請向權力說真話—回應德49名學人公開信
Please Speak Truth to PowerA Response to the Open Letter by 49 German Scholars
我們是在世界各地包括中國國內使用中文的一批自由撰稿人和新聞工作者，在此願就有關"德國之聲"電臺中文部近期引發的爭議事件發表一些共同意見。
We are a group of Chinese freelance writers and journalists who live in different continents . We would like to response to the open letter which has been signed by 49 German scholars relating to the Deutsche Welle incident.
10月9日，以德國漢學家為主，並包括其他一些政界和文化新聞界的49名人士發出了一封致德國之聲臺長和德國聯邦議會的公開信，要捍衛新聞的客觀性和受到不公正待遇者（張丹紅）的權利。其主要內容是：1，為德國之聲記者張丹紅的發言權辯護，保護她的權利。2，責備此前分別發表過公開信的"聯邦共和國作家協會"和華人異議份子，認為他們提出對德國之聲某些工作人員進行背景調查的要求有違新聞自由的原則；同時指稱寫信的中國異議份子是法輪功成員。3，聲稱寫公開信者的目的是要阻止外界和中國的正常交流，和媒體對中國的公正報導。
On October 9, 49 individuals, most of them German sinologists but also including some political figures, writers and journalists, published an open letter to Deutsche Welle and to the German Bundestag, defending the objectivity of the news media and the rights of an unfairly treated individual (Zhang Danhong). The letter included the following main points: 1) defending the freedom of expression and rights of the Deutsche Welle journalist Zhang Danhong; 2) censuring the "Federal Republic Writers' Association" and Chinese dissidents for a previous open letter that had supposedly demanded a background investigation into certain Deutsche Welle employees, on the basis that this violated the principle of press freedom, and referring to the Chinese dissidents who wrote the letter as Falun Gong practitioners; 3) alleging that the objective of the open letter was to prevent normal exchanges between the outside world and China, and impartial reporting about China.
簽名者中有很多是人到中年、經歷了歐洲1968年學生運動的人士，他們現在是歐洲社會的中堅分子， 然而其思路難免有"政治正確"的模式傾向。公開信違背了一項新聞和學術最基本的原則：向權力說真話。
Many of the signatories of the open letter were middle-aged individuals who had experienced the 1968 student movements in Europe; now the backbone of European society, they inevitably tended toward "political correctness." Their open letter violated a basic principle of the news media and acedemia: speak truth to power.
張丹紅有幸在自由國家從事新聞工作，但她違背自己的良心和職業道德，去為一個對她的新聞同業進行打壓、封殺，甚至投入監獄的專制政權說話。張丹紅不會不知道，奧運前，中國許多的記者、作家被封筆、軟禁、流放甚至下獄，但她竟然在公開的論壇上向極權政府獻媚，說出"中國共產黨比世界上任何一支政治力量在實踐人權宣言第三條方面的貢獻都要大"的話，這不僅是失職，根本是犯了嚴重錯誤，人們提出來要調查她的背景，是完全可以理解的。這跟違反"新聞自由"的原則是兩碼事。德國之聲電臺對她的"處理"已經是最輕的了。
Zhang Danhong had the good fortune to engage in journalistic work in a free country, but she violated her own conscience and professional ethics by becoming a spokesperson for the autocratic regime that suppressed, shut out and even imprisoned members of her own journalistic profession. Zhang Danhong could not but have known that before the Beijing Olympics, many Chinese journalists and writers had been censored, placed under house arrest, removed from their cities of residence or even imprisoned, yet she continued to ingratiate herself with the totalitarian regime in an open forum with such words:"The Chinese Communist Party has contributed more than any other political forces in the accomplishment according to the third paragraph of the Human Right Declaration" . This was not only a dereliction of duty, but a serious error, and it was completely understandable that others should request an inevestigation into the background. This is a completely different matter from violating "press freedom." Deutsche Welle was in fact as lenient as it could be toward her in the handling of this matter.
４９位學者的公開信提出如何看待中國的發展和崛起的問題，要求德國新聞界對中國進行公正的報導。這是避重就輕、似是而非的一種說法。何為公正？難道只有像中共媒體的報喜不報憂那樣，德國媒體的中國報導才算公正嗎？難道德國媒體對中國的"扒糞"，僅僅是出於偏見嗎？我們也可以提出一個類似的問題：如何看待當年德國日本和蘇聯的發展和崛起，併進行公正報導呢？
The open letter by the 49 scholars posed questions regarding how to regard China's development and rise, and demanded that the German news media report impartially on China. This specious statement sidesteps the real issue. What constitutes impartiality? Is it only reporting positive and not negative news about China, as the Chinese media are required to do? Can it be that the German media's "muck-raking" reports about China are simply biased? We can pose a similar question: how should others have reported impartially on the rise of Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union several decades before?
