就刘晓波问题，三妹（刘晓东）接受Blakeway 制片公司采访（三部分内容+照片五张）
就刘晓波问题，三妹接受Blakeway 制片公司采访（附照片五张）
三妹接受Blakeway 制片公司采访而写的有关刘晓波的资料（三部分）：
第一部分——刘晓波的言行简介；
第二部分——九个问题的问答；
第三部分——给采访人的补充信。 
三妹接受Blakeway制片公司采访（照片一）
三妹接受Blakeway制片公司采访（照片二）
第一部分——刘晓波的言行简介 （为Blakeway制片公司就刘晓波问题采访准备的中、英文资料）
自由撰稿人刘晓东（三妹）编写，许毅教授翻译
说明：诺贝尔基金会委托Blakeway制片公司监制一个关于诺贝尔各奖项的资料片。制片公司说，此片子是存档文件。片子会在BBC电视台和美国的PBS台播出。制片公司希望能够采访反对刘晓波获奖信中的两个签名人（我和许毅）。对我的访谈时间是二0一0年十月三十一日。在此之前，他们委托我写一份有关刘晓波的简短资料，并要求我在他们播放片子以后再公布我写的所有资料。全部访谈一共花了三个小时（包括最初半个小时设置摄影机器，也包括大量的重复的拍摄。此片只剪接取用全部访谈中的两三分钟，其他大量的访谈内容都作为历史文件存档。主要访谈内容公布如下：
一九八九年四月中旬，北京天安门学生民主运动初起，刘晓波正在美国哥伦比亚大学做访问学者，他于一九八九年四月二十六日从纽约登机回到北京。他后来写出他当时回国的复杂心态：“我决定回国的动机是复杂的，绝不是单纯的为民主、为民族或为政治投机所能理解的。但扪心自问，我不能排除投机的成分，因为机不可失，失不再来，……对于我短短的一生来说，能遇上这样千金一刻的机会，且投了这个机，该是多么幸运。”（见刘晓波《末日幸存者的独白》1992年9月台湾时报出版社） 假如刘晓波当初回国的初衷是想抓住历史契机扮演一个重要角色的话，他后来的言行却给中国民主运动带来负面作用。
一九八九年五月二十日北京实施军事戒严。为了保护学生，北京的知识分子、大学老师分头去广场劝学生离开。劝撤工作做得很有成效，到二十五日，家住北京的学生大多离开广场，留在天安门广场的主要是一些外地的学生。但是，就在天安门屠杀两天前的六月二日，刘晓波执笔写了一份《六二绝食宣言》，宣布他与三个朋友发起绝食，再度把学生引回广场。刘晓波的这一为个人扬名的投机行为遭到非议。当时参加劝说行动的时为社科院德语副译审的王蓉芬女士（现住德国的学者）最近说：“当绝食的学生回到学校后，刘晓波等四人坐到纪念碑前绝食，把学生又招回是非之地，引来坦克碾压，然后他又作证说：天安门广场没死一个人。刘晓波这样拿人命作秀，是历史的罪人。”最近，王蓉芬在获知刘晓波得到诺贝尔和平奖后评论道:“洒了名贵香水的抹布依旧是抹布，不能当丝巾。”
天安门运动遭镇压之后，一九八九年六月六日刘晓波第一次被捕，关在北京秦城监狱。在拘押期间，他在一九八九年九月接受中共官方采访四十多分钟，采访中，他以证人身份掩饰中共天安门的六四屠杀。他的这次采访以热点时间在全国电视播放。他又在一九九0年十一月份写了一份《悔罪书》，这份《悔罪书》被中共当局作为大学生的洗脑教材在北京市各高等院校散发和宣读。
一九九一年一月二十六日刘晓波被免除刑事处分并释放。北京市中级人民法院在他的判决书上解释道，这是由于他“立功、悔罪的表现”。他也庆幸自己在狱中写《悔罪书》是高明之举，他一出狱就说：“太值了！一纸官样文章换来的居然是自由！”“我又赢了！” （见《末日幸存者的独白》1992年9月台湾时报出版社）
刘晓波被释放的消息传开后，社会舆论对他的评价是负面的，把他看成天安门运动的叛徒。为了挽回自己的名声，刘晓波于一九九二年四月写了一本书名为《末日幸存者的独白》，他在书中说：“令我有些坐立不安的是社会舆论。人们关心的重要焦点是我的‘重大立功表现’。按照中国人的独特逻辑，‘重大立功’肯定是严重地出卖他人，是八九学运的‘叛徒’。”在书中，他以忏悔的形式为自己开脱，为自己树立正面形象，并指责那些流亡海外的“六•四”参与者都是为了树立自己的英雄形象而有意歪曲事实、撒谎; 他还夸大天安门学生民主运动难以避免的混乱，以此否定天安门运动的真正的伟大意义。
刘晓波又在一九九三年六月八日写了一篇文章《我们被我们的‘正义’击倒》，进一步诋毁天安门学生运动、否定天安门运动的伟大意义。对这本书和这篇文章，中国著名异议作家王若望先生（已故）、刘宾雁先生（已故）和郑义先生分别发表文章，抨击和痛斥刘晓波是歪曲事实、欺骗世界舆论、丧失道德良知。
后来，刘晓波因联署给中共政府的请愿信又被拘押两次，同样受到特殊待遇。他在二000年一月二十三日写给异议作家廖亦武先生的信中说：“与你四年的牢狱相比，我的三次坐牢都称不上真正的灾难，第一次在秦城是单人牢房，除了一个人有时感到死寂外，生活上要比你好多了。第二次八个月在香山脚下的一个大院中，就更是特殊待遇了，除了没有自由，其它什么都有。第三次在大连教养院，也是独处一地。我这个监狱中的贵族无法面对你所遭受的一切，甚至都不敢声称自己三进三出地坐过牢。” 刘晓波于一九九九年十月被释放后一直在北京居住生活，主要从事写作。
二00四年至二00六年中国各地掀起维权运动，维护弱势群体的利益，并呼吁北京当局停止迫害法轮功。二00六年八月以后，中共当局非法逮捕中共当局非法逮捕维权运动的领军人物高智晟律师，以及郭飞雄、陈光诚、胡佳等主要参与者，再次扼杀民间争取基本人权的努力。这场运动引起民运人士的一场激烈争论，分歧的焦点是：是彻底否定共产党，还是寄希望于共产党的自我改良。这场争论使抗争派和合作派两派泾渭分明。刘晓波是合作派的代表人物。
