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
·关于文化和制度问题的一个跟帖
·关于文化和制度问题的一个跟帖
·关于文化和制度问题的一个跟帖
·漫谈广义科学
·2月7日是羊年除夕非猴年除夕
·敌人概念全世界早已约定俗成不容任意篡改
·弘扬人性,还是用党性或兽性泯灭人性?
·再揭无敌派权贵走卒真面目
·关于出版等问题的讨论
·无敌派杜撰“爱国贼”、用障眼法颠倒是非黑白
·继续探讨国家和其他理论问题
·简评周泉缨先生的意见
·什么是自由主义?给东海一枭谈点常识
·再谈公敌、革命、暴力等问题
·简评秦晖文章《靠民主走出动乱不容易》
·谈民主、社会主义和平等等问题
·如果没有共产党
·如果没有共产党
·关于社会主义、共产主义概念的讨论
·谈谈研究共产主义的方法
·象形文字、表意文字在信息时代复兴、重生和发展
·重视语言文字的保护工作
·再谈价值观道德观和人人平等问题
·对人工智能的一些猜想、预测和讨论
·瓦文萨是波兰共产党秘密线人
·关于瓦文萨问题的争论
·我对川普问题的看法
·市场经济决定论可以休矣
·再谈川普等问题
·中共领导在民主问题上的一次反复
·我预估中共将在未来数年内垮台
·在中共专制统治下不可能建立公民社会法治社会
·答邹义先生
· 自由民主从去宗教或准宗教化开始
·继续辩论去宗教或准宗教化问题
· 再谈特线问题
·中国的自由主义怪胎
·推荐网上文章:祖国啊,这不是局部腐败,是整体腐烂!
·暴力非暴力、革命和改良、激进和缓进
· 斥戈倍尔曾曾节明
· 再谈盛雪问题
·斥特线头子赵岩
·王梦龙:解密巴黎狂人 还原神骗真相
·对陈卫珍女士解释一下
·再斥叶宁张健
·陈大骗子你抵赖造谣反诬得了吗?
· 他们有国家力量包括国家恐怖主义在背后支持
· 美国不管民运特线问题,我们怎么办?
· 名声最臭的痞子骗子特线都与盛雪站到一起
· 安徽国保,收起你们那一套
·简评罗点点和马晓力对话
·台湾法律规定:一个中华民国、两个地区
·谈8964特线等问题
·驳蔡贤斌
·我对蔡英文就职演说的几点感觉
·知=识,共同认知=共同认识=共识
·再谈共知和共识
·对钱钟书杨绛问题的一些看法
·历史反思应该面向未来(兼论“再来一次文革”)
· 刘晓波周舵央视作证天安门广场没死人问题
·继续辩论刘晓波央视作证问题
·再谈道德、法律等规范体系
·白宫密档“六四”屠杀死10,454人。刘晓波央视作伪证证据
·关于小农经济问题
· 关于经济决定论
·仰屠杀是最可怕的屠杀
· 天底下没有这么便宜的事情
·一派特务流氓腔调
·理论界学术界再度让我震惊
· 再谈盛雪和民运
·简评伯林及两种自由概念
·我对英国脱欧问题的看法
·再谈自由和规范体系的基本知识(一、二、三)
·再谈自由和规范体系的基本知识(四)
·再谈自由和规范体系的基本知识(五)
·再谈自由和规范体系的基本知识(六、七)
·驳杨恒均《是时候站在法治一边了》
·评《徐文立谈人类正常社会秩序》
·评神棍摩西
· 中共现行宪法是好宪法吗?
·关于三民主义问题
·新加坡是特殊小国的专制文明不是封建文明
·回答朋友的十个问题
·再对吕柏林谈三民主义
·继续讨论三民主义问题
·再答朋友问
·对胡平文章的不同意见
·三答朋友
·打吧,美国,只要中共挑衅就打!打赢了,中国人民将衷心感谢美国
· 反对并打败中共汉奸党,就是最大的爱国
·致共产汉奸党小奴才小汉奸王希哲
·近日与共产汉奸党五毛论战部分帖子
·再驳余大郎胡安宁的离谱造谣
·启动问责程序,谁为丧权辱国担责?!
·共产汉奸党及五毛小汉奸无耻表现并自打耳光的例子之一
·继续与共产汉奸党走卒论战
·也谈土耳其问题
·与甘当共产汉奸党特殊别动队的假爱国者辩论
·嘲弄胡安宁张英曾节明徐文立等
·再接再厉,继续迎战共产汉奸党小跟班
·继续迎战汉奸党小跟班
[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