中國的“核心”利益。

問：美國海軍的船隻經常在南海穿行。你認為這一做法會有遭到中國海軍挑戰的一天嗎？屆時會是怎樣的局麵？

答：北京方麵聲稱自己在國際海域和空域的活動不會構成這種威脅，但它的行動和努力卻呈現出令人擔憂的不一致和不確定性。中國多次試圖對自己反對的行為進行反擊，導致與美國政府和軍方的船隻及飛機發生多次危險的對峙，很多都發生在南海。北京以一種籠統的方式聲稱擁有南海絕大部分地區的主權。多年來，中國宣稱有權限製其專屬經濟區內的偵察、測量等其他所謂的“軍事”活動——這一舉措明顯不符合大多數國家所接受的國際法和慣例。2013年11月，中國宣布在東海設立防空識別區。中國威脅稱，如果外國飛機不聽從中國的命令——防空識別區並不會使中國獲得發布或實施這些命令的許可，中國就會采取“防禦性緊急處置措施”，但沒有詳細說明這些措施。這說明中國在一些重要方麵保留了將12海裏以外的國際空域當做自己“領空”的“權利”——這是一種與經濟專屬區類似的擴張主義說辭。

根據國防部報告的記錄，去年8月，中國海軍殲-11戰機在國際空域逼近一架緩慢飛行執行常規任務的[美國海軍]“P-8 海神”(P-8 Poseidon)巡邏機，兩者距離不到30英尺。如果中國利用南沙群島的飛機跑道維護南海的防空識別區，我擔心此類危險事件隻會增加。美國和其他很多國家認為，維護航行自由對於全球係統有效發揮作用至關重要。

問：報告論述了中國彈道導彈核潛艇(SSBN)艦隊日益加強的能力，以及遠程巡邏的開始。美國對此有多擔心？

答：國防部早就預料到這一點，第一次巡邏似乎很快就會開始。但SSBN行動的要求是極高的，中國似乎沒有掌握核動力推進技術，以及使其行動難以探測的相關消聲技術。這是一個長期項目。相比之下，陸基的中國第二炮兵部隊已經擁有強大的洲際彈道導彈力量，以及世界一流的次戰略彈道導彈力量。該部隊的最新核係統及常規係統都是機動的，其中一些還具有尖端的反製能力。此外，中國在陸地、潛艇、船艦及飛機上部署了大量先進的巡航導彈。因此，中國在擁有SSNB之前就掌握了強大的核及常規威懾能力，SSBN能夠有效地隱藏在偏遠海域，對世界任何地方的目標展開攻擊——這是最壞的情況，我們都希望它不要發生。

問：從作戰方麵來看，如何比較在太平洋地區執行任務的現代中國海軍與美國太平洋艦隊？中國海軍在某些能力的提升上速度怎樣？

答：這充其量就像是對比蘋果和柑橘。美國海軍和中國海軍負責執行不同的任務。最根本的是，美國海軍的任務是確保核威懾、保障全球共同利益，協助兄弟軍種的地麵力量投射。中國海軍依舊主要負責在“近海”（黃海、東海和南海）——北京方麵尚未解決的島嶼和領海爭端所在區域——的常規戰爭和當前問題的處理。中國海軍在這些行動中會獲得“反海軍”的陸基導彈和飛機的支持。中國人民解放軍在協調行動及力量投射方麵仍然受到巨大限製，但在這個重點區域，該部隊擁有很多可以發揮的能力，也有很多發揮能力的方式。

中國確實將向印度洋及之外的海域派遣海軍，並大力提升和平時期在該區域執行任務的能力。但仍不足以轉化成對抗其他主要軍隊的作戰能力。能作戰的海軍在外觀和功能上需要像美國海軍一樣。中國將需要投入大量資源、精力及時間實現這種轉變，即便是部分轉變。北京方麵在中國近海巧妙利用的捷徑和協同效應，很難適用於遙遠的地方。

問：你認為報告中還有其他值得關注的地方嗎？

答：鑒於歐洲一體化陷入經濟和政治上的困境，俄羅斯的一係列國防發展項目又缺乏穩固的財政基礎，中國的軍事實力正在向整體上僅次於美國的地位挺進。一些較小國家的軍事實力在某些細分領域的單一裝備上仍然遙遙領先，但在未來數年中，北京付出高昂成本完成的質與量的結合將無可匹敵，使其成為真正的軍事大國。

國防部的報告中記錄了幫助中國人民解放軍崛起的一些數字之最。中國的海軍艦隻數量居亞洲之首，遠洋海警船數量居世界首位，其空軍規模是亞洲最龐大的，全世界位列第三。中國空軍的高級遠程地對空導彈力量居世界前列。到2030年，北京的航空母艦數量可能接近全球第二。其數量一直優於質量，但北京在質量上也在急趕直追。

“中國在所有國防工業生產領域都出現了顯著提升，”報告稱，“在一些領域甚至可以和俄羅斯及歐盟國家等主要武器係統製造國相媲美。”在無人機等目前還不太成熟的係統方麵，中國可能正在以尤其驚人的速度接近領先水平。例如，報告稱：“一些估計數值顯示，2014年到2023年，中國打算生產超過41800個陸基和海基無人武器係統，價值約為105億美元。”

不過，中國不太可能徹底消除與美國的整體軍事力量的差距。兩國全球軍事影響力的差距可能會更大。國內穩定仍然是中國共產黨最關注的問題，他們把大量資源用在了建設國內的安全力量上。近海海域的“核心”利益仍然沒有以北京滿意的方式解決，鄰國對來自中國的壓力的不滿越發強烈。

與此同時，曾經幫助為軍事現代化提供資金的30年的經濟高速發展正在降溫，至少經濟增速會放緩。這些因素都粉碎了中國軍事實力追上美國的任何可能性，哪怕是接近美國式的全球力量態勢也不太可能。它還顯示出，在劍拔弩張的中國近海海域之外，美國和中國還有許多共同和相輔相成的利益，兩國可以在此基礎上展開進一步的合作。


FAS：Pentagon Report: China Deploys MIRV Missile


【C191】
《國家重大技術裝備網》
2014.10.30
C919飛起來
2015.02.26
C919大型客機年內望首飛 大飛機產業鏈借機展翅
我國航空級鋁合金板材張力拉伸機裝備取得重大創新成果
（科普）軍事工業用新材料大盤點
路透社2015.05.13
Exclusive: China set to delay maiden flight of C919 commercial jet - sources
（新浪）

截止於 2015 年，中國有哪些技術是落後於國外的？


《多維》中國空軍更新計劃
目前：946架新型戰機
2020：1562
J20：24
S35：24
S27：從70減至28
J11A/B:230增至390
J16：增100
J10：220增至400


Through Beijing's Eyes: How China Sees the U.S.-Japan Alliance
Toward a Free and Democratic China


Searching for the Next Jack Ma
Why China Is Ready to Let Wall Street Firms Invade Its Markets

【妙史】聯想買下摩托羅拉，最難的是專利談判




《財新網》【“趙衙內”的房產帝國】
之一
南京：父蔭下的原始積累
2015年05月11日

21年前，中國的房地產業開始發軔，時年21歲的趙晉賴祖德父蔭，以空手套白狼之勢在南京完成原始積累，進而北上津、魯、冀，南下浙江，攻城略地，至少創辦六十餘公司，打造了一個龐大的房產帝國。其開發樓盤時增加麵積之肆無忌憚，圍獵權力之無所其及，皆令人瞠目。趙晉幾乎每建一樓皆民怨沸騰，業主維權每每走投無路。值中央鐵腕反腐，“猛虎翦翼，方入柙中”

【財新網】（記者 謝海濤）
2014年的最後一天，昏黃的夕陽瀉在南京丹鳳街上，恒基中心公寓B座四樓的屋頂花園裏，一片落寞。下午四點剛過，一個看房人走出402房間，鎖上門，推著自行車慢慢而去。

B座402臨街的門麵處落滿樹葉，南京瀚海房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱南京瀚海地產）的名字還在，金色的電梯門似乎還能看出主人往日的輝煌。

由此北向六百餘公裏處，山東濟南的文化東路上，金碧輝煌的萬豪國際公寓樓盤內，一棟五層小樓大門緊閉，門牆上寫著山東誠基房地產開發有限公司字樣，左右一對白色石麒麟作咆哮狀，門前一尊三麵觀音低眉作慈悲相，觀音像下的水池裏，塑料荷花已凍結在冰裏。

由此再北向三百餘公裏，天津南京路上，誠基經貿中心3號樓的四樓南端，黑如隧道，人去塵積。冰封的海河邊上，水岸銀座的銷售中心大門緊閉，開發商天津高盛房地產開發有限公司的獎牌依然琳琅滿目。

上述樓盤的主人，在2014年7月之前，並不為公眾所知。當月，天津銀監局發出的一份金融監管提示書稱，天津高盛房地產開發有限公司和天津匯景房地產開發有限公司的高管被有關部門控製，兩家公司實際控製人為趙晉。

這個神龍現首不現尾的地產商至此浮出水麵，而牽其一線，震動數省市政壇。

在天津，2014年7月20日，天津市政協副主席、公安局長武長順涉嫌嚴重違紀違法，接受組織調查。

在江蘇，2014年9月13日，南京市委常委、建鄴區委書記馮亞軍落馬。三天後，連雲港市委書記李強落馬。

在北京，2014年10月11日，已退休8年的江蘇省委原常委、秘書長趙少麟，國家行政學院常務副院長何家成，在同一天落馬。

在山東，2014年12月，山東省委常委、濟南市委書記王敏被查……

在諸多政要出事的背後，隱隱然有趙晉的影子。趙晉是誰？何以有如此大能量？

遙想1990年代初，中國的房地產業開始發軔，此後成為中國經濟發展的支柱產業，也成為平民謀生的悲涼地，開發商登頂富豪榜的加冕場，以及政府官員腐敗落馬的泥潭。21歲的趙晉於彼時乘勢而起，賴祖德父蔭，以空手套白狼的姿態，在南京完成原始積累，進而北上津、魯、冀，南下浙江，攻城略地，至少創辦六十餘公司，布點京、滬、深、港等地，打造了一個龐大的房產帝國。

其人貌似低調，從不在公開場所露麵，而開發樓盤時，謀劃手段之精妙，之肆無忌憚，皆令人震驚。其智商之高，能力之強，談笑間，玩弄法律、政策於鼓掌之間。幾乎每建一樓，皆民怨沸騰，業主維權成燎樓之勢；而其挾權力以“維穩”，令業主苦不堪言。值中央鐵腕反腐，“猛虎翦翼，方入柙中”。

趙晉不僅“為富不仁”，其人早年給人送禮，暗中錄音錄像，後在京城建有高級會所，有如賴昌星之紅樓，招待王敏等各路領導，勾連上層關係，並錄像以要挾。值其於會所中翻船之際，錄像中出現的人物次第顯形，一個縱橫數省市的官商網絡慢慢浮出水麵，而水依舊很深。如律師胡春雨感慨：該案件亦吾國反腐洪流中一波瀾爾。濯足濯纓，深未可見。

20年苦心經營，20年風流富貴，一朝大廈傾，樹倒猢猻散，如一場金陵春夢。其夢破時分，給人們留下N多疑問：趙晉何以成為趙晉？其成長之土壤何在？

於此，盤點其成長史，非為痛打落水虎落水蠅，非為政府反腐歌功頌德，而旨在以審視中國房地產業20年之煙雲黑幕，中國實行市場經濟以來，某些領域政商共生之畸形生態，以及種種世相人生，以為世鑒。

“趙衙內”的房產帝國之一

南京：父蔭下的原始積累

南京，虎踞龍盤之地，溫柔富貴之鄉，趙晉的起家之地。

房地產業，近20年來影響中國經濟、社會乃至官場至巨至深的行業，亦是趙晉發跡直至最後打翻一船人之所在。

和一般白手起家的房產大亨不同，趙晉如《紅樓夢》裏貴公子銜玉而誕。年既長，賴祖德父蔭，以衙內姿態，行原始積累之能事。一個弱冠青年，如何快速成長為一個既飛揚跋扈又神秘低調的隱形富豪？其長袖善舞，勾連官場的手段如何養成，經營房產謀取暴利的技術如何問世？

顯赫家世

1994年6月，當趙晉創建南京世昌房地產開發公司（以下簡稱南京世昌地產）時，隻有21歲。這是一家由共青團中央辦公廳批複成立的公司。

1994年，正值鄧小平南巡講話之後，中國經濟開始了新一輪騰飛，全民大經商由此開始。彼時，全國政府機關、公檢法係統，甚至軍隊，紛紛涉足商海。南京世昌地產為適應團中央辦公廳發展第三產業的需要而建，經江蘇省建委批準，在江蘇省工商局核準登記注冊。

根據團中央辦公廳相關批文，該公司為全民所有製企業，實行獨立核算、自負盈虧，注冊資金1000萬元，地點設在南京市工人新村108號，主營房地產開發及中介服務，兼營建築材料、建築裝潢、建築五金的銷售協作。

這年6月7日，趙晉被團中央辦公廳任命為公司法人、總經理。年輕的趙晉，並不具備共青團背景。知情人稱，這和其家世背景有關。

根正苗紅的趙晉，出生在南京軍區部隊大院。其祖父是老資格的開國軍人，其父趙少麟，1946年10月生人，祖籍山西原平。這是中共革命老區，抗戰時著名的火燒陽明堡機場即發生於此。這片紅色的土地上，陸續走出20餘位將軍，兩千多名烈士曾為國捐軀。

知情者稱，趙少麟出身於南京空軍大院，最早是在南京市小營小學接受教育，這是一所由華東軍區空軍幹部管理部1952年創辦的學校，時為空軍子弟小學。

1965年8月，趙少麟進入解放軍軍事工程學院原子工程係學習。這所籌建於1952年的著名軍事院校，因校址在哈爾濱，又簡稱哈軍工，約300位將軍、40多位兩院院士以及諸多中央級政要曾在此就讀、執教。哈軍工的讀書經曆，為趙少麟仕途打下了堅實的基礎。

1970年，哈軍工畢業的趙少麟進入南京大橋機器廠工作。這是一所建於1958年，為信息產業部門和部隊定點研製氣象雷達等產品的軍工企業。他在這裏曆任工人、技術員。1980年6月，升任廠黨委副書記。

1982年8月，趙少麟出任共青團南京市委書記，由此開啟仕途。1984年3月，趙少麟任南京市鼓樓區委書記；1986年4月，任南京市委常委、市委秘書長；1989年8月，任南京市委副書記。

