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
·地方自治是民主制度必不可缺少的前提
·谈国家的全民性质
·国家政权是领导管理机器而不是镇压机器
·关于民族自决权问题的初步意见
·中国的种族主义和类种族主义
·答王希哲先生
·谈文化和文明问题的两个帖子
·近日网上讨论帖子四个
·没有信仰的理性不可怕,没有理性的信仰才可怕
·余大郎呀,你和上书房的计谋又破产了
·重新公布赖昌星案四个文件
·我与国凯风格完全不同,但我非常同情国凯
·赖昌星案、中共内斗和民运新论战
·警惕极左极右信仰专制主义和恐怖主义
·孙中山和辛亥革命
·向胡平刘晓波提几个问题,代作初步批驳
·纠正花瓶民运全盘否定民族主义爱国主义错误倾向
·原教旨主义、邪教、理性和信仰
·原教旨主义、邪教、理性和信仰
·对世界和中国前途的思考(一)
·对张三一言先生错误说法的批评
·将被烧死的科学家在火刑架上说“地球仍然在转动!”
·总统宣誓,应该手扶宪法
·关于台湾两党问题答paul先生
·就帝国主义、中美及国际未来走向等问题答胡安宁
·北约应该绕过联合国打击叙利亚独裁者
·政治人物和政党应该注重道德
·对秦晖文章的几点初步评论
·大陆反对派务必吸取民进党的严重教训
·对方励之评傅高义的按语
·简驳谢燕益《选举正在和革命赛跑!》
·简驳王希哲《评马勇文章精到和俗论的所在》
·中国农民是最强烈反对中共的群体
·再驳梁不正
·三评谢燕益并按语
·不如希特勒纳粹的中共新纳粹
·谈王希哲的丛林法则等等
·对张乐天《底层视角的现代史》的不同意见
·汉语汉字是优秀的语言和文字
·驳韩寒素质论
·不要把韩寒三篇文章看作仅仅是简单的三篇文章
·韩寒三篇文章是有官方背景的运作
·韩寒低素质,百姓中素质,英雄高素质
·推特上反驳胡平等重弹反对革命的滥调
2012年
2012年文章(可能有少量其他文章)
·点评王建勋《变革、民情及个体责任》
·纠正一个错误说法
·对何清涟文章的批评
·中国要重生必须经过革命洗礼
·美国对台策略简析
·对余杰出国问题的另一种评论
·关于活埋200人问题
·再次重提韩三篇是某势力预先策划的行动
·已经没有几个共产党员不反对共产党了
·驳张维迎们的非道德论
·驳草虾:南京大屠杀无法从南京人记忆中抹杀
·再谈狭义民运圈不可能大团结
·民主从党内开始是专制思维
·就民运派别问题答查建国先生
·四个建国纲领汇编供对照
·随笔:刘霞之谜等三则
·推荐莲子《举证责任与原始正义》一文
·就王炳章问题答胡安宁
·短评:简驳王希哲挺薄荒唐逻辑等两则
·不赞成刘国凯文章《体谅温家宝》
·从国际习惯看左右派别分界
·在薄熙来问题上民运中的不同派别及不同策略
·为方励之先生辩(两则)
·为方励之先生辩(两则)
·揭穿救党势力共存共荣共治的欺骗戏法
·辨别中国改革真假的两种做法两块试金石
·再驳挺薄左派的一个谬论
·在薄熙来问题上三个派别的分歧
·关于中国转型问题的简单意见
·驳斥王希哲造谣诬蔑
·和平转型的可能性和必要条件
·把信仰驱赶出公权力公共领域
·关于共产党设局的问题
·加强对军队的工作
·理论、宣传和学匠之间的异同
·时势造英雄而不是相反
·以亲身经历教训谈海内外联手
·驳一种精神专制的谬论
·对国内御用学者鼓吹民主集中制的简单批判
·重发29年前批判延安文艺座谈会讲话的文章一篇
·答古谜
·又谈平反问题
·驳王丹等“期待六四翻案而非平反”说
·为什么不能原谅邓小平李鹏?
·柴玲的无权卑鄙和有权卑鄙
·驳柴玲《再谈宽恕》
·反击中共控制和利用宗教的大棋
·论“上帝只属于中国”等与神棍斗嘴帖
·我对宗教的大致认识和简单经历
·“党的领导”绝对非法
·反对平反的歪论全是阴谋或狡辩
·中共情报机构把人打成疯子习惯手法,似乎太陈旧了一点
[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