月度归档:2013年03月

欧盟对挪威的警告升级

【大纪元2013年03月26日讯】(大纪元记者郑姗挪威报导)由于挪威一直拒不执行欧盟关于内部市场运作的相关条例,招致了越来越多欧盟官员的不满。欧盟威胁说,不排除对挪威实施自1994年《欧洲经济区协定》生效以来的首次惩罚。

挪威电视二台早些时候报导,欧盟内部对挪威的不满情绪日益高涨。瑞典籍欧洲议会议员菲耶纳(Christofer Fjellner)表示:“在布鲁塞尔,许多人已经对挪威感到厌倦。他们认为欧洲经济区的合作像是瑞典式的自助餐,想吃什么就拿什么。”

菲耶纳透露,欧盟对挪威评估报告的摘要将于今春晚些时候出台。该报告是一份有关欧盟如何看待《欧洲经济区协定》及与挪威关系的详细评估报告。

据挪威电视二台报导,欧盟对挪威多次拒绝来自布鲁塞尔的指令极为反感。其中遭受非议最多的是挪威最新出台的关于进口奶酪及肉类的关税规定。挪威政府决定从2013年起,提高奶酪和肉类的关税,这在欧盟内部引起强烈反响,因为欧盟是一个以取消贸易保护主义作为基本原则的组织。此外,挪威政府还宣布将不执行欧盟的邮政指令。欧盟表示,挪威正在阻挠欧盟近500条指令的实施。

丹麦籍欧洲议会议员本特森(Bendt Bendtsen)认为,挪威拒不执行欧盟关于内部市场运作的指令,导致欧盟失去了一个公平竞争的平台,这是纯粹的挪威式的利己主义。本特森表示:“你吃掉蛋糕上面的奶油,然后把蛋糕坯子扔了。挪威正是充当了刮走奶油却拒绝履行承诺的角色。”

欧盟对外事务高级代表的发言人考茨简西克(Maja Kocijancic)也在早些时候证实,欧盟正在寻求在《欧洲经济区协定》所允许的范围内对挪威实施制裁的可能性。考茨简西克表示:“这是欧盟第一次严重警告将在内部市场的某些领域对挪威进行剥离。我认为挪威知道内部市场对它们的重要性。”

外界认为,欧盟的报告将开启1994年《欧洲经济区协定》生效以来首次对挪威实施制裁的先例。

(责任编辑:林彬)

本文网址: http://epochtimes.com/gb/13/3/26/n3831664.htm

What Today’s Nobel Peace Prize Offers?

nache di Liberal

http://www.liberal.it/

October 15, 2010

by Wei Jingsheng

Once, the Nobel Peace Prize was the one prize in the world that received most people’s attention. Awardees like Nelson Mandela represented those who offered the world a moral example. They inspired people to make sacrifices for ideals and beliefs, for other people’s happiness. Awardees like Sakharov represented the opposition current of suppressed people under a Communist rule, as well as the conscience of the intellectuals. They led the people to tear down the Berlin Wall, to bring hope to those people yearning for democracy and freedom.

If a person took part in the Tiananmen movement, but then bowed to the authoritarian rule and repented in prison, we can forgive him, understanding his difficulty. But, we will never set him up as a role model to educate young people, to teach our own children.

If this person not only bowed to repent, but also helped the butchers lie on the autocratic regime’s official television station nationwide about the 1989 democracy movement in Beijing, claiming that he did not see any people die in TianAnMen Square when there was a bloodshed from the June 4 Massacre, then we already have difficulty forgiving him. That is because he has become the accomplice of the executioners. Maybe it was his wish to be released to be the reluctant reason, which he later expressed in his letter to his friends very clearly.

If, after his release, when he did not have to bear the pressure of prison, he still used an even more vicious slander to defame that 1989 democracy movement, claiming that it was a movement initiated by lies and deceiving people, then this person’s moral credit is completely bankrupt.

That person is Liu Xiaobo, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner. So which kind of role model does the Nobel Peace Prize Committee want to set for the young people in this world? Do not say they do not understand these situations. These statements are in the official record, some of which are written in the books Liu Xiaobo published himself.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee obviously anticipated these situations. Before they announced the award, they said that this year’s Peace Prize will bring a new direction for the world. In other words, regardless of the moral image, they want to bring a new political direction. In the cases of Andrei Sakharov and Lech Walesa, they encouraged the resistance movements by the people which Sakharov and Walesa represented.

Liu Xiaobo indeed represents a different kind of movement in China. When the people are forced to pick up their cleaver for self defense, when a teenage girl has to kill the people who tried to gang rape her, Liu’s movement holds its attitude against them, even though they have no recourse through the autocratic state. When people use legal means to peacefully ask the tyrants to return their property and rights, Liu and his gang apply cynicism against them.

So to other people, the actions of Liu are not opposition, not dissident, but being the accomplice of the Communist regime. Is that the new direction that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is trying to bring the world? Indeed, it is. As the Chinese Communists use their business opportunity to buy out the capitalists over the world, the Western politicians who are bought out by the capitalists need a political direction like this. If the expression in the past was not obvious enough, and did not make an impact in China, then this time’s Nobel Peace Prize is using a much more explicit way to tell people opposed to the suppression: Western democracies do not support you.

Even the warmth of a Children’s Choir and an empty seat cannot cover up this cold reality.
__ __ __

The original Italian version of the article in .pdf file is in the attachment.

http://www.WeiJingSheng.org

Letter to Nobel Peace Prize Committee and Mr. Havel

A letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and Mr. Havel from Overseas Chinese Concerned with Chinese Democracy

To: Nobel Peace Prize Committee

Copied to:
Dalai Lama
Desmond Tutu
Herta Müller, 2009 Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature
U.S. State Department
U.S. Congress
U.S. National Endowment for Democracy Foundation
U.S. Human Rights Organizations
International Human Rights Organizations
European Parliament

Respected Nobel Prize Committee and Mr. Vaclav Havel:

We are a group of exiled overseas writers, dissidents, and overseas Chinese, who are concerned about and have been participating in the Chinese democracy movement for many years. We have always condemned the persecutory conduct of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government, and we are equally opposed to the CCP’s current persecution of writer Liu Xiaobo.