二00八年年底，合作派发表《零八宪章》。他们说《零八宪章》与捷克当初的《七七宪章》相同。其实，它们之间只是“宪章”两字相同，两个宪章的基本精神并不相同。
《七七宪章》直言批评捷克共产党政府践踏人权，明确要求政府履行它对1975年所签署的欧安会协议所承担的义务：改善国内人权状况，保障公民基本人权。七七宪章形成了捷克社会以及东欧共产党国家集团中旗帜鲜明的反对运动。
而《零八宪章》不顾事实地肯定中国人权状况改善，以大量篇幅重复中国现有宪法中已有的条文，用规劝和谏言的方式希望中共履行它在人权问题上对国际社会的承诺。《零八宪章》以含糊其辞的说法掩盖中共执政六十年来对中国人民造成的史无前例的灾难，它寄希望于中共集团的自我改良，幻想中共极权可以自行和平转变为民主政体。这种与中共合作的基本立场，回避了腐败透顶的中共利益集团与人民尖锐对立的实际状况，这种用谏言代替抗争的做法对中国人民的民主运动起到误导作用。尽管合作派用《零八宪章》一厢情愿地与虎谋皮，却仍然被中共视为敌对势力，并再次把刘晓波投入监狱。对此，我们表示抗议，虽然我们与合作派有根本分歧，对刘晓波的人品有不同看法，但是我们反对中共以言治罪的非法行为。
刘晓波在去年被非法拘留近一年后，于2009年12月23日在北京法庭审判中发表了《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》的陈词，他在陈述中粉饰中共监狱人性化柔性化，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。”这篇陈述是刘晓波二十年来为中共说话的延续。
刘晓波的言行不断地随着自己的处境和利益而变来变去， 他这二十年的表现完全丧失了诺贝尔和平奖得主所应具备的道德操守和信仰真诚。遗憾的是，诺贝尔委员会却偏偏把这个高尚的和平奖授予刘晓波这样的投机分子和合作派代表人物。因此，我们对本届诺贝尔和平奖在中国大地能否起到它本该起到的推动和平和民主的作用表示怀疑。
自由撰稿人刘晓东编写，许毅教授翻译
二0一0年十月二十四日
三妹接受Blakeway制片公司采访（照片三）
第二部分——问答（Blakeway 制片公司的Noeleen Leddy提问，刘晓东回答和翻译，由Blakeway 制片公司的Katherine于二0一0年十月三十一日口头采访。） 注释：考虑到我是第一次接受英文采访，制片公司的诺贝尔纪录片项目负责人Noeleen Leddy特别事先以文字提出一些问题让我有所准备。但是，在现场采访时由于换了Katherine，所以所问问题有所改变。例如Katherine问的如下问题不在预先准备之中，她问道：是不是可以容忍刘晓波在监狱的艰难情况下的悔罪。我回答说，中共逮捕的不是只刘晓波一个人，天安门屠杀后，中共逮捕了数百人乃至更多，可是为什么中共只利用刘晓波一个人在全国电视讲话掩饰它的六四屠杀？为什么他们只利用刘晓波一人的悔罪书去对北京大学生洗脑？为什么他们只给刘晓波一个政治犯特殊待遇？而刘晓波也心知肚明，知道如何默契地为中共说话。Katherine还说刘晓波的做法可能是一种计策。我说，计策也要有原则，也要说真话，刘晓波说中共人权改进了是撒谎，不是计策。中共迫害屠杀法轮功十一年到现在还没有结束，中国的人权在恶化。她还问了一些问题在此不一而足。总的来说，让西方人理解中国的情况是很难的，所以才使刘晓波的拥趸们钻了这个空子利用西方对中国的无知而推举出一个人格低下的投机者，为刘晓波骗取了诺贝尔和平奖。不过假象最终都会曝光的。诺贝尔和平奖的桂冠只会使刘晓波美化中共人权的言论和不光彩的投机历史更受到聚光。
第二部分——问答（Blakeway 制片公司的Noeleen Leddy提问，刘晓东回答和翻译，由Katherine于二0一0年十月三十一日口头采访。）
1. 你对刘晓波一听说1989天安门学生运动就离开美国的决定的看法。 回答：鉴于他自己在《末日幸存者的独白》中的解释，我认为，他从美国回到中国参加天安门运动是投机行为。他在此书中说：“扪心自问，我不能排除投机的成分，因为机不可失，失不再来……”刘晓波后来的行为也证明了他是怎样的一个投机者。
2. 天安门运动中，刘晓波绝食行动的影响。 回答：刘晓波发起绝食是在一九八九年六月二日，仅在屠杀的两天前，北京实行戒严后的第十二天。
在这种严峻形势下，刘晓波应该像许多其他北京的大学教师一样说服他们的学生撤出天安门广场避免流血。实际上，五月二十号发出戒严令后，到了五月二十五日时，大多数家住北京的学生都接受了他们老师的劝告撤出了广场，主要留在广场的是一些家住外地的学生。然而此时，刘晓波却在广场中心发起绝食，吸引媒体的聚焦，把学生再吸引回广场，结果，他成为学生运动的中心，以众多无辜生命为代价来为自己作秀。
3. 天安门运动后刘晓波的行为（电视采访）使你愤怒——你的看法，他如何被中共利用 回答： 我愤怒是因为刘晓波帮助中共政权说谎掩饰六四屠杀。北京电视台以采访的方式全国播放了刘晓波四十分钟的采访讲话。他被利用作为见证人证明那天广场没有屠杀，仅仅是因为他那天在广场没有看见任何屠杀。而且访谈后，他又写了“悔罪书”，这篇悔罪书被中共当局利用来作为大学生的洗脑材料，并在北京各大学散发和宣读。
4. 你质疑刘晓波在监狱中的待遇，我们从此点可以得出什么。 回答：我的质疑是，为什么刘晓波在监狱可以得到特殊待遇——这种待遇是六十年来中国其他政治犯从没有得到过的，这种待遇被刘晓波自己描述成“ 监狱中的贵族” “人性化”“柔性化”待遇。
北京中级法院一九九一年一月在刘晓波的判决中解释到，他的特殊待遇（提前无罪释放）是基于他的“悔罪和立功表现”。
