（民主转型与十字方针征文）
当我最初听说刘晓波已到肝癌晚期时，我正在香港，真希望能跳上一架飞机，在他离开这个世界前去见他一面。不幸的是，他的“获释”是非常相对的。我很快就知道，不可能去向一个我已经八年多没见过面的老朋友告别了。
他去世后，当我看到刘霞露面把他的骨灰撒进大海时，我忍不住哭了。不过，当我听到刘晓光感谢党对他弟弟癌症的处理方式时，我非常生气。感谢党？为什么？为救治诺贝尔奖得主的无所作为吗？为监禁他11年只因他敢于表达自己的想法吗？2017年7月13日是我此生最悲伤的日子之一。
我不禁回想起上次见到他的时候。那是2008年10月，我们取笑所有的朋友，尤其是那些他曾向我介绍过的民运人士。那天，晓波处于怀旧心境。他大谈友情，他说友情高于一切 。那是一个怀旧的夜晚，是我见到他和刘霞同在的少有几次之一。
那晚的几月前，他很厉害地骂我：我在北京曾试图像往常一样联系他，但他被软禁了。有一天我回家的时候，接到他的电话，他要我去他家等他。我去了，他妻子刘霞让我进去，告诉我晓波出去了，监视他的那些便衣警察就会跟踪他，使我得以进他的公寓，因此我就可以等他了。我们刚开始还没说几句，就有一名保安敲门，对刘霞说：“这里有个外国人。让他出来，否则我就叫警察来。”她否认了，但保安离开时，我很担心。几分钟后，又有敲门声，这一次保安差不多要闯进了。刘霞和我决定，我留在她那儿对她来说太冒险，因此我就离开了。当天半夜，我接到晓波的电话，他叫我胆小鬼，说西方人真的太怕中国警察。我试着解释自己离开是为了保护刘霞，我绝对没有担心自己的风险。但是，他拒绝听取，简直是狂怒。我感觉真糟，因为我以为失去了一个好朋友，但我仍然认为自己的行动没错。我回到法国几个月后，收到了一封晓波的电邮，告诉我刘霞要到巴黎，问我能否陪她和帮她。我说当然很高兴地见到刘霞。她告诉我，晓波已经承认那天晚上对我有点太粗鲁了。当我在2008年10月见到他时，我说，我那次对他非常生气，但我知道这是他性格的一部分。我们畅怀大笑，度过了一个很愉快的夜晚。晓波和刘霞当时都处于某种怀旧心境，我们花了很多时间谈论友情的重要性。我怎么能知道那是我最后一次见他呢？在他被捕后，我经常跟刘霞见面，并钦佩（而且仍然如此）她那不可思议的勇气。尽管她对政治不感兴趣，但是她还是学习并竭尽所能试图使晓波获释。这些年来，她一直处在警方监视下，但直到今年4月，她才能把自己的处境告诉她丈夫。近十年来，她一直忍受着可怕的苦难，而且仍是如此。
黑马
我第一次听说刘晓波，在上海金山参加一个会议， 该会议由当时的文化部长王蒙组织，颂扬“新时期文学”。我虽然不是文学专家，但我对毛泽东去世后出版（或在民主墙上发表）的文学作品很感兴趣，因为它们描述了中国民众在毛泽东治下所遭受的苦难。在会议第二天，《深圳青年报》发表的一篇文章复印件在参会者中流传，那些参会者本身是著名作家，在“伤痕文学”运动中发挥了重要作用。那篇文章反响强烈，很快大家都在讨论它所带来的“极端性”观念。实际上，那时候，那些作家仍然是保守派和毛派攻击的对象，所以当一位年轻的自由派文学评论者这么厉害的批评他们的作品和人格，他们被震惊。更重要的是，刘晓波的文字特别尖锐：他强烈谴责知识分子的自我满足，以及他们要担当御用文人的倾向。从文章流传的那天起，刘晓波的文章就成了所有议论的中心：无伦保守还是自由派作家都批判了那篇文章；当然在讲台上的辩论中则从不提及。
我对这位青年知识分子特别感兴趣，他的激进使我想起了他那些“五四”前辈。
刘晓波根本不把改革派反对毛主义的斗争放在眼里，他不考虑后果地谴责他自认为的那些错误。 他当时的言论很大胆：敢攻击 “寻根”，敢谴责中国知识分子自诩为毛泽东时代的主要受害者，而普通民众则遭难多多。虽然我没有见过他，但我开始追踪他的作品。我读得越多，就越意识到他不怕震惊读者，也不像他的许多同行那样，为了自身目的支持一派反对另一派。
他在接受香港《解放月报》（后改名《开放》）采访时说：“香港一百年殖民地变成今天这样，中国那样大，当然需要三百年殖民地，才会变成今天香港这样。三百年够不够，我还有怀疑。”震惊了西方大多数进步知识分子，也包括我。但是，经过反思，我明白这是一种挑衅：当时（1988年），许多中国思想家？相信中国封闭西方思想是它经历悲剧的原因之一。刘晓波那时只是把这个想法推到了极端。事实上，尽管他当时情愿被指责为“全盘西化”，但是他并不欣赏西方人跟他接触的方式。他曾被邀请在挪威逗留了三个月，在那里所写的一篇文章中，他批评那些不理解他思维方式的西方汉学家们无知。
在哥伦比亚大学逗留期间（当时是中国很多知识分子的梦想），他显示了他把中国的未来放在心上，决定回到北京参与正在震撼全国的民主运动。他据我所知，是唯一的走过这条路的中国知识分子。 晓波直接去了天安门广场，在那里度过了两个多星期，直到“六四大屠杀”。他对运动的参与，并没有阻止他批评学生们的反民主行为，尽管如此，他们仍然对这位敢回来留在他们中间的人表示钦佩。
大屠杀之后，虽然他有逃亡的机会，但他还是留在北京，并被逮捕。官方媒体猛烈攻击那个示威活动背后的“黑手”。晓波在监狱里度过了近两年。
活动家
1992年6月底，我终于在北京第一次见到了他。他和周舵在一起，周也是“天安门四君子”之一，他们在大屠杀的前夜发动绝食，此后又帮助谈判撤离天安门广场。周也曾被监禁过，而两人都想继续抗争。
我对晓波的态度非常惊讶：我本来期待与一个“愤青”交谈，因为他在我脑中本是1980年代的挑衅者，但是当时我面对的却是一位非常理性地分析一般局势的知识分子。我们谈了八九民运，以及中国的民主前景。“关于我在六四发挥的作用，我明白了，不可能完全实现理论。参加政治的跟知识分子的作用不一样。……应该把思想简单化，应该妥协。”我很惊讶，但更多的接之而来：“在八九民运中，我反对批评邓小平。……当然他是个独裁者，但攻击他毫无作用。如果他没有感到受威胁的话，他本来可以改变主意的。……我认为，一旦对话发生，学生就应该停止他们的运动。但他们太激进了，没有妥协的经验。此外，他们完全无法与其他社团协调行动。‘联席会议’的决议从没有遵循。”在那漫长的夜晚，刘晓波告诉我，他信任“老三届”在中国变革中所能起的作用，因为他们的思想非常开放。他告诉我，在体制内，许多人赞成民主。
