刘晓波与莫言（网络图片）
民主转型与十字方针征文
通过多年从事国际笔会的各种活动，我有机会认识许多诺贝尔文学奖得主。正因为如此，几乎每年十月到来，我都被一些主要报纸的日本记者追逐。人们期待他们会为读者挖掘令爱国者振奋的消息，因此他们必须聚精会神不至于错过如此这般的机会。换句话说，我几乎每年都面临痛苦和快乐之间的困境。
痛苦的工作是使我要睁大眼睛，看谁将是当年的得主。因此，为了准备入围名单，我不得不向国际笔会的一些同仁探问。此外，我还得询问一些最著名的出版商和文学批评家。实际上，这项研究相当费力耗时。
不过，这并非我努力的结束，而是开始。在这初步工作后不久，我就得进入下一阶段，即从许多候选人中筛选出几名决赛者。然后游戏开始下注，日本的评论家和记者们纷纷开始打电话给我。
无论我对世界文学有多少了解，对我并没有多大影响，因为那些追逐同一只兔子的人无处不在，分享几乎相同的信息。这是公平的游戏，或至少是竞猜。
可以轻易指出几点理由。首先，瑞典文学院（获授权评选诺贝尔文学奖得主的机构）的评选标准从不公布。
我敢说，即使瑞典文学院有时也面临明确界定这些标准的困难，因为必须反映出国际社会在不同时期的期望。另外还涉及很多过程，而最后将由文学院十八位院士的讨论来决定。瑞典文学院曾经是绅士们的机构，但现在感谢其结构性的改变，已有不下三分之一的院士为淑女。此外，具有文学专业知识的初选委员会成员必须处理最难的工作：每位候选人的背景，对提名候选人的正式规则应用，文学选择，对各种各样提名的清理，等等。不可能将标准评定或整体原则泄露给外界。
这就是文学界为什么在十月份兴奋准备庆祝诺贝尔奖的公布。有些情况确实可以证明这一事实。
我看了三岛由纪夫先生起草的英文推荐信，他强烈推荐川端康成作为诺贝尔文学奖得主，而在1968年得以实现。看他所表达的一些有趣用语使我着迷，甚至超出我的想象。然而，这样一种令人印象深刻的手法不会每年奏效。
比较安全的是猜想这个过程类似于天气预报，即使在使用超级电脑的世界里，后者也总是基于一定程度的预测，因此在正式公布后，每个文学评论者都可以这么说“它本来就会像我曾预料的结果”。
在这种情况下，有一个我曾精确预料的特例。日本文学记者们即使来找我听预测，但也曾不予置信。那就是2012年诺贝尔文学奖。当然，在许多强有力的候选人中，我强调了一位中国作家，但无人相信他会赢。他们认为其他作家更有机会，这是自然的，因为他们只是想要相信自己的信念。
瑞典文学院宣布中国作家莫言为2012年的诺贝尔文学奖得主。公告发布后，世界各地流传着一些传说和批评。其中一些确实有说服力，值得相信。但是，一般而言，那些流言蜚语是无法证实的。因此，让我们把它留给每个人的想象或怀疑。然而，我敢说有个巧合与此奖项相关。从2009年到2012年，我曾集中精力追索中国政府和莫言的行为轨迹。通过追踪他从一处到另一处，我终于得出了自己的结论。我的大部分观察都是通过国际笔会的各种活动来学到的。
现在全世界都很谨慎地看到，中国在社会经济上取得了大跃进，并成为一个与美国和俄罗斯同一档次的超级大国。因此毫无疑问，当我们谈到她对世界影响之大时，主要是指经济和政治方面，但它在文化和文学界方面也正在增强其影响力。
我可以提供另一个具有详细背景的类似例子，那就是2009年伦敦书展。当时，中国的合作方是英国文化协会，他们荣邀中国为当年主宾国。当然，英国知识分子们，包括英格兰笔会，都大发牢骚，并公开谴责这一决定。知识分子严厉批评对言论自由的限制，指出滑稽的是邀请这样一个国家，那里包括媒体在内的所有出版物都受到政府审查机关严格管制。
然而，英国文化协会却站在前面，顽固地维护中国的立场。他们明确表示，坚持长期持续而耐心的谈判，就会导致中国社会转变，并声称那个特殊决定正是这种期望的一部分。包括法国和德国在内的欧洲强国，也开始把中国视为经济增长最有前景的最大市场。
由于英国书展的成功，中国政府受到鼓励，决定在文学和出版领域进一步发展。中国新闻出版总署喊道，它正式加入了国际出版商协会。
再谈伦敦书展，据我所知，有超过180家中国出版商报名正式参展，57位文学艺术家出席。此外，译员、公关、行政、共产党官员等等，都在中国代表团里，作为书展的最大代表团。在他们中间，我看到了莫言。
我有机会与他简短交谈，而以非常轻松和友好的问候结束。2008年，在伦敦书展一年前，日本笔会为庆祝70周年举办“自然灾害与文学”活动，曾邀请莫言为主宾演讲人。
他和明显受中国共产党派遣的中国笔会中心秘书长一起出席。他自信而雄辩。那么，何不借此机会谈谈中国笔会中心的会员问题呢？
在天安门大屠杀后，中国笔会中心实际上自外于国际笔会的任何活动。我强调了我的想法，他们可以回到会场而不争论政治问题。我强调，在友好的气氛下，我们双方都有一个讨论文学的空间，但有一个条件。国际笔会大会对任何坚信言论自由者是一个开放场地，而言论自由是最基本的人权。因此，中国笔会中心的代表，必须与流亡海外的藏人和维吾尔人，与台湾以及因任何理由居住海外的中文诗人和作家们，分享同一场地。这是非常深入而艰难的交谈，但他是耐心的。