他的另外两次拘留也受到特殊待遇。作为特殊待遇的犯人，刘晓波心领神会配合默契。我们可以看出，为什么他抓住每一个机会粉饰中共人权。
5. 二00六年秋季，中国异见人士（维权）运动是如何分裂的，及其影响。 回答：二00四年至二00六年期间，中国几个地方发起维护人权、维护弱势群体权益、呼吁停止迫害法轮功的运动，人们称此运动为“维权运动”。遗憾的是，刘晓波站在运动之外，以消极的态度对之。他的消极态度引发异见人士的激烈辩论，分歧的焦点是，是彻底否定中共，还是幻想中共可以自我改良。辩论形成泾渭分明的两派：“抗争派”和“合作派”。刘晓波是“合作派”的代表人物。
这个大分裂弱化了这次维权运动，中共政府逮捕了维权运动的主要成员：高智晟律师，郭飞雄先生，陈光诚先生和胡佳先生，再一次扼杀了人民争取基本权益的努力。
6. 你认为的刘晓波和解怀柔的例子和它的影响。 回答：刘晓波和解怀柔的行为起始于二十年前并且多次发生，例如：他在全国电视台讲话掩饰天安门屠杀，他在一九九0年十一月写的“悔罪书”成为大学生的洗脑材料，他写书《末日幸存者的独白》，在书中诋毁天安门运动和它的意义。在这本书后，他又发表文章“我们被我们的正义击倒”，进一步诋毁天安门运动和它的意义。就在一年前，二00九年十二月二十三日，他被拘留一年后，刘晓波又在法庭上发表《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》。在这个陈述中，他粉饰中国监狱“人性化，柔性化”。他还称赞中共把“尊重和保护人权”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。”这篇陈述是刘晓波二十年来为中共人权说话的延续。
他所作的这一切都是在误导西方世界，使他们认为中国人权改善了，事实是中国人权在恶化。中共的迫害更加残酷，中共迫害成千上万的法轮功民众已达十一年之久，有姓名的被迫害致死的已达三千多人，更多的被关在监狱和劳改营。
7. 中共政府怎样使你的生活遭难。 回答：我的生活就像许多中国人的生活一样经历了不同阶段的苦难。
在我还是儿童时，我们家有三年没有足够的粮食吃，在一九五九年至一九六一年的那三年中全国有四千万人饿死了。
几年后，文化大革命开始，学校全部关闭了。在十七岁时，与同伴一起，我被送到偏远农村干农活干了三年。在那个动乱的年代，我父母双双被定为“反革命”失去自由数年。
8. 你自己做了什么支持中国政治改革的事情 回答：我作网络作家已经十年，发表了一百多篇文章，大部分文章是关于：
1）反映中国的实情，批评中共侵犯人权和迫害人民，暴露中共对现有问题和历史问题的谎言
2）介绍和传播民主思想
3）批评那些与中共合作和和解的中国知识分子，呼吁与中共不合作和退出中共促其垮台，以此推动中国的自由和民主
9. 你以为中国的前景如何 回答：我相信在我的有生之年中国迟早会有民主。但是我不会幼稚地盼望中国现在或将来会出现戈尔巴乔夫式的人物。我也不相信那些扭曲的中国知识分子，比如刘晓波会把中国引入正道。
我相信，当越来越多的底层民众认清中共真正面目之时，就是民主在中国到来和实现之日。
三妹接受Blakeway制片公司采访（照片四）
三妹接受Blakeway制片公司采访（照片五）
第三部分——给采访人的补充信（刘晓东写和翻译） 凯瑟琳和大卫：
谢谢你们到我家采访。我很高兴认识你们并被采访。你们都是出色的记者。当我意识到你们载着这么多的摄影器材远途开车到芝加哥并非易事时，我非常感动。
这是我第一次接受西方媒体采访，我的英语口语不足以好到能够充分表达我的观点，我不很满意自己回答问题的表现。因此，我想在此再做一些补充，不管你们是否采用它们。
首先，对于中共逮捕刘晓波是否正确的问题：我已经回答当然是“不正确”。不但不正确，而且对刘晓波的逮捕是中共政权侵犯人权和言论自由的又一个案例。这就是为什么我们要批驳刘晓波的中国人权改善的谎言：即使他自己被捕后他还在说中国的人权改善了。更具讽刺的是，就在他被拘留一年后，他还在二00九年十二月二十三日的审判中说中共监狱“人性化”“柔性化”。刘晓波还在法庭上发表《我没有敌人——我的最后陈述》。在这个陈述中，他还称赞中共把“尊重和保护人权”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。”这篇陈述是刘晓波二十年来为中共说话的延续。
因为西方人难以理解其中的复杂，我不得不略去中共逮捕刘晓波的背后的故事。我想说的主要一点是，为了不合格人选刘晓波获取诺贝尔和平奖，“合作派”的人以丑陋的谎言欺骗了西方世界和诺委会。我相信，世界迟早会知道真相和刘晓波的真实面目。现在已经有越来越多的中国人在谈论真相，因为许多人早就知道他过去的极为不光彩的个人历史。
诺委会在和平奖问题上多次犯错误。其中之一与今年的选择错误一样，他们在二00三年把和平奖授给伊朗“合作派”代表人物希尔琳.艾芭迪（Shirin Ebadi），引发了伊朗流亡异议人士在挪威首都奥斯陆的大街上抗议诺委会的选择。另一个例子是一九九四年诺委会选择了阿拉法特这个有争议的人物获和平奖。对我而言，根据众多事实阿拉法特无疑是恐怖主义头子。还有一些其他的有争议的和平奖例子。你可能会说，每个人都会犯错误。我同意对于个人而言这可以成为理由，但是对于诺委会这样的国际组织，这就不能成为理由。即便对于一个个人，你也不能像诺委会那样犯这么多和这么大的不可挽回的错误。这就是为什么人们要说诺委会腐败和愚蠢。