However, we do not consider that Liu Xiaobo qualifies as a candidate for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. As recently as December 23, 2009, he made a statement entitled “I have no enemies—my final statement” during his trial after being detained for nearly a year. This statement was released to Radio Free Asia and Voice of Germany by his wife on January 21, 2010. In this statement, he whitewashed the Communist regime’s appalling human rights record and legal system, based on only his own special treatment by the CCP justice system during his detention. He also contradicted himself by first saying that the CCP was criminalizing him for his speech, and then praising the CCP for putting “respecting and protecting human rights” into the constitution, saying that “it is a sign that human rights have become one of the fundamental principles of Chinese law.” Also in this statement, he praised the CCP prison system for its “tender management,” “offering inmates a humane living environment,” and “making them feel warm.”

At the same time that Liu Xiaobo was receiving “tender and humane” special treatment in jail, under the same totalitarian regime, in the same year, under the same legal system, Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng and other prisoners of conscience were suffering from brutal tortures as atrocious as electric shocks to the genitals by the police. Liu Xiaobo clearly knew that the CCP was deliberately giving him special lenient treatment while ruthlessly brutalizing Mr. Gao Zhisheng and other prisoners of conscience. But he still said in his “I have no enemies” statement that the Chinese government “recognizes universal standards of human rights.” This is consistent with his conduct after the Tiananmen movement of 1989. Back then in a speech broadcast across the national television network, he helped the CCP to cover up its massacre during the June 4th movement. Because of these deeds and conduct, he has lost the moral image fit for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

As everyone knows, the CCP has always refused to share power with any force outside the government. It also views anyone who demands it to relinquish its dictatorship as “hostile forces.” These “hostile forces” are subjected to brutal persecution by the CCP, regardless of whether the demand was in the form of resistance or gentle suggestions, including Liu Xiaobo’s “Charter 08,” which tries to persuade the CCP to adopt democracy. Liu’s arrest this time again demonstrates the fall of the fantasy that the CCP regime will reform itself and peacefully transition into a democracy. It also shows that Liu Xiaobo’s path of persuasion and advice can only lead to a dead end.

Liu Xiaobo is free to say whatever he wants, but as a public-figure “dissident,” his disregard for facts and open praise for the CCP regime that tramples on human rights, and his attempt to both defend himself and exonerate the CCP, all set a precedent of confounding truth and falsehood that misguides and negatively impacts the Chinese democracy movement.

The point of dispute among the Chinese dissidents is this: How do we confront the totalitarian rule of the CCP? This dispute divides Chinese dissidents into those who favor change through resistance and those who favor change through cooperation. The former completely negate the totalitarian Communist system, calling for the people to reject dictatorship and establish a democratic government; the latter cooperate with the CCP, hoping to work with it to establish a “democratic system.” The existence of such severe differences among the Chinese dissidents, plus the CCP intelligence operation’s infiltration and buy off, makes the ranks of dissidents highly complex. The current Chinese democracy movement is as chaotic and complicated as the resistance movements before the collapse of the Communist parties in the Eastern European countries. It is our belief that perhaps only time can reveal the true face of Liu Xiaobo as a controversial figure and representative of the “cooperative faction.”

Finally, we would like to clarify that we are opposed to any infringements on freedom and human rights by the CCP. We also consider it illegal to criminalize free speech and persecute and imprison either those who try to bring change through resistance or those who try to achieve reform through cooperation. Nonetheless, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, with his defective image and being a representative of the “cooperative faction,” will have a negative impact on the Chinese peoples’ struggle for human rights, freedom, and democracy.

To inspire the Chinese people currently struggling against the brutal tyranny of the CCP, with respect to the selection of Chinese candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, we hope that the Nobel Committee will consider those individuals who have made real contributions to the struggle for freedom, human rights and democracy in China. They are, for example, Gao Zhisheng and Hu Jia who are currently being persecuted by the CCP, and Dr. Gao Yaojie who just fled China to escape persecution.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Co-signers:

Bian Hexiang Anti-CCP activist. Member, Central Committee of Chinese Social Democratic Party; Chairman, The Coalition of Guards For American Values, Inc.; blacklisted by CCP for the pursuit of freedom and democracy in China and support for Fanlun Gong’s struggle against persecution. Now living in New York City, USA.

Huan Xuewen Freelance writer. Passport invalidated by CCP in 1992 for joining overseas independent students and scholars organizations and opposing the 1989 massacre by CCP. Now living in Essen, Germany.

Liu Guohua Anti-CCP activist, Former Associate Professor of Northeastern University, China. Vice Chairman, The Coalition of Guards For American Values, Inc. Now living in New York City, USA.

Liu Xiaodong Freelance writer, Pen name: San Mei. Blacklisted by CCP for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements. Now living in Chicago, USA.

Lu Decheng Anti-CCP activist. Sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years for participating in the 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy movement and defacing Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen with paint-filled eggs; released on parole in 1998. Now living in Calgary, Canada.

Su Junyan Freelance writer. Senior political critic, graduate of Department of History, Beijing University. Persecuted by CCP for expressing political views during the June 4th movement and sentenced to imprisonment; won the United Nations’ political asylum. Now living in Toronto, Canada.

Tang Boqiao Chairman, China Peace and Democracy Federation. Sentenced to imprisonment for three years for participating and organizing the 1989 pro-democracy movement, and served for 18 months. Now living in New York City, USA.

Wang Gongbiao Human rights activist. Suffered from discrimination by the CCP government due to family origin, persecuted by CCP for free speech, exiled to Australia and won political asylum there. Now living in Sydney, Australia.

Wang Shenglin Chinese dissident, Senior Financial Information Analyst at HSBC. Blacklisted by CCP for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements. Now living in Chicago, USA.

Wu Fan Anti-CCP activist. Chief Editor, China Affairs, member of Independent Chinese PEN Centre; member, Coordinating Committee of Chinese Liberal Culture Movement; labeled as a rightist by CCP in 1957, charged as a reactionary and sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years in 1968; served in labor camp for 12 years; released in November, 1979, and then taught in Anhui Teachers College, China. Now living in Los Angeles, USA.

Xiao Hong Freelance writer. Now living in Denmark.

Xiao Jing Manager, Broad Book USA. Rose against CCP for mother’s persecution by CCP for practicing Falun Gong; Canadian citizen. Now living in New York City, USA.