他还告诉我，邓小平的“南巡”是一个非常大胆的举动，它可以为民主化铺路。他说：民运人士应该与支持南巡的改革者们合作。尽管周舵宣称他对“新威权主义”感兴趣，但是晓波说他反对，因为他认为它在中国行不通。总之，我第一次见他是个巨大的惊喜，因为他看起来是一位冷静、理性和温和的知识分子。后来我才明白，“六四大屠杀”改变了他，他的使命变成了为民主而战，以便能够面对那夜的“亡灵”。
从那时起，我就一直经常与晓波会面。每年我去北京，都要花几个小时与他一起讨论中国局势，谈论知识分子在民主斗争中的作用。晓波已经成为一名活动家，被民运各方所赏识。1993年，他获准出国，实现了大多数异议人士的梦想。然而，几个月后，他回到中国，开始发起大量的联署信，以维护那些敢于挑战当局的人士。他成为民运中最有联系的活动家之一。
作为一位多产作家，他将一些有关政治局势的非常敏感的文章发表在香港杂志《九十年代》、《争鸣》、《开放》，以及在美国发行并且他后来主编的异议人士杂志《民主中国》。每次我们见面，他都向我解释民运正在如何发展，描述其成败，提供了关于局势的一个非常现实的画面。尽管事实上他有很强的个性，但是晓波总是愿意让自己想法得到质疑，并且很好奇别人如何看待他的立场观点。从1992年被释放到1996年，他参与了大部分争民主的行动。在劳教三年服刑的沉寂之后，他在1999年马上又活跃起来，组织了无数请愿，以使那些敢于挑战中共的人得以获释。
尽管他是一个非常固执己见的人，但是他也能够与不同背景的活动人士妥协和团结。2008年，他得到了支持民运的大多数行动者的尊重，这在看起来严重分裂的群体中是一个了不起的成就。体制内外的知识分子、工人、共产党离休人员，都愿意与他联系，经常征求他的意见。
这些特点解释了为什么中共在2008年决定逮捕他。人们常说他因《零八宪章》而被捕，其实虽然他确实参加了其阐述，但不能视为主要作者。不过，他花了很多精力去说服不同背景者签署。尽管他对《零八宪章》的效率持怀疑态度，但他还是决定承担其写作的主要责任。
由于这些原因，刘晓波的被捕对于民运而言是一个可怕的打击。他在民运中所得到的尊重，解释了为什么中共始终都很粗暴地对待他，最后迫使其遗孀刘霞将他的骨灰撒进海洋，因此就不会有坟墓让人民得以在中国集会纪念他。尽管如此，但自从他去世后，一些纪念活动已经发生，中国的万里海岸线已经成为其追随者集会纪念他的所在地。中共已经成功地摆脱了这位个性强者。然而，那些在中华大地继续为民主而奋斗的人们，将继续向这位为此事业牺牲自己生命的知识分子表达他们的敬意。
（白夏：法国汉学家，《民主中国》顾问。）
（张裕 译）
A Formidable Personality
By Jean-Philippe Béja
When I first heard that Liu Xiaobo had reached the final stage of liver cancer, I was in Hong Kong, hoping to hop on a plane to see him before he left this world. Unhappily, his « release » was very relative, and I soon learned that it would be impossible to say goodbye to an old friend that I hadn’t seen for more than eight years.
When after he died, I saw Liu Xia’s face while she dispersed his ashes in the sea, I couldn’t help from crying. But when I heard Liu Xiaoguang thank the Party for the way it had treated his brother’s cancer, I was terribly angry. Thanking the Party? For what? For having done nothing to save the Nobel Prize laureate? For having imprisoned him for eleven years because he had dared express his ideas? July 13th 2017 was one of the saddest days in my life.
I couldn’t help from remembering the last time I had seen him, in October 2008, when we joked about all our friends, especially the pro-democracy activists that he had introduced to me. On that day, Xiaobo was in a nostalgic mood. He talked a lot about friendship that, he said, he valued more than everything, more than comradeship. It was a nostalgic evening, one of the rare times that I saw him with Liu Xia.