我要说的另一点是，中共极权政府反对刘晓波获和平奖并不表明它的观点与我们相同。实际上，它的观点的视角和立场与我们的完全不同。对邪恶僵化的中共极权来说， “合作派”和“抗争派”都是敌对势力，不管刘晓波的态度有多软，对中共而言他也只不过是个软骨头敌人。既使刘晓波配合默契，中共极权也从来不相信“合作派”。他们只是要利用刘晓波美言它的人权去误导西方世界和媒体，去愚弄中国人民。而刘晓波则默契地配合中共，这就是为什么我不认为他是诺贝尔和平奖的合格人选。
祝你们节假日愉快。
刘晓东
二0一0年十一月三日
English Translations are as follows: (I) Simple Introduction of Liu Xiaobo’s words and deeds
(Brief Document about the Issue of Liu Xiaobo for Blakeway Productions ) Chinese text prepared by Diane Liu and translated by Professor Xu Yi
In mid April 1989, when the Beijing Tiananmen student movement just started, Liu Xiaobo was a visiting scholar at Columbia University in the U.S... On April 26, 1989, he took a flight from New York to Beijing. Later, he put to words the mixed feelings he had when deciding to return to China: “My motivation for returning to China is complicated. It is by no means purely an act for democracy, for the nation or for political opportunity. But upon introspection, I cannot rule out opportunism, because opportunity knocks but once… During the short life one can have, how lucky was I to have encountered such a once-in-a-life time opportunity, and to have seized the opportunity.” (See Liu Xiaobo (1992), The Monologues of a Doomsday’s Survivor, Times Publishing House, Taiwan). If he was originally motivated to go back to China in order to play an important role, his speeches and actions afterwards imposed a negative impact on China’s democracy movement.
On May 20, 1989, Beijing was put under marshal law. To protect the student protesters, intellectuals and university teachers in Beijing all came to Tiananmen Square to persuade the students to leave. The persuasion was very successful. By May 25, most of the students who had families in Beijing left the Square, and the remaining ones were mostly from other cities and provinces. However, on June 2, two days before the massacre, Liu Xiaobo wrote a “Hunger Strike Declaration”, announcing that he and three of his friends would start their hunger strike. The action drew the students back to the Square. This opportunistic act was met with criticisms. Ms. Wang Rongfen, then a Deputy Editor- in-Chief at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, now living in Germany, who was involved in persuading students to leave, said recently, “After the students had returned to their universities, the hunger strike of Liu Xiaobo and his three friends drew the students back to the trouble spot, which