1973年7月，趙晉就出生於這樣一個紅色家庭，在南京軍區的大院長大，在南京著名的金陵中學、南京第十三中讀書。接近趙家的人士稱，趙晉讀書時成績不是太好，但人非常聰明。

1990年9月，趙晉進入設在南京的解放軍國際關係學院讀專科。這是一所隸屬於解放軍總參謀部的院校。1993年畢業之後，趙晉並沒有進入部隊或機關工作，而是進入上海一家公司的南京分公司。

在趙晉創業的1994年，後來與其關係密切的部分人士各有前程。

他的父親趙少麟在這一年從淮陰市市長升任市委書記。1992-1997年，趙少麟從省城調至蘇北地級市淮陰（今稱淮安市），曆任淮陰市政府和市委的最高領導職務。一位江蘇省的退休老幹部後來接受媒體采訪時稱，淮陰是江蘇省比較窮的一個地區，在趙少麟任上，淮陰並無太多變化，但這並沒有妨礙其此後繼續擢升。

在天津，平民子弟武長順，經過24年打拚，已從一名普通交警，擢升為天津市公安局副局長兼公安交管局局長。

在濟南，山東師大78級大學生王敏，進入山東省委工作已12年，擔任省委辦公廳副廳級秘書兼秘書二室主任。

在南京，同樣出身南京軍區的李強，1991年調入江蘇省委辦公廳，時為南京市政府辦公廳副主任。

在北京，學界精英何家成則結束在江蘇的掛職，返回北京擔任國內貿易部政策體製法規司司長。

何家成1956年5月生於南京，1978年考入南京大學經濟係，1981年至1986年間，在中國社科院攻讀經濟學碩士和在職經濟學博士，先後師從經濟學家戴園晨和劉國光。期間他和華生等人合作的《微觀經濟基礎的重新構造》獲得1986年中國經濟學最高獎——孫冶方經濟科學獎。1984年6月，碩士尚未畢業的何家成，參加了在中國經濟發展史上具有重要意義的莫幹山會議，並和華生等人提出放調結合的雙軌製；同年9月，何家成又參加了同樣重要的巴山輪會議，由此開啟了其高層智囊之路。

1986-1987年，何家成在中共中央辦公廳調研室工作一年後，被調到曾經赫赫有名的“政改辦”（即中央政治體製改革研討小組辦公室），1987年十三大後在政改辦基礎上成立中央政治體製改革研究室，何家成擔任綜合局副局長。

1989年6月之後，中央政治體製改革研究室與中共中央農村政策研究室合並為中央政策研究室，何家成的履曆出現了短暫的空白，但仕途反而得以提升。1990年，他調任原國家物資部辦公廳副主任、部長辦主任，之後還兼任正司局級的中國物資經濟研究所所長。簡曆顯示，1992-1993年，何家成被派往江蘇無錫市短暫掛職副市長。1993-1995年，他擔任國內貿易部政策體製法規司司長。2000年，44歲的何家成成為國務院任命的首批36名副部級國有重點大型企業監事會主席之一；2009年9月，他出任國家行政學院副院長，2013年3月，升任常務副院長，主持學院常務工作，被明確為正部級幹部。在此期間，經濟學理論功底紮實的何家成一直充當著中央高層幕僚的角色，經常出入中南海。

多位消息人士向財新記者證實，何家成與趙家是通家之好，趙晉稱呼其為“幹爹”。關於何家成與趙家的交好。一說出身草根的何家成，在某次回南京時，結識了有靠山的趙少麟；一說在何家成1992年至1993年掛職無錫副市長時，結識了時任淮陰市長的趙少麟。更有人士稱，何家成的公開簡曆有誤，他當年就是在淮陰掛職，而不是無錫。

這些隻是趙家關係的冰山之一角。

父子同唱房產戲

在趙晉創業的1994年，中國的房地產市場方興未艾。

1990年，國務院頒布《城鎮土地使用權出讓和轉讓暫行條例》，標誌著中國房地產業的肇始，但很快，房地產泡沫在海南等地出現，政府開始第一輪緊縮性宏觀調控，造成了大量爛尾樓和銀行呆壞賬。

南京的房地產市場也是自1990年代起步。據《南京市誌》介紹，1992年，南京實施公有住房製度改革；1995年，穩步出售公房；1997年，停止福利分房。但在1994年以前，南京的商品房年上市量隻有約100萬平米。

一座城市的變遷與發展，離不開房地產業的推動。房地產對於城市發展的重要性，趙少麟早有認識。

1993年，身為淮陰市市長的趙少麟，在接受《瞭望周刊》訪談時曾表示，淮陰交通條件不好，改善也非一時之功，因此投資者少。怎麽辦？能不能反過來搞，把舊房子拿出來賣，拿了錢去蓋新房子招商。

趙少麟舉了淮陰淮海大廈的例子，稱淮海大廈經營五六年，年年虧本。後來整個包給了外商，每年按一定的遞增率收錢。但也有人不理解，說這麽好的地段怎麽包給別人經營呢？但就是不去想，這麽好的地段，自己越辦越虧，為什麽不能讓他投入市場經營，成為生財聚財的源泉呢？現在大家想通了，市裏的房地產都可以賣，有的政府機關占了商業黃金地段都要賣。轉起來才能生錢，有了錢，淮陰的戲才好唱。

在趙少麟圍繞著經濟發展“唱戲”之際，趙晉的創業也開始了。

新成立的南京世昌地產，編製25人，或來自房產公司，或來自供電局、自來水公司等市政部門，也有來自趙少麟掌控過的南京大橋機器廠，其中不乏幹部子弟。

1994年8月14日，成立兩個月後，南京世昌地產和一家集體企業南京恒盛物資經營公司，在蘇州合資成立蘇州市泰和房地產開發有限責任公司（以下簡稱蘇州泰和地產）。1996年3月5日，蘇州泰和地產又和江蘇泰豐商貿發展有限公司合資，成立江蘇鴻業房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱江蘇鴻業地產）。

趙晉以上述三大公司為母公司，開始了在寧、蘇兩地發展的雙城記。

南京首秀

趙晉開發的第一個樓盤，是南京寧夏路住宅。

寧夏路屬於頤和路公館區，在南京人印象中，頤和路公館區於南京，如同外灘之於上海，八大關之於青島，凝結著20世紀初中國的曆史記憶。此地全稱為頤和路曆史文化街區，北到江蘇路，東至寧海路，南抵北京西路，西至西康路，總麵積約35.19公頃，是全國規模最大、保存最完整的民國別墅建築群，被譽為“民國官府區”。

民國時，舊官僚、新權貴、外國公使雲集於此，興建官邸，道路以中國各地名勝命名，主幹道叫頤和，兩側有珞珈、牯嶺、寧夏諸路。馬歇爾、孫科、宋子文等人於此留下印記。新中國之後，這裏的小樓小院內住著南京軍區的將軍、江蘇省的老幹部。寧夏路一帶地塊，非一般人所能拿到。

1994年，成立之初的南京世昌地產，申請對寧夏路3、7片進行開發建設，向南京市建委提交《關於申請建設多層住宅的立項報告》。當年7月，南京市建委做出立項批複，稱為加快舊城區的改造建設，經研究同意世昌公司對鼓樓區寧夏路3、7片進行開發建設。

這是一塊麵積不大的地塊，南京世昌地產在這裏建了三幢樓房，兩幢五層，一幢四層，總建築麵積4342平米。

1995年8月，南京世昌地產以寧夏路住宅樓的名義對外售房。耐人尋味的是，南京市房管局在頒發的銷售許可證中稱，該項目不得廣告宣傳。

1996年，成立兩年後的南京世昌地產進行改製。

這時中國的房產市場並不景氣，緊縮性的宏觀調控政策落實後，經濟過熱勢頭放緩。據《南京市誌》介紹，1995年後，南京商品房市場投入量湧增，而需求量減少。1995年，商品房上市量達644.7萬平方米，銷售量隻有117萬平方米；1996年，商品房上市量586萬平方米，比上年下降9.1%，銷售178萬平方米，比上年增加52.1%，但因上市量遠大於銷售量，年末商品房空置量仍高達408萬平方米。

1996年12月25日，團中央辦公廳向江蘇省工商局出示情況說明稱：“我單位曾於1994年向你局申請注冊成立南京世昌房地產開發公司，當時由於我單位資金緊張，所以該公司注冊資本金未到位，對此我單位深表歉意。鑒於至今我單位仍無力籌措該公司的注冊資金，且未投入任何資金，致使該公司無法正常經營，所以我單位決定不再作為該公司的出資者及主管部門，並同意該公司改製。”

而在南京世昌地產成立時，其企業注冊資金來源情況說明稱，注冊資金1000萬元，係團中央辦公廳撥款。

1996年12月28日，南京世昌地產進行公司重組，注冊資金仍為1000萬元，趙晉任董事長兼總經理，公司名字變更為江蘇世昌實業有限公司（以下簡稱江蘇世昌實業）。趙晉個人的房產江湖由此開啟。

1998年左右，江蘇世昌實業轉戰石婆婆巷。

這一年，中國的房地產市場迎來了新發展。1998年5月，中國人民銀行出台《個人住房貸款管理辦法》，倡導貸款買房。7月，國務院正式宣布停止住房收入分配，逐步實行住房分配貨幣化。海南房地產泡沫破裂後延續5年的頹勢，在這一年得以扭轉：當年全國完成房地產開發投資3623億元，同比增加13.79%。

亞洲金融危機爆發後通貨緊縮的經濟局勢，使得政府決定催熱房地產拉動內需，這一影響深遠的決策影響持續至今，房地產成為中國經濟的支柱產業之一，不僅造就了大批中國富豪，也成為政府官員落馬的主要泥潭。

在南京，1998年12月31日，南京停止住房實物分配。1999年5月，允許已購公有住房上市出售，促使房地產市場進一步活躍。趙晉也得以乘勢而起。

南京石婆婆巷也不是一條平常小巷，西連被張恨水寫進小說的丹鳳街，東接東南大學。民國時，徐悲鴻和蔣碧微在這裏漫步 張愛玲和胡蘭成在這裏纏綿。

在石婆婆巷與丹鳳街交界處，江蘇世昌實業拆遷居民的平房，開發了三幢七層的商住樓，為石婆婆巷12號、14號、16號，建築麵積2萬餘平米。1998年8月14日，由南京房產局頒發房權證。

石婆婆巷一度成了趙晉的大本營。江蘇世昌實業以此為基地，相繼成立了南京分公司、南京第二分公司、上海分公司。

蘇州泰和地產也於1998年9月1日，從征戰四年的蘇州遷至石婆婆巷14-2號，其後更名為江蘇泰和房地產實業有限公司（以下簡稱江蘇泰和地產）。

在石婆婆巷14-1號，趙晉於1996年12月成立了江蘇恒基商貿有限公司，2000年5月成立了南京而仁貿易有限公司。

在石婆婆巷12號樓下，趙晉於2000年成立了南京恒基通訊器材市場，後來此地成為南京有名的二手手機市場。

此後，趙晉還成立了江蘇嘉輝廣告文化傳播有限公司、南京德輝廣告文化傳播有限公司、南京順熹隆廣告文化傳播有限責任公司以及上海康定投資管理有限公司等。

石婆婆巷的居民，見證了趙晉早期發展的威勢。在一位居民印象中，那時趙晉天天在這裏上班，長得高高胖胖的，公司裏養了一幫保安，身上雕龍畫鳳。恒基通訊市場開業時，居民們看到時任玄武區公安分局局長著便裝前來剪彩。

石婆婆巷的回遷戶，對趙晉更是深有感受。沈真文（音）是其中的一戶。據當地《江南時報》報道，1999年，沈家拆遷後按協議回遷到石婆婆巷14號樓內居住。按照當初開發商的承諾，沈家拿到一小套住房，以及16號樓下一間10平米的“門麵房”，然而，此房有名無實，並不在街上，而是在小巷的裏麵，三米外即是圍牆。沈家對此頗為不滿，多次找到開發商交涉。

2002年5月10日晚上，沈真文再次找到開發商負責人，雙方發生爭執，後經派出所協調予以平息。第二天晚11時許，沈家夫婦準備休息時，幾名陌生人來敲門，並稱有人在樓下等，找他們去調換房子。為慎重起見，沈真文撥打了110報警。丹鳳街派出所值班警察接到電話後，讓他在樓下等。然而，沈真文和妻子下樓後不久，即有一夥人從暗中衝出，對其一頓暴打。

多年後，附近居民對財新記者稱，那天下著雨，在石婆婆巷的鬆樹前，十幾個人像練拳一樣打沈真文，他被打趴在一個水坑裏，妻子大喊救命。

行凶者欲乘車逃離現場時，警察趕到，在群眾的協助下，抓住一名身著黃色西裝的行凶男子，但此人第二天就放走了。沈真文被送進醫院搶救，其鼻骨與一根肋骨被打折，麵部及腦部有挫傷，脾髒也被打壞。

《江南時報》記者當時采訪到開發商一位趙姓副總，對方稱，整個事件與該公司無關。此事後來不了了之。

“我們曉得他老頭子是江蘇省委秘書長，沒人敢動他。”知情居民說。

原始積累的秘密

趙少麟是在1997年11月，從淮陰市委書記調任江蘇省委副秘書長、辦公廳主任，開始接近江蘇省權力核心圈的。1998年6月，他升任省委秘書長兼辦公廳主任。接下來的8年中，陳煥友、回良玉和李源潮先後出任江蘇省最高領導，但趙少麟的工作分工一直沒有變，並在2000年進入江蘇省委常委班子——這也是他擔任的最高職務。

知情者稱，趙少麟在南京官場上並不張揚，但民間口碑不好。2000年左右，曾有開發商跟他談及趙少麟時說，這哪裏像共產黨的幹部。

趙晉的原始積累中，趙少麟提攜甚力。在南京多位房產界人士印象中，趙晉勢利、霸道，他的原始積累是一種空手套白狼的方式，“隻要他看中了哪塊地，趙少麟會直接出麵打招呼”。

“每個項目都有他老子在裏麵，他會把地從人家手裏轉過來。”知情者舉例說，2000年前後，南京漢中門外二道埂的一塊地，有家房產公司來買，隻給600萬元。那塊地隻有五六畝，但位置非常好，在莫愁湖邊上，600萬元比市場價便宜一半。土地的產權方不同意賣，後來上級領導硬壓下來，一定要把地賣給該公司。