請反思德國的歷史：如果二戰之後，德國不經過非納粹化（entnazifizieren=denacify）、戰爭罪犯不經過紐倫堡審判、沒有布蘭德總統跪在華沙猶太人的紀念碑下懺悔的歷史場景，德國人因法西斯主義而蒙塵的精神和心靈損傷是不能恢復的，戰後的經濟起飛也是不能被自己和他人接受的。１９６８年的學生運動所追求的不也就是這份"歷史真相"嗎？
Please think back on Germany's history: If after World War II Germany had not undergone "entnazifizieren," or denazification, if the perpetrators of war crimes had not been obliged to undergo the Nurenberg Trials, if Willy Brandt had not knelt in mourning and repentence before the memorial to the Jews murdered in the Warsaw Ghetto, then the German people never have recovered from the spiritual damage caused by Naziism, and their post-war economic resurgence could never have been accepted by the rest of the world. Indeed, was not the 1968 student movement demanding this very "historical truth"?
請看看中國自中共執政以來，歷經土改、反右、大飢荒、文革、上山下鄉運動，一路下來中國人被無辜屠殺、凌辱的數字超過兩三千萬。中國政府至今不允許進行調查，也從來沒有說過一句道歉的話。八十年代開始經濟改革以來，社會上一有動盪，政府的反應就是動用軍警鎮壓。從１９８３年的"嚴打"到１９８９年天安門的民主運動到２００６年的太石村事件，中國政府始終是站在中國人民的對立面。今天中國的經濟繁榮的表象，很大程度是建立在一個龐大的、沒有基本勞工和醫藥保險的赤貧農民工群體之上的。中國政府現在取代了以前地主、資本家的地位，成為人民最嚴酷的壓榨者、最兇惡的土地掠奪者和產業強佔者。
Please look back at the tens of millions of innocent victims of violence and humiliation in the course of China's land reform movement, anti-rightist campaign, great famine, Cultural Revolution and sending down to the countryside. The number of killed and devastated innocent people are more then 20 to 30 millions. Up to the present day, the Chinese government has not allowed any investigation into these crimes, nor has it uttered a word of apology. Since economic reform began in the 1980s, whenever there has been any social unrest, the government's response has been to suppress it through police and military action. From the 1983 "anti-crime crackdown" to the 1989 Tiananmen democracy movement to the 2006 Taishi Village incident, the Chinese government has set itself in opposition to the Chinese people. China's current image of economic prosperity is built to a great extent on the labors of an immense body of impoverished migrant laborers without basic employment protections or health benefits. The Chinese government has taken over the role previously held by the landlords and capitalists as the harsh and merciless exploiter and plunderer of the people's assets and labor.
是的，今天的中國比毛澤東時代"自由"多了，當時弄髒一張報紙上的毛主席像，就可能被殺頭。今天很大部分人的生活比以前富裕，但是社會的不公、腐敗的官場和社會風氣更為令人驚心動魄。人們不得不自己起來爭取權利。盲人律師陳光誠、維權律師郭飛雄、高智晟、作家杜導斌、記者師濤、愛滋維權者胡佳，他們都站在普通人的前面，但是政府把他們投入了監獄。
Yes, today's China is much more "free" than in the Mao Zedong era; back then, sullying a newspaper bearing the image of Chairman Mao was punishable by death. Today the majority of people live in greater prosperity than before, but social injustice, official corruption and social unrest have increased at a breath-taking rate. People have been compelled to rise up in defense of their own rights. The blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng, the rights defense lawyers Guo Feixiong and Gao Zhisheng, the writer Du Daobin, the journalist Shi Tao, the AIDS activist Hu Jia -- they have all stood on the side of the common people, but the government has sent them all to prison.
在手握權柄的迫害者和無權無勢的受害者之間，尊敬的教授們和博士們，你們生活在堅守自由價值的國家，卻選擇了站在權力的一邊，你們選擇了為不會遭到政治迫害的張丹紅維權，卻從來沒有聽說過你們為陳光誠、師濤去維權，你們冷眼旁觀被剝奪了基本權利的中國人民，你們為他們被徹底剝奪的發言權辯護過嗎？沒有，相反地，你們卻為殘酷的剝削者助陣。
Respected scholars, you who live in a country that maintains the values of liberty, when presented with a choice between the powerful persecutors and the powerless victims, why do you choose to stand on the side of the powerful? Why do you choose to defend the rights of Zhang Danhong, who faces no political persecution, when you have never spoken up for the rights of Chen Guangcheng or Shi Tao? Gazing aloofly at the Chinese people who have been deprived of their basic rights, have you ever spoken in defense of their freedom of expression? You have not, but instead you have voiced your support for their ruthless exploiters.
