前捷克共和国总统哈维尔的声援
China's Human-Rights Activists Need Support

1977年1月，一群捷克斯洛伐克公民发布了《七七宪章》，我有幸为其中一员。那份文件是我们呼吁国家更好地保障基本公民权利和政治权利，还阐明了我们的信念：我们作为公民，有一定责任与捷克斯洛伐克政府一起，通过我们的警觉，致力于确保基本权利。
　　
　　随着发布《七七宪章》，我们想要创造的并非一个会员制组织，而是如我那时所写的——“一个非正式的自由开放社会，由不同信念、不同信仰、不同职业的人们根据意愿结合，通过个人和集体，致力于在我们自己国家以及全世界尊重公民权利和人权。
　　
　　三十多年后， 2008年12月，一群中国公民将我们的微薄努力作为他们榜样，发出了类似的呼吁——人权、良政、尊重公民监督其政府的义务，以确保其国家按现代开放社会的规则行事。
　　
　　他们所发布的文件予人印象深刻。零八宪章的作者们呼吁：保障基本权利，增加司法独立，立法民主。但他们并不到此为止。随着时间的推移，我们已经认识到，一个自由开放的社会，意味着不止是保障基本权利。为此，《零八宪章》签署者们还明智地呼吁：更好保护环境，缩小城乡差距，更佳社会保障，并认真致力于调解过去几十年所发生的人权侵犯。
　　
　　首批签署者超过三百人，来自全中国的社会各阶层，证明将广泛的呼吁意见融于了《零八宪章》。签署者有中国法律、政治学、经济学、艺术和文化的顶尖灵魂人物。他们决定签署这样一个文件，肯定不是轻而易举，因此他们的话不应那么坦然地被置之不理。自《零八宪章》发布以来，已有超过五千男人和妇女加入签署。
　　
　　2008年的中国并非1977年的捷克斯洛伐克。在许多方面，今天的中国比30年前我的国家更自由和更开放。然而，中国当局对《零八宪章》的反应，在许多方面相似于捷克斯洛伐克政府对《七七宪章》的反应。捷克斯洛伐克政府没有响应我们提出的对话和辩论接触，而是选择了镇压，逮捕了一些签署者，传讯和骚扰其他人，并且散布有关我们运动和目标的谣言。
　　
　　中国政府也同样拒绝邀请，不与《零八宪章》签署者们讨论其建议的可取之处。相反，它拘留了刘晓波和张祖桦两位签署者，认定他俩为发起的主角。张先生已被释放，但著名作家和知识分子刘先生仍被无控罪关押禁见。
　　
　　数十位其他签署者被传讯，而在为其被监禁的同仁打电话和写电子邮件时遭国安人员监视者不计其数。《七七宪章》发表后不久，我就被“危害共和国基本原则重罪” 委员会逮捕。人们担心，刘先生将被控以“煽动颠覆国家政权”，一种类似的任意罗织罪名。
　　
　　我对这一系列事态发展感到悲伤，我想到刘晓波的妻子刘霞，她还没有机会与她的丈夫说话。中国政府应该好好接受七七宪章运动的教训，那就是：恐吓、宣传和镇压，无法取代理性对话。惟有立即无条件地释放刘晓波，才能表明北京接受了这一教训。
　　
　　瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔（Václav Havel）
　　于布拉格
　　哈维尔先生是捷克共和国前总统
　　原载2008年12月19日《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）

　China's Human-Rights Activists Need Support
　　
　　By VACLAV HAVEL
　　
　　In January 1977, a group of Czechoslovak citizens, of which I was privileged to be one, released Charter 77. That document was our call for the better protection of basic civil and political rights by the state. It was also the articulation of our belief that, as citizens, we had a certain responsibility to work with the Czechoslovak government to ensure through our vigilance that basic rights would be protected.
　　
　　With the release of Charter 77, we wanted to create not a membership organization, but instead, as I wrote then, "a free, informal open community of people of different convictions, different faiths, and different professions united by the will to strive, individually and collectively, for the respect of civic and human rights in our own country and throughout the world."
　　
　　More than three decades later, in December 2008, a group of Chinese citizens has taken our modest effort as their model. They have made a similar call -- for human rights, good governance and respect for the responsibility of citizens to keep watch over their government -- to ensure that their state plays by the rules of a modern open society.
　　
　　The document they have issued is an impressive one. In it, the authors of Charter 08 call for protection of basic rights, increased judicial independence, and legislative democracy. But they do not stop there. With the passage of time, we have come to realize that a free and open society means more than the protection of basic rights. To that end, the signatories of Charter 08 also wisely call for better environmental protection, a bridging of the rural-urban divide, better provision of social security, and a serious effort to reconcile with human-rights abuses committed in decades past.
　　
　　The original signatories, who number more than 300, come from all walks of life, and from across China -- a testament to the broad appeal of the ideas put forward in Charter 08. Among the signatories are China's top minds from law, political science, economics, the arts and culture. Their decision to sign onto such a document was surely not taken lightly, and their words should not be so brusquely brushed aside. Since the Charter was released, more than 5,000 men and women have added their names to it.
　　
　　China in 2008 is not Czechoslovakia in 1977. In many ways, China today is freer and more open than my own country of 30 years ago. And yet, the response of the Chinese authorities to Charter 08 in many ways parallels the Czechoslovak government's response to Charter 77.
　　
　　Rather than respond to our offer of engagement with dialogue and debate, the Czechoslovak government instead chose repression. It arrested some of the signatories, interrogated and harassed others, and spread disinformation about our movement and its aims.
　　
　　So too has the Chinese government declined the invitation to discuss with the signatories of Charter 08 the merits of their proposal. Instead, it has detained two signatories, Liu Xiaobo and Zhang Zuhua, both of whom the government has identified as lead actors in its creation. Mr. Zhang has been released, but Mr. Liu, a prominent writer and intellectual, is still being held incommunicado without charge.
　　
　　Dozens of others have been interrogated, and an unknowable number are being watched by state security agents as they make phone calls and type email messages on behalf of their jailed comrades. Soon after Charter 77 was issued, I was arrested for the commission of "serious crimes against the basic principles of the Republic." It is feared that Mr. Liu will be charged with "incitement to subvert state power," a similarly arbitrary crime.
　　
　　I am saddened by this turn of events, and my thoughts are with Liu Xiaobo's wife, Liu Xia, who has yet to be given the opportunity to speak with her husband. The Chinese government should learn well the lesson of the Charter 77 movement: that intimidation, propaganda campaigns, and repression are no substitute for reasoned dialogue. Only the immediate and unconditional release of Liu Xiaobo will demonstrate that, for Beijing, that lesson has been learned.
　　
　　Mr. Havel is the former president of the Czech Republic.