“當時聽說是趙少麟的兒子來買地，但趙沒有直接出麵，是淮陰駐南京辦事處的人來的。”該知情者說。

在父親的蔭護下，至2000年，趙晉的資產已初見規模，其旗下房產開發的三駕馬車江蘇泰和地產、江蘇世昌實業、江蘇鴻業投資，在這一年各有斬獲：

江蘇世昌實業，已建成靠近南京大學鼓樓校區的漢口路48-2號住宅；

江蘇泰和地產有五處工地在建。至2001年，公司所開發的12幢商品房有7幢竣工；

江蘇鴻業投資有限公司，在進行大行宮雍園項目前期開發準備工作，該項目占地2.1公頃，擬建住宅4萬多平米。

更多的時候，江蘇鴻業投資承擔著資本運作、對外投資的作用，先後投資江蘇世昌實業有限公司、南京順熹隆廣告文化傳播有限公司、南京永亨房地產開發有限公司、南京百潤德置業谘詢有限公司。

趙晉的項目還涉及軍隊政策性住房。多年後，趙晉在其公司介紹中聲稱，他旗下的房產公司，始終承擔著“央企”的曆史使命與責任，為我國房地產行業的發展及地方、軍隊政策性住房的建設做出了巨大貢獻。

知情者稱，“智商極高”的趙晉，除了依靠父蔭，也善用各種人脈資源，長袖善舞。其早期的合作者中，不乏出身南京公教一村的子弟，這是南京市委市政府領導所住小區。

數年間，趙晉於南京建立20多個公司。這些公司或租在辦公樓內，或蝸居民居內，從一開始就蒙上了神秘麵紗，數年後一些公司又悄然注銷，了無痕跡。

這些公司的法人大多不是趙晉，或是其公司高管，或是普通員工、秘書，或是一些身份不明人士，且法人經常變動，讓人神秘莫測。

1999年7月，江蘇鴻業投資的法人變更為一位姬先生。兩個月後，南京世昌實業的法人也由此人出任。

姬先生，時年65歲，北京崇文區人，1950年代曾就讀於哈爾濱外國語學院，也曾赴蘇留學，此後供職於燃料工業部、中國國際旅行社，還擔任過北京某實業公司總經理。

2000年2月12日，江蘇泰和地產的法人變更為一位孫先生。孫先生，北京宣武區人，1957年生，北京某師範學院畢業，曾在北京市一所中學和深圳某發展有限公司工作。

姬、孫兩人其後出任趙晉多家公司的法人。兩人都曾在北京對外友好交流促進會任過職，姬先生還擔任過副會長，該促進會設在北京一座部隊大院內。有消息稱，趙晉也跟該促進會有關聯。

2004年9月15日，在南京世昌實業的股東會上，一個叫蘇韻的南京人出任董事。同一天，她又當選為江蘇泰和房產董事。蘇韻生於1977年，是趙晉的中學校友，大學畢業後，曾在保險公司工作。2001年6月，進了潤信國際集團有限公司，後成為趙晉的財務總監。蘇韻和弟弟蘇冠睿多次出任趙晉公司的法人。

在趙晉所控製的公司中，出任法人最多的則是一個叫杭寧的女性。杭寧出生於1953年，曾供職南京某無線電廠，長期擔任會計工作。

從表麵看，這個叫杭寧的神秘人物，創立了一個龐大的房產帝國，轉戰京津魯等地，吞吐風雲，詢之於業內，幾乎無人識其麵目。

實際上，杭寧諸人不過是馬甲，趙晉在這些馬甲的後麵運籌帷幄，攻城略地。

恒基中心的隱患

在趙晉後來的房產江湖中，香港是一座幕後之城。

知情者稱，還在南京的時候，趙晉就經常去香港，後來幾乎每年都去，或是考察市場，或是其他目的，甚至有人懷疑他去洗錢。

香港成為他此後多家離岸公司的法定地址，這些公司多是注冊在英屬維爾京群島，他從這裏出發，以外商的身份反身進入內地，或直接成立公司，或參與股份，成立合資企業。

香港更成為趙晉此後房產帝國的“延安”，他從這裏借鑒了先進的房產思路，吸取了新的想法，加以改造，以打造自己的基業。

一位知情的員工對財新記者透露：“老板（趙晉）從南京時代，就開始模仿香港。樓盤起的名字跟香港公司很像，很多人以為這是香港公司。他就是要故意造成這種印象。最初，公司的人也會對外宣稱，我們是香港公司，李嘉誠入股之類。”

2003年8月，建設部公布了國務院18號文件，明確了房地產支柱產業的地位，中國的城市房地產業走上了打造富豪的征程。也就從這一時期開始，趙晉開發的樓盤開始高端大氣上檔次，開始香港化。

2003年8月28日，南京丹鳳街上，由石婆婆巷路口向南數百米處，一家名叫恒基中心的公寓開盤，這是趙晉試水高檔樓盤的處女作。

由江蘇泰和地產開發的該樓盤，分A、B兩座大樓，高19-20層，1到4樓是商鋪，其上為住宅。在開發商的廣告中，樓盤地處黃金地段，配套設施優越，為優良社區和學區，建有五星級酒店標準的大堂，配備會所、屋頂花園等，均價每平方米6500元。樓盤開盤後，連續多日創造南京樓盤銷售量新高。

2004年，恒基中心兩座高樓拔地而起，雄視周邊低矮民居。B座側麵二樓處，4根巨大的廊柱間，兩個大圓盤上的“恒基”金色大字，讓人想起香港的恒基兆業地產集團；圓盤中間是一個由權杖、令旗組成的徽標，同樣讓人浮想連綿。

恒基中心成了趙晉公司的新基地，其B座402室是他旗下多家公司的所在地。趙晉後來縱橫津門諸地，謀取高額利潤的係列技術，也正是通過該樓盤開始操練。

知情人稱，趙少麟在位時，利用職權、關係，從別人那裏轉讓多起土地，讓兒子操作。丹鳳街的這塊土地也不例外，原是玄武區開發公司的地塊，趙少麟利用職權強行拿到手，後來補簽了合同。

在趙晉後來的房地產牟利過程中，更改容積率是其重要手段。恒基中心本來容積率是2.2，趙晉把大樓蓋到了7.1。如果按照容積率，需要補交數以億計的資金。但趙少麟利用職權，把此事抹掉。

恒基中心的兩座樓之間，政府開了一條薛家巷，等於增加了很多商鋪，容積率也增加了很多，對於開發商是有利的，但南京市政府反而補償了趙晉不少錢。

在趙晉更改容積率的征途中，時常需要變更設計。恒基中心於此也已牛刀小試，其隱患則在多年後陸續出現。

據南京龍虎網當時報道，市民陳汝（化名）花了近110萬元購置恒基中心一套六樓住房。2004年入住後，問題接踵而至。一遇雨天，房屋就出現大麵積滲水，而且地麵有很多小裂縫，前後折騰三年，一直沒徹底解決。2006年2月，開發商在陳汝家房屋內牆體與窗戶連體處，打開一條4米長的排水溝，還發現牆內有大量積水。

陳汝曾去南京市規劃局檔案館，調出房子的原始建築設計圖，讓她吃驚的是，開發商將原本與外牆平行的東北角的弧形窗戶向外延伸，房屋多出一個大理石空體平台。

建築專家驗房發現，該公寓以陳汝家所在樓層為界，上下樓層均在一個平麵內，唯獨六樓向外突出了一個平台，如一道花邊雕塑把六層包起來，外圍看起來非常美觀，但裏麵全是空的。由於該公寓的外圍牆體上沒有排水管，一到雨天，整棟樓外牆麵的雨水，就順著陳家的外牆體倒灌入室內。

另一個困擾業主的問題，是恒基中心公寓外牆大理石的掉落。從2008年上半年開始，公寓B座外立麵大理石就開始脫落。公寓裙樓上有500多戶居民，裙樓下是多家商業網點，每天客流量達10萬人次，大理石磚的掉落，使這一鬧市區的安全被蒙上陰影，先後多輛車子被砸壞。

大理石墜落事件，一直持續到2012年。據《南京晨報》報道，大年初一下午，恒基中心公寓B座南麵五樓，又有三塊十幾公斤重的大理石條墜下，砸在四樓平台上。幸好當天樓下客流量小，否則後果不堪設想。

對於墜石事件，物業公司和業委會向南京市住建委遞交報告稱，開發商在建設公寓時，未按照施工圖施工，致使20層以下的外立麵大理石脫落……

“激流勇退”

趙晉在其房產江湖中，以桀驁不馴著稱。知情者稱，這種習性趙晉在南京時代就已養成。江蘇泰和地產在其早期發展中，時有對抗政府之舉。

2004年， SARS過後，中國房價反彈，土地拍賣和加息伴隨著新一輪房價的大漲，房地產發展的熱潮已從京滬轉向內陸城市。炒房之風隨之盛行，常用手法之一，是“假退房真轉讓”：

樓盤開盤初期，“房蟲”與開發商串通一氣，先大口吃下房源，造成該樓盤“熱銷”假象，然後再在二手房市場上加價掛牌出讓，找到下家後對房管部門謊稱退房，解除合同，讓下家和開發商重新簽署購房合同，以此牟利。

為對付上述炒房，2004年4月1日，南京出台《加強商品房預售管理實施細則》，規定對所退房源的坐落、套型、麵積、房價等內容進行公示，開發商必須將退出的房源統一交由房管部門，按照規定程序公開抽簽搖號銷售。

據《金陵晚報》當時報道，南京炒房禁令下達後，當月共有三個開發商將自己退回的14套期房房源交給南京房管部門公示，定於4月28日公開抽簽搖號。然而這一首次公開抽簽搖號卻被取消了，原因是有人舉報，14套期房退房的房源有問題，房管局調查發現，確有開發商將不符合條件的房源交來搖號，將其狠狠“涮”了一把。房管局一位人士透露，這個膽大的開發商就是江蘇泰和地產。房管部門為此非常惱火。

2005年4月，南京市物價檢查人員檢查江蘇泰和地產的收費情況時，發現該公司擅自向部分拆遷安置戶收取大堂裝修費、屋頂花園裝修費。

盡管如此，似乎並不影響江蘇泰和地產的銷售情況。2005年，南京市評出了2004年度房地產十強企業，該公司榜上有名。

蹊蹺的是，2006年11月16日，這家公司從省會城市南京遷至偏遠的淮安市，即趙少麟主政5年的淮陰市。2006年度，公司沒有參加年檢。

這一年，中國的房產市場並未出現波動。恰恰相反，雖然“國六條”、“十五條”等調控政策頻出，但房價一路堅挺。在此背景下，江蘇泰和地產的舉動格外讓人費解。不僅如此，2007年5月21日，該公司股東書麵決定稱，因公司長期沒有業務，無力繼續經營，決定停止經營活動，進行清算。

2007年5月24日，公司成立清算組，向淮安市工商局稱，公司在遷入淮安後，多次對淮安市場進行調研考察，始終沒有找到合適的開發項目，故沒有開展經營業務。鑒於這種情況，公司沒有在淮安市稅務局申領稅務登記證，但已在南京鼓樓區稅務局批準注銷稅務登記證。

5月26日，該公司在《淮安日報》刊登注銷公告。12月2日，該公司向淮安工商局遞交公司注銷登記申請。

房價瘋漲之際，趙晉在南京注銷的並非一家公司。2007年5月28日，江蘇世昌實業舉行股東會，也稱因公司長期沒有業務，無力繼續經營，決定停止經營活動，進行清算。9天後，江蘇鴻業投資以同樣原因決定停止經營，進行清算。兩家公司在2007年下半年申請注銷。

至此，為趙晉早期原始積累立下汗馬功勞的三大公司相繼消失，事如春夢了無痕。

比它們稍早一些退出江蘇官場的，是趙晉之父趙少麟。2006年12月，年滿60歲的趙少麟卸去江蘇省委常委、秘書長職務，名字出現在中國老齡事業發展基金會副理事長的職位上。

知情者稱，按照慣例，趙少麟退休後，本來可以在江蘇省政協任職，但他走了門路，選擇了北上。

退休之前，趙少麟住在南京市傅厚崗。這是一條位於鼓樓區東北側，東西長約400米的街巷，周邊分布著民國政府外交部、李宗仁公館等民國建築，徐悲鴻、傅抱石等人曾在此居住。

傅厚崗28號，有三處獨門小院，院內各有二層小樓，趙少麟住在中間的院子。自2006年後，這所小院常年鐵門緊閉。

趙少麟退休後在江蘇政壇為數不多的亮相，是2007年1月27日江蘇省第十屆人代會第五次會議開幕，他以中國老齡事業發展基金會副理事長的身份出席。

萬豪中心與卓越

很多年後，南京人才明白，趙晉在2007年注銷公司，並不僅僅是因為父親淡出江蘇官場而急流勇退，他還實現了自己的戰略轉移。

2003年之後，趙晉就開始布局北上，此後數年，發展重心逐步北移，南京隻有一些項目處於收尾階段。萬豪中心和卓越SOHO（後更名為卓越名座）是其中的兩個樓盤。

位於鼓樓區中山北路的萬豪中心項目，是一個聯建項目。早在2002年12月，江蘇泰和地產與南京中商房產開發有限公司（以下簡稱南京中商房產）、南京三樂電氣總公司簽訂協議，聯建該項目，並於2006年7月簽訂《補充協議》，約定江蘇泰和地產承擔建設用地的拆遷安置補償費用、土地出讓金、設計費、城市建設規費等，南京中商房產承擔全部建設費用。

2006年9月，江蘇泰和地產將其在聯建項目中的權利，轉讓給趙晉控製的江蘇乾康房地產實業有限公司（以下簡稱江蘇乾康地產）。

萬豪項目於2007年9月預售，2008年10月26日，其工程主體結構封頂，總建築麵積124650平米，地上54層，建築總高度為200米，有江蘇第一高住宅工程之稱。

但在未交房之前，萬豪中心就遭受質疑。據《東方衛報》報道，2008年11月，就有業主反映，該項目中大多數精裝修房源沒有管道燃氣。

該報記者發現，該項目1-9層為商用房，10層以上為住宅。住宅項目中，每層39套房子中，隻有4套明廚明衛的房子安裝了管道燃氣，暗廚暗衛的房子則沒有。南京市燃管處負責人稱，從安全上考慮，暗廚暗衛達不到通風消防條件，不能安裝管道燃氣。

