諾委會主席亞格蘭德：我們為什麽頒獎給劉曉波（

New York Times, Oct. 22, 2010

我們為什麽頒獎給劉曉波

(Thorbjorn Jagland is the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee)

在中國當局對諾貝爾委員會選擇劉曉波(被監禁的政治活動家)作為2010年和平獎得主的譴責無意中說明了為什麽值得捍衛人權。

當局聲稱，任何人都無權幹涉中國的內部事務。但他們錯了：國際人權法和標準高於民族國家，而且國際社會有責任確保它們得到尊重。

現代國家製度是國家主權觀念演變而來的，其又是由1648年的威斯特伐利亞和平協議建立的。當時，主權被認為是在一個專製統治者中體現。

但有關主權的想法已經隨時間改變了。美國獨立宣言和法國的人權和公民權宣言取代了獨裁者控製下的人民的主權作為國家權力以及合法性的來源。

在上個世紀，主權的概念再次改變了，隨著世界從民族主義轉移到國際主義。在兩個災難性的世界大戰後成立的聯合國，讓會員國承諾通過和平手段解決爭端，並在世界人權宣言中確定全體人民的基本權利。宣言中說，民族國家將不再有最終的、無限的權力。

今天，普遍人權對世界各地的任意多數提供了一種限製，無論是民主與否。在議會中的一個多數並不能決定傷害一個少數群體的權利，也不能投票給損害人權的法律。即使中國不是一個憲政民主政體，它是聯合國的會員國，而且它已經修改了憲法以符合世界人權宣言。

但是，劉先生的監禁是清楚地證明，中國的刑法是不符合其憲法的。他被判定犯有“散布謠言，誹謗或者其他手段，顛覆國家政權，推翻社會主義製度。”但在普遍人權為基礎的國際社會，杜絕意見和謠言不是一個政府的工作。各國政府有義務確保自由表達意見的權利——即使說話者主張不同的社會製度。

這些權利都是諾貝爾委員會捍衛已久的，通過授予那些掙紮著保護它們的人以和平獎，包括安德烈薩哈羅夫為他堅持反對蘇聯的人權侵犯，和馬丁路德金牧師博士為他爭取在美國的公民權利。

毫不奇怪，中國政府已經嚴厲批評該獎，聲稱諾貝爾委員會非法幹涉其內部事務和在國際公眾的眼睛中羞辱了它。相反，中國應該感到自豪，它已變得強大到足以成為辯論和批評的主體。

有趣的是，中國政府並不是唯一一個批評諾貝爾委員會的。有些人說，頒獎給劉先生實際上可能惡化中國人權倡導者的境況。

但是，這種說法是不合邏輯的：它導致的結論是我們最好通過保持沉默來促進人權。如果我們對於中國保持沉默，誰將會是下一個國家要求它保持沉默和不幹涉的權利？這種做法將把我們放在一個走向破壞世界人權宣言和人權的基本原則的道路上。我們絕不能保持沉默。任何國家都沒有權無視其國際義務。

中國有充分的理由為它在過去20年來的成就感到自豪。我們希望看到這一進步繼續下去，這就是為什麽我們頒發和平獎給劉先生。如果中國是要推進與其他國家的和諧，成為維護國際社會的價值觀的一個重要夥伴，它必須首先給予其所有公民言論的自由。

一個人僅僅因為他表達了他的意見而正在被監禁11年，這是一個悲劇。如果我們要走向阿爾弗雷德諾貝爾所說的國家的博愛，那麽普遍人權必須成為我們的試金石。

Why We Gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel
By THORBJORN JAGLAND
Published: October 22, 2010

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.

所有跟帖： 

• 像這需要解釋，本身說明他的做法引起別人質疑。他是拿別人的錢炫耀而已 -金筆- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 01:18:55

• 被質疑有什麽問題？那個大的決定和政策沒有被質疑的？ -不明則問- ♂ (43 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 10:15:07

• “和諧權” -泥瓦匠- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 04:22:48

• 估計是“被和諧權”吧？ 嗬嗬。。。 -不明則問- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 13:51:39

• 謝謝霸王君的轉貼，很值一讀。 -楓丹白露- ♀ (0 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 03:41:03

• 中國政府的形象，本應是過街老鼠形象。隻是這隻老鼠太大，貓們都惹不起！ -一言久頂- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 08:27:42