2010年10月10日星期日

刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖﹣致在港内地留学生

刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖﹣致在港内地留学生

你们好!我是一位在香港的大学工作的教职员,今天想和各位谈谈刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的事。虽然我在香港的报章上有我的专栏,但我想在这儿和各位分享会更为直接。我要谈的事情,借梁文道的说法,本来其实都是常识。只是在特定的社会环境之下,这些常识变得需要刻意说清。

昨天晚上我和学生上课,课程的题目是「中国公共政策和区域发展」。我有一个习惯,就是上课前和学生谈谈近来的中国新闻。学术论文的讨论通常都有数年的滞后,总得和最新的情况相呼应,这天就有学生选了刘晓波获奖为讨论题目。相对于城乡差异、区域失衡等的题目,在课堂上花时间谈民主运动也是好事。毕竟,课堂的意义在于扩阔我们的视野,无论谈任何题目也是殊途同归。
我很少会在课堂上谈我自己的立场,因为我更想鼓励同学们谈自己的意见。不过这次我破了例,谈了不少个人观感。或者我在这儿再补充一下。

我发现在不少中国政治的讨论当中,都存在各式各样的阴谋论。我常常提醒学生要当心这些阴谋论,因为它们在学术上是懒惰的:它们趋向把那些我们情感上难以接受的事物,给予一些无需验证的解释。这对客观地理解事物无助,不该是学者所为;而我认为,当我们踏进教室,我们每一个人都该以学者为我们的第一身分。

在刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖这件事上,我就听到不少的阴谋论,说诺贝尔和平奖成为了西方霸权的政治工具,旨在诋毁中国,为不明白中国实际情况的人制造攻击中国的机会。站在此立场上,刘晓波获奖并不值得中国人高兴,更该予以谴责。

让我们以一个学者的目光审视上述的观点。首先,这届的诺贝尔和平奖有没有被利用为政治工具呢?回顾历史,每一届的诺贝尔和平奖都是政治工具,并非本届独有。九零年颁奖给戈巴契夫,九三像颁奖给曼特拉,二千年颁奖给金大中,零七年颁奖给戈尔,每一次都是诺贝尔委员会作政治宣言。事实上,无论是上述的任何一人,获奖时在当地都引起过争议。然而就我的理解,从来没有在国内听说过因为颁了给戈巴契夫、曼特拉、金大中或戈尔,于是「和平奖变成了政治工具」,所以需要声讨。

宏观点说,世上无事不是「政治工具」。今天我在这儿说话,这文章就是政治宣言;如果你选择在下面回应,你的留言也会是政治宣言。套用女性主义者的说法:个人的就是政治的。当有人用「别把XXX政治化」来批评别人时,其实他忘了这句话本身就是政治。换句话说,那些批评刘晓波获奖是一个阴谋的人,也可以被理解为在散播另一种的阴谋论;从逻辑上看,他们自己倒毁了自己的公信。

要评论刘晓波获奖是否合适,无需理会背后有什么阴谋或政治意图,而只需看其理据是否充分。如果理据充分的话,我们不能怪别人,只可以怪自己为什么制造了这样的一个机会,让那些「阴谋或政治意图」能够「得逞」。

刘晓波获奖的理据是什么?据诺贝尔委员会的介绍,是表扬他多年来为中国基本人权的非暴力奋斗。委员会特别提到,刘晓波参与八九天安门抗议,和身为《零八宪章》的执笔人。

中国的人权有没有问题?当然我们不容否定,在过去的数十年来,中国的人权状况有明显的改善。但就刘晓波一人的遭遇来说,我们看到中国的人权状况仍然有巨大的缺憾。

刘晓波于零九年因煽动颠覆国家政权罪被判有期徒刑11年,原因是他发表了多篇批评一党专政的文章。任何的以言入罪,都是对人权的践踏。莫论他的立场是否正确,他的主张是否合适中国国情,任何人也不该被以言入罪,这是现代法治国家最基本的要求。就算他鼓吹所有中国人都该把头发染成蓝色也好,你可以不同意他的立场,但这不等于他没有权利这样说。毕境,他说话的权利,在共和国宪法当中写得清清楚楚。