Xiong Yan Participant of the 1989 Tiananmen student pro-democracy movement. Arrested and sentenced to imprisonment on June 14, 1989; released in January, 1991; currently serving in US Army as Army Priest. Now living in Alabama, USA.

Xu Shuiliang Anti-CCP activist. Devoted to Chinese pro-democracy movement from 1973; jailed twice from 1975-1979 and May 1981- May 1991 for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements. Now living in New York City, USA.

Xu Yi Associate Professor at University College London, UK. Blacklisted by CCP for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements, and denied passport renewal for many years. Now living in London, UK.

Yuan Hongbing Freelance writer, jurist, founder of Chinese Liberal Culture Movement. Arrested by CCP for participating in the 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy movement; exiled to Guizhou, China; sought political asylum in Australia in 2004. Now living in Sydney, Australia.

Zeng Dajun Teacher. Now living in New York City, USA.

Zhang Guoting Anti-CCP activist, Internet writer. Arrested and sentenced to labor camp in 1960 at age 16, subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for reactionary crimes, served in prison for 22 years, released in 1982 and fled to Denmark. Now living in Denmark.

Zhong Weiguang Freelance writer. Blacklisted by CCP for publications that point out the problems of Communism and Communist culture, and articles that criticize the CCP government; passport invalidated by CCP in 1997. Now living in Essen, Germany.

——————————–

关心中国民主的海外华裔给诺贝尔评奖委员会和哈维尔先生的一封信

并转:

达赖喇嘛(Dalai Lama)

图图大主教 (Desmond Tutu)

2009年诺贝尔文学奖得主赫塔·米勒

美国国务院

美国国会

美国民主基金会

美国人权组织

国际人权组织

欧洲议会

尊敬的诺贝尔评奖委员会和哈维尔先生:

我们是多年关心并参与中国民主运动的流亡海外作家、异议人士和海外华裔。我们一直谴责中共政府的一切迫害行为,我们同样反对今天中共政府对作家刘晓波的迫害。

但是,我们不认为刘晓波先生是2010年诺贝尔和平奖的合格候选人。因为,就在最近,被非法拘留近一年的刘晓波于2009年12月23日在北京法庭审判中歪曲事实地发表了《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》的陈词,刘晓波授权妻子于2010年1月21日将此陈词发表在自由亚洲电台和德国之声等网站。在此陈词中,他仅凭中共司法机构在他拘押期间刻意对他个人的特殊待遇,粉饰中共政权恶劣的人权和司法状况。他在此文中前后矛盾,既说中共对他的治罪是以言治罪,又称赞中共把“尊重和保障人权”写进宪法,是“标志着人权已经成为中国法治的根本原则之一。”在同一文中,刘晓波还称赞监狱的“柔性化的管理”,“ 为在押人员提供了人性化的生活环境”,“让人感到温暖”。

当刘晓波在监狱中受到“柔性化和人性化”的特殊待遇的同时,在同一个极权国家、同一个年代、同一个司法制度下,中国人权律师高智晟等其他良心犯却受到警方施加如电击生殖器等令人发指的酷刑。刘晓波明知中共在残酷摧残高智晟先生和其他良心犯的同时给予他特殊优厚待遇是别有用心,他却仍在他的《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》中说中国政府“对普世人权标准的承认”这类完全违背事实的谎言。刘晓波早在1989年的北京天安门运动后,就在全国联播的电视台讲话中,为中共在天安门广场的屠杀洗脱罪名、掩盖事实。他的这些表现都使他丧失了一位诺贝尔奖得主应具备的道德形象。

众所周知, 中共一贯拒绝民间社会的任何力量与它分享权力,它把任何要它放弃独裁专制的人都视为威胁到它的政权的敌对势力并加以残酷迫害。无论是以抗争的方式还是以规劝的方式,中共都不能容忍,即使刘晓波以《零八宪章》这类规劝中共接受民主制度的谏言书的方式,中共也不能容忍。这次刘晓波的被捕再次说明,认为中共会自行改良、和平转型成民主制度的幻想彻底破灭,也说明刘晓波的劝说和谏言之路是完全走不通的。

刘晓波如何说话是他的自由,但是作为公众人物的“异见人士”,他不顾事实地对一贯践踏人权的中共公开赞扬的行为,他的既为自己辩护又为中共恶行洗脱的矛盾说辞,都立下了一个混淆和颠倒是非的先例,对中国民主运动起到误导作用和恶劣影响。

中国的异见人士争论的焦点是:如何看待中国共产党的极权专制统治?这个争论导致中国异见人士分为“抗争派” 和“合作派”。前者彻底否定共产极权政府、唤醒民众抵制专制、建立民主政府,后者与极权政府合作、幻想共同建立“民主制度”。由于中国异见人士队伍中的这个严重的分歧,加上中共情治机关的渗透和收买,使得异见人士这个队伍越发混乱和复杂,中国当前的民主运动就像当初东欧国家共产党倒台前的情况一样混乱和复杂。因此我们认为,对于刘晓波这样一个有争议的“合作派”代表人物,也许只有时间才能说明他的真实面目。

最后,我们要再一次说明,我们反对中共极权政府的任何侵犯人权和自由的行为,无论对“抗争派”、还是对“合作派”的迫害和监禁,都是以言治罪的非法行为。然而,如果把诺贝尔和平奖授予给刘晓波这样的形象有缺陷的“合作派”代表人物,这将对中国人民争取人权、自由和民主的事业带来负面影响。

为了鼓舞正在反抗中共暴政的正义的中国人民,在诺贝尔和平奖的中国人选上,我们希望诺贝尔评奖委员会考虑那些真正为争取中国人民自由和人权作出实际奉献的其他合适人选,如:还正在遭受着中共迫害的高智晟律师和胡佳,还有被中共迫害而逃离中国的高耀洁医生。谢谢。

签名人(按姓名拼音排列):