我还想到了另一个有趣的场合，那就是在2009年法兰克福书展——世界最大书展。中国派出了一个超出我想象的大规模代表团，而且发生了完全同样的情况。中国是2009年的主宾国，许多作家抱怨并抗议法兰克福书展组织者的邀请。法兰克福书展组织者的借口和伦敦书展一样，重复了同样的声明。组织者试图妥协的一件好事是，接受流亡的中文作家和藏人作家，如贝岭、杨炼、戴晴和高行健（中国出生的法国诺贝尔文学奖得主）等异议作家，作为同一讨论会的参与者。中国曾拚命试图阻止他们参加。
与此同时，北京书展和上海书展也在中国举行，莫言在那里也备受瞩目。
2012年10月，诺贝尔文学奖公布了。中国政府高调自豪地宣称，中国现在甚至在文学界已经成为了伟大强国。中国人民也对这个消息感到振奋。这正是中国政府非常想要的奖，而且他们设法的方式确实也很完美。
但是，非常讽刺的是，当刘晓波被授予和平奖时，却没有一个中国媒体甚至说过一句话。
我清楚地记得第一次在东京举行的研讨会上见到的莫言行为。根据我的观察（可能是错的），我猜测莫言本人确实正面地估价了诺贝尔文学奖的价值或重要性，只要他继续在中国生活。他一定知道该奖在经济上和政治上的好处。
与此同时，瑞典文学院的决定也让我产生了一些疑问，从而认为这个决定可能是瑞典文学院的一种妥协，有鉴于中国在未来世界中所站的地位。瑞典文学院肯定已重估那两个授予华人的诺贝尔奖（高行健于2000年获诺贝尔文学奖,，独立中文笔会创始人之一刘晓波于2010年获诺贝尔和平奖）对中国的影响和价值，尽管和平奖是由挪威诺贝尔委员会颁发。我觉得瑞典文学院在可预见的将来需要调整与中国的距离感。
无论如何，莫言和高行健在东京的文学活动中见面，对他们而言是相当尴尬的遭遇。但当我回首往事的时候，我可以说一件事，那就是他们的命运。他们俩都是温文尔雅的人，我可以很容易地感觉到他们生活的曲折，以及他们从心底里潜伏着一种周身平静气氛的信念。的确，正是在那里。
在那之后，我再次访问北京，希望邀请莫言作为2010年在东京举行的笔会国际大会的嘉宾。然而，中国当局代他给我一个借口。他们说，他回到家乡照顾她的女儿，她随时都会生个孩子，那是他当时的首务。通过那次谈话使我归结到，中国当局一定是出于某些原因在看守他。
而在2017年6月，惊人的消息传遍全球。在获得诺贝尔和平奖时仍在监狱的刘晓波，被释放出狱。刘晓波因煽动颠覆国家政权被判入狱十一年。当局解释说，原因是他患晚期肝癌，需要在狱外进行专门治疗。
然而随着时间的推移，世界逐渐知道他的健康状况严重，而且一直在恶化。当然，刘晓波和他妻子表达了愿望，要在西欧特别是德国获得尽可能最好的治疗。德国政府迅速作出回应，表示愿意接受他们。与此同时，欧洲的人权活动家们、国际笔会、国际特赦组织等各界纷纷开始大规模活动，要求释放刘晓波和刘霞出国：
“这与死刑完全一样，我们不明白为什么他的肝癌在这么短的时间内恶化，中国当局有责任明确解释为什么他的癌症如此迅速地进入晚期。”
然后，令人震惊的消息是刘晓波在中国医院死亡。
中国当局马上说，“他家属的愿望”就是刘晓波遗体立刻火化，并把他的骨灰撒入大海。当局最后评论说：“这是他自己的愿望”。
关于这个悲剧，世界指责中国当局导致这一悲惨死亡，而且没有给他所需要的治疗就让他死于监禁。
刘晓波之死象征着中国政府严厉打击民主、言论自由和人权。
中国政府因此点燃了世界各地的抗议声音，一连串纪念活动一直在各地举办，并且仍在继续。
当然，在1989年“天安门事件”的学生抗议活动之后，中国发生大镇压，大量学生和作家被迫逃到国外流亡。作家们置身于西方民主社会，通过各种手段加强对中国的批评，从而导致建立独立中文笔会，而刘晓波虽然自1989年以来一直留在中国，但也是该会创始人之一并当选为第二任会长。
至此，我试图概述，中国在各种情况下如何处理诺贝尔和平奖与文学奖之间的整体状况。
最后，但并非最不重要的是，我要再说一遍关于刘晓波之死的特点。他的去世为中国的未来历史开创了新的一页，不管一党专政政权将持续多长时间，也无论民主化的中国是否出现，这一页将永远不会被除去。
换句话说，我们可以说，刘晓波之死树立了面对“坚不可摧、不可战胜的真理”的坚实量度。恰恰相反，中国政府深陷所谓“不忠于事实”的泥潭。
我们应该记得几乎80年前的谈论中国的另一次诺贝尔文学奖。那本书是赛珍珠写的《大地》，她以中国农民在其肥沃的土地上的丰富多彩的生活，描绘了中国的场景。我们从历史中学到的事实是，大部分杰出的中国文学作品都是在独裁专制政权下创作的，而与此同时，和平与杰出文学作品之间并没有显著的区别。
毫无疑问，刘晓波在为了“实现民主开放社会”的精神下失去了生命，必定会被全世界下一代所继承，随着“没有敌人，也没有仇恨”的名言而立于不败之地。
简而言之，中国在革命后所获得的诺贝尔奖得主，是为了和平的刘晓波，以及为了文学的莫言。
