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
·天方夜谭的奇谈
· 再谈郭文贵爆料问题
·一批长不大的小毛孩
·华盛顿自由塔报专访郭文贵:中国在美国情报网拥有25000间谍
·给中共“内斗”双方支个招
· 他用自己的生命论证了自己理论的错误
·再驳‘没有敌人’的谬论
·粪土当代诺贝尔和平奖文学奖
· 只有批臭无敌论和反暴力论,民主革命才会到来
·关于革命和暴力问题驳陈卫珍
·对刘晓波问题的另一类疑问
·谈民运,谈其他
·在两个上海女士视屏后面的评论等帖
·驳胡平杨建利低风险低门槛等陈词滥调
·郭文贵、民运和革命等问题讨论
·揭露中共特线很重要
·互联网时代新型革命抛弃旧式组织旧式领袖
·再批新自由主义
·对郭文贵未来前途的估计
·高智晟声明真假的常识判断和辩论
·继续讨论高智晟声明问题
·提醒国内朋友千万不要自投罗网
·几个学术问题的讨论
·川普总统必须对大选以来的仇恨浪潮负责
·继续辩论高智晟和唐辛大会等问题
·关于特线问题聊天记录整理
·也谈当代中国宪政尝试的失败及其原因
·关于唐柏桥辛灏年问题的一个跟帖
·再辩特线问题
·我对郭文贵问题的原则看法、立场和策略
·再谈信仰的负面作用
·也谈孙中山问题
·人类的第一生产力就是人本身
·再谈小学生的道理和成年人的道理
·本人对陈卫珍近来言论的评论
·信仰可怕
·国难日、国殇日里说祖国
·八月底部分网上发言
·9月前半月部分网上发言汇编修改
·近来网上部分发言(嘲弄特线)
·近来网上发言(信仰和宗教问题)
·近来网上部分发言(革命改良,党主立宪问题)
·近来部分网上发言(杂论)
·什么情况下才能有一国两制
·“台湾两杆红旗”是中共在台第五纵队
·马列之罪,还是民众素质和传统文化之罪?
·近日评论:19大、郭文贵等
·近日评论:文化和信仰等
·近日评论:杂论
· 国共两党都是列宁式的党
·理解有人肩负护同伙的任务
·不要把特线问题与观点问题混为一谈
·关于伍凡问题
·必须警惕问题的另一面(对曹长青视频的批评)
·民主其实是指公权力没有自由
·自由化民主化与信仰化成反比(与去信仰化成正比)
·对刘军宁讲座《自由的价值》的评论
·关于19大和郭文贵等问题部分评论
·为蒋介石和国民党讲点公道话
·再谈宗教问题
·评郭曝料、特线、丢车保帅等问题
·马列教人士的共同特点和共同的撒谎狡辩办法
·一些理论评论
·不是前进太快而是倒退太快
·人民资本主义vs共产党人干资本主义
·分析郭文贵不反习策略的一个短帖
·关于彭明等问题
·再辩彭明问题
·几条评论
·楊天水刑事判決書;楊天水案的庭前幕後
·再评郭事件
·简评东海一枭的民本、人本、仁本说辞
·再谈丢车保帅等阴谋
·也评李洪宽和郭文贵决裂问题
·警惕新动向,谨防上当
·评伯夷《海外民运和郭文贵》
· 郭文贵对民运最可笑攻击:你们几十年做了什么?
·4到8月关于曝料问题小部分原则性意见
·吉歌的博客:郭文贵已和中共达成和解,网红雾亭推特销号自言雾亭已死
·郭文贵事件大致轮廓
·郭文贵当然是共产党
·转推特上网友说法和本人评论
·我的一个短评
·昙花一现的大阴谋和历史大笑料
·俞智官先生搞错了问题的焦点和性质
·我的不同意见和感想
·邮件组辩论几则:郭卫兵和郭阵营特线的逻辑等
·刘晓东反驳郭文贵视频讲话的误导
·再驳攻击革命尤其是攻击暴力革命的谬论
·郭卫兵和郭阵营的超宇宙逻辑
·再谈幼儿水平的超宇宙逻辑
·小腿疼不小心泄漏王炳章诱捕国内志士帖
·郭曝料以来一些私下评论
·几条评论
·郭卫兵用现代幼儿园水平及其超宇宙逻辑搅局
·国安会炒作郭王牌与当年公安部炒作刘无敌一个模式
·黄河边总结郭文贵十个豪言壮语
·再谈中共情报机构及特线运作伎俩问题
·驳曾节明胡安宁螺杆并与网友对话
·对夏钧先生视频《魏京生帝王梦》的批评
· 也谈郭文贵现象
[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