led to the tanks crushing the students. He then testified that no one was killed on Tiananmen Square. To make his own fame out of human lives, Liu Xiaobo is a criminal of history.” Upon hearing that Liu had won the Nobel Peace Prize, Wang Rongfen commented that “A dust cloth sprayed with expensive perfume is still a dust cloth. And it cannot be used as a silk scarf.”
In the wake of the Tiananmen massacre, on June 6, 1989, Liu Xiaobo was arrested for the first time, and was detained in Qincheng Prison. During his detention, he took a 40-minute government interview. During the interview, he acted as a witness and denied that anyone was killed on Tiananmen Square. This interview was broadcasted on TV all over China. In November, 1990, he wrote a “Statement of Repentance”, which was then used by the Chinese Communist authorities as brainwash material that was distributed to all the universities in Beijing and lectured to students.
On January 26, 1991, Liu Xiaobo was released and relieved of all the charges. Beijing Intermediate People's Court explained that this verdict was based on his “repentance and meritorious service”. He himself was also ecstatic with his clever “statement of repentance”, declaring right after he got out of prison, “It’s so worth it! What do I get back with just a piece of paper full of officialese — Freedom!” “I won again!” (See Liu Xiaobo (1993), The Monologues of a Doomsday’s Survivor, China Times Publishing Company, Taiwan).
After the news was spread about Liu’s release, the public opinion about him was negative, viewing him as a traitor of the Tiananmen movement. To get his reputation back, he published a book “The Monologues of a Doomsday’s Survivor”. In it he said, “What made me a bit uneasy was public opinion. What people focused on was my ‘major meritorious service’. Following the usual Chinese logic, this certainly means selling other people out, and being a traitor of the 1989 student movement.” In the book, in the form. of a confession he tried to find excuses for himself and to build a positive image for himself. He claimed that the overseas exiled participants of the June 4th movement were all lying and making up facts in order to build their heroic image; he also exaggerated the chaos that was inevitable during the Tiananmen movement, so as to deny the true significance of the movement.
