百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    徐水良文集
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[徐水良文集]->[中国民主人士给二00九年诺文学奖得主米勒的公开信 ]
徐水良文集
·旗帜鲜明地防止和反对中共对土地资源抢劫掠夺
·胡安宁通知透露中共特务机构杀机
·胡安宁无可奈何的自供状
·中国经济世界排名后退主要在共产党时期
·通货膨胀——中共抢劫掠夺的重要手段
·颠倒改革程序,此路不通!
·二談马英九綠卡風波
·恐惧症——蓝营自己的大敌
·不要把复杂的经济形式简单化
·发扬八九精神,反对邓式改革
·刘晓波图穷匕首见
·什么是公民社会?
·公有制私有制市场经济计划经济的荒唐对立
·双手双脚并用和自砍手脚
·要解决土地产权问题必须先搞政治改革
·反对伪精英
·大力支持无锡居民的维权抗争
·强烈谴责中共推行特权性和歧视性公务员制度
·答国内朋友
·对上海国保特务漫天造谣的再次声明
·是非分明的美国和道德崩溃的中国
·放开言论自由不需花力气却有大量好处
·两天前致达赖喇嘛的信
·强烈谴责中共对藏人的血腥镇压
·藏人和汉人反抗打了中共的要害
·台湾大选结果和未来走向
·民主政府建立后一定要严惩作恶累累的上海国保!
·不要相信中共漫天造假制造的假象和谎言
·国内网友一面倒质疑西藏是又一次“国会纵火案”
·关于建立大中华联邦的构想
·关于大中华联邦答文稼先生
·西藏事件,五毛不断造谣,网友不断反驳
·中共造假,洋相百出
·国内众多网友与少数五毛网特激战西藏问题
·给朋友的信
·《网路文摘》《中国邮递》联合宣言
·奥运如何解套?为中共支一招
·读中文互联网和西藏问题争论有感
·抢火炬,小概念事件辩护不成立
·答胡安宁
·台湾和西藏,恶斗路线的破产
·中共纵容犯罪活动,中华网等网站公然号召搞恐怖主义
·捍卫中国愤青表达意见和游行示威的自由权利
·第一共和是上海国保的一个小组,不是王雍罡一个人
·中共必须更换思想和路线
·中共愿与达赖谈判,认真还是欺骗?我的回答
·当代中国政治势力的粗略光谱
·搞政治必须用“正”不用邪
·小学生的道理和成年人的道理
·沉痛悼念四川震灾遇难同胞!
·抗震救灾,对中共要一监督、二帮助
·撤离民运圈,才能真正为民而运
·地震预报和老百姓的知情权
·又一个震前预报证据,证明中共有关方面撒谎成性
·四川教育厅公布的学生死亡数据是否太离谱?
·马英九何苦发表不伦不类的感言?
·网路文摘启事:谨防假冒和病毒
·真民运人士对民运圈极度失望等网文两则
·驳秦晖(题外谈一下道德问题)
·如何看待当前如火如荼进行的全民道德大讨论
·为美国公民胡安宁到中国定居送行
·声援瓮安,维权抗暴、结束中共一党专制
·中国社会的沉沦和巨变,让人感慨!
·两百年左倾倒退大潮,会有两百年右向加速进步作补偿
·变骚乱为起义
·未来中国基本国策的一些要点
·未来中国一些重要的社会原则
·答洪哲胜先生的按语
·"保卫资源!保卫产业!保卫金融!保卫全中国!"
·重发支持红杉军反腐倒扁,劝告绿营划清界线的几篇文章
·索尔仁尼琴和俄罗斯的悲剧
·就俄、格冲突和华国锋问题答朋友问
·旧事重提:王有才关于虹桥机场事件的说明,及虹桥机场事件经过
·退盟声明
·毒奶粉和金融危机:不同的社会基础和同一类问题
·中国股民,请认清中国股市的本质,它有可能彻底崩溃
·再谈毒奶粉和金融危机的教训
·中国模式的本质:专制、奴役、掠夺、盗窃、卖国和苦难
·研究土地问题,揭露中共抢劫掠夺
·十余年来关于改革程序和农民问题的几篇文章
·秦晖先生和自由主义者们的一些欺骗手法
·当代中国三农问题的实质
·中国自由主义:概念、祸害和欺骗手法
·人的三种境界和四个类型
·是否坚持政治改革先行,是民主派的真、假标志
·左派和右派联合推动政治改革
·讲一点道德常识
·对台湾的一点希望
·神经失常或别有用心才会宣传告别革命
·简评胡平《民主与革命》
·国内网民怒吼,呼唤反抗
·大陆网友继续以激愤情绪抨击林嘉祥和中共当局
·网上评论两则
·再次批驳民运中某些真正的奴才对平反一词的攻击
·读帖有感:贵和贱
·问几个问题,有人信吗?
·谈革命和起义的时间预见问题
·金融海啸的相关理论和解救法宝
·对魏京生先生错误说法的批评
·与台独人士的一次网上争论
·中国民主事业的最大困难
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
中国民主人士给二00九年诺文学奖得主米勒的公开信


