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)

Advertisements

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 更改 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 更改 )

Connecting to %s