事实上,刘晓波的主张也不见得和共产党的主张有很大距离。他提出的「联邦共和国」,在中国共产党的「二大」中就有,「七大」的党纲又重申了一篇。别说那么远,总理温家宝一周前接受美国记者访问,同样提到言论自由和政治体制改革的重要。

刘晓波写文章会使得中国动乱起来,破坏中国的社会和谐吗?如果写写文章就足以挑起社会情绪,那么这个社会本身一定已经累积了许多无处宣泄的怨忿。若果我们批评基于这些怨忿写文章的人,而不去批评那些制造这些怨忿的始作俑者,是否本末倒置了?真正破坏中国社会和谐的,不是刘晓波,而是各种不公义的社会制度。

如果我们认同中国的人权有迫切需要改善,而刘晓波又是一个以非暴力手段提倡改善中国人权的人,那么他获得诺贝尔和平奖就是一件值得庆贺的事情。刘晓波获奖,可以鼓励更多人关心中国的人权发展,这对中国老百姓的褔祉来说,当然是一件好事。

在完结前,我想顺带提一提某种我自己也经历过的留学生心态:在国内的时候,看见中国的种种体制问题,往往都会不留情面的破口大骂;在外面的时候,看见别人批评中国的情况,却又反过来感到要立即为中国辩护。这种心态,或者是人之常情,却很不要得。别人批评中国政治,不等于批评你,不需要觉得情感受伤。不卑不亢,实事求是就可以了。

得承认,许多批评中国现况的人,其实都不太了解中国的实际情况。然而话说回来,我们自己又了解中国的实际情况吗?中国幅员如此辽阔,国内的信息流通又有限制,我们除了自身成长的环境之外,其他的可能往往都只有道听涂说。如果我在江苏长大,我对农村发展的想法就会和一位在甘肃长大的同学的很不一样。所以,当我们听到一些好像是要「诋毁中国」的言词时,先不要忙回应。如果事情不属实,那当然是「诋毁」;但如果事情属实,则其实是个外国友人的善意提醒,根本没有必要感到气愤难平。要弄清事实,我们需要多听多看。批评刘晓波获奖前,何不先看看刘晓波其实写了些什么?在香港,你在网上要看什么都可以,请不要浪费这个机会。

中国早晚都会成为一个超级大国,问题是中国要成为一个怎么样的超级大国。既为留学生,很应该作好榜样,以理服人,才能受世人敬重。

共勉之。

9 comments:

Eric 提到...

hey,你写的很好,可惜国内被洗脑的人太多了

haode2010 提到...

中共的思維邏輯就是這樣, 以為所有人都像共産黨員為政治服務的, 以為反對中國現政權的某些行為就等於反華. 中共沒有"人類有反抗强權專制壓迫弱小國民的獨立想法".

他們把全世界人劃分為反華與愛中國人士(其實有些只是愛黨).
把中國人劃分為愛國者與漢奸.

一些人口口聲聲說劉曉波分裂中國, 受西方國家指揮的走狗. 自己不去查核, 拿不出証據來, 人云亦云.

匿名 提到...

你作为一个大学老师,应该认识得到诺贝尔奖委员会这次是做了大好事的,也做了一个非常正确的授奖.虽然你有支持刘晓波的成分,但同样应该大声赞扬诺贝尔奖委员会.如果一边赞扬刘晓波,一边说诺奖委员会是政治工具,那是矛盾的,是人格分裂.

匿名 提到...

建议你好好看看刘的文章
另外研究一下他和ned的关系以及ned的背景
他不是简单的因言获罪

匿名 提到...

“帝国主义的阴谋”,所以不必追究事实真相,不必讲究逻辑推理,辱骂就是了
从摇篮到坟墓的愚弄,让很多中国孩子很容易“愤怒”,扣帽子,挥舞道德大棒,却不会讲理。

匿名 提到...

"当有人用「别把XXX政治化」来批评别人时,其实他忘了这句话本身就是政治。"

這是屁話。亂七八糟邏輯。

wwwww 提到...

(South China Morning Post) Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong October 12, 2010.

read this link
http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8fe49ba373b9b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News

He answered that China needed to have 300 years of colonisation. Liu attributed what Hong Kong is today to 100 years of colonisation, so China would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like Hong Kong.