南京著名驗房師丁渤稱，開發商此舉是在打擦邊球，目的是增加建築麵積多贏利，因為如果嚴格按照設計規範，住宅部分就不應該出現暗廚暗衛。

此外，也有業主質疑開發商的其他問題：該地塊1999年購買，2006年建造，並將在2010年完工，按此計算已囤積10年，故導致房屋產權比國家規定少了10年；開發商的臨時購房訂購協議規定，如延遲交房，開發商將按每天總房價的0.3/10000賠付。但根據南京市的售房標準，每天應按總房價的5/10000賠付等。

趙晉係的另一項目卓越SOHO引發公眾注意，是在2009年7月底。

這一年，在經過2008年房產降溫後，隨著救市政策的作用顯現，中國的房產市場從年初的低價、平價全麵轉向漲價，南京的房產市場也在升溫。7月中旬，仁恒江灣城發生了“深夜搶樓”事件，一周後，類似情景又在南京市中心重演。

2009年7月23日，南京丹鳳街恒基中心，早上8點多就有人冒雨在售樓處外排隊，至次日晚上已達200多人。現場維持秩序的輔警稱，排隊者在街頭睡了一夜。他們等待的樓盤，要到7月25日晚上才能開盤。

這家樓盤就是卓越SOHO，位於珠江路勞動村地塊。2007年，由趙晉控製的山東誠基房地產開發有限公司以1億元拿下地塊，用地總麵積4735.5平米，南京泰亨房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱南京泰亨地產）負責開發。

在廣告宣傳中，該樓盤為商業、金融業、公寓綜合樓，建築高度80米，地處城市中心，在樓上可東眺紫金山，北望玄武湖，周邊超市、醫院、學校一應俱全，配套成熟，交通便利，層高5.2米，可買一用二。

市民徹夜排隊引起了《揚子晚報》的注意。該報記者在有關部門查到，該樓盤可上市銷售1123套，實際土地使用年限隻有40年，從2007年7月至2047年7月。

一個土地使用年限僅剩38年的項目，為何還有人連夜排隊搶購？南京市房管局一位人士對該報記者表示，樓市迅速升溫，不排除一些開發商刻意“炒作”，人為製造排隊搶購的現象，借此抬高價格。

此前，南京搜房網也曾質疑過，卓越SOHO的產權是商業產權，開發商卻宣稱水電是民用標準。這座大廈的房型也與其他樓盤不同。其1-4層是商鋪，5-15層是住宅，每層有49戶，商鋪與住宅都是一種小戶型。當時有購房者提出疑問，他們買的房子為什麽是鴿子籠式的小戶型？為什麽沒有煤氣？他們不知道，趙晉正在把在北方演練成熟的房產發展模式，推廣回了自己的故鄉。

南京再布局

在南京，似乎再也沒有一個板塊的城市化進程可比河西新城：十年架構，從一片荒蕪河灘變身高樓林立。在經曆了“十運會”“中國首屆綠博會”“第四屆世界城市論壇”後，河西新城發展大大提速，舉辦青奧會的契機更使其一日千裏。

河西新城是南京的地王頻出之地，和記黃埔、招商地產、北京金隅先後在此刷新南京地價紀錄。這裏也是腐敗滋生之地，曾任河西新城開發建設指揮部常務副指揮長的南京市政府原副秘書長汪揚，擔任過副指揮長的南京市委常委、建鄴區委書記馮亞軍，擔任過指揮長的連雲港書記李強，於2013-2014年先後落馬。

盡管如此，這裏的黃金土地，仍引得房產商競相折腰。

2010年10月29日在南京的一次土地拍賣會上，一家名不見經傳的江蘇盛康商貿有限公司（以下簡稱江蘇盛康商貿），以8.1億元拿下河西大街（中部33-2）地塊。

從表麵看，這家成立於2007年的公司注冊資金僅500萬元，卻能在如此黃金地帶拿地，似乎有點不可思議。細究其背景，其法人杭寧，其股東江蘇乾康地產和江蘇恒基商貿有限公司，均暴露出這家公司的真正主人。

在淡出南京的房產市場數年之後，趙晉又回來了。

這一年，中國的樓市可用火爆形容。在2009年政策全麵放開救市之後，樓市瘋狂最終引發中央出重手調控，此後四年，樓市進入了“最嚴厲宏觀調控時代”，但各地房價除了2011年短暫低穀外，仍然堅挺。

趙晉的歸來似乎正是時候。此時他早非吳下阿蒙，江蘇盛康商貿成為他後期在南京發展的起點。

2010年11月，江蘇盛康商貿出資2000萬元，成立南京瀚海地產，以開發河西新城地塊。在其規劃中，該地塊擬投資23億元，從西北到東南依次建設三棟主體建築，地上36層，建築高度199米，地下4層，總建築麵積202315平米。

知情人稱，這塊工地後來曾經兩次改圖紙，一次是改內部結構，一次是將建築高度從200米改到300米——這並不容易，但趙晉做到了。

其時，馮亞軍於2013年1月出任南京市河西新城區開發建設指揮部常務副指揮長、建鄴區區委書記。消息人士告訴財新記者，趙晉曾送其張大千的畫，並錄像記錄下來。

2011年1月，江蘇盛康商貿再以3.16億元，競得原下關黃家圩商業金融用地。該地塊項目用地麵積19644.4平米，總建築麵積約10萬平米。當年3月，江蘇盛康商貿出資1000萬元，成立南京德勝房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱南京德勝地產），以開發該地塊。

南京瀚海地產和南京德勝地產是趙晉後期發展的主要推動力。根據財新記者的不完全統計，2012年7月-2013年10月，短短一年出頭時間，南京瀚海地產和南京德勝地產出資15.75億元，連續拍得江寧區、下關區、棲霞區的五個出讓麵積基本都過萬平方米的地塊，引起各方側目。

趙晉在下著一盤很大的棋。他的眼光越過了南京市中心，開始布局棲霞區、江寧區等。南京之外，則是天津、濟南、杭州、唐山……


《財新網》【“趙衙內”的房產帝國】

之二
天津：海河之畔的房產大佬
2015年05月18日
天津十年，趙晉把香港的房產思路、南京的曆練，試驗於此黃金寶地，逐漸發展出一套獨具風格的謀利模式：高價拿地，全力開發超高密度小戶型，挖空心思偷麵積，低價快速出售。趙晉打造房產帝國的征途如坦克滾滾向前，凡阻礙者必碾於車下


2014年10月12日，天津市河西區的名門廣場銷售中心牆上貼著“廣場複工”、“還我血汗錢”等口號
 

【財新網】（記者 謝海濤）
南京隻是趙晉的起家之地，深入京畿重地，則是其成就霸業之始。2003年之後，趙氏父子相繼北上，似非偶然。

京師有退休的老爺子坐鎮，趙晉於此設高級會所，勾連權貴，官商同樂；更於津門開疆辟土，旁及冀地，以為旗艦，號令諸地。

天津十年，趙晉把香港的房產思路、南京的曆練，試驗於此黃金寶地，逐漸發展出一套獨具風格的謀利模式：高價拿地，全力開發小戶型，挖空心思偷麵積，低價快速出售……再把其先進經驗，推廣至寧濟等地，一時烈火烹油，鮮花著錦。

雖每建一樓，皆如引發一座火山，民怨沸騰，但其根深葉茂，挾權勢以令業主，高壓維穩，強勢止沸，業主徒呼奈何，遂有最牛開發商之名。

1、天津標王

2003年，趙晉是以外商的身份空降天津的，由此開啟了其隱形帝國在北方的基業。

這一年，在公眾心目中，SARS的陰霾籠罩著全國。自1998年終止福利分房後，中國逐漸建立起住房分配貨幣化、住房供給商品化的住房新體製，房地產剛剛迎來發展的春天，在SARS疫情中瞬間墜入寒冬。當年6月，央行出台“121號文”嚴控房地產貸款，又給了開發商當頭一棒。這是中國第一輪房地產牛市之後，中央政府第一次采取措施抑製房地產過熱。但兩個月後，國務院出台“18號文”，卻又明確房地產業作為國民經濟的支柱產業。

就在這種既警惕又依賴的矛盾中，調控新政不斷湧現，房地產業作為支柱產業發展的黃金十年開始了。

當時，與其他城市一樣，固定資產投資和城市基礎建設被天津主政者設定為天津經濟發展的主要驅動力。天津有一個數額巨大的固定資產投資計劃——5年總投資將超過7000億元。與其他城市有所不同，“銀政合作”在天津更加得天獨厚，除了中國銀行，農工建及開行等各大銀行紛紛與天津市簽訂金融合作協議，為其城市建設提供巨額信貸。

天津“一夕之間”變成了超級大工地，放眼望去，到處在拆遷，到處在蓋樓。從1990年代中期啟動舊城改造到2002年，天津拆遷危陋建築近1000萬平方米，而2003年一年就創下曆史記錄——拆遷400萬平方米舊房。

海量的拆遷工程在天津房地產市場形成了強有力的剛性需求。2003年，天津商品房銷售10020萬平米，較上年增長近50%。一直溫溫吞吞的天津地產沸騰了，房價上漲速度如坐飛機，很多優質項目已到了“搶房子”的地步。

這一年的3月4日，一家注冊地在英屬維爾京群島的離岸公司——百瑞德置業有限公司（BEST RATE PROPERTIES LIMITED），出資200萬美元，在天津和平區南京路129號的世貿廣場注冊成立了天津泰瑞房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱天津泰瑞地產）。

百瑞德置業有限公司成立於2000年8月22日，趙晉作為百瑞德置業的代表，擔任天津泰瑞地產總經理和法定代表人。

多年之後，天津泰瑞地產的高管還不無炫耀地對業主說，當年進天津，是市領導招商引資進來的。

趙晉時年剛滿30歲，風頭正勁。知情者稱，趙晉初赴津門時，租住在某高檔小區。他抽煙很凶，把房東家的沙發、地板之類都弄壞了。後來他對房東說，你到誠基買一套房子吧，便宜點。這是趙晉即將在天津開發的樓盤。

2003年10月16日，天津市舉行第一次土地拍賣活動。中國實行土地招拍掛製度始於2002年。當年7月1日，國土資源部製定的《招標拍賣掛牌出讓國有土地使用權規定》開始施行。

在這次拍賣會上，天津泰瑞地產重拳出擊，以當時的天價拍得南京路上的黃家花園地塊，一舉成為“標王”。

黃家花園位於天津和平區中部偏東南，泛指山西路與西安道交會處一帶，1860年後此地淪為英租界，1930年成為商業區，其南為天津曆史文化街區五大道區域，分布著2000多座英、法、意、德等國建築風格的花園洋房，有萬國建築博覽會之稱。

進入21世紀後，黃家花園地塊周邊成為天津南京路CBD商務核心區，匯集了地鐵1、2號線和20多條公交線路，且串聯著南京路、濱江道和小白樓三大商圈，延續著五大道的曆史文脈，可謂絕版地塊，如鑽石般珍貴。

2、搶房也瘋狂

2005年5月，在黃家花園地塊出現了一個巨大的售樓廣告：“稀缺黃金地段、名牌中小學校生源地、超豪華的設計和建築、酒店式公寓管理、隻需8萬元首付就可在誠基中心實現。”廣告中的每一句都透射著巨大的誘惑力。

這一年，房地產業已走到中國經濟的舞台中央，大戲開唱，全民癲狂。政府的宏觀調控集中火力，數十條嚴控政策橫空出世，卻陷入越調越漲的怪圈，房價一路堅挺。

6月，一個名為誠基經貿中心（以下簡稱誠基中心）的樓盤在南京路動工了，總建築麵積近30萬平米。其時，南京路附近有四大公建項目破土，皆誌在成為地標性建築。誠基中心西鄰，和記黃浦將開建20多萬平米的大型商場、高級公寓和酒店；再往西，現代城·莊吉商業中心，將以10萬平米規模刷新濱江道單體購物中心的紀錄……與豪強比鄰，誠基中心的顯赫位置可見一斑。

這一年7月16日，誠基中心B區精致戶型首次預約，現場火爆。9月24-25日，精致戶型一期開盤，兩日銷售1288套，創地產銷售神話。當月，該樓盤獲《每日新報》所評的最佳市場人氣獎；10月，再獲銷售冠軍獎。

12月9-16日，誠基中心A區挑高戶型樣板間開放，市民連夜排隊，參觀者超過2000人次；12月17-18日，挑高戶型一期開盤，兩日銷售658套；該樓盤獲12月份銷售冠軍、2005年度銷售冠軍獎。

業主郭莉回憶稱，當時在售樓處，市民連續排隊一星期，晚上穿著軍大衣，困了睡在躺椅上，還有民工排隊賣號，一個號炒到200元。

“選房時，10個人往裏麵一放。售樓中心牆上掛著樓圖，售樓小姐往上麵啪啪地插紅旗，插上紅旗的房子就是賣掉了。啪，這個房子沒有了。啪，那個房子沒有了。氣氛非常緊張，看得眼睛都花了。插完紅旗，就到另一邊去簽合同。”

誠基中心的底樓是商鋪，同樣銷售火爆。開盤時，已到次年夏天，大樓已封頂。在一位商鋪業主印象中，當時為買到好商鋪，有人千方百計托關係，去找趙晉。有人一買就是七八套商鋪。他是排了一夜隊，才買到了商鋪。

選房那一天，工地南邊的西安道，“天津不夜城”的巨幅噴繪廣告下，整條路都“戒嚴”了，警察忙著管製交通，路上排滿了人，死乞白賴地搶位置，有人甚至打起來。

這位業主回憶稱，買底商也是提前排號。排到你，拿著號，就往裏走。牆上掛著樓圖，你進去了，根本沒有坐下來選鋪麵那一說。你要提前選好房，到了那裏，就趕緊插紅旗，慢一步，別人的紅旗就插上去了。插上紅旗，就去簽合同。三分鍾不到，就完事，根本不給你考慮的時間。一夜之間，七八成商鋪都搶沒了。

這個誠基中心，即為趙晉獻給天津人的見麵禮，由他旗下天津泰瑞地產開發。

3、如此“小戶型”

讓天津人趨之若鶩的，是誠基中心推出的一種小戶型，一種單價7000多元/平方米，主力戶型為58平方米的房子。

按常規思路，對市中心黃金地段，開發商更願意做成豪宅。但趙晉的泰瑞地產卻另辟奚徑，在城市中心全力開發小戶型。誠基中心隻有三幢高層，卻擁有五千戶單元。如此繁華地段，如此高密度項目，給天津的樓市帶來了震撼，也讓業界疑慮重重。