卞和祥 中共制度的政治反对派,中国社会民主党中央委员,美国守护者同盟主席,因追求中国自由民主、支持法轮功反迫害被中共列入黑名单。现住美国纽约。

还学文 自由作家,因参与海外独立学者、学生组织,反对中共八九年大屠杀,九二年被中共政府吊销护照。现住在德国埃森。

刘国华 中共制度的政治反对派,原中国东北大学副教授,美国守护者同盟副主席,现住美国纽约。

刘晓东 自由撰稿人,笔名三妹,因在海外参与和支持中国民主运动被中共列入黑名单。现住美国芝加哥。

鲁德成 中共制度的政治反对派,因参加1989年天安门民主运动和蛋击毛像被判处有期徒刑16年,1998年获假释出狱。现住加拿大卡城。

苏君砚 自由作家、资深时政评论家,北京大学历史系毕业。曾因六四期间政治观点受到中共政治迫害,被判刑入狱,后获联合国政治保护。现居加拿大多伦多。

唐柏桥 中国和平民主联盟主席,在中国曾参与和组织一九八九年民主运动,被判刑三年,入狱一年半。现住美国纽约。

王功彪 人权活动人士,因家庭出身自幼饱受当局歧视,因自由言论受当局政治迫害,后逃亡澳大利亚获政治庇护。现居澳大利亚悉尼。

王胜林 中国异见人士,现任汇丰银行资深金融信息分析师,因在海外参与和支持中国民主运动被中共列入黑名单。现住美国芝加哥。

伍凡 中共制度的政治反对派,现任《中国事务》总编辑、中国独立笔会成员、中国自由文化运动协调委员会委员。 1957年被当局内定右派份子,1968年被当局定为现行反革命份子判有期徒刑20年,劳改12年,于 1979年11月释放,回中国安徽师范大学任教。现住美国加州洛杉矶。

萧虹 自由撰稿人,现住丹麦。

萧劲 博大书局经理,因母亲修炼法轮功遭受中共迫害而起而抗争中共暴政,加拿大国籍,现住美国纽约。

熊焱 一九八九年天安门学生民主运动的参加者,于一九八九年六月十四被捕入狱,九一年一月出狱。现在美国陆军任牧师。现住美国阿拉巴马州。

徐水良 中共制度的政治反对派,1973年开始投身中国民主运动,1975年至1979年,1981年5月至1991年5月,两度因参与和支持中国民主运动而入狱十多年。现住美国纽约。

许毅 学者,现任教于英国伦敦大学学院。因在海外参与和支持中国民主运动被中共列入黑名单并多年被禁止回中国探亲。现住英国伦敦。

袁红冰 自由作家,法学家,《中国自由文化运动》发起人,因参加1989年天安门民主运动遭中共当局秘密逮捕,被政治流放到中国偏远城市贵州,2004年在澳大利亚寻求政治避难。现居澳大利亚悉尼。

曾大军 教师,现住美国纽约。

张国亭 中共制度的政治反对派,网络工作者,1960年十六岁时即被捕劳改,后被定为“反革命罪”判无期徒刑,坐牢长达二十二年,于1982年出狱并逃亡丹麦。现住丹麦。

仲维光 自由作家,因发表研究指出共产党思想及文化的问题,并发表文章批评中国共产党政府而被中共列入黑名单,九七年被吊销护照。现住德国埃森。

Second letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee

from Overseas Chinese Concerned with Chinese Democracy

To: Nobel Peace Prize Committee

Date:October 4, 2010

Respected Nobel Prize Committee:

We wrote to you in March this year to express our opinion that Mr. Liu Xiaobo is unsuitable as a candidate for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. Our reason is that as early as twenty years ago he collaborated with the totalitarian Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by making a speech on national TV denying CCP’s crime of murdering innocent students in Tiananmen Square.

In January 12th, 2009, nearly one year after he was illegally detained, he made a statement entitled “I have no enemies——my final statement” during his trial in a Beijing court. In this statement, he glorified the CCP’s prison system, and praised the CCP for putting “respecting and protecting human rights” into the constitution, and describing it as “a sign that human rights have become one of the fundamental principles of Chinese law.” His open praise in the last twenty years for the CCP, which has never stopped trampling human rights, has been extremely misleading and influential. Through these deeds he has lost the moral image fit for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Additionally, we would like to inform you of a new development. That is, a letter entitled “Appeal for the Nobel Peace Prize for Liu Xiaobo” that someone recently sent to you has become a scandal, because the authors of the letter put all the names of a list in their possession on the letter as cosigners without their consent. In just a few days a number of people have issued statements on the Internet that their names had been used without their knowledge, and some of them did not even agree that Liu Xiaobo deserved the Prize. As far as we know, the following people have their names put on the letter without their consent: Yang Zi, Bei Ling, Deng Huanwu, Wang Zang, Liu Guokai, Xiong Yan,Zeng Dajun.

Most unfortunately, Ms. Yang Zi, whose name was also unwittingly included, is the wife of the well-known dissident writer Wang Ruowang. Wang wrote a long article over ten years ago criticizing Liu Xiaobo’s collaboration with the CCP. However, nine years after his death, his wife’s name was used to support Liu Xiaobo. In her phone call to the web writer San Mei, Yang Zi expressed her disappointment for the un-consented use of other people’s names, and said that many more than the above-mentioned names were also used without consent. Mr. Bei Ling, whose name was also unwittingly included, is the Chinese translator of Vaclav Havel’s book. In his article “It is freedom, not laureate”, published on September 30, 2010, he said that “I was really unexpected to see myself as a cosigner of a letter with the title ‘Appeal for the Nobel Peace Prize for Liu Xiaobo’, because I had never received from any person or organization a request for my signature on the letter, and I have never signed my name on the letter.”

Attorney Jiang Tianyong from Beijing also issued a statement on October 1, 2010 to withdraw his signature from the appeal letter. In his statement he explained his reason for the withdrawal: “I was deeply disappointed by those who always manage to defame Gao Zhisheng, Hu Jia and Chen Guangcheng when appealing for giving Liu Xiaobo the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. When even the life or death of Gao Zhisheng is still unknown, when the whole family of Chen Guangcheng is being persecuted even as of today, and when Hu Jia is being imprisoned despite incurable diseases, how can I blow the same horn as those who persistently try to put them down?”

Such acts of using other people’s name without their consent and degrading other imprisoned lawyers is not only cheating the Nobel Prize Committee and the Western world, but also damaging the name of the Chinese dissidents, which makes the image of Liu Xiaobo even worse. We hope the Nobel Prize Committee will become aware of this situation.

