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
·给朋友的信
·中国异议人士,请学会自重!
·国内和坐牢不是保护伞
·动不动攻击别人心智不健全的人自己心智最不健全
·讲个狗咬狗、人变狗打架的故事
·再谈无罪推定并驳北京小左
·为高官维护特权还是为小民维护人权?
·如果中共各派永远共存共治共荣,何来民主派收拾残局?
·关于薄左签名信起草人的初步鉴识
·海外版公开信系大幅改写刘金华公开信而成
·再谈取缔惩罚罪恶滔天的共产党和毛左问题
·惩治中共罪犯也是避免二次革命的需要
·“协商民主”是理论上的胡说八道
·不走老路、不走“邪路”、只走死路
·18大评论2:抛掉幻想,准备革命
·当代中国,改旗易帜是正道
·革命、改良、暴力、政改
·在国内发《大骂大帮忙的张千帆教授》,被删除
·网帖汇编1:革命、改良、暴力、政改
·恋旧路、走邪路、拒正路
·对茉莉关于民族自治一文的不同意见
·网帖汇编:占海特事件,制度决定论的典型案例
·再谈现代国家农奴制度
·再谈汉语汉字是优秀语言和文字
·为民运人士一辩
·关于极权专制
·关于“共济会大阴谋”
·取消违反宪法的异地考试地方法规
·取消违反宪法的异地考试地方法规
·再谈“摸石头”
·互联网时代如何发起革命
·悼念王来棣先生
·人民起义道路和小圈子策略
·ZT化解专制暴力的战略:以民意赢得军心
·许良英,不同凡响的理想主义者,中国一代知识分子的良心
·悼念许良英先生(汇编二)
·悼念许良英先生(汇编三)
·许良英,中国的良心和傲骨(汇编四)
·悼念许良英先生(汇编五)
·我眼中的圣者——悼许良英先生
·悼念许良英先生(汇编六)
·重视许良英先生的这些意见
·悼念许良英先生文章两篇
·当代中国,改良代价远比革命大
·批判素质论的几个帖子
·中国改良(“改革”)成本巨大
·改革成本有无可比性的辩论
·改革成本有无可比性的辩论
·驳赛昆彭基磐造谣
·共产主义来自基督教
·中国人素质低不配民主理论来自江三代
·驳朱学勤“拥抱革命是危险的”谬论
·关于秦晖文章的简单批评
·与神棍等素质论者辩论
·对顾肃文章及一些网上观点的评论
·再谈基督教问题
·关于宗教问题的三篇旧文
·也谈经济危机
·圣经反人类的屠杀教义
·郑酋午:凡是痴迷一种学说之人其脑必有毛病
·为郑酋午文章一辩
·幻想复活死的改革,不如准备活的革命
·再谈素质论、文化论和制度论
·简谈一个单相思幻想
·谈意识形态和宣传等问题
·宗教问题三则
·中国的右派
·托克维尔究竟说了什么?
·信仰坏又不宽容,比没有信仰坏百倍千倍万倍
·同城饭醉与小圈子运动的根本区别
·习近平反腐,必然越反越腐
·驳《南方周末》自由主义伪右派的数据
·在左右划分辩论中的意见
·专制主义代表作—评茅于轼文章
·茅于轼事件,毛左伪右演双簧
·驳内因论和素质论
·看茅于轼长沙演讲有感
·对内因论和素质论的哲学思考
·革命,左右派和枪杆子杂谈
·对马克思人是社会关系总和学说的简要批判
·答王希哲等网友
·解决宗教等信仰问题要有全盘战略
·澄清早期民运历史
·对当前中国保守主义的批判
·点评刘军宁《撒切尔夫人的保守主义治国之道》
·关于保守主义等问题补充意见
·也谈傅萍,论讲真话原则
·也谈极权专制的本质和来源
·再谈实践标准等问题
·不赞成“台版茉莉花”提法
·宗教、科学、实践和检验
·评中共对薄熙来案的审判
·薄案分析二:称赞薄熙来说薄熙来赢了辩论的,实在太愚蠢
·薄案分析三:薄掌握高层腐败材料,是中共对薄案大幅放水的原因之一
·薄案分析四:中共为何掩盖薄家杀海伍德真实原因?
·不务正业务邪业,习近平荒唐的批评和自我批评
·简谈马列国家学说根本错误
·告诉国内网友这次海外抗议是怎么回事
·再驳伪右反对革命和民主的谬论
·第五纵队抗议闹剧的恶果
·关于何青莲女士造谣的声明
[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