That was more than two decades ago but, in 2007, Liu stated that he did not want to take back what he had said in 1988, because it reflected a belief he retained. He attributed progress in China to Westernisation and said the more that Westernisation existed in the various spheres of Chinese society, the more progress was attained.

He is either woefully ignorant of the nature of colonialism, which involved legally mandated racial discrimination and the colonisers' political and economic monopolies, or Liu finds it a congenial alternative because he is convinced of Western superiority. This can hardly be expected to be a sentiment shared by most Chinese.

In his 2007 statement, Liu claimed that, in the economic sphere, progress could be chalked up to privatisation. Not surprisingly then, Charter 08, a statement he mainly authored and that called for a Western-style political system in China, also urges a "free market" transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership and the privatisation of land ownership.

Privatisation in Russia resulted in a colossal robbery of public wealth by a few oligarchs. To the extent privatisation has occurred in China, it has mainly enriched former officials and has often worsened the conditions of labour. An agrarian capitalism based on landed property would have no assured benefit, but might bring back the execrable system of landlords and landless peasants. Further privatisation would probably increase the already high level of inequality in China, which is why surveys show that most Chinese oppose it.

Many observers recognise that the Nobel Peace Prize is a political prize, and a morally bankrupt one at that: do something that accords with mainstream Western elite thinking about what "advances peace", and you may get a prize. Continue, for as long as you can, a war that kills thousands or even millions of civilians, as Henry Kissinger did in Indochina and Barack Obama is doing in Afghanistan, and you may still get a prize. If you attack China, the perceived potential rival of the West's hegemon, as the Dalai Lama and Liu have done, your chances for a prize increase.

The Chinese government has argued that the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize has been infringed by awarding it to one who is imprisoned for violating Chinese law. That, however, is beside the point. There was no need to imprison Liu and there has been no need for a binary choice between shutting him up by fiat or treating him as a hero. Rather, there has only been a need to bring to light Liu's self-proclaimed goals. If most Chinese, especially the non-elite majority, knew about his prescribed path for China, they would turn away from him as someone with things ignoble on offer.

The world has many political prisoners; most are in fact imprisoned in countries with governments that continue to receive all manner of assistance from other countries that proclaim themselves beacons of human rights and democracy. Among those myriads languishing in prison, most want something far better for the peoples of their country than does Liu and are far worthier of an award because of it.

[Barry Sautman is a political scientist and lawyer at Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. Yan Hairong is an anthropologist at Hong Kong Polytechnic University ]

wwwww 提到...

(South China Morning Post) Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong October 12, 2010.



read this link
http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8fe49ba373b9b210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News

wwww 提到...

read this link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/08/liu-xiaobo-china#start-of-comments


Liu Xiaobo wins Nobel, reform loses

China has many unsung heroes pushing for democracy. Their task gets harder when the west rewards high-profile dissidents



Pro-democracy activists hold pictures of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo Pro-democracy activists hold pictures of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP

Liu Xiaobo, the jailed Chinese pro-democracy activist who has just been awarded a Nobel peace prize, is certainly a brave man, and his imprisonment is deplorable. But it is hard to see what contribution he has made to peace, in China or beyond, or how this award will further peace.

Westerners are so dazzled – and yet, also so perturbed – by China's "rise" that we easily overlook how painful and precarious its 30-year economic reform and opening process has been. In many ways, the transition has been as profound and as traumatic as the UK's 19th-century agrarian and industrial revolutions, which were accomplished with little democracy and scant regard for human rights. Yet most Chinese people remain relatively poor, with average GNP per capita still lower in China than in many Latin American and African countries.

In these circumstances, Chinese Communist party's fears of instability are not stupid and the attempt to impose "harmony" by decree is not irrational. While it remains decidedly authoritarian and determined to nip all opposition movements in the bud, Communist party rule has become much more consultative over the last 20 years. Non-party intellectuals and special-interest groups have been allowed a voice in policy debate; and there has been gradual recognition of the need for "civil society" organisations, such as the Chinese NGOs currently participating in the Tianjin climate change talks.