Finally, Mr. Liu Xiaobo has been sued in the US Federal Court in a civil rights case, which is filed on August 30, 2010 (see web link at http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2010cv06444/367294/)
This law suit has once again made Liu Xiaobo extremely controversial among Chinese dissidents. His nomination has also been questioned by more people.
Based on the afore-mentioned three reasons, we urge the Nobel Committee to seriously consider our opinion, namely, as a highly controversial figure, Mr. Liu Xiaobo has lost the moral image fit for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Co-signers:

Bian Hexiang

Anti-CCP activist. Member, Central Committee of Chinese Social Democratic Party; Chairman, The Coalition of Guards For American Values, Inc.; blacklisted by CCP for the pursuit of freedom and democracy in China and support for Fanlun Gong’s struggle against persecution. Now living in New York City, USA.

Huan Xuewen

Freelance writer. Passport invalidated by CCP in 1992 for joining overseas independent students and scholars organizations and opposing the 1989 massacre by CCP. Now living in Essen, Germany.

Liu Guohua

Anti-CCP activist, Former Associate Professor of Northeastern University, China. Vice Chairman, The Coalition of Guards For American Values, Inc. Now living in New York City, USA.

Liu Xiaodong

Freelance writer, Pen name: San Mei. Blacklisted by CCP for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements. Now living in Chicago, USA.

Lu Decheng

Anti-CCP activist. Sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years for participating in the 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy movement and defacing Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen with paint-filled eggs; released on parole in 1998. Now living in Calgary, Canada.

Wang Shenglin

Chinese dissident, Senior Financial Information Analyst at HSBC. Blacklisted by CCP for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements. Now living in Chicago, USA.

Wu Fan

Anti-CCP activist. Chief Editor, China Affairs, member of Independent Chinese PEN Centre; member, Coordinating Committee of Chinese Liberal Culture Movement; labeled as a rightist by CCP in 1957, charged as a reactionary and sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years in 1968; served in labor camp for 12 years; released in November, 1979, and then taught in Anhui Teachers College, China. Now living in Los Angeles, USA.

Xiao Hong

Freelance writer. Now living in Denmark.

Xiao Jing

Manager, Broad Book USA. Rose against CCP for mother’s persecution by CCP for practicing Falun Gong; Canadian citizen. Now living in New York City, USA.

Xu Shuiliang

Anti-CCP activist. Devoted to Chinese pro-democracy movement from 1973; jailed twice from 1975-1979 and May 1981- May 1991 for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements. Now living in New York City, USA.

Xu Yi

Associate Professor at University College London, UK. Blacklisted by CCP for supporting and participating in Chinese pro-democracy movements, and denied passport renewal for many years. Now living in London, UK.

Yuan Hongbing

Freelance writer, jurist, founder of Chinese Liberal Culture Movement. Arrested by CCP for participating in the 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy movement; exiled to Guizhou, China; sought political asylum in Australia in 2004. Now living in Sydney, Australia.

Zhang Guoting

Anti-CCP activist, Internet writer. Arrested and sentenced to labor camp in 1960 at age 16, subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for reactionary crimes, served in prison for 22 years, released in 1982 and fled to Denmark. Now living in Denmark.

Zhong Weiguang

Freelance writer. Blacklisted by CCP for publications that point out the problems of Communism and Communist culture, and articles that criticize the CCP government; passport invalidated by CCP in 1997. Now living in Essen, Germany.

Contact persons:
Diane Xiaodong Liu
Email: DianeLiu28@sbcglobal.net
Tel: 312-733-8123

Yi Xu, Ph.D.
Reader in Speech Science
Department of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences
University College London
Chandler House
2 Wakefield Street
London WC1N 1PF
UK
Cell: +44 07910 455 428.
Tel: 020 7679 4082 (internal 24082)
Fax: 020 7679 4238
email: yi@phon.ucl.ac.uk

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/yi/

Another CCP Con job! “Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Peace Prize”

“They (the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will not release Liu unless the Nobel Peace Prize is granted.”

Written by Jiang Pin/Renminbao

Early this year, I was with a group of old friends having dinner. A communist party insider in the group said to us: “If the Nobel Peace Prize is not granted, they (CCP) will not release Liu Xiaobo!” I took this statement as a joke, and did not even bother to think about it. But now, the result of this surprises me!

Liu Xiaobo is connected with Charter 08. What is the connection? Charter 08was drafted by Chinese government scholars who were responsible for the present Chinese constitution. When the draft was done in 2008, they arranged a person inside the circle of dissidents to give the draft to Liu Xiaobo and let him “check and alter” … Thus Liu was named as the founder of Charter 08.

The CCP needed to promote Charter 08, it wanted it to be widely known and to be accepted by the rest of the world at large, so after Charter 08 was publically spread among Chinese dissidents, they arrested Liu Xiaobo, and gave him an 11 years jail term to stimulate Charter 08 ‘fever’.

But Charter 08 did not evoke much fever from Chinese dissidents after they studied its contents in detail – without removing the CCP then nothing can change in China. The drama came to a dead end except for the world criticizing the arrest of Liu. This infuriated the people who orchestrated the whole saga so they planed another strategy: aiming at the Nobel Peace Prize.

“If the Nobel Prize is not given to Liu, we will not release Liul!” is is a simple trick to gain support and people’s compassion.

“Now do you finally believe me!?” A friend came to ask me go for a drink and talk.

I told him: “I still cannot believe this, Chinese people, inside China, have never received a Nobel Prize….in any category….let alone the Peace Prize. Liu is jailed for a few years, how come he gets the Peace Prize?!”

“Do you think we got it easily?! We have worked so hard, spent so much money, effort and careful planning, the pressure we endure, the time we spent, you cannot imagine.” he sighed.

“What’s so serious about Charter 08?” I am bewildered.

“It is opposing the ‘Nine Commentaries’ (Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party)! can’t you see?” he replied.

“Oh, to save the communist party in a roundabout way.”

“Yes, even Ma Yingjiu (Taiwan President) is able to realize this. And he expressed his support for Charter 08.”

“Well, now everybody is happy, from the top to bottom, from inside and outside of China. The Nobel Prize Committee members are also happy about themselves. ….”

Translated from renminbao

Editor’s note:

In Chinese people’s eyes, Charter 08 creates an image of a legitimate Communist Party, but as long as the communist party is in control, there can never be free elections even under the name ‘free elections’. The situation in China has always been worse than the Burma ‘free elections’. It is not about the imprisonment of the party leader, it is about the imprisonment and denying the livelihood of the party members and their relatives….also, it offers a substantial time to cushion the crisis of open rebellion that the communist party is facing in China now.