On June 8, 1993, he wrote an article — “We Were Knocked Down by Our Own Righteousness”, in which he again smeared the Tiananmen movement and denied its significance. To fight back against Liu’s book and article, the well-known dissident writers Wang Ruowang (deceased), Liu Bingyan (deceased) and Zheng Yi wrote articles to point out that Liu was distorting the facts, cheating the world opinion and being immorally conscienceless.
Liu Xiaobo was later twice detained for co-signing petition letters, but both times he received special treatment. In his letter to dissident writer Liao Yiwu, he said, “Compared to your four-year imprisonment, my three-time jail experiences were not really disastrous. The first time I was in a single cell in Qincheng Prison. Other than sometimes feeling isolated, my life was so much better than yours. The second time I lived for eight months in a house with a big courtyard at the foot of Fragrance Hill, which was really a special treatment. I had everything other than freedom over there. The third time, in the Dalian Reform. Institute, I was again living by myself. As a ‘noble’ in prison, I cannot face what you have gone through. I even dare not say that I have been in and out of prison three times.” After his release in October 1999, Liu lived in Beijing, and has mainly been writing.
From 2004 to 2006, a movement started in many places in China to protect civil rights, to protect the interests of the weak and to appeal to the Beijing authorities to stop persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. After August 2006, the Communist authorities arrested the leaders of the civil rights movements, including attorney Gao Zhisheng, Mr. Guo Feixiong, Mr. Chen Guangcheng and Mr. Hu Jia, and thus again stifled the effort of the people for gaining basic human rights. A fierce debate among democratic movement activists resulted from this movement, and the focus of the division was whether to thoroughly reject the Chinese Communist Party or to hope that the Communists are capable of undertaking self-reform. The debate made a clear division between the “resistance faction” and “cooperation faction”, and Liu was the leading figure of the cooperation faction.
By the end of 2008, the cooperation faction published “Charter ‘08” and claimed that this charter was similar to “Charter ‘77” by the previous Czechoslovakia resistance movement. But in fact, the only thing in common was the word “charter”, and the two were fundamentally different in spirit.
“Charter ’77” directly pointed out that the Czechoslovakia Communist Party trampled human rights, and demanded the government to make good on the duties specified by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe which was signed by the Czechoslovakia government, to improve human rights conditions, and to protect citizen’s basic rights. “Charter ’77” has lead to an uncompromising resistance movement in Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European Communist countries.
In contrast, “Charter ’08” ignores the facts and asserts that human rights have been improved in China. It uses much of the space to quote the articles in the current Chinese constitution, and tries to persuade the Chinese Communist Party to carry out the promises it made to the international communities in regard to human rights. “Charter ’08” uses vague language to cover up the unprecedented atrocities committed by the Chinese Communist Party against the Chinese people in its 60 years rule of China. It hopes that the Communist interest groups will self reform, and fanaticizes that the Communist totalitarian rule can be peacefully transformed into a democratic system. This basic cooperative stand avoided the true issue of the sharp opposition between the Communist interest group and the common people. This practice of using persuasion instead of resistance has the effect of misleading the Chinese people’s democracy movement. Despite the one-sided wishful thinking of the cooperation faction through “Charter ’08”, the Communist party still views it as a hostile force, and threw Liu Xiaobo into prison. To this we voice our protest. Regardless of our fundamental difference with the cooperation faction, and our reserved opinion on Liu’s character, we are opposed to the illegal act of the Communist party to criminalize speech.
On December 23, 2009, Liu Xiaobo made a statement entitled “I Have No Enemies—My Final Statement” during his trial after being detained for nearly a year. In this statement, he whitewashed the CCP prison system for its “tender management,” and “offering inmates a humane living environment”. He also praised 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.” This statement was a continuation of Liu’s practice of speaking for the Communist party over the last twenty years.
Liu Xiaobo’s words and deeds continue to change based on careful weighing of his own situation and interests. His deeds in the last twenty years have completely lost the moral standard and honesty fit for a laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, the Nobel Committee decided to award such a prestigious prize to Liu Xiaobo — an opportunist and a leading figure of the cooperation faction. Therefore, we are doubtful that this year’s Peace Prize will play a role it should have on promoting peace and democracy in China.