A few months before that night, he had insulted (骂我得很厉害) me: I was in Beijing and had tried to contact him as usual, but he was under house arrest. One day, as I was going home, I got a phone call from him and he told me to go to his place and wait for him. I did. His wife Liu Xia let me in and told me that Xiaobo had left so that the plainclothes officers who were watching him would follow him and allow me to enter his apartment so that I could wait for him. We had hardly started talking when a security guard (保安) knocked at the door and said to Liu Xia: «there is a Foreigner here. Let him out or I shall call the police who will take you ». She denied, but when the guard left, I was worried. After a few minutes, there was another knock at the door, and this time, the guard almost pushed his way in. Liu Xia and I then decided that my presence was too dangerous for her, so I left. In the middle of the night, I received a call from Xiaobo who called me a coward, and said that Westerners were really too afraid of the Chinese police. I tried to explain that I left to protect Liu Xia,that I ran absolutely no risk, but he refused to listen. He was absolutely furious. I felt really bad, as I thought I had lost an excellent friend, but I still believed I had acted rightly. I went back to France, and a few months later, I got an e-mail from Xiaobo telling me that Liu Xia was going to France, and asking me if I could see her and help her. I was glad to meet her and she told me that Xiaobo had confessed that he had acted a little too rashly with me that night. When I saw him in October 2008, I said that I had been quite angry with him, but that I knew it was part of his character. We had a good laugh and spent a very pleasant evening. Both Xiaobo and Liu Xia were then in kind of a nostalgic mood and we spent a lot of time speaking of the importance of friendship. How could I know it was the last time I saw him? After his arrest, I often saw Liu Xia, and admired (and still do) her incredible courage. Although she was not that interested in politics, she learnt and did all that she could to try to obtain Xiaobo’s release. She has spent all these years under police surveillance, but couldn’t tell her husband what her situation was until April of this year. For almost a decade, she has been enduring terrible hardships and still is.
