|
托尔比约恩·亚格兰
中国当局谴责诺贝尔委员会选择系狱政治活动家刘晓波为2010年和平奖得主，在无意中说明了人权为什么值得维护。
中国当局断言，他人无权干涉中国内部事务。但是他们错了，国际人权法和标准高于民族国家，而国际社会有义务确保它们受到尊重。
现代国家制度由1648年威斯特伐利亚和平协议所建立的民族主权观念演变而来。当时，主权被假定体现于一个独裁统治者。
然而，有关主权的观念一直与时而变。美国《独立宣言》和法国《人权宣言》，用人民主权作为国家权力及合法性的来源，取代了独裁者控制。
主权观念在上世纪再次改变了，随着世界从民族主义移到国际主义。联合国在两次灾难性的世界大战后创立，让成员国承诺通过和平手段解决争端，并在《世界人权宣言》中确定所有人民的基本权利。宣言说，民族国家将不再具有最终的无限权力。
今天，普遍人权对世界各地的任意多数，无论民主与否，提供了一种核查。国会的多数不得决定伤害少数的权利，也不得投票通过削弱人权的法律。尽管中国不是宪政民主，但它是联合国成员，并且已经修改了宪法以遵守《世界人权宣言》。
可是，刘晓波先生的监禁清楚地证明，中国刑法并不符合其宪法。他被判定 “以造谣、诽谤或者其他方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度”，而在基于普遍人权为的国际社会，扑灭意见和谣言不是一项政府职责。各政府有责任确保自由表达权， 哪怕发言者主张不同的社会制度。
这些都是诺贝尔委员会长期坚持的权利，通过授予和平奖给那些捍卫这类权利的抗争者们，包括在苏联反对人权侵犯而抗争的安德烈·萨哈罗夫，以及在美国争取民权的牧师马丁·路德·金博士。
毫不奇怪，中国政府已经严厉批评了此奖，声称诺贝尔委员会非法干涉其内部事务，并在国际公众眼里侮辱了它。相反，中国应该感到自豪，它已变得强大到足以成为辩论和批评的对象。
有趣的是，中国政府并非诺贝尔委员会的唯一批评者。有些人说，授奖给刘先生实际上可能恶化中国人权倡导者的处境。
不过，这种说法不合逻辑，它导致的结论是：我们最好通过保持沉默来促进人权。如果我们对中国保持沉默，谁将会是下一个国家宣称要保持沉默及不受干涉的权利呢？这种做法将把我们置于走向破坏《世界人权宣言》和人权基本原则的道路。我们绝不也无法保持沉默。任何国家都没有权利无视其国际义务。
中国有充分理由为它过去20年内的成就而自豪。我们想看到这种进步持续下去，这就是我们为什么把和平奖颁给了刘先生。如果中国要促进与其他国家的和谐，成为坚持国际社会价值观的一个关键伙伴，它就必须首先认可其所有公民的言论自由。
这是个悲剧——一个人仅因表达了自己的观点正被监禁11年。如果我们要走向阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔所说的“各民族间的兄弟情义”，那么普遍人权就必须是我们的试金石。
注：托尔比约恩·亚格兰是挪威诺贝尔委员会主席。
（转译自《纽约时报》2010年10月22日署名文章http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/opinion/23Jagland.html?hp）
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/opinion/23Jagland.html?hp
|