天津泰瑞地產相關負責人在當時接受媒體采訪稱，本來他們是考慮做150平米左右的大戶型，但經過調研發現，在CBD中心區、商務中心區，小戶型產品非常稀缺，而市場需求量極為龐大。定位小戶型是基於附近有大量的機關、外資企業、金融單位等，房屋無論是銷售還是出租都被市場看好。

小戶型還被趙晉的天津泰瑞地產賦予了形而上的意義。該公司負責人稱，開發小戶型，是天津城市發展需要，是市場細分的需要，也是老百姓投資獲利的根本需要，“這種項目，自用、投資兩相宜，既可滿足業主基本居住需求，兼具保值、增值的能力，宜出租、宜投資變現，真正為業主提供了投資理財的最佳選擇”。

誠基中心的小戶型，另一特點是低價位。此前，在黃家花園地段花40萬元買一套高品質新房，會被笑為癡人說夢。當2005年7月誠基中心以總價38萬元推出58平米的小戶型時，天津人又驚又喜。當時旁邊稍晚銷售的樓盤，房價已過萬元。

誠基中心的好處不僅如此。在廣告宣傳中，開發商還聲稱，誠基中心雖是住宅樓，但將聘請優質物業管理公司進行酒店式服務。大堂挑高9米，裝修豪華，采用五星級酒店標準。5000平米法式洛可可屋頂花園，5000平米全方位超大會所，讓業主盡享尊貴生活……

業主李明（化名）在2006年以40萬買下一套房子。多年後，他仍對誠基中心的誘惑印象深刻：“我第一眼看到廣告，首付7萬塊錢，入住南京路，又是70年產權，都不大相信。售樓員說，首付7萬，一個月隻還貸一千多，房子以後會升值幾倍，地段就不用說了，房子地基已出地麵，馬上就是現房了。四五十層的高樓，這不就跟國外的高級公寓一樣嗎？有人一買就是四五套。”

在誠基中心開盤之初，也有業內人士對其質疑：通道式設計使一半戶型處於陰麵，兩樓之間樓間距太近，樓體又高又寬，樓體間遮擋現象嚴重，近70%住戶將處在采光極差的環境中；總戶數約5000戶，投資者若按30%計算，將有1500套房子用於投資，將導致居住者的流動性增強，安全隱患較大；單層戶數太多，樓內垂直交通的壓力增大，電梯頻繁使用將加速老化，高層業主在高峰時上下樓將較困難。但是，這些質疑之聲很快就被火熱的銷售追捧淹沒了。

多年後，一位深受誠基之害的業主剖析了趙晉的發展路數：“他是模仿香港樓盤那種高密度的方式，把香港的小戶型移植到了天津。好地段、小戶型、低價位，讓大多數人都買得起，他抓住了這個市場，快速銷售，快速變現。”

4、維權中的驚人發現

買房之後，留給業主的是幸福的等待。在房價飛漲中，在誠基中心不斷創造的銷售神話中，業主們或在親友的羨慕中規劃著新家的未來，或享受著投資獲利的竊喜。

誠基中心的樓在一天天長高，住在附近的業主幾乎天天去看，天天去數樓層，計算著什麽時候封頂。在規劃中，誠基中心的3號樓是47層。2007年的一天，業主終於數到了47層，卻驚異地發現，大樓並沒有停下來，而是繼續往上長。

業主們很快有了更多的發現。這個號稱五星級酒店的家，已失火3次，存在著巨大的安全、消防隱患，其背後則是開發商篡改設計、欺詐銷售：

在購房合同中，1、2號樓住宅自然層是29層，現在開發商將前期承諾的29層以上的俱樂部、會所等改為住宅，使得住宅自然層變為33層。

3號樓原本為47層，已被增高至52層。開發商前期承諾8層以下為酒店，後來酒店改為5層以下，6-8層改為住宅，2-5層以產權式商務酒店名義出售，但購房合同卻以用地性質為住宅、70年土地使用權簽署。

業主們擔心，開發商在三幢樓原結構基礎上，多加了數層樓房，樓房是否能負擔其重量？抗震能力是否下降？容積率是否上升？公攤麵積是否改變？住戶巨增，電梯是否夠用？

2007年8月，業主們舉行維權大會，數次派代表與開發商交涉，但開發商以手續齊全為由置之不理，並以退房相威脅。12月18日，是3號樓交房的日子，業主們一度拒收房子。針對開發商更改規劃問題，他們先後找了規劃部門和房管部門。“都支支吾吾，說不出來改的理由，就說是合法的。”李明回憶稱。

直到有一天，李明在天津市建委網站上，查到了一則由天津市土地交易中心發布的公示。公示稱，天津泰瑞地產通過公開掛牌取得津和南（掛）2003-159號地塊使用權，該地塊出讓麵積為19692.1平米，總建築麵積291434平米。經有關部門批準，總建築麵積調整為340462.6平米。

這個變更此前沒有業主知道。在土地招投標時，容積率是固定的，要想加蓋樓層，更改容積率，根據《天津市國有土地有償使用辦法》規定，需要重新招拍掛，必須重新公示。公示期內如無單位競拍，才能為原來拍下土地的公司辦理手續，並相應調整土地出讓金。

知情者稱，更改容積率是趙晉在低房價下保證贏利的慣用方式。李明說：“我們原來認為最不可能改的是容積率，但他就有這個本事，單價不改，改麵積。”

有業主稱，業委會後來一直在告誠基加層的問題，市裏曾來人，把當時市政府的會議紀要拿出來了，稱加層不是某一個領導批的，是經過多少會議，為了滿足回遷房需要，才同意開發商加層。

容積率的更改讓業主們驚訝，他們隨後在網上查到趙晉在南京的信息，才知道此人背景很深，能量很大。

有一陣子，業主們的維權不再死追爛打樓層加蓋了，而是轉向了產權問題。業主在購房時，開發商承諾房子是70年產權，合同上寫的是住宅，但收房之前，他們聽說房子性質是公寓，產權是50年。

業主們為此多次去找市房管局，一位信訪處長接待稱，住宅是有嚴格要求的，包括朝向、容積率、配套、采光率，國家都有明確規定，你們的房子怎麽能符合住宅的規定呢？

業主們又反複去找規劃局。一次，百十口子業主堵在市規劃局的大廳裏，新調來的規劃局長把趙晉叫來。“趙晉坐著奔馳來了，業主們候在大廳裏。過了一陣子，有人出來說，你們回去聽信吧。”李明說，“結果還真不錯，不知道是怎麽協調的，把我們的房子變成了住宅，拿了70年的產權。”

產權問題，進一步讓業主知道，趙晉確實有實力。他做的事情不是一般人所能想象，規劃局、房管局、市政府，遇到他的事，都是一路綠燈。

在誠基中心，同樣維權的還有商鋪業主。

在一位業主印象中，當初買商鋪時，開發商說得天花亂墜，什麽不夜城，24小時金碧輝煌之類。2008年秋天一進駐商場，業主就發現根本不是那麽回事。

首先是硬件違約，商鋪裏的各種硬件設施達不到商業配套標準，暖氣及製冷無法正常運行。合同中規定的商業管理用房，被開發商變成產權房賣了。合同中還承諾免費進行兩年統一商業管理，但開發商未按約定進駐商管。沒有商業管理，意味著商場是無政府狀態。有半年時間，這個取名第五大道商業街的商場裏漆黑一片，除了幾家自營商鋪，沒幾家開著。

業主們開始維權，一遍遍地找開發商，找政府。一開始，政府很重視，專門成立班子接待。後來，業主就找不到接待方了。開發商明目張膽告訴他們，“你們找區政府沒有用。”

業主們無奈去信訪，申請遊行。鬧了四個月，最後在區政府協調下，開發商拿出100萬元作為商場的廣告費用。業主們利用這筆錢，在報紙上登廣告，招聘招商公司。招商招了三個月，成功組織了一次韓國商品展銷會，商場的生意好起來了，但兩年後，由於商場依然沒有後期管理，還是處於無政府狀態。

5、君臨天下的新戰術

當誠基中心的業主還在維權時，趙晉又有了大手筆。

2006年元月18日，在天津市新年第一次土地拍賣會上，他的天津泰瑞地產重拳出擊，以1.639億拿下“海河-電信大廈”地塊，土地麵積10340平米，建築麵積85000平米，使用年限50年。

這同樣是一塊黃金寶地，麵朝波光瀲灩的海河，背靠曆史文化街區意式風情區，這曾是意大利在境外唯一的租界區，精致的廣場與聯排別墅，構成了意大利境外最大的意式風格建築群，高低錯落的別墅房頂角亭下，散布著梁啟超、曹禺等名人故居。

2007年初，天津泰瑞地產出資2000萬元，成立天津星際房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱天津星際地產），以開發海河地塊。2月26日，工程破土動工，天津星際地產投資4.5億元，以打造一幢高230米、名為“君臨天下”的高樓。

2007年11月，該樓盤開盤。同樣是夜裏排隊，同樣是桌上擺著沙盤，牆上掛著房圖，同樣是插紅旗，亂哄哄地搶房子。與誠基中心相比，君臨天下的搶房則更為瘋狂。在塘沽工作的幾個浙江人，買下四五十套房子。另一個大客戶康總，則斥資一億多元，拿下100多套房子。

但開盤之初，就有業主在網上反映，君臨天下的複式單元，號稱買一層送一層，他花127萬元買的房子，按兩層算麵積有120平方米，房本上卻隻有60平方米，後又變為40多平方米，有10多平方米變成了贈送的裝飾性陽台。亦有業主表示，該樓盤廣告宣傳的建築麵積和實際簽署麵積有20%的差距，售樓員稱這是對雙方有利的擦邊球。

從君臨天下開始，趙晉的房產模式有了創新：除了以“好地段、低價格”誘使市民購買小戶型實現快速開發、快速銷售，他還越來越熱衷於壓縮房產證上的麵積，使之低於實際麵積，證外麵積則以“景觀陽台”方式贈送。

這種房產證麵積被濃縮的做法，坑了誰？又肥了誰？有業界人士認為，被坑的是國家和購房者。首先，國家應收繳的稅款被偷逃。上述例子中，開發商將購房者實際購買的麵積濃縮成1/3，逃脫了應納的國家稅收。另外，國有土地出讓金是按照建築容積率遞增收取的，開發商將2/3的建築麵積隱瞞不報，其目的就是為降低容積率，逃避巨額土地出讓金的追繳。

其次，購房者本應享受的合法權益被損害。從法律上講，隻有進行登記的房產麵積，才受法律保護。開發商以景觀陽台的形式贈送麵積，這種贈送並無法律效力，這類房屋在二次買賣中風險重重，遇到房屋征收時，業主權益勢必嚴重受損。

此舉獲利的當然是開發商，假如同樣規劃建築麵積10萬平米，正常開發商按每平米2萬元，可銷售20億元；趙晉通過上述方式，變相提高容積率，能把房子建到20萬平米或更多，即使以每平米1.3萬元算，可銷售26億元，實為暴利。

當然，開發商不可能獨享暴利，要實現其濃縮房產證麵積、掩蓋超容積率的目的，必須過規劃、房管及國土部門三道關。在商品房交付前必須進行規劃驗收，如果沒有規劃局的配合，開發商的上述房子不可能通過規劃驗收。此外，房管和國土部門，如果稍微把關嚴一點，對套內麵積嚴重背離常理的商品房，不進行合同備案和辦證，開發商的路子也會被切斷。

君臨天下是2010年8月底交房的，從外麵看，該大廈裙樓高四層，立麵為敞開式的全透明玻璃幕牆，造型為揚帆起航之舟；主樓高230米，以天津第一高度、新地標之勢，矗立於海河北岸，頗有君臨天下、舍我其誰的氣概。

“買了這房子，你就不是人，是神了”。業主張亮（化名）和鄰居們是在歡天喜地中開始收房的，其耳邊似乎還回響著當初售樓小姐的恭維聲。但入住之後，張亮逐漸意識到，他不是變成了神仙的神，“而是神經病的神”。

業主們很快發現問題多多。先是大廈蓋了夾層：9樓之上有9B，25樓之上有25B，33樓之上有33B……規劃中的40層樓建成了51層；規劃的482個停車位，實際隻有280個，負一層的120個車位被改成商鋪出售了。規劃中的4個出入口，兩個被改成商鋪出租出售，一個改為君悅酒店的大堂。高層建築都設有避難層，君臨大廈的9B、25B是避難層，但開發商在避難層的四個角也蓋房子出售。

與黃家花園地塊一樣，該地塊的規劃同樣經過了變更。天津土地交易中心2011年3月24日發布補充公告稱，天津星際地產2006年取得該地塊使用權，土地出讓麵積為10340平米，地上總建築麵積85000平米；經有關部門批準，其地上建築麵積調整為90032.07平米，地下商業建築麵積為2915.41平米。這一“調整”，建築麵積整整多出近8000平米。

開發商違約的，還有主樓外麵的裙樓建設。在君臨大廈的銷售中，海河景觀是重要賣點。業主黃浩（化名）在2009年10月看中了一套朝南的房子。買房時，售樓員說能看見海河，黃浩實地觀察後，發現確實能看見海河，又問售樓員交房時是否如此。售樓員說市政府要求，為了海河景觀，在樓的前方有幾顆羅馬柱子，但不影響看海河。

但2010年8月28日驗房時，黃浩卻發現，所買房子的外麵又蓋了三層裙樓，裙樓的上麵才是羅馬柱子，原本能看到的海河已被完全擋住。

黃浩的遭遇並非孤例，二三四樓相關業主，為此多次去找開發商，並在售樓處和大廈四周掛起標語抗議。2011年12月，一些業主委托律師狀告開發商擅自變更房屋設計及環境布局，在業主窗外豎起巨型圍牆和柱子，嚴重影響觀瞻窗外海河和周邊景觀，致使該房屋價值減損。

修改規劃之外，業主們房產證被濃縮的隱患也漸漸顯現出來。業主張亮在入住一年之後，2011年拿到了房產證，發現上麵的麵積隻有41.17平方米。當初他買房子時，開發商是按戶型賣的，售樓員承諾他的房子有90多平方米。