The Black horse (黑马)
The first time I heard about Liu Xiaobo, I was in 上海金山taking part in a conference organized by the then Minister of Culture Wang Meng 王蒙to celebrate the new epoch literature （新时期文学）. Although not a specialist of literature, I had been interested in the literary works published (or made public on the Democracy walls) after Mao’s death, as they described the sufferings of Chinese citizens under Mao. On the second day of the conference, a photocopy of an article published in the Shenzhen Qingnian bao 深圳青年报started to circulate among the participants, themselves famous writers who had played an important part in the scars literature movement (伤痕文学). This article had a huge echo and soon enough, everybody was discussing the “scandalous” ideas that it carried. In effect, whereas they were still the target of attacks by conservative and Maoists, these authors were shocked to be criticized by a young liberal literary critique. All the more so as Liu Xiaobo’s writing was particularly acute: he vehemently denounced intellectuals’ self-satisfaction and their tendency to assume the position of the counselor to the prince. From the day the article was circulated, Liu’s article was at the center of all the conversations, and both conservative and liberals writers criticized it. Of course, it was never mentioned during the debates that were taking place on the stage.
I was particularly interested by this young intellectual, whose radicalism reminded me of his May 4th predecessors.
Liu didn’t take into account the reformers’ struggle against Maoism, he denounced what he considered wrong, whatever the consequences. His attacks against the new fashion of the “search for the roots” (寻根), his denunciation of Chinese intellectuals who presented themselves as the main victims of Maoism whereas ordinary people had suffered a lot, were quite bold at the time. Although I didn’t meet him, I started to follow his writings. The more I read him, the more I realized he was not afraid of shocking his readers, and was not, as many of his colleagues, a tactician who supported one faction against the other in order to reach his goal.
His declaration to The Liberation Monthly (later renamed to Open magazine) that if, in order to reach the present state Hong Kong had to go through 100 years of colonialism, then China would need 300 years of the same, shocked most progressive Western intellectuals, me included. However, after reflection, I understood that it was a kind of provocation: at the time (1988) many Chinese thinkers, shocked by the excesses of Maoism, were convinced that China’s closure to western ideas was one of the reasons of the tragedy it had been through. Liu was then only pushing this reflection to the extreme. In fact, although at the time he was readily accused of “wholesale Westernization” （全盘西化）he did not appreciate the way Westerners approached him. In an article he wrote during his stay in Norway, where he had been invited to spend three months, he criticized the ignorance of Western sinologists who did not understand his way of thinking.
Liu showed that he had China’s future at heart when, during a stay at Columbia University (then the dream of many Chinese intellectuals) he decided to go back to Beijing to get involved in the pro-democracy movement which was shaking the country. I do not know of anyone else who followed this course. Xiaobo went directly to the Tiananman Square, where he spent over two weeks until the June Fourth Massacre. His involvement in the movement did not prevent him to criticize the antidemocratic behavior of the students who, despite this, continued to show their admiration of the man who had dared come back and stay among them.
After the Massacre, although he had the possibility to escape, he stayed in Beijing and was arrested. The official press lashed out at the “black hand” (黑手) behind the demonstrations. Xiaobo spent almost two years in jail.
The activist
It was at the end of June 1992 that I finally met him for the first time in Beijing. He was with Zhou Duo, also one of the Tiananmen Four Gentlemen (天安门四君子) (周舵）who had launched a hunger strike days before the massacre, and who had helped negotiate the evacuation of the Square. Zhou had also been in jail, and both of them wanted to continue the struggle.