Many Chinese people think that the Nobel Prize Committee should have awarded the Prize to human rights lawyer Gao Zhizeng, or human rights activist Hu jia in recent years, but that the CCP was desperate to stop an award to Gao, which would have exposed the CCP’s genocidal crimes far more than an award to Liu.

An Open Letter to Mr. Marcus Storch, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Nobel Foundation

Dear Mr. Marcus Storch,

Recently, in order to prevent the ”jasmine revolution” in the Middle East and north Africa from spreading in China, Chinese authorities have arrested many dissidents without cause. According to international human rights organizations, more than two hundred dissidents have disappeared. In addition:

Ø Foreign journalists have been driven away from public places and some were beaten by police.

Ø The artist Ai Weiwei was arrested by police at Beijing Airport when he was about to leave for Hong Kong, and his assistants have also disappeared.

Ø The Chinese government still refuses to give any information about the lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who disappeared last April.

Ø The human rights activist and EU’s Sakharov Prize winner Hu Jia has been refused medical parole although his health has obviously deteriorated.

Ø The human rights activist Liu Xianbin was recently sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for his criticism of corruption in China, at the age of 42, although he has already served two terms of imprisonment for 15 years together since the 1989 student demonstration.

Ø Dissidents who have been released after serving full terms of imprisonment, such as Chen Guangcheng and Hada, continue to suffer from police persecution.

Ø Many dissidents are still serving long term imprisonment, including Dr. Wang Bingzhang, the poet Shi Tao, the writer Yang Tianshui, Professor Zheng Yichun and Professor Guo Quan, and their conditions are very alarming.

Ø The poet Li Hong suffered so seriously in prison that he died on 31 December 2010, at the age of only 52.

These cases are only a few among many but enough to show the human rights situation in China today. This situation ought to be condemned by the international community.

Because of this situation, it is very difficult for us, the signatories to this letter, to accept that the statement which praises the “macro level progress” on human rights in China, claims that “human rights have already become one of the fundamental principles of China’s rule of law”, maintains that there is ”an ever‑growing tolerance for social pluralism on the part of the regime and substantial decrease in the force of persecution of political dissidents”, and describes China’s prison system as now under “humane management”, is still on the official website of the Nobel Prize(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/xiaobo-lecture.html). This statement, titled “I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement”, is by Mr. Liu Xiaobo, the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

Although Mr. Liu praised the progress of human rights and rule of law in China and tried to show a reconciliatory attitude to Communist Party rule, he was still sentenced to 11 years imprisonment. Ironically, the sentence itself has become evidence against his own statement on the progress of human rights in China.

This statement was written for Mr Liu’s trial on 23 December 2009. In fact Mr. Liu was not allowed to read it as whole at the trial but only explained the content for a few minutes. Political trials are not open to the public and closed to foreign journalist and diplomats. Statements made at political trials are regarded as national secrets. For example, Mr. Liu Qing, previous chairman of Human Rights in China, was sentenced to many years imprisonment when he circulated Mr. Wei Jingsheng (later Swedish Olof Palme prize winner)’s court statement which was secretly taken out by an official photographer Mr. Qu Leilei (now in England). Many political prisoners cannot even get a single word made public.

This fact that political trials are not open to the public makes Mr. Liu’s own statement invalid when he said “my most dramatic experiences after June Fourth have been, surprisingly, associated with courts: My two opportunities to address the public have both been provided by trial”. He could not address the public in China at all by trial. His wrong information misled a Swedish journalist to write that Mr. Liu’s statement was “the only opportunities after June Fourth 1989 that he could directly address to Chinese people, thanks to the trial” (SvD 2010-12-11). In fact, Mr. Liu’s statement is forbidden in China even today. On the contrary, Mr. Liu forgot to count that he did have one opportunity to address the public in China, and it was his only one after June Fourth and had nothing to do with court trial. That was in the autumn of 1989, Mr. Liu was interviewed on Chinese government’s CCTV to testify that no student was killed at the Tian-An-Men Square in Beijing on June Fourth and criticized student leaders for lying. It was an interview that dissidents in China strongly criticized and Mr. Liu himself regretted later and would like to forget, understandably.

Mr. Liu’s statement was first made public abroad in January 2010 and after that it gave immediately rise to debates among Chinese dissidents both inside China and abroad since it appeared to ignore the facts about the human rights situation in China. Mr. Liu’s declaration that he had no enemies has also provoked criticism since fight for democracy, freedom and human rights has nothing to do with whether a person has enemy or not . When it was known that Mr. Liu had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2010, a number of dissidents wrote a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee suggesting caution in making this decision. Among the questions raised is that if there has in fact been such progress in human rights in China, should not the prize have been awarded to the Chinese Communist Party.

It is to us a matter of great regret that the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded the prize to Mr. Liu. It is even more regrettable that his statement “I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement” was presented at the award ceremony on 10 December 2010 in Oslo. Mr. Liu’s statement ignored the fact that hundreds of Chinese dissidents still sit in prison, and some are being tortured to death. His statement praised conditions within the prison and praised the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. It named several “kind-hearted” Chinese jailers and court prosecutors but no imprisoned dissidents. In contrast, the statement sent by Sakharov at his award ceremony in 1975 named dozen of imprisoned dissidents and appealed for their freedom as well as condemning the dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

It is difficult to believe that the millions of Chinese who have died under Communist Party rule and the political prisoners who still suffer in Chinese prisons and their families will ever accept Mr. Liu’s statement on Nobel peace prize website, neither will those now arrested dissidents and artists, disappeared lawyers and human rights defenders, and the tortured political prisoners accept that. A statement which has wrong information and contrary to facts will also harm the Nobel prize website’s reputation.

We therefore respectfully suggest that the Nobel Foundation withdraw Mr. Liu’s statement from your official website.

Signatories (Names in alphabetical order):

Bian Hexiang (Anti-CCP activist in exile in U.S.)

Chen Maiping (Chinese writer in exile in Sweden, Swedish PEN board member)

Huan Xuewen (Chinese writer in exile in Germany)

Huang Heqing (Chinese writer in exile in Spain)

Diane Liu (Chinese writer in exile in U.S.)

Lu Decheng (Chinese writer in exile in Canada. Imprisoned for 16 years)

Wang shenglin (Chinese dissident in exile in U.S.)