另一位業主告訴財新記者，他家兩層房子的實際麵積是137平方米，合同上是46平方米，房產證上是50平方米。而15樓有一家，房產證上隻有5平方米。

上述情況直接導致業主們的交費亂套了。交物業費時，有按證上麵積交的，有按采暖實際麵積交的。證上麵積80平米的平房，交費時就比實際麵積137平米的複式房子還要多。

業主們還發現，這個大樓裏隻有500多戶大戶型通了煤氣，1700多戶沒有煤氣。有的房子，合同上說是有煤氣，交房時卻沒有。

6、天津高盛地產的魄力

在趙晉登陸天津的早期，天津泰瑞地產和天津星際地產為其急先鋒，四麵出擊，立下汗馬功勞。

2006年12月底，天津泰瑞地產在山東濟南發力，以2.77億元拿下文化東路以南藝術學院地塊；2007年8月，天津泰瑞地產成立上海第一分公司，進軍上海灘；2008年11月，天津星際地產出資2.496億元，拿下天津河西區廣東路與紹興道交口的津西廣（掛）2008-209地塊，出讓麵積17195平米，建築麵積41200平米；2009年12月，天津星際地產出資4.92億元，拿下河北區中山路與昆緯路交口的津北中（掛）2009-176地塊，出讓麵積19305.5平米，建築麵積98000平米。

天津星際地產還遠征河北。2011年5月，該公司出資15463萬元拿下唐山市北新西道南側、學院路西側一塊地，總麵積14278平米，規劃建築麵積29.98萬平方米，擬建造260米高的商業地產和公寓項目。同年9月，又出資10152萬元拿下鳳凰新城友誼路西側、朝陽道南側的地塊，擬建300米高的商業、公寓。

此後，泰瑞、星際兩大公司逐漸淡出江湖，天津高盛房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱天津高盛地產）浮出水麵，成為趙晉在天津的母公司。

早在2006年6月，一家注冊於英屬維爾京群島、香港籍張剴為法人代表的萬豪房地產銷售·策劃代理有限公司，出資275萬美元，在天津港保稅區成立天津世昌房地產開發有限公司，趙晉為法人。8月24日，公司名字變更為天津高盛地產。

成立之初，天津高盛地產並未直接開發樓盤，而是在幕後進行土地運作。2006年8月29日，該公司取得天津河東區七緯路東側的津東七（掛）2006-033號地塊，土地出讓麵積為12854平米，地上建築麵積63512平米；2009年8月14日，該公司出資36940萬元，拿下河東區十二經路與海河東路交口的津東海（掛）2009-086地塊，出讓麵積18653.1平米，為商業金融業用地，使用年限40年，建築麵積68800平米；2011年10月13日，該公司出資20300萬元，拿下河東區新開路與華昌道交口的津東新（掛）2011-205號地塊，麵積4151.6平米。

在拿地的同時，趙晉以天津高盛地產等公司為母公司，組建天津泰基房地產開發有限公司（下稱天津泰基地產）、天津匯景房地產開發有限公司（以下簡稱天津匯景地產）、天津盛昌房地產開發有限公司、天津榮寶房地產開發有限公司、天津潤津置業有限公司等，以分別開發上述地塊。

在房產領域，開發商為開發不同地塊成立不同的公司，似是常態。趙晉把這種慣例發展到了極致。多年後，業主們反思趙晉的此類戰術：當天津泰瑞地產開發的誠基中心臭了之後，他以天津星際地產開發君臨天下；當君臨天下麻煩一堆之後，他又啟用天津高盛地產開發新樓盤。他以不同麵目出現在天津，打一槍換一個公司，他的樓盤開盤時，如果在介紹有利的一麵時，售樓員就會說和其他樓盤是一家；如果出現負麵消息，也很容易和問題樓盤切割；一旦樓盤交房，趙晉一般會快速注銷公司，即使該公司在訴訟期間，他也能從容注銷，讓業主有問題找不著主兒，而把一堆麻煩留給業主和地方政府。

此外，趙晉還先後成立天津永亨建築設計有限公司、天津盛康投資谘詢有限公司、天津康定建築安裝工程有限公司、天津麗晶酒店管理有限公司、天津永嘉百貨市場管理有限公司、天津永泰君悅管理有限公司、天津卓越文華酒店管理有限公司等，作為樓盤開發的配套公司。

趙晉在津門悄然打造著他的房產帝國。

7?“裝飾性陽台”奧秘

天津高盛地產是在2009年才開始直接開發樓盤的。

這是一塊2006年8月就拿到的土地，位於河東區十經路與七緯路交口，出讓麵積為12854平米，為住宅及商業金融用地，建築麵積63512平米。

該地塊同樣存在著補充公告。2010年5月4日，在地塊開工期間，天津土地交易中心公告稱，經有關部門批準，增加該地塊地下商業建築麵積12700平米，土地出讓期為40年。

2010年，大樓尚未封頂，這個叫卓越淺水灣的樓盤就開盤了。彼時中國的房產市場已經走出了2008年的短暫低迷，房價屢攀新高。盡管誠基中心和君臨天下在天津坊間已多遭非議，有業主在網上發帖，“誠基中心基不誠，君臨天下臨危機。業主聯手齊維權，泰瑞坑人難上難”，但卓越淺水灣優越的地理位置，每平米1.3萬多元的超低均價，還是讓一些市民趨之若鶩。

從卓越淺水灣開始，趙晉在更改容積率上的路上越走越遠。

2010年12月，多名卓越淺水灣業主向媒體反映，該樓所有戶型的房本麵積都遠低於實際麵積。如A戶型的三室兩廳建築麵積是118平方米，但除了客廳和衛生間在房本上有體現外，其他三個臥室均稱為“裝飾性陽台”，房本上的麵積不到27平方米。

中國質檢網記者在售樓處暗訪時，曾見識過該樓盤的操作方式。售樓員拿來了三種戶型的房型圖，簡單介紹後便用筆將房本上沒有體現出的麵積劃掉，所有的臥室都被劃掉了，並稱這些臥室都上報成“裝飾性陽台”，所以不能在房本上體現。售樓員還稱該項目是天津市景觀項目，允許這麽做。

中國質檢網援引房地產打假人士的意見稱，國家規定高層住宅容積率不應超過5，若按實際麵積計算，該樓盤容積率將超過10。開發商就把所有住宅全按小麵積申報，其餘麵積變成“裝飾性陽台”，不計入建築麵積。這樣做不僅降低了容積率，同時還降低了總可售麵積數值，提高了銷售成本，減少了應交稅額以及配套費用。

關於裝飾性陽台，2009年，天津市曾出台《天津市建築飄窗、設備平台及陽台建築麵積規劃計算規則》，稱裝飾性陽台是指設置在建築外牆外，為美化建築造型而與建築內部空間及陽台不相連通，采用陽台形式的裝飾性構件。自外牆牆體外邊線至裝飾性陽台外邊線距離應小於或者等於0.6米。裝飾性陽台符合以上條件的，不計算建築麵積；否則，按水平投影麵積的1/2計算建築麵積並計入容積率指標。

趙晉從2007年君臨天下時，就已試用了“裝飾性陽台”。在他的觀念裏，裝飾台陽台是另外一種概念。知情者稱，趙晉智商極高，想法匪夷所思，“什麽是陽台？在一般設計理念裏，陽台最大也就一米五寬，一米八就算大的，這是固定思維，可在趙晉眼裏就不是這樣，既然沒有規定陽台有多大，我就可以無限擴大。一個房間縱深是5米，那我做成一米是臥室，4米都是陽台，你不能說不合法，這叫裝飾性陽台。到後來，他直接就在地上劃個線，一邊是臥室，另一邊就是裝飾性陽台”。

2012年6月1日，業主田鹿在人民網地方領導留言板上，控訴卓越淺水灣以上述方式欺詐售房。7月27日，天津市規劃局回複稱，經河東區規劃分局複核，卓越大廈地上建設規模容積率符合土地出讓合同約定。關於裝飾性陽台，《天津市建築飄窗、設備平台及陽台建築麵積規劃計算規則》於2009年9月11日施行，該項目建築設計方案在此規則施行前已審定，審批符合當時的有關規定。但此後，裝飾性陽台並未淡出趙晉的新樓盤。

趙晉中後期開發的樓盤中，多為城市綜合體項目，商住兩住，甚至融商業、酒店、公寓、豪宅為一體，卓越淺水灣的酒店式公寓是其中一種。

趙晉出售酒店式公寓，與眾不同，其房價比普通住宅高40%，房子售出後，由其控製的酒店管理公司租賃，在大樓內開酒店，向業主返租6年，每年按照房價的8%返利。這種新穎的售樓方式，吸引了不少市民。

2011年，業主青青（化名）在卓越淺水灣買了一套酒店式公寓。選房時，售樓員說，大樓裏25層以下是酒店式公寓，40年產權；25層以上是住宅，70年產權。售樓員帶她看了同一樓層相鄰的兩間，說這兩間都可以買，你先選了哪間，它就是酒店式公寓，另一間就是住宅。這讓青青很是奇怪：他們房子的產權，似乎隨時在更改中，想給誰幾十年產權就是幾十年。

2013年5月，卓越淺水灣交房，業主們才發現，大樓裏從3層到25層的368戶房子中，混雜著132戶酒店式公寓。“同樣的房型，我家是156萬元，40年產權，是酒店式公寓；對門就是105萬元，70年產權，是住宅。”一位業主稱。

青青買的酒店式公寓，實際麵積是120多平米，後來發現房本上隻有30多平米，土地用途上寫著餐飲、住宿用地。

不僅如此，業主們還發現，合同上所說的49層大樓，實際蓋到了52層。

8?水岸與名門再出新招

他怎麽還不出事呢？天津一位房產界人士數年來一直關注趙晉的發展，看他起高樓，看他熱銷樓盤，看他民怨沸騰。但趙晉的事業仍如日中天。報紙上，卓越淺水灣的廣告像風刮過之後，水岸銀座和名門廣場的廣告又是滿天飛。

“趙晉的房產廣告別具一格。不像別的房產廣告，把畫麵搞得美輪美奐，他是直接印上房子戶型，標明價格從多少萬降到多少萬，散發著赤裸裸的誘惑力。”這位人士稱。

坐落於河東區十二經路與海河東路交口的水岸銀座，於2011年12月開盤。該地塊是在2009年8月由天津高盛地產出資36940萬元拿下的，出讓麵積18653.1平米，為商業金融用地，使用年限40年，地上建築總麵積為68800平米。2010年6月12日，天津土地交易中心公告稱，經有關部門批準，增加該地塊地下商業建築麵積10126.84平米。

與誠基中心一樣，該地塊位置同樣金貴，地處海河之邊大光明橋畔，與天津CBD核心的小白樓商業區隔河相望，距萬達商業區、意式風情街等天津地標式區域均在咫尺之間。

按照規劃，趙晉的天津高盛地產將在這裏建三棟高級公寓，一、二棟為31層，高100米，三棟為35層，高169米，將成為天津CBD核心的新標誌建築。

開盤之初，水岸銀座的戶型圖在網上流傳出來，一層居然有70戶——這是比誠基中心的房子還要密集的戶型。

長期關注天津地產市場的專業人士王博士看到戶型圖後，第一感覺是不對勁：“一層有這麽多戶，必然有不少房間是暗房，必然帶來管理混亂，今後會不會在海河邊上造成一道暗傷呢？”

專業人士的擔憂，其他業主前車之鑒的警告，並未影響水岸銀座的熱銷。海河邊上，水岸銀座在一天天長高，遠遠望去，一排排窗口，密密麻麻，像蜂窩一樣。規劃局審批的是160多米，水岸銀座長到了180多米，還在長……

一年後，2012年11月，趙晉旗下的另一樓盤名門廣場開盤。名門廣場位於河西區廣東路與紹興道交口。2008年11月，由天津星際地產出資24960萬元拿下地塊，出讓麵積17195平米，規劃建築麵積41200平米，為居住型公寓，使用年限70年，由天津匯景地產負責開發。

這同樣是塊黃金寶地，南臨人民公園，可坐享公園自然景觀；距小白樓、海信商圈不遠，具備商業價值；毗鄰五大道曆史風情區，周邊大中小學校環繞，又屬文化中心板塊，升值潛力巨大。

在“70年大產權，落戶河西”的口號中，在周邊房子每平米賣到2萬元以上，名門廣場打出“精致豪宅”的旗號，均價隻要1.3萬元，“一居室25萬元起；二居室78萬元起；三居室99萬元起”。樓盤一經推出，市民趨之若鶩。

在水岸和名門時代，趙晉開發中小戶型的戰略，已步入新境界。

2013年前後，國內各地對於房地產的調控進一步強化，“新國五條”細則密集出台，各大城市將新建商品房價格漲幅與人均可支配收入增度相掛鉤。在天津，還提出了“繼續加大保障性住房建設比重，增加中小戶型、中低價位普通商品住房供應”，作為2013年新建商品住房價格控製的目標。

天津高盛地產主推中小戶型，在一定程度上是順應時代潮流。2013年1月，由北方網和星際傳媒舉辦的2012天津領袖地產網絡頒獎典禮上，趙晉的兩個新樓盤都有斬獲，水岸銀座獲最具升值回報樓盤獎，名門廣場獲最具收益價值樓盤獎。進入2013年，在天津樓盤成交套數排行榜上，趙晉的這兩座樓盤繼續領跑。趙晉的小戶型牢牢抓住了普通市民的剛需——那是一個收入有限又想住房的群體，隻要有房住，就不嫌小。

其時，趙晉在更改房本麵積上的手法更加爐火純青，也更加肆無忌憚。2013年3月12日，《中國產經新聞》記者暗訪名門廣場售樓部，問到房產證上的麵積怎麽寫？售樓員說，房產證寫1/3，其餘2/3算贈送，贈送的是觀景陽台不計入建築麵積；並稱賣出的實際麵積在圖紙上用紅線圈好，同時蓋上開發商、房管局和規劃局的公章，保證能住、能租，還能過戶，享受藍印戶口和上學的政策。

對於開發商承諾的上述好處，曾有業主谘詢了規劃部門，對方稱，名門廣場用地是公建用地，可建賓館、商用等公共設施建設，他們批的是居住式公寓，不是住宅。房管部門則稱，該樓盤不能辦藍印戶口，也不是學區房，遇拆遷則會損失巨大，買賣也會有問題。

水岸銀座的業主同樣是如此遭遇，一位業主這樣描述其買房經曆：當初買房時，對於購買麵積幾十平方米，產權證隻寫十幾平方米的差異很不理解。售樓員“義正辭嚴”地講，這是新生事物，天津剛開始實施，全國各地都有，這是向香港學習的，也是以後發展的趨勢。一位業主說：“當我們看到開發商五證俱全時，才放心了。因為我們相信五證必須要經過政府職能機構認證審批層層把關的，為此我們的疑慮打消了，殊不知這是上當受騙的開始。”