(II) Questions and Answers about Liu Xiaobo
Questions asked by Noeleen Leddy from Blakeway production and answered by Diane Liu -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Your opinion on Liu Xiaobo’s decision to leave the US when he heard of the student protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989 I think his returning back to China for the Tiananmen movement is an opportunist action according to his own explanation in his book named “The Monologues of a Doomsday’s Survivor ” published in 1992. He wrote: “ But upon introspection, I cannot rule out opportunism, because opportunity knocks but once……” His later deeds also revealed what an opportunist he was.
2. Impact of Liu Xiaobo’s hunger strike during the Tiananmen protest
Liu Xiaobo organized the hunger strike on June 2, 1989, just two days before the Tiananmen massacre, or 12 days after Beijing was under marshal law .
Under this situation, Liu Xiaobo should have acted like many other college professors in Beijing who had persuaded students to withdraw from Tiananmen Square to avoid the coming bloodshed. Actually , the marshal law was on May 20, and by May 25, most of the students who had families in Beijing had accepted their teachers’ persuasion and left the Square and the remaining ones were mostly from other cities and provinces. However, Liu Xiaobo started the hunger strike on June 2 in the centre of the Square to attract the media’s attention, to draw the students back to the Square again, and in the end, to make himself a centre of the student movement at the cost of many lives of innocent people.
3. Liu Xiaobo actions after Tiananmen incident that angers you – (TV interview) How in your opinion he was used by the Chinese Communist Party I am angry because Liu Xiaobo helped the Chinese Communist regime to lie to the world about the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre. The Beijing Central TV Station broadcasted Liu Xiaobo’s 40 minute interview nationally. He was used as a witness to prove there was no killing in the Square that night simply because he didn’t see any killing in the Square that night by himself. And after this, he wrote a “Statement of Repentance”, which was then used as brainwash material by the Chinese Communist authorities and distributed to the universities in Beijing and lectured to students.
4. Your problems with his treatment while in prison and what we can draw from this. My question is why Liu Xiaobo received special treatment during his life in jail – the treatment that no other political prisoners have ever had in China over the past 60 years, the treatment that Liu Xiaobo himself described as a “noble life in prison ” ， “tender” and ”humane” treatment
Beijing Intermediate People's Court explained in his verdict in January of 1991 that the special treatment （release ahead of sentence period）was based on his “repentance and meritorious service”.
His other two jail times were also specially treated . As a special prisoner, Liu Xiaobo coordinated by tacit understanding. We can see, why he took every opportunity to whitewash CCP’s human rights.
5. How the Chinese dissident movement split in after august 2006 and the impact of this During the years 2004 to 2006, a movement started in many places in China to protect civil rights, to protect the interests of the weak and to appeal to the Beijing authorities to stop persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. People called this movement “ the civil rights movement ”. Unfortunately, Liu Xiaobo stood outside of the movement and took a passive attitude . His passive attitude caused a fierce debate, and the focus of the division was whether to thoroughly reject the Chinese Communist Party or to hope that the Communists are capable of undertaking self-reform. The debate made a clear division between the “resistance faction” and “cooperation faction”, and Liu Xiaobo was the leading figure of the cooperation faction.
This big split made the movement weaker and the Communist authorities arrested the leaders of the civil rights movements, including attorney Gao Zhisheng, Mr. Guo Feixiong, Mr. Chen Guangcheng and Mr. Hu Jia, and thus again stifled the effort of the people for gaining basic human rights.
6. Examples of how you believe Liu Xiaobo is too conciliatory (和解、怀柔) and the impact of this His conciliatory deeds started 20 years ago and occurred numerous times, such as: he spoke on national TV to whitewash Tiananmen Square massacre; he wrote “The Statement of Repentance” in November 1990 , and the statement became a brainwash material for college students; and he wrote the book “The Monologues of a Doomsday’s Survivor” in which he smeared the Tiananmen movement and denied its significance. After this book, he wrote an article — “We Were Knocked Down by Our Own Righteousness” in which he again smeared the Tiananmen movement. Even only a year ago, on December 23, 2009, Liu Xiaobo made a statement entitled “I Have No Enemies—My Final Statement” at his trial just one year after his being detained. In this statement, he whitewashed the CCP prison system to be “tender and humane”. He also praised 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.” This statement was a continuation of Liu Xiaobo’s practice of speaking for the Communist party over the last twenty years.
What he has done misleads the Western world to think that China’s human rights situation has been improved, but actually it is worse. The CCP’s persecution is more serious now. It has persecuted thousands and thousands of Fa Lun Gong practitioners for 11 years, among them, more than three thousand people with known names were killed, many others spent years in prison or reform. institute.
