就人们反对极权统治的认识过程而言,一般来说,

   反贪官易,反皇帝难;反皇帝易,反制度难;

   反现实制度易,挣脱整个思想体系难;最后,也是最难的,

   莫过于克服多重谎言的弥天巨网,重建历史真实。

 

Home 专著۰文集 時事۰縱橫 广角۰视频 影像۰生活 搜索۰回馈

   

Back | Home | Up | Next

刘晓波获诺贝尔奖
時政۰观察
讲演۰访谈
读书۰评论

Why We Gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel

New York Times, By THORBJORN JAGLAND, Published: 10/22/2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/opinion/23Jagland.html?_r=1&hp

 

THE Chinese authorities’ condemnation of the Nobel committee’s selection of Liu Xiaobo, the jailed political activist, as the winner of the 2010 Peace Prize inadvertently illustrates why human rights are worth defending.

The authorities assert that no one has the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs. But they are wrong: international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state, and the world community has a duty to ensure they are respected.

The modern state system evolved from the idea of national sovereignty established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. At the time, sovereignty was assumed to be embodied in an autocratic ruler.

But ideas about sovereignty have changed over time. The American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen replaced the control of the autocrat with the sovereignty of the people as the source of national power and legitimacy.

The idea of sovereignty changed again during the last century, as the world moved from nationalism to internationalism. The United Nations, founded in the wake of two disastrous world wars, committed member states to resolve disputes by peaceful means and defined the fundamental rights of all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The nation-state, the declaration said, would no longer have ultimate, unlimited power.

Today, universal human rights provide a check on arbitrary majorities around the world, whether they are democracies or not. A majority in a parliament cannot decide to harm the rights of a minority, nor vote for laws that undermine human rights. And even though China is not a constitutional democracy, it is a member of the United Nations, and it has amended its Constitution to comply with the Declaration of Human Rights.

However, Mr. Liu’s imprisonment is clear proof that China’s criminal law is not in line with its Constitution. He was convicted of “spreading rumors or slander or any other means to subvert the state power or overthrow the socialist system.” But in a world community based on universal human rights, it is not a government’s task to stamp out opinions and rumors. Governments are obliged to ensure the right to free expression — even if the speaker advocates a different social system.

These are rights that the Nobel committee has long upheld by honoring those who struggle to protect them with the Peace Prize, including Andrei Sakharov for his struggle against human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his fight for civil rights in the United States.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese government has harshly criticized the award, claiming that the Nobel committee unlawfully interfered with its internal affairs and humiliated it in the eyes of the international public. On the contrary, China should be proud that it has become powerful enough to be the subject of debate and criticism.

Interestingly, the Chinese government is not the only one to criticize the Nobel committee. Some people have said that giving the prize to Mr. Liu may actually worsen conditions for human-rights advocates in China.

But this argument is illogical: it leads to the conclusion that we best promote human rights by keeping quiet. If we keep quiet about China, who will be the next country to claim its right to silence and non-interference? This approach would put us on a path toward undermining the Universal Declaration and the basic tenets of human rights. We must not and cannot keep quiet. No country has a right to ignore its international obligations.

China has every reason to be proud of what it has achieved in the last 20 years. We want to see that progress continue, and that is why we awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Liu. If China is to advance in harmony with other countries and become a key partner in upholding the values of the world community, it must first grant freedom of expression to all its citizens.

It is a tragedy that a man is being imprisoned for 11 years merely because he expressed his opinion. If we are to move toward the fraternity of nations of which Alfred Nobel spoke, then universal human rights must be our touchstone.

Thorbjorn Jagland is the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

   

2010诺贝尔和平奖颁奖典礼图片 (挪威奥斯陆, 2010.12)
胡平为刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖讲话 (视频, 2010.10)
Hu Ping Speech at Nobel (English, Oslo, Norway, 2010.12.9)
Why We Gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel (Thorbjorn Jagland, New York Times, 2010.10.22)
今天是刘晓波日——2010年12月10日诺贝尔和平奖颁奖礼侧记 (2010.12.21)
《刘晓波文集》导读 (2010.12.11)
围绕颁奖礼的交锋 (2010.12.2)
刘晓波为何坚守国内? (2010.11.18)
我和晓波的交往(上) (2010.11.1)
让刘霞出国领奖 (2010.10.25)
刘晓波获奖与中国模式 (2010.10.22)
这些年刘晓波个性有了重要转变 (2010.10.14)
化荣誉为责任 (2010.10.11)
刘晓波与诺贝尔和平奖 (2010.10.8)
愿晓波获诺奖 (2010.10.6)
解读《我们不放弃》 (2010.2.1)
从刘晓波“我没有敌人”这句话谈起 (2010.2.21)
刘晓波: 《我没有敌人我的最后陈述》 (2009.12.23)
读刘晓波新着《单刃毒剑——中国民族主义批判》 (2007.2.18)
百炼钢化为绕指柔——推荐刘晓波新著《未来的自由中国在民间》(2006.2.14)
推荐《刘晓波文集:向良心说谎的民族》 (2002)
刘晓波给胡平信 (2000.5.12)
刘晓波给胡平信 (1993.4.21)

Back | Home | Up | Next

刘晓波获诺贝尔奖 | 時政۰观察 | 讲演۰访谈 | 读书۰评论

专著۰文集 | 時事۰縱橫 | 广角۰视频 | 影像۰生活 | 搜索۰回馈

   

 last updated 04/06/13