   (英文稿附后)
   
   
   我们是数十年为中国民主事业一直付出的人士,其中一些人甚至在中共监狱渡过十几年的青春。我们对刘晓波一直持有保留态度,通过对他二十年的观察,我们认为,他是与共产党配合的合作派代表。而进一步证实此判断的是,在他被中共拘留一年后,当人们同声抗议中共以言治罪拘捕他的非法行为时,他自己却在二00九年十二月二十三日发出《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》的法庭陈述,在此陈述中,他大篇幅地表扬中共监狱“人性化”“柔性化”,还说“中共执政理念的进步”和“人权已经成为中国法治的根本原则之一”。这不禁令人发问:如果中共的人权果真像刘晓波所说的如此进步,为什么中共还把无罪的刘晓波抓进监狱,重判十一年?

   
   刘晓波被判刑表明,中共政府是极端死硬和邪恶的政权,它连刘晓波这样一位站在共产党立场对其谏言的合作派竟然都不能容忍。刘晓波被判刑还表明,向中共谏言、美言中共人权纪录的合作路是死路一条。所以,刘晓波这篇陈述一经发出,就引起海内外中国民主人士的激烈反弹。一些民主人士也在得知刘晓波被提名为诺贝尔和平奖候选人时,于二0一0年三月给诺委会发出公开信,清楚地表明了不同意刘晓波获奖的上述观点。我们也把这封信通过电子邮件发给了为刘晓波诺和平奖提名的提名人,包括二00九年诺文学奖得主米勒女士。
   
   令人遗憾的是,诺委会仍作出决定,授予共产党的合作派代表刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖。更令人遗憾的是,刘晓波美言中共恶劣人权状况的《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》竟成为二0一0年诺和平奖颁奖大会的表演朗诵稿。在这样一个以和平和人权为主题的世界大会上,这篇朗诵稿不但大篇幅地为中共恶劣的人权状况美言,还特别地点名表扬了监狱的管教和中共的司法人员。回看一九七五年,萨哈罗夫的诺和平奖颁奖词主要抨击苏共恶劣的人权纪录,他还特别点名为数十名狱中的苏联政治犯的人权呼吁,相比之下,刘晓波颁奖词的那些不当言词无法令我们认同和接受。
   
   我们对刘晓波的批评都是基于事实,出于良知和理性,这也是自由社会的常态。反常的是米勒女士三月二十六日在《法兰克福汇报》上发表的文章。她文章中支持刘晓波,是她的自由,但是,她对批评刘晓波的人士采用了反常的攻击性语言,她说:“诽谤、告密、对晓波无所不用其极的毁誉就是这些电子信的内容。也许是中国的情报机构渗入了流亡人士,也许是惶恐狂躁的流亡者自己神经错乱,他们远离家乡在纸上推演流亡革命,卑鄙地用文字骚扰滋事,而其他人在国内却一定会出错,因为他们在行动,而至今也只能将就着投石问路。”
   
   鉴于中共特工对海外民运的捣乱,有朋友认为这篇文章是伪造的,并写信表示 “这样低劣的东西。我认为口气绝对不仅不是一个西方人的口气,更不是一位有教养的人的口气。”当被证实这篇文章真的是米勒女士写的时,我们只能说,在这里,我们无法把米勒女士的思维和行文看成是一位作家,她这一段,使用的完全是来自齐奥塞斯库的罗马尼亚宣传机构的一种煽动性的宣传手法。
   
   中国民运人士中批评刘晓波的人很多,最激烈的批评者中包括中国著名异议作家王若望和刘宾雁,他们在十几年前就发表了上万字的评论文章,对刘晓波的原则性错误详细地做出评论和批评。批评者中也包括曾坐中共牢狱近二十年的中国著名民运领袖魏京生。米勒女士竟然把这些具事实根据的批评说成“惶恐狂躁”,“神经错乱”,“纸上推演流亡革命”,“卑鄙地用文字骚扰滋事”,米勒女士的这些言辞带有明显的个人情绪,是有失公允的污蔑。
   
   除此之外,我们认为,米勒女士并不了解刘晓波这二十年的行为,她也不了解中国现今民主运动的复杂和混乱,甚至不了解二十年前天安门民主运动中刘晓波领导绝食这一个事件的来龙去脉。因此,在这些复杂问题上,米勒女士没有资格和能力作出评断。
   
   祝好
   
   二0一一年四月四日
   
   中国民主人士签名(名字排列按姓氏汉语拼音):
   
