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
·坚持本职还是不务正业
·再谈“一中两府两国号”和洪秀柱的“一中同表”
·胡安宁和他同学,究竟谁是中共特线?
·王林之类江湖骗子何以在中国红火
·关于革命问题再辩论(驳冯胜平等)
·司马逸:革命的形势与忽悠——驳冯胜平
·不赞成刘仲敬意见
·继续辩论革命问题
·揭露曾节明造假大陆国民党
·大陆国民党在十年前“成立”过一次
·不要相信特线假组织
·曾节明竟然顽强表现自己缺德、无耻和卑鄙
·关于宗教信仰和亲共势力入侵美国的一个评论
·简单评论北大教授强世功的极权专制反人类理论
·基督等一神教是共产主义鼻祖(一)
·基督等一神教是共产主义鼻祖(二)
·孙丰张三一言论革命文章三篇
·也说偶像
·天津爆炸评论
·草包特线草包公安的草包造假
·只有极端反动才反对和平演变和革命
·戏揭刘刚撒谎笑料
·论起义和革命部分文章合编一
·论起义和革命部分文章合编二
·论起义和革命部分文章合编三
·论起义和革命部分文章合编四
·论起义和革命部分文章合编五
·论起义和革命部分文章合编六
·论起义和革命部分文章合编七
·论起义和革命部分文章合编八
·论起义和革命部分文章合编九
·中国已处于静悄悄的经济危机当中
·对日本一些大学取消人文科系的评论
·今日再与告别革命派论战
·有神无神、信仰迷信、理性科学等问题再讨论
·毛泽东和中共勾结日寇的一些史料
·再评江湖骗术“特异功能”和伪科学“人体科学”
·再驳伪精英“反民粹”
·对《再驳伪精英反民粹》的一些补充
·为傅志彬呼吁并推荐阅读
·关于洗脑等问题的评论
·关于洗脑等问题的评论
·回答王希哲
·回答王希哲
·再谈公有化私有化
·驳杜导斌谬论
·驳左派谣言
·关于所有制概念
·对人民大学师生之争的看法和评论
·建议徐贲用“极权社会的奴民综合症”取代犬儒说辞
·美国右派的公有制实验并按语
·继续谈人民大学师生之争
·也谈一神教多神教(与张三一言商榷)
·笑曾家军胡安宁、曾节明
·共产主义既是贫困的结果又是继续贫困的原因
·又昏又蠢的胡话
·近日再谈宗教问题
·评《民国的最大错误,非基督教运动》
·蔡英文任内,中共有可能打台湾
·严防政教合一宗教势力破坏革命
·闲聊负能量、现代科学和古代骗术
·共产之后是共妻
·答陈卫珍女士等
·林岛:穷鬼合伙娶老婆是不够的,彻底打破一夫一妻制才行
·人类历史上最最可怕的极权专制反人类的做法
·张赞宁:付志彬无罪——付志彬非法经营案辩护词
·不赞成“人类历史进步在于暴力程度降低”简单化结论
·中国近现代史上的三次大屠杀
·孔奖、一神教、中医、共妻等问题再讨论
·继续批驳转移斗争大方向保护马列共产党的谬论
·警惕洪秀全白彦虎式的一神教危险
·一神教为什么衰落
·继续讨论暴力问题
·我对马习会的看法
·在什么情况下支持台独才是合理的?
·再谈一国两府两国号
·关于王炳章问题再驳曾节明
·与中共打交道就是与魔鬼打交道
·中共采用左右两翼夹攻反对派策略
·为曾节明和安徽公安合制假国民党穿帮出主意
·也谈政教合一概念
·再答神棍陈大骗子(上)
·再答神棍陈大骗子(下)
·再答神棍陈大骗子(上)
·再答神棍陈大骗子(下)
·徐水良声明
·邮件组讨论:当代世界的两大主要敌人
·有理想有信仰未必是好事
·巴黎恐袭评论:抛弃圣经可兰经原教旨主义
·ISIS到底要什么?解密伊斯兰国的末日圣战
·我对消弥宗教仇杀的看法
·曾节明陈尔晋等特线谎言一个又一个,什么都漫天造谣
·中共控制垄断民运的企图和小圈子策略
·反恐的治标和治本办法
·人权高于主权的又一例证
·讨论1:别书生气看待民阵内斗
·讨论2:中共引渡姜野飞董广平花了力气
·讨论3:狭义民运圈真实内幕确实让人震惊
·中共对付反对派的人海战术
·再驳希特勒超级粉丝曾节明
·东欧各国秘密警察的罪恶与结局
[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