9?趙晉的開發模式

多年後，一位深受趙晉之苦的業主還在感慨，趙晉很了不起，他從30歲來到天津，十年裏資產高速增長，創造了地產史上一個奇跡。

在天津高盛地產的官網上，該公司自稱在業界以商務開發聞名，在打造商業、酒店、國際公寓、豪宅、寫字樓為一體的城市綜合體項目方麵術業有專攻，具有自身獨到的眼光與優勢，具備業內首屈一指的專業技術、項目運營的成功經驗及最優化的管理模式及精英團隊。

在上述介紹中，趙晉的開發區域，多在城市核心區域及衛星城區中心位置。事實確實如此。趙晉在天津拿地，從南京路到海河邊，無一不是黃金地帶。

一位長期關注趙晉房產的人士稱，趙晉想拿地的時候，誰也拿不過他。除了關係深厚之外，趙晉拿地時，其氣魄宏大，時有驚世駭俗之舉，也讓他人望而生畏。

趙晉旗下一位員工向財新記者透露，有一次，趙晉想拿一塊地，起拍價是4000萬，每輪加價也就是一兩百萬元，一般估計這塊地一個億也就差不多了。趙晉一直坐著不動，差不多的時候，他啪一下舉牌，“1.5億元”，其他人全都傻眼了。

多年觀察趙晉的李明分析，開發商高價拿地，政府尤其喜歡，因為地方政府長期依賴土地財政，靠賣地賺錢，一個地段出現了高價，會帶動其他地段。開發商如果能托這個價，地方政府何樂而不為呢？

拿到地後，趙晉就開始在容積率上做文章。每個做房產的人都知道，建築和配套成本，在房價中是固定的。要賺錢，容積率是第一位。而更改容積率是很難的。招拍掛非常嚴格，從買地開始，容積率是固定的。趙晉的本事就在於，其他人做不到的更改容積率，他能做到。

在誠基中心，趙晉采取了加層等方式；在君臨天下，他設計出了夾層，把40層的樓實際蓋成了51層，並讓房本上的麵積低於實際麵積，以掩蓋其容積率嚴重超標現象。而隨著樓盤的開發，他更改容積率的手法，不斷與時俱進。在卓越淺水灣項目上，趙晉借“裝飾性陽台”隱瞞房間實際套內麵積，已經到了令人瞠目的地步。

在開發小戶型上，趙晉的團隊也有專攻。他有自己的設計公司，掛靠在天津的大設計單位，親自設計出了誠基中心的小戶型。從大樓構造上看，那種細長條的，幾十戶共用一個過道，像酒店一樣的構造，能保證出房率高，利潤最大化。

這種小戶型在麵積上也很講究，誠基中心三號樓的房子多為58平米，一、二號樓多為89平米。根據中國的房產政策，單套建築麵積在60平米左右的，為經濟適用房；90平米，為限價房的標準，國家在稅收、配套等方麵有政策扶持。2006年6月，建設部等多部門出台“90/70”調控政策，規定凡新開工的商品房建設，90平米以下住房麵積所占比重，必須達到建設總麵積的70%以上。

“感覺趙晉總是在打擦邊球。”業主郭莉有時感慨，“我覺得他有一個專業法律團隊，把中國的法律、法規、政策都吃透了。”

上述運作，可確保趙晉獲取高額利潤，即使高價拿地，他的樓盤也能賣出低價，房子一開盤，全部賣空，周轉特別快，周邊樓盤根本無法與之抗衡。

李明分析稱，趙晉從上述開發模式中看到了甜頭，吃準了相關部門的心理：他先是高價拿地，讓政府高興；讓老百姓用低價，在黃金地段買到了房子；他則靠更改容積率，賺取“空錢”。這似乎是一個皆大歡喜的多贏局麵。

但皆大歡喜是一時的。“這種高容積率的房子，必將帶來物業管理難度、消防隱患等，最終導致房子貶值。”一位業內人士認為，趙晉和一般開發商的區別，就在於他腳踏市場行情，一隻手伸向政府，在政府的法律和規則之下，大打擦邊球，甚至直接違背，其目標是為了利潤；他另外一隻手伸向了老百姓，利用老百姓對文本合同的不了解，大力地公示政府的五證、兩表、一書，利用老百姓對政府的信任，賣出嚴重違規的房子，實際上是讓政府和百姓共同為他的違規買單。

其通過改變規劃、擴大容積率、擅自加高樓層和加蓋夾層、隱瞞實際房屋麵積等方式，偷逃巨額土地出讓金、市政配套費、土地增值稅等稅費，具體數字可能遠超想象。盡管醒悟後的業主一再向天津市建委、房管、規劃等部門舉報，相關問題始終沒有得到重視和糾正。

可怕的是，趙晉在天津不斷複製上述模式，像瘟疫一樣，從一個地方蔓延到另一個地方。

10?趙晉的“小夥伴們”

在天津的日子，趙晉不是一個人在戰鬥。他把南京的小夥伴們帶來了。在外人看來，這是一個有些神秘的團隊。

很少有人見過趙晉，他基本不在公開場所露麵。天津的房產圈子，也隻是聞其名不見其人，隻有他的樓盤在江湖上流傳。

誠基中心一位業主有幸見過趙晉本尊，印象中，他不高不矮，挺胖，大眼，有點卷發，很有派頭，有點領導人的風範，從不跟業主直接發生衝突。君臨天下的一位業主曾見過他接待大客戶：中等個頭，外表白淨，說話通情達理，“不是那種野蠻人”。

趙晉之外，天津高盛地產也是一個神秘的公司。即使在其攻城略地，所建樓盤名震津門時，公眾仍對其所知甚少，不知其所在何處。

如大隱隱於市，該公司的工程及對外部門，設在誠基中心的麗晶酒店4樓，財務部門等設在幾十米外世貿廣場B座17樓。在員工的印象中，這是一個奇怪的公司，“一年365天，天天上班9點，下班沒點，節假日均不放假，請假一概不準，隻許倒休。公司高管習慣於晚上上班，有如老一代領導的遺風”。

在天津高盛地產的自我期許中，這是一家默默耕耘的低調企業，擁有一支年輕的專業化團隊，員工上千人，同時還擁有設計院，設計師近百名，建築、結構、水電暖等各類專業工程師近200名。而據知情者稱，趙晉在天津也就四百多人，所謂千人，包括趙晉在濟南、南京等地其他公司的員工。

趙晉之所以能在天津呼風喚雨，依憑的依然是一個以父蔭開道的政商關係網。知情者稱，趙晉津門創業，趙少麟也不時從南京或者北京過來“指導工作”。

知情者稱，趙晉在天津的關係，根深葉茂，背景深厚，連天津市政協副主席、公安局長武長順都要著意結納他。

武長順1970年從警，22年後成為天津市公安局副局長兼公安交通管理局局長，2003-2014年擔任天津市公安局長，2011年當選天津市政協副主席。44年經營，武氏在天津政法係統根深蒂固，其商業帝國覆蓋公安交管、地產、高速公路、石化等領域。

在趙係樓盤發生業主維權，或與其他公司訴訟時，隱約可見武長順的影子。武長順後來涉嫌嚴重違紀違法被雙開時，中紀委披露的罪名中，包括利用職務上的便利，在幹部選拔任用、企業經營等方麵為他人謀取利益，收受巨額賄賂，向他人行賄等。

在中層官員層麵，知情者稱，趙晉與天津市委委員、天津市城鄉規劃建設交通工委原書記沈東海關係密切。1951年出生的沈東海，1984年進入天津市委城鄉建設工作部工作，1999-2014年擔任了長達15年的天津市委城建工委（先後更名為天津市委規劃建設工委和天津市委城鄉規劃建設交通工委）書記。趙晉在天津從拿地到更改容積率皆一帆風順，與之不無關係。2014年10月，中紀委網站曾通報稱，天津市城市建設領域腐敗問題突出。2014年12月，沈東海因涉嫌嚴重違紀，接受組織調查。

知情者稱，父蔭之外，趙晉搞關係也非常有水平。他在天津的公司裏，養著各路人才，如孟嚐君之養士。所養之人，有的可勾連上層路線；有的打通地方政府關竅；也不乏雞鳴狗盜的非常之才。

趙晉對有用的人，舍得花成本。天津河北區建委一位前副主任，就被趙晉羅致，擔任天津高盛地產副董事長。

在麗晶酒店4樓，業主們有時能看到，趙晉的人馬進進出出，其中有些是老同誌，五六十歲左右，那是天津高盛地產法務部的員工，多是從政府退休後，被高薪聘請而來。法務部部長姓柳，退休前在天津市信訪局工作。在知情者印象中，老太太工作經驗特別豐富，能力超強，趙晉樓盤的所有糾紛，都由她牽頭處理。

“趙晉厲害在哪裏呢？他找的人，都是幹了一輩子政府工作，一輩子跟人民群眾玩心眼子的人，跟他們打交道，一不留神就掉他溝裏去了。趙晉還專愛告別人，他有法務部，一般人都弄不了他。”知情者說。

法務部之外，天津高盛地產還設有秩維部，取秩序維護之意，網羅的多為特殊人才，那是一些脖戴金鏈子、胳膊畫龍的人。

這隻是趙晉關係網的冰山之一角。天津拱衛京師，京城既有老爺子坐鎮，趙晉也時常坐著京牌豪車，往來兩地，勾連官場。知情者稱，趙晉在北京建有高級會所，如賴昌星之紅樓，招待各路顯達，並錄像作為要挾證據。

天津誠基中心業主郭莉，在維權之時，時常聽天津高盛地產的總經理溫峰提到老板趙晉認識很多大人物，總有些將信將疑，直到有一次郭莉去找趙晉論理時，看到天津市某局長趕過來送古畫，不禁大吃一驚：市政府的人怎麽還要給他上貢？

11、逆我者獲刑

郭莉的驚訝並不止於此。趙晉依憑權勢給她和業主們，以及這個城市帶來的影響，更讓人匪夷所思。

北大法律係畢業的郭莉，自2008年3月入住誠基中心後，先是參與了雨水管問題的賠償解決，後來為了麗晶酒店門前存車場的占地問題與開發商抗爭，老公的眼睛被保安打傷，訴至法院隻獲賠3000元。她11歲的兒子，在一天早晨坐電梯去上學時，卻隨電梯墜入負幾層，直到下午才被發現。郭莉懷疑是開發商在報複。

此後，郭莉參與起訴開發商私蓋加層侵權，並發起並參與業主委員會的籌建，業委會正式成立時，她成為35個海選成員之一。

2010年3月，加層維權案在和平區法院立案。但此後，郭莉發現和平區檢察院到她工作的中國銀行，去調查其工資收入。她聽說，開發商到檢察院檢舉她有多套房子，資金來曆不明。

一波未平，又起一波。2010年6月一天早晨，郭莉的丈夫在外遛導盲犬時，被數名警察攔住。警察稱養犬證上的狗種與實際不符，用鐵套管套住狗脖，要強行帶走。看到狗被勒得眼睛都突出了，郭莉與警察爭搶繩索，情急中咬了他的手。

其後，郭莉被帶至派出所。派出所從中調解，讓郭莉出兩萬元，給受傷警察賠禮道歉。下午4點，還在調解時，郭莉看見一名便裝女子帶人進了派出所，把裝狗的皮卡開走了。後來，她才知道，來人是和平區治安科科長、天津市公安局長武長順的外甥女。

郭莉隨即打電話，向天津市公安局督察反映情況。督察把電話打到派出所，郭莉聽到派出所所長對督察說：你不要說了，這個事情是武局定的。當晚，郭莉被刑拘，罪名為“涉嫌妨害公務罪”，之後兩次取保候審。

其間，郭莉在和平區房管局物業辦的壓力下，放棄了業委會委員的資格，但仍以業主的身份繼續維權。加層維權案在2010年9月13日開庭後，再無動靜。一年後，參與訴訟的業主在拿到少許安撫費後，大多撤訴。隻有郭莉還在堅持。

2011年9月，和平區法院的法官把尚在取保候審的郭莉叫去，說加層維權的案子要駁回，訴訟主體不成立了，開發商的公司注銷了。郭莉說怎麽會注銷，我們天天在樓裏進進出出，看見那些人都還在。

法官遞過來一份報紙。郭莉看了才明白。2011年5月3日，天津泰瑞地產申請注銷，稱公司的項目誠基中心於2007年交付，無任何產權糾紛及遺留問題。公司沒有新開發項目，無債權債務事宜，現經股東同意進入清算程序。5月11日，天津泰瑞地產在《天津日報》刊登注銷公告。6月24日，向天津市工商局提出注銷申請。

而郭莉是在2010年3月起訴開發商的。一個公司要注銷時，不能有債權債務，不能有糾紛。它是怎麽注銷的呢？郭莉想不明白。這時，誠基中心的商鋪業主也準備起訴天津泰瑞地產，但法院已不給立案。

給外資企業注銷，有很嚴格的手續。郭莉到處去查資料，去找和平區商委，有人告訴她，有一個領導簽字，才給天津泰瑞地產注銷的。

郭莉又查到，2011年5月12日，天津泰瑞地產與天津盛康投資谘詢有限公司（以下簡稱天津盛康投資）簽署托管協議，鑒於泰瑞公司將要進行注銷，尚有債權、債務未處理完，對未清理完的款項委托天津盛康投資代為接管，有關人事、勞資、行政、工程檔案全部交由盛康公司代管。

既然天津泰瑞地產把債權債務轉移到天津盛康投資，那它應承擔賠償責任。郭莉追加起訴了天津盛康投資。此後，法院稱聯係不上該公司。郭莉又去市工商局調取其工商資料，提供給法院。法院說查無此公司。

在郭莉對天津泰瑞地產窮追不舍之時，她涉及的刑事案件，已由天津一中院指定紅橋區法院審理。2011年9月27日開庭時，郭莉發現訊問筆錄中，好多話自己沒說過，簽名也不是自己的。在一份筆錄中，辦案警察居然於同一時間，在兩個地方分別訊問郭莉夫婦。

在郭莉的要求下，法院委托鑒定機構對相關字跡進行鑒定，結果證明並非郭莉的字跡。鑒定報告出來後，法官把郭莉叫到小屋裏做工作。在郭莉記憶中，法官當時急得要命，一再求她，讓她認妨礙公務罪，判個緩刑。郭莉沒有答應。