   卞和祥  (纽约,中共制度的政治反對派)
   陈迈平  (瑞典,自由作家)
   还学文  (德国,自由作家)
   刘晓东  (芝加哥,自由撰稿人,笔名三妹)
   鲁德成  (加拿大,中共制度的政治反對派,因参加八九年天安门运动而判刑十六年)
   王胜林  (芝加哥,银行风险分析师,异议人士)
   许毅  (伦敦,大学教授,异议人士)
   羊子  (纽约,流亡异议人士)
   张国亭  (丹麦,网络工作者,被中共政治迫害坐牢长达二十二年)
   张良生  (香港,独立时政评论家,笔名张三一言)
   徐水良  (美国纽约,流亡异议人士,被中共政治迫害两度坐牢共长达十三年)
   仲维光  (德国,自由作家)
   
   
   
        An Open Letter to Ms. Herta Mueller,
       the 2009 Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature,
   
       by a Group of Chinese Democracy Advocates
   
   
   We are a group of people who have devoted ourselves to the cause of democracy in China for several decades. Some of us even spent over 10 yearsof their youth in a Communist prison. We have always had reservations about Liu Xiaobo. Based on our observations of over 20 years, we believe that he represents a cooperative approach that tries to work with the Chinese Communist regime. Our judgment is once again backed by the fact that, after a year of being detained by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and when others were protesting against his illegal arrest based on his speech, he issued the court statement “I have no enemies — My final statement” . In the statement, he praised the Communist prison as a “humane” and “tender” place, and said that “the CCP has made progress in its governing philosophy”, and that “human rights have become one of the fundamental principles of Chinese law.” This naturally begs the question, if the Chinese Communist Party has really made such progress as declared by Liu, why did it arrest him and sentence him to 11 years in prison just for his speech?
   
   Liu Xiaobo’s prison sentence demonstrates that the CCP government is a die-hard evil regime that cannot even tolerate a cooperative and advising criticizer like Liu Xiaobo. His prison sentence also demonstrates that being cooperative by giving advice while praising CCP’s human rights record leads to nowhere . That is why both domestic and overseas Chinese democracy advocates reacted strongly to Liu’s statement as soon as it was released. Some of us wrote an open letter to the Nobel Peace Prize committee upon learning that he was nominated as a candidate, expressing in no uncertain terms that we did not support awarding Liu the prize and citing the same reasons as we expressed above. This letter was emailed to all the nominators of Liu Xiaobo, including Ms. Mueller, the 2009 laureate of the Nobel Prize in literature.
   
   Disappointingly, the Nobel Committee still decided to award the Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo. Even more disappointingly, Liu’s statement “I have no enemies——My final statement” was recited at the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony. At such an international conference with peace and human rights as its theme, this statement not only praised the CCP’s deploring human rights record, but also specifically named the prison wardens and the CCP judicial officers with high praises. Back in 1975, Andrei Sakharov used most of his speech at his Peace Prize ceremony to expose the appalling human rights record of the Soviet Union, naming in particular dozens of political prisoners and calling for their release. The words by Liu Xiaobo at the ceremony, in contrast, were totally inappropriate and unacceptable to us.
   
   Our criticisms of Liu Xiaobo are all based on facts and out of conscience, which is perfectly normal in a free society. What is abnormal is Ms. Mueller’s article published in the Frankfurter on March 26. She is certainly entitled to voice her support for Liu Xiaobo . However, she used abusive language against those who criticized Liu, saying that “slandering, denunciation and shameless assassination of Xiaobo were the nature of those emails. Perhaps the Chinese intelligence has infiltrated the exiles, or perhaps these exiles have gone mad out of fear and frustration. They play exile revolution on paper far from their homeland, shamelessly rampaging with vicious words, while others in China had to make mistakes because they were taking action, and they could act only according to the situation."
   
   Because of frequent sabotage from CCP intelligence against the overseas Chinese democracy movement, some believed that the article was a fake, saying that “such a cheap attack cannot be from a Westerner, and it does not sound like someone with class.” Upon hearing confirmation that the article was indeed written by Ms. Mueller, we have to say that it is impossible for us to view her way of thinking and manner of writing as fit for an author, because this assertion and attack of her style was just like that of the propaganda during the era of Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania.
   
   Many of the Chinese democracy advocates have criticized Liu Xiaobo in the past. Among the most severe criticizers are Wang Ruowang and Liu Binyan, both well known dissident writers, who published long articles criticizing in detail Liu’s fundamental mistakes. Also among the criticizers is Wei Jingsheng, the prominent Chinese democracy movement leader, who was imprisoned by the CCP for nearly 20 years. Ms. Mueller labeled these criticisms as “mad out of fear”, “schizophrenic”, “playing exile revolution on paper” and “shamelessly rampaging with vicious words”.  These words by Mueller carry apparent personal attitudes and are prejudiced insults.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场