I was very surprised by Xiaobo’s attitude: whereas I was expecting to talk to an “angry young man”, having in mind the provocateur of the 1980s, I was faced with a very rational intellectual, who analyzed the general situation in detail. We talked about the 1989 pro-democracy movement, and of the prospective for democracy in China. “As to the part I played during the June Fourth movement, I understood that one cannot completely put one’s theory in practice once involved in political action. ……One has to simplify his ideas and learn how to compromise (关于我在六四发挥的作用，我明白了，不可能完全实现理论。参加政治的跟知识分子的作用不一样。应该把思想简单化，应该妥协) I was quite surprised, but more was to come : “During the 1989 pro-democracy movement, I was against the criticism of Deng Xiaoping. … Of course he is a despot, but it was useless to attack him. He could have changed his mind if he hadn’t felt threatened. .. I think that the students should have stopped their movement once the dialogue had taken place. But they were too radical, they had no experience of compromise. And besides, they were absolutely unable to co-ordinate their actions with other social groups. The decisions of the United Conference (联系会议) were never followed”. During this long night, Liu Xiaobo told me he had faith in the role that the lao sanjie (老三届) could play in China’s change, as they were very open-minded. He told me that many were favorable to democracy. He also told me that the Deng Xiaoping trip to the South (nanxun ) had been a very bold move and that it could pave the way to democratization. He said that democrats should work with the reformers who supported the nanxun. Whereas Zhou Duo declared that he was interested in “neo-authoritarianism”, Xiaobo said he opposed it as he thought that it wouldn’t work in China. In sum, my first encounter with him was a huge surprise as he appeared as a calm, rational and moderate intellectual. Later I was to understand that the June Fourth Massacre had changed him, and that his mission had become to fight for democracy in order to be able to face the “lost souls” of that night.
I have been meeting Xiaobo regularly from this time on. Every year, I went to Beijing, I spent hours with him discussing the Chinese situation, talking about the role of intellectuals in the struggle for democracy. Xiaobo had become an activist, and he was appreciated by all the components of the pro-democracy movement. In 1993, he achieved the dream of most dissidents as he was allowed to go abroad. However, after a few months, he returned to China and started to launch numerous collective letters to defend those who had dared defy the regime. He became one of the best connected activists in the pro-democracy movement. A prolific writer, he published very sensible articles on the political situation in Hong Kong magazines the nineties (九十年代), zhengming （争鸣), Open (开放) and in the dissident magazine Democratic China （民主中国） published in USA that he eventually edited. Every time we met, he explained to me how the pro-democracy movement was developing, described its successes and failures, giving a very realistic picture of the situation. Despite the fact that he had a very strong character, Xiaobo was always ready to put his ideas in question and was very curious about what others thought of his positions. He took part in most of the actions in favor of democracy after he was released in 1992, until 1996. After three years of silence while serving his laojiao sentence, he immediately became active in 1999, and organized innumerable petitions to obtain the release of those who had dared defy the Party.
Although a very opinionated person, he was able to compromise and to rally activists with very different backgrounds. In 2008, he was immensely respected by most actors of the pro-democracy movement, a remarkable feat in a group that appears terribly divided. Intellectuals inside and outside the system, workers, veterans of the Communist Party were all willing to relate to him, and often asked for his advice.
These features explain why the Party decided to arrest him in 2008. It has often been said that he was arrested because of Charter 08. Although he did take part in its elaboration, he cannot be considered its main writer. However, he spent a lot of energy to convince people with different backgrounds to sign it. Despite his skepticism about the efficiency of the Charter, he decided to assume the main responsibility of its writing.
For all these reasons, Liu Xiaobo’s arrest represented a terrible blow to the pro-democracy movement. The respect he enjoyed in the pro-democracy movement explains why the Party has treated him very rashly until the end, eventually forcing his widow Liu Xia to disperse his ashes in the ocean so that there would be no grave where people could rally to honor his memory in China. Despite this attempt, commemorations have taken place since his demise and the tens of thousand miles of China’s coastline have become places where his followers have gathered to honor him. The Party has succeeded in getting rid of this formidable personality. However, those who continue to fight for democracy in the Middle Empire will keep paying their respects to an intellectual who has sacrificed his life to the cause.