漢學家們窮其精力來學漢語，卻忘記了自己的德語裡有個用來形容獨立知識份子的形容詞"unbequem"（令人不舒服、不安）。真正的知識份子永遠應該站在權力的對立面，特別是不受制約的極權政府，格外應當受到監督和掣肘，知識份子應當讓手中握有權力者感到不安。49位簽名者，我們深感遺憾，你們沒有秉承德國深厚的人文傳統，也沒有間接受到漢文化裡志士仁人的熏染。你們的公開信讓獨裁者感到很舒服，很心安，卻讓普通中國人和正義之士感到失望，一種被出賣和被侮辱的失望。
As sinologists, you have exhausted all effort to learn the Chinese language, and in the proess you have forgotten the German adjective used to describe the independent intellectual: "unbequem" -- causing discomfort or unease. The true intellectual will always stand in opposition to those in power, and an unconditionally totalitarian government should be subjected to even more monitoring and restraint, with intellectuals causing all the more unease to the holders of power. We deeply regret that you 49 signatories have not followed in the profound German literary tradition, and have not benefited from the indirect influence of the loftiest ideals of Chinese culture. Your open letter has given comfort and peace of mind to dictators, while leaving China's ordinary people and defenders of justice feeling disappointed, betrayed and humiliated.
Tienchi Martin-Liao, Director of the Laogai Research Foundation, Editor-in-Chief of the Black Series, WashingtonDC , Editor-in-Chief of Arcus Chinatexte, Bochum, 廖天琪, 勞改基金會主任，《黑色文庫》主編，德國《弓橋譯從》主編，華盛頓
Wing Mui Tsoi ， Editor-in-Chief of Open Magazin, Hong,Kong 蔡詠梅， 香港 《開放雜誌》主編
Yi Zheng , writer, Chairman of the Independent Chinese PEN Center, WashingtonDC鄭義，作家，獨立中文筆會會長，華盛頓
Yisan Wu, Writer, Hong Kong 武夷三，作家，香港
Xiaogang Zhang, General Secretary of the Independent Chinese PEN Center, freelance writer, Sydney獨立中文筆會秘書長，自由撰稿人，悉尼
Lian Yang, Poet, Board member of the International PEN Center, London,楊煉，詩人，國際筆會理事， 倫敦
Yu Zhang， Former General Secretary of the Independent Chinese PEN Center, Coordinator for the Writers in Prison Committee, ICPC, freelance writer, Stockholm, 張裕，獨立中文筆會前任秘書長，獄委協調人，自由撰稿人，斯德哥爾摩
Harry Wu, Executive Director of the Laogai Research Foundation, Publisher of the China Information Center, WashingtonDC ,吳弘達，勞改基金會執行主任，中國信息中心發行人，華盛頓
Chu Cai, Poet, Editor-in-Chief of Wild Grass, Editor of Democratic China, 蔡楚，詩人，《野草》主編，《民主中國》編輯
Kuide Chen, Scholar, Chairman of the China Study Association, Editor-in-Chief of Overview in China, Princeton/Washington DC陳奎德, 學者，中國學社社長，《縱覽中國》主編
Emily Wu, Author of A Feather in Storm (Feder in Stom, Hoffmann und Campe Verlag) ， San Francisco巫一毛 , 作家(《暴風雨中一羽毛》)，舊金山
Jiazhen Qi, Writer, Melburn齊家貞， 作家，墨爾本
Wa Jing, Poet, California,井蛙，詩人，加州
Patrick Jiawei Poon, lawyer, Hong Kong潘嘉偉, 律師，香港
Luoying Hai, Writer, Melburn海落英, 作家，墨爾本
Ping Hu, writer, Editor-in-Chief of Beijing Spring, New York胡平 ，作家，北京之春主編， 紐約
Yongyi Song, Writer, Historian， California宋永毅 , 作家，歷史學家， 加州
Nan Zhao, Freelance, Japan趙南, 自由撰稿人, 日本
David, Ding, writer? Where?丁強, 作家，？？
Liyong Sun, Freelance, Sydney孫立勇, 自由撰稿人,悉尼
Yue Jiang, Freelance, New York江月,作家，紐約
Minru Yan, Writer, Zurich??顏敏如，作家，瑞士
Yue Sun, Freelance, Moskau孫越 , , 自由撰稿人,莫斯科
JIanhong Li, Writer, Shanghai/Stockholm李劍紅（小喬）， 作家， 上海/斯德哥爾摩,
(文章僅代表作者個人立場和觀點)
- 關鍵字搜索：
-
請向