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
·马英九胜选的意义和我们的希望
·制止中共用核大战毁灭人类
·政教分离的“政”指的是国家,政权和政府,不是指政治
·告别革命派是共产党的镜像孪生复制品
·必须为共产“革命”正名
·什么是中国目前最大的敌人?兼与洪哲胜先生商榷
·当代的战争根源究竟在哪里?
·反对把责任推给老百姓
·古谜脸皮是否厚了点?立档以存照
·再谈民族主义和爱国主义
·徐水良跟帖答张三一言先生
·评马英九谈话《六四不翻案,统一不能谈》
·普通政治不可能和意识形态分离
·忍不住讲一点——答张三一言先生
·中共的特务活动及其对反对派的控制
·关于自由主义问题的一些看法
·努力分清盲目爱国主义民族主义理性爱国主义民族主义的界线
·中共情报机构对付反对派的两极策略和三步大棋
·批评绥靖思想
·重视中国民主变革的决定性力量农民
·简评递进民主制
·中共贪天之功为己有
·中国问题的哲学思考
·中共用特务控制反对派
·关于左右概念和自由主义概念
·保障错误思想的言论自由及相关的宽容态度
·简评秦晖先生《中国现代自由主义的理论商榷》
·进口西方垃圾文化的教训和覆辙
·不要越搅越臭
·建议多数民主党朋友不同意见转入内部讨论
·读胡星斗教授三篇文章
·谈甘地主义并奉劝中共不要把事情做绝
·近来发表部分观点汇编
·防止误导!
·西方人权,与上帝和神权没有关系
·谈一点与严家祺先生的不同意见
·胡锦涛到访纽约
·简评纽约抗议活动
·重发两篇文章修改稿(暂时未找到)
·简评李敖北大演讲
·近来部分短评观点汇编
·李敖北大演讲的骂和帮
·李敖清华演讲无耻吹捧中共摘录(暂时尚未找到)
·太石村的抗争经过说明什么?
·到工农中去
· “归队老同志”李敖和台湾危局
·拉大旗作虎皮的自由主义
·坚持理性激进主义的正确策略
·中西"上访"简要对比
·全国无数“太石村”呼唤革命
·中共打倒一个假黄世仁,制造无数个真黄世仁
·为“自由化”平反
·神六,胡安宁内奸面目的又一次暴露
·消灭共产党——已经没有几个共产党员不反对共产党了
·向忘我献身的朋友们学习
·“黑狼、白狼、眼镜蛇”
·不废除中共领导特权,就绝没有民主
·当代中国无法学也不能学甘地主义
·消除革命恐惧症,为革命呐喊
·抛掉幻想,做好准备,迎接革命
·驳世界日报的亲共汉奸理论
·与吴国光先生的一点不同意见
·不要对法律斗争抱不切实际的幻想
·对胡安宁(余大郎)《中国及中华民族考》的三点诘问
·最近在海外中文网站关于文化和文字的辩论选编(一)
·五四运动和左翼专制主义的教训
·从地图和工程制图谈起
·中共的保守惯性和胡锦涛的权术家性格必然导致中国大乱和共产党灭亡
·立足自己,操之在我
·认真揭露拉法叶案中共江泽民集团犯罪事实
·松花江污染事件再一次宣告中共“基本路线”的破产
·大家都来呼唤和准备革命
·就网上有关语言文字讨论,谈一些本人的浅见
·台湾选举简评和选后趋向预测
·中国大陆反对派在台海问题上的四种策略
·以革命反抗中共屠杀
·[评论]:忍无可忍!
·胡锦涛温家宝必须尽快向全国人民作出交代
·重提以暴抗暴、以暴制暴的原则
·关于宗教和信仰问题的一点意见
·[评论]:是从根本上思考基础经济理论中国经济问题的时候了
·发一篇旧文,驳胡安宁谣言(此文暂未找到,待找)
·正义党的特务铁证
·从太石村到汕尾,甘地主义的终结
以上2005年文章,绝大部分已经初步恢复
·北春记者亚依采访记录(本文暂未找到,待恢复)
2006年
2006年文章(可能有其他少量文章)
2006年文章(上半年4个月文章被破坏,绝大部分已经初步恢复)
·《网路文摘》新年献词:曙光在前!
·再谈革命概念和伪改良主义伪自由主义的错误
·实行“清浊分流、各自为战、互相配合、立足大众”的方针
·抛弃对立思维,蓝绿共治,打造抗共基地
·如何看待民运“内斗”(网文两篇)
[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