與此同時，郭莉在誠基中心的家也遭襲擊。從2011年10月9日起，一連四五夜，從晚上11點起，她家就有人用刀砸門，用腳踹門，用糞便潑門，用鐵絲加502膠堵死大門鑰匙孔。郭莉從門禁裏認出了是開發商的人，當即報警，並提供了作案人的照片和住址，但警方並未處理。

10月底，郭莉看見趙晉的奔馳停在誠基中心樓下，就跑去找其論理。這是郭莉唯一一次見到趙晉。趙晉穿著藍色T恤，大肚子鼓鼓的，說話時兩手一甩一甩。對於砸門問題，他先是否認，在郭莉拿出照片之後，他把公司的總經理溫峰叫了過來說：溫峰，咱不許有這種事情。溫峰紅著臉沒說話。

趙晉提出，給郭莉一萬元賠償，讓她撤訴。郭莉沒有同意，她的訴訟標的是五萬元。“趙晉走後，溫峰對我說，‘你想要錢？我寧可花十倍的錢辦你，也不給你一分錢。’”郭莉回憶道。溫峰還揚言，“你不服，就讓武局辦你”。

2011年12月19日，郭莉在上班時，被法官的電話叫到了紅橋區法院。下午3點，她被送進看守所。22日，她收到法院兩天前下達的刑事判決書，因妨害公務罪判刑一年。後來，郭莉聽說，武長順以天津市政法委副書記的名義批示，稱郭莉襲警，應嚴肅處理，判實刑。

同一天，和平區法院駁回了郭莉對天津泰瑞地產的起訴。法院民事裁定書稱，訴爭房屋係天津泰瑞地產開發，該公司已於2011年6月27日注銷，在工商注銷登記中聲明：將未清理完畢的款項委托天津盛康投資代為接管，該行為未得到該公司的承諾和確認，天津盛康投資查無下落，原告所訴的被告主體不適格。

12、南京路上的“炮樓”

當郭莉單槍匹馬維權時，誠基的業主們，已經覺得維權不重要了，他們遇到了新的麻煩，“沒法活了”。

在天津人心目中，南京路、濱江道，相當於北京的王府井。坐落於此的誠基中心，銀灰色的建築拔地而起，巍峨大氣，盡顯高貴。

2008年，業主入住後，在對開發商私蓋加層進行維權之餘，也認同誠基中心的硬件：先進的門禁，鋁包銅的暖氣片，大理石鋪地的走廊，漂亮極了的大堂。畢竟這是趙晉在天津的首個樓盤。

僅僅過了數年，這個黃金地帶的樓，就成了臭名昭著之地。誠基中心一、二號樓32層，每層8梯38戶；三號樓52層，每層16梯62戶。三幢高層分布著5000多戶人家。這些“鴿子籠”式的小戶型，由於交通便利、租金便宜、管理鬆散，很快成了外來人員租房的首選。

在一位業主印象中，誠基中心自打一住人，就沒消停過。裝修完以後，就有了群租房、隔斷房。群租房，是員工群居一屋，如集體宿舍。隔斷房，是隔開小房間，對外出租。兩室一廳可隔成5個小間，小隔斷隻能放下一張床，大隔斷多放一個電腦桌，月租金從六七百元到千餘元。一年左右，這裏又有了日租房，秩序開始大亂。

業主們把日租房、群租房、隔斷房稱為三大房。與之一起出現的，還有大大小小的公司、家庭餐館、汗蒸房、美容院、洗腳房、按摩房等，以及南腔北調的外來人員。

“三教九流，社會上有嘛，這裏有嘛。”業主們向財新記者介紹，二號樓34樓的一個設備間，一度被人辟成“溜冰”（吸食冰毒）間，業主們在那裏發現了冰壺。“三號樓更凶猛一點。時常打架，流氓和流氓打起來了，老百姓和流氓打起來了，太正常了。”

又不知從何時起，誠基中心成了遠近聞名的“炮樓”、華北地區的小東莞。那些隔斷房和群租房引來了小姐。“不出樓，就能把小姐找了。”2009年4月，和平公安分局在一號樓21層端掉了一個絲襪秀場，搜出大量壯陽藥、護士服等，還有特殊器具為喜歡SM的客人服務。顧客來後，小姐們先穿上不同服裝進行表演，再提供“冰火兩重天”等服務。

業主介紹，日租房還成了一夜情的“聖地”。行人路過南京路，就有人給你發日租房的小廣告。在日租房開房，不需要證件，其便利之處還引來了中學生——誠基中心周邊有天津最好的中學。某年正月十五，業委會的人在一間日租房裏，發現了倆小孩，“光腚屁溜在裏頭”。

誠基中心龐雜的人流，也給電梯等公用設施帶來了災難。三幢大樓，住著5400多戶，一萬五六千人。“三大房”一來，人口就無法估計了，電梯更難以承受。住在三號樓15層的業主李先生在附近上班，路上隻有一刻鍾，每天早晨7點剛過，他就要出門，因為等電梯下樓就得20分鍾。

數百家隔斷房、群租房、日租房，每天往來的外來人員，也使得大樓裏火災隱患不可避免，時有商戶隨意堵塞消防通道現象。數年來，誠基中心已發生火災十幾次，僅2013年2-4月就三次起火。

一位曾在樓裏公司上班的職員以“髒亂差”概括誠基中心：都四十多層樓了，每天都能飛進幾隻大蒼蠅，蚊子也很多；來往人員又雜又亂，經常有人丟失東西；樓裏悶，根本不透氣，電梯也是臭烘烘的，樓道內隨處可見辦證、按摩之類的小廣告，住戶門上的小廣告更是密密麻麻，如上百隻彩色蒼蠅叮在上麵。

“在誠基，活得人不人，鬼不鬼。”一位業委會成員對財新記者說，他們想拍一部電視劇，就叫《人鬼情未了》。

誠基中心的亂象在2014年5月甚至登上了《人民日報》。其現狀讓一位天津市民想到美國大片《執法官》，貧民擠在高層大廈裏，人員混雜，環境惡劣，犯罪率居高不下，隨著時間的推移，一個立體貧民區就誕生了。

誠基中心似乎正把這種擔憂變成現實。越來越多的業主賣掉房子脫身，但賣房也不容易。當附近房產每平方米達到四五萬元時，誠基中心的房子標價1萬元每平方米居然都難賣出。

出租也不容易。業主李明在誠基中心購買的房子，建築麵積60多平方米，收拾得幹幹淨淨，家具全新。想賣賣不出去，隻能出租，但人家租一年，就不會再租了，月租金一路下滑，從2400元變成2300元、2200元，再到1700元。到後來，李明灰心了，“隻要是正當人家，別惹事，給多少錢都租”。

對於誠基中心之亂，不少業主認為物業管理是罪魁禍首，但物業也有苦衷，稱誠基中心先天設計不足，三幢高層卻擁有5000個居住單元，每棟樓都有數個出口，難以把控。

也有業主稱，這種亂象不是物業的事，再來五個物業也不行。物業公司不是萬能的，他們沒有執法權。沒有政府的支持，就控製不住局勢。在他們看來，誠基中心是由政府職能部門審批的，先有審批後有建造，然後才產生“誠基難民”。政府把控不嚴謹、不周全，不能讓業主埋單。

發現問題之初，業主們就以不同形式向政府反映問題。為了引起政府重視，一些業主甚至提出遊行、拉橫幅、到北京上訪等。

“誠基中心日益成為和平區的麻煩，讓政府頭疼。”該區一名警察對財新記者說。

2013年，天津市和平區政府專門成立了誠基中心聯合治理小組，和平區公安分局也在誠基中心成立了治安辦。在一幢住宅大樓裏設立治安辦，在天津並不多見。

據《每日新報》報道，僅2014年10月，和平區對誠基中心進行的綜合治理，當場查扣燃氣瓶30餘個，拆除違法隔斷14個，清理影響防火安全的管道井1300個、設備層3個、地下設備間12間，關閉日租房、群租房、隔斷房142間。

至2014年11月，據初步統計，誠基中心仍有188間隔斷房，113間群租房，315間日租房。一位業委會成員說，這個數字還應該上浮15%-20%。

盡管多次治理，誠基的問題並未根治，而是像瘟疫一樣，向周邊擴散，已影響到附近高檔樓盤的品質，甚至蔓延到了數公裏外同樣是小戶型的君臨天下。

“誠基中心一清理，很多租戶就跑過來了。”君臨天下的業主告訴財新記者。君臨天下也開始亂了，業主們有時能在樓道裏看到吸毒的工具，看到吸毒者吸完了在一樓的沙發上休息；大樓裏也開始有了小姐，穿著吊帶裙，在樓道裏一溜飄香。

讓君臨天下業主窩心的還有電梯。君臨天下每層40戶，算上夾層有47層，共2525戶，有12部電梯。還在2009年6月，十多個業主到11樓看房，下樓時被關在電梯裏，裏麵的報警鈴和對講機形同虛設，大家踹門，嚎叫，均無人回應，十多人擠在狹小的空間裏，溫度至少有40多度，小孩都哭得快休克了，過了恐怖的50分鍾，才來人修電梯。

之後君臨天下的電梯時有故障。2013年8月2日，大廈的3號電梯在下行至十層時突然失控，迅速下墜，此後三次顛簸，最終停在大廈一層與負一層之間。14人被困受傷，其中8人傷勢較重。

13、佛擋殺佛

在趙晉打造房產帝國的征途中，一路高歌猛進，如坦克滾滾向前，凡阻礙者必碾於車下，不僅視業主維權如螳臂當車，即使是其多年的合作夥伴也不放過，在執法部門表現出極強的影響力。

江蘇宜興太湖地基工程有限公司（以下簡稱宜興地基），即為一例。2006年，經朋友介紹，趙晉把這家公司帶到了天津，雙方合作的第一個項目是君臨天下。該項目時為天津最高建築，施工難度大，很多企業不敢做，宜興地基把這塊骨頭啃下來了，趙晉很滿意。

此後，宜興地基又在天津為趙晉做了恒盛SOHO、水岸銀座、名門廣場的地基工程，在南京合作了卓越名座。

但宜興地基的項目經理老馮發現，在水岸銀座的地基工程中，趙晉數次調整樁的基礎，“我們有時幹完活，退場了，過了一段時間，又叫我們去幹”。業界認為，一座大樓要修改規劃，蓋加層，調整樁子是必須的。

至名門廣場時，這種調整的次數更多了，開發商對已經過規劃部門審定的施工圖紙一再變更，反複讓地基施工隊進場補充施工。返場的次數多了，馮經理數次向開發商提出意見甚至抗議，如樓間距越來越窄，消防通道被擠占，會造成安全隱患等，雙方關係開始僵硬。

“2013年結算工程款時，趙晉說工程有問題，拖著不肯給。”宜興地基方麵介紹，在雙方合作的樓盤中，君臨天下的工程款已結清，恒盛SOHO、水岸銀座、名門廣場的工程款，尚餘3000多萬元，要了兩三年，趙晉都沒給。

趙晉指責宜興地基在施工中沒有做一種叫後壓漿的工藝。宜興地基方麵稱，公司對後壓漿工藝過程控製嚴格，從頭到尾都是經理看著做的，並留有記錄，但把資料拿過去，趙晉不承認，為此公司數次去天津協調，董事長和常務副總都去找趙晉談過。“在做出讓步之後，雙方談得蠻好的。但過了半小時又不行了。趙晉說，他得罪我了，就要搞死他。”

2013年底，天津公安機關成立專案組，對宜興地基的馮經理立案偵查，並於2014年1月以涉嫌工程重大安全事故罪對其網上追逃。最早報道該案的《法治周末》曾援引北京律師張保軍的言論稱，根據法律規定，工程重大安全事故罪屬結果犯，隻有在因工程質量問題而發生重大安全事故時，才能追究直接責任人的刑責。而宜興地基承接的工程，並未因質量問題造成人員傷亡和財產損失，卻被立案偵查，這或許與趙晉背後的人為操作不無關係。

馮案並非唯一。知情者稱，對於合作單位，趙晉往往利用施工企業可能存在的小過錯，用其雄厚的背景實力查封對方賬戶、私下通過公安關係到處抓人，威脅施工企業賠償幾十倍到上百倍的費用，如果施工企業不肯就範，則揚言滅了該企業。

在天津的房產開發中，趙晉是神擋殺神，佛擋殺佛，翻手覆手，遊走於法律和政策的邊緣。前述開發誠基中心的天津泰瑞地產用注銷公司來躲避責任和訴訟，開發君臨天下的天津星際地產，則是“死了又活、活了又死”，工商機關對於公司注銷的嚴格規定，在趙晉那裏如同虛設。

2011年12月21日，君臨天下的多位業主委托律師，狀告天津星際地產擅自變更房屋設計及環境布局。他們當時並不知道，一個月前，天津星際地產已向工商局出具清算報告，遞交公司注銷登記申請書，並於2011年底完成注銷。

然而，被注銷的天津星際地產，之後仍在進行正常的經營活動。2012年2月，天津星際地產與深圳一家空調供應商簽訂抵房合同，約定天津星際地產代購水岸銀座的商品房，用於衝抵空調采購款。

與此同時，天津星際地產還在告君臨天下的電梯供應商。2012年6月，在天津星際地產注銷半年之後，其股東山東誠基地產向天津市河北區工商分局出具情況說明，稱天津星際地產的財產清算報告中未注明與電梯商相關訴訟未結案事項，至其注銷後，法院相關訴訟無法解決，請求撤銷注銷。當日，河北區工商分局即撤銷了天津星際地產的注銷登記。

天津星際地產複活，和電梯商亞太區公司的訴訟繼續進行，此後又起訴了該電梯商的中國區公司。2013年11月，天津一中院做出裁定，該電梯商的外籍高管被限製離境。這個裁定讓電梯商難以接受，此前該公司已向法院提交了1800萬元的凍結款，而其與天津星際地產的合同總額也隻有1600萬元。數月後，電梯商無奈接受了天津星際地產提出的賠償要求。

但電梯商並不知道，天津星際地產其實此時已不複存在了。2013年10月，天津星際地產成立清算組進行清算。當年12月31日，經河北區工商分局審核批準，該公司注銷。

前述在天津星際地產第一次注銷後仍與其簽訂抵房合同的深圳空調供應商，因天津星際地產未履行給付商品房義務，於2013年八九月將其訴諸法庭。他們同樣驚訝地發現，死而複生的天津星際地產，在起訴期間居然又一次注銷了。