Xu Yi (Chinese dissident in exile in England)

Yang zi (Chinese dissident in exile in U.S.)

Zhang Guoting (Chinese internet writer and anti-CCP activist in exile in Denmark. Imprisoned already in 1960 at age 16 for reactionary crimes and altogether for 22 years)

Zhang Liangsheng (Independent commentator in Hong Kong)

Zhong Weiguang (Chinese scholar in exile in Germany, Radio Free Asia correspondent)

Contact persons:

Maiping Chen
email: maiping.chen@comhem.se
Cell phone: + 46 73 6577477
Home telephone: + 46 8 50024819

Yi Xu, Ph.D.

Reader in Speech Science

Department of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences

University College London

Chandler House

2 Wakefield Street

London WC1N 1PF

UK

Cell: +44 07910 455 428.

Tel: 020 7679 4082 (internal 24082)

Fax: 020 7679 4238

email: yi@phon.ucl.ac.uk

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/yi/

Chinese:

致诺贝尔基金会董事会主席马尔克斯 · 斯多克的公开信

尊敬的马尔克斯 · 斯多克先生:

最近,为了防止中东与北非的茉莉花革命波及中国,中国政府大肆逮捕异议人士,仅国际人权组织可确认的人数就已达到二百多人。此外:

· 外国记者遭到驱赶甚至中国警察的殴打。

· 著名艺术家艾未未于四月三日在北京机场准备登机赴香港前被警方逮捕,其助手也相继失踪。

· 著名维权律师高智晟去年四月再次被绑架失踪至今,中国政府拒绝提供任何信息。

· 人权活动家、萨哈罗夫奖获得者胡佳健康恶化申请保外就医被拒绝。

· 年仅42岁已两次坐牢十五年的异议分子刘贤斌仅因发表批评腐败的言论又被判十年重刑。

· 刑满出狱的人权活动家陈光诚、哈达等继续遭受警方迫害。

· 众多异议人士如王炳章博士、诗人师涛、作家杨天水、教授郑贻春、郭泉等依然在监狱服刑,其待遇令人忧虑。

· 特别应指出诗人、人权活动家力虹因在监狱遭受虐待而保外就医但于2010年12月31日死亡,年仅五十二岁。

上列事实只是冰山一角,但足以表明中国的人权状况持续恶化。中共当局已受到国际社会的强烈谴责。

鉴于上述事实,我们难以接受一篇违背上述事实的文章依然刊登在诺贝尔奖官方网站,那就是2010年和平奖获得者刘晓波的《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/xiaobo-lecture.html)。在此陈述中刘晓波赞扬中国人权状况有“宏观改善”、“中共执政理念进步”和“人权已经成为中国法治的根本原则之一”、“政权对社会的多元化有了日益扩大的包容性,对不同政见者的迫害之力度也大幅度下降”、中国监狱也变得“人性化”、“柔性化”等等。

尽管刘晓波先生在这篇法庭陈述中称赞中国的人权进步,作出不把中共视为敌人的友好姿态,而中共操纵的法庭却依然践踏其应该享有言论自由和其它人权,判他十一年重刑。这一判决本身就是中国人权状况恶劣的明证,也是对他本人这篇陈述的反讽。

此篇陈述是刘晓波为2009年12月23日的法庭审判而写的。事实上法庭也没有让他全文朗读这篇陈述而只给了几分钟时间解释内容。众所周知,中国政治犯的审判一向都是不公开的,也不许国际记者和外交官出席。法庭审判的文件都被视为国家机密,有外传者以泄露国家机密罪被判刑。例如,前中国人权主席刘青因为散发魏京生先生(后来是瑞典乌拉夫·帕尔梅奖获得者)的法庭陈述被判重刑,那份陈述是担任法庭摄影记者的朋友曲磊磊(现居英国)秘密带出法庭的。很多中国政治犯和外界无法联络,只言片语都无法外传,甚至见不到家人。

中国政治审判不公开这一事实,使得刘晓波在陈述中所说的“六•四后我最富有戏剧性的经历,居然都与法庭相关;我两次面对公众讲话的机会都是北京市中级法院的开庭提供的,一次是1991年1月,一次是现在”也不能成立。他全无可能因开庭而“面对公众讲话”。他的错误信息曾经误导一位瑞典记者在其颁奖典礼报道中说“感谢法庭审判,使刘晓波有唯一的机会直接对中国人民说话”(见《瑞典日报》SVD,2010年12月11日)。实际上刘晓波的这篇陈述至今为止在中国是被禁止的。相反,刘晓波忘记了计算他在六四之后确实有一次真正直接面对中国公众讲话的机会,而且是唯一的一次,那就是1989年秋他在中国官方电视台(CCTV)上公开作证说六四时天安门广场没有人被打死,而指责学生领袖撒谎。这次讲话后来引发异议人士的强烈批评,连刘晓波本人也表示过悔恨,愿意忘记可以理解。

正因为刘晓波先生“我没有敌人”这篇陈述对于中国人权状况的美化描述有违事实,2010年初发表于国际媒体后引起海内外不少中国民主人士的严肃批评。他所谓“我没有敌人” 的说法也引起争议,因为争取民主、自由和人权的斗争和个人有无敌人无关。有十多名民主人士在得知刘晓波2010年被提名为诺贝尔和平奖候选人后,曾于2010年3月给诺贝尔和平奖委员会发出公开信,建议委员会审慎评选,清楚表明了不赞同刘晓波获奖的意见,其中一条意见就是不能认同刘晓波的上述美化中共的观点和立场。如果中国人权真有如此进步,那么不是更应该给中共发和平奖吗?