7. How your life has been made more difficult by the Chinese Govt My life in China, like many Chinese people’s life suffered in various periods. When I was a teenager, my family did not have enough food to eat for three years ， about 40 million people died in a nationwide famine in three years between 1959 and 1961.
A few years after that, the Cultural Revolution started and all the schools were shut down. At the age of 17, together with peers, I was sent to a remote rural area to labor in the fields for another three years. During that chaotic time, both my father and mother were labeled as “counter revolutionaries” and lost freedom for years.
8. What you have done yourself to support political change in China I have been an Internet writer for 10 years and published more than 100 articles.
Most of them are about
(1) Reporting the real facts in China, criticizing CCP’s violation against human rights and persecution of people, exposing its lies on current issues as well as historical events.
(2) Introducing and spreading the ideology of democracy.
(3) Criticizing Chinese intellectuals who cooperate and compromise with the CCP; advocating zero cooperation with the CCP and withdrawal from the CCP to make it collapse, and promoting China towards freedom and democracy.
9. The way forward as you see it I believe that sooner or later China will have democracy in my lifetime. But I am not that naïve to expect a Gorbachev-like figure to emerge in China now or later.
Neither do I believe those twisted Chinese intellectuals, such as Liu Xiaobo, would lead the nation to take the right course.
The day will come when more and more people at the root see through the true face of CCP。The day will come when democracy prevails in China.
(III) A follow-up letter about Liu Xiaobo from Diane Liu to Katherine and David of Blakeway Productions Dear Katherine and David:
Thank you for coming to my house to interview me. I was very happy to meet you and do the interview. You are very nice people and excellent journalists. I was also very moved when I realized that it was not easy for you to drive that far to come to Chicago with so much filming equipment.
This was my first time giving an interview to Western media, and my spoken English is not good enough to fully express my opinions and I am not satisfied with my answers. So, I would like to make several additions here regardless of whether you would like to use them or not.
First, regarding the question if Liu Xiaobo’s arrest by the Chinese Communist regime is right: I had my answer, of course it was not right, and Liu Xiaobo’s arrest was another case of the Chinese Communist regime’s violation against human rights and freedom of speech. That’s why we criticize Liu Xiaobo’s lie that human rights in China have improved even though he himself was arrested. And what’s more ridiculous was that just last year after one year of his retention, he still praised the Communist prison system to be “tender and humane” at his trial on December 23, 2009. And also at that trial Liu Xiaobo made a statement entitled “I Have No Enemies—My Final Statement” in which he praised 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.” This statement was a continuation of Liu’s practice of speaking for the Communist party over the last twenty years.
There are stories behind why the Chinese Communist regime arrested Liu Xiaobo this time and I have to skip it because it is too complicated and tricky for Western people to understand. The main point is that the group of cooperation faction made ugly lies to fool the Western world and Nobel Committee for the purpose of getting the Novel Peace Prize for Liu Xiaobo，an unqualified candidate. I believe that sooner or later the world will know the truth and real face of Liu Xiaobo. More and more Chinese are talking about the truth even now because so many people know about Liu Xiaobo’s most inglorious personal history.
The Nobel Committee has made several mistakes for the Nobel Peace Prize. One of them was the same as this year’s Nobel selection in that they awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to a leading figure of the “cooperation faction” in Iran in 2003 and caused Iranian dissidents’ protesting against Nobel Committee on the street of Norway’s capital Oslo. Another example is the controversial selection of Yasser Arafat for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. To me, Arafat is definitely a leader of terrorists according to so many facts. There are also several other controversial examples of the Nobel Peace Prize. You might say that everybody makes mistakes, and I agree that this is a reason for an individual person but not for an international organization like the Nobel Committee. Even for an individual person, you cannot afford to make so many mistakes or so big mistakes like the Nobel Committee has done. That’s why many people think that the Nobel Committee is too corrupted and stupid.
And another point I would like to make is that the Chinese Communist Regime’s criticisms against Liu Xiaobo’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t mean they have the same opinions as us. Actually their reasons are from a totally different angle and position from ours. To the evil and rigid Chinese Communist regime, both the “resistance faction” and the “cooperation faction” are hostile forces no matter how soft Liu Xiaobo’s attitude, which only makes him a soft enemy. The Chinese Communist regime never trusts the “cooperation faction” even though Liu Xiaobo eagerly shows his cooperation attitude. They only use him for praising its human rights and misleading the Western world and media as well as confused Chinese people. Furthermore, Liu Xiaobo cooperated with the Chinese government by tacit understanding. That is why I don’t think he is qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I wish you all a wonderful holiday season.
Best,
Diane Liu
11/3/2010