令人遗憾的是,诺贝尔和平奖委员会不顾这些民主人士的反对意见,仍作出决定,授予刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖。更令人遗憾的是,刘晓波赞扬中共人权状况进步改善的文章《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》竟成为2010年12月10日奥斯陆诺贝尔和平奖颁奖典礼上的表演朗诵稿。在这样一个以和平和人权为主题的世界注目的典礼上,这篇朗诵稿不但大篇幅地为中共政府的人权状况美言,还特别地点名表扬了几位“善意”的监狱管教和检察官。对比一九七五年萨哈罗夫的诺贝尔和平奖颁奖词,萨哈罗夫不仅抨击了苏共恶劣的人权纪录,还特别点出数十名苏联狱中政治犯的名字,为他们的自由呼吁。

我们相信,六十年来中共极权制度下的牺牲者、对抗共产党专制的付出者、依然在监狱内遭受迫害的受难者以及他们的亲友和后代,不会认同和接受刘晓波先生的这篇陈述。上述被捕的中国异议人士、艺术家、失踪的律师、维权人士、监狱中受虐待的政治犯,也不会同意这篇陈述。一篇违背事实含有错误信息的陈述,也有损诺贝尔奖官方网站的声誉。

因此我们郑重建议诺贝尔基金会将刘晓波的这篇陈述从诺贝尔奖的官方网站上撤销。

签名(名字排列按姓氏汉语拼音):

卞和祥 (纽约,中共制度的政治反对派)

陈迈平 (瑞典,中文作家,瑞典笔会理事)

还学文 (德国,自由作家)

黄河清 (西班牙,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,中共制度的政治反对派,因参加八九年天安门运动而被判刑十六年)

王胜林 (芝加哥,异议人士,银行风险分析师)

许毅 (伦敦,异议人士,大学教授)

羊子 (纽约,流亡异议人士)

张国亭 (丹麦,网络工作者,受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)

仲维光 (德国,自由作家)

2011年4月18日

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 years of 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.

Furthermore, we do not believe Ms. Mueller knows what Liu Xiaobo actually did in the last 20 years, or the complexity and confusion in the current Chinese democracy movement, or even what actually happened during the hunger strike which Liu was involved in 20 years ago. Therefore, it is our belief that Ms. Mueller is in no position to make the kind of judgment as she did.

Sincerely yours,
April 4,2011

The undersigned (Names listed in alphabetic order ) :

Bian Hexiang (New York, Anti-CCP activist)
Chen Maiping (Sweden,Freelance writer)
Huan Xuewen (Germany,Freelance writer,Chinese dissident)
Diane Liu (Chicago,Freelance writer, Chinese dissident)
Lu Decheng (Canada,Anti-CCP activist. Sentenced by CCP regime for 16 years )
Wang shenglin (Chicago,Senior Finance Information Analyst,Chinese dissident)
Xu Yi (London,Associate Professor,Chinese dissident)
Yang zi (New York, Exile dissident)
Zhang Guoting (Denmark, Internet writer, Anti-CCP activist. Arrested and sentenced by CCP regime in 1960 at age 16 for reactionary crimes,served in prison for 22 years)
Zhang Liangsheng (Hong Kong,Independent commentator)

Xu Shuiliang (New York,Anti-CCP activist. Jailed by CCP regime twice for 14 years)

Zhong Weiguang(Germany,Freelance writer,Chinese dissident)

Chinese:

中国民主人士给二00九年诺文学奖得主米勒的公开信

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十四年)
仲维光 (德国,自由作家)

附件
诺贝尔文学奖得主赫尔塔•米勒在《法兰克福汇报》发表声援刘晓波的文章,题为”当第二只鞋落下时”,以下是该文的摘译。

“自由运动的首领后来被称作自由斗士,我认为,这些自由斗士可以分为两个基本类型:过高估计自己者一类和自我怀疑者一类。通常二者不可兼容,但是,在刘晓波那里,二者融于一身,这就使他如此地真实。”

“1989年,过高估计自己是必要的,只要反抗的动力还在天安门广场涌动。勇气,直至出于渴望生而不畏惧死的勇气,是必要的,为了经受住绝食,为了与军队进行谈判,并且在谈判失败后赢得两小时的期限,为了在装甲车向民众扫射前让数千人撤离。为了避免血腥屠杀,不顾生命危险拿出耐心。因为,血腥屠杀是这个政权已经决定的事。我们知道,该政权一再表明,只要民众敢于动摇专制统治,党的行动纲领允许大开杀戒。真的开枪了,但不是在天安门广场上。大屠杀发生在周围的街道上,而不是在广场。失败,但这个失败并不表明示威者无能,而是因为中国共产党为了维持其独裁统治肆无忌惮,不惜一切。……”

“大失败之后,随着动荡后的安静,刘晓波有了自我怀疑,有了自己头脑里的孤独。我尝试着去想象:晓波是如此孤独和压抑,就好象光着脚从一个鬓角到另一个鬓角,上千遍穿过自己的前额。一个像他那样的人,以其令人信服的智力,没有过错感是不可能分析这场灾难的。在广场上,他必须成为被人们所看见的那样,发生了一个放大,可以说1比1000的放大,他必须符合人们所期待于他,而他也的确做到的那种英雄。之后的失败驱使他回到原来,可以说1比1的还原,进入悲哀。”并非所有的’英雄’都是这样,但晓波的确如此。”

“他毫不留情地公开表达自己的自我怀疑。将自己置于过错感之中是一个陷阱,因为,有许多人抓住它不放,甚至远在流亡之中。我对哈维尔提名晓波为诺贝尔和平奖候选人的建议表示支持,接着就收到了来自中国流亡者一些极不道德的电子邮件,其内容是对晓波的诽谤中伤、检举揭发、无所顾忌地毁誉。或许流亡阵营被中国的特工所渗透,或许是精神错乱的流亡者失去了理性,这些人在远离家乡的流亡地推行纸上革命,用文字卑鄙地捣乱,而其他人在国内却不得不犯错,因为他们在行动,直到今天他们还必须身处其境而四处摸索。”

“刘晓波事件证明,道义是在悄无声息中、但却非常坚定地起着作用;道义把痛苦留给个人,而向大众展现出坚韧的一面。而早在道义公开登场之前就已经开始,在其后也不停歇,因为它存在于细节之中。欧仁曈饶谒箍猓‥ugène Ionesco)曾经说过:’既然不让我们活,那我们就活在细节之中。’”

“……难道刘晓波应该被囚禁11年,光着脚从一个鬓角穿过前额走到另一个鬓角吗?我们要求立刻将他释放,该被审判的应当是那些囚禁他的人,他们的手上沾满鲜血。”

“刘晓波依赖于我们的支持。”

“但是,需要支持的不仅是他。这个政权的不安越来越大,越来越多的零八宪章支持者消失于监狱之中。”

原文见《法兰克福汇报》3月26日版

编译:林泉
责编:敏芬
(以上内容摘译自其它媒体,不必然代表德国之声观点)