然而，就中国政府而言，两者之间在的决策过程中存在着很大的差异。如果你参观斯德哥尔摩的诺贝尔博物馆，在其展览引介中非常明显，对两位得主间完全没有任何歧视。相反，中国只欣赏文学奖，并自豪地发表了官方声明，表示“既是中国文学繁荣进步的体现，也是我国综合国力和国际影响力不断提升的体现”，而中国就和平奖而言却忽视了刘晓波。相反，他的生命被毁于监狱，正如折碎生命之树。
我对中国有相当好的经验和记忆。
每当我访问中国的时候，我总是与尽可能多的人见面，不管他们是共产党官僚，还是大街上的普通公民。他们通常都是有礼貌的热心人。这就是为什么我敢说，中国一直面临的根本问题，来自带有强烈党派心理的一党专制。他们垄断整个社会制度，并倾向忽视各种社会矛盾。因此，社会所起的作用，就像带有一个冷血面孔的监狱。
但是，对于那些相信自己的头脑和思想者，仍然可以找到一些无人可及的自由空间。那么，任何政府都无法触及他们，只能毁灭人的肉体而已。在追求人类尊严的过程中，文学可以自存永续，和平也是如此。
崛武昭——日本作家、人类学家，国际笔会副会长、前秘书长。
（张裕 译）
China will face dilemma and inconsistency for Nobel Prize between Literature and Peace. -One thought after the death of Liu Xiaobo
After having been engaged in PEN International’s activities for years, I have had a fun time getting acquainted with many Nobel Prize Laureates for literature through various PEN events. Because of this, when October arrives, almost every year I was chased by Japanese journalists working for major newspapers. They were expected to scoop this exciting news for readers, thus it was essential that they keep their eyes open so as not to miss the chance if ever it happened for their patriot. In other words, I faced a dilemma between pain and pleasure almost every year.
It was a painful job to keep my eyes wide open as to who would be the winner each year. In order to prepare the list of finalists, I had to ask some of my colleagues at PEN International. Also, I had to ask the most established publishers, as well as literary critics. The labor and costs involved in this research were substantial and time consuming.
However, this was not the end of my endeavor, instead it was just the beginning. Soon after this preliminary work, I had to proceed to the next stage, which was to screen only a few of the final candidates amongst many. Then, the game started for betting. One after another, the Japanese critics and journalists started calling me.
No matter how much or little I know about world literature, it does not matter, because those who are chasing the same rabbit are everywhere and share almost the same information. It is fair game, or at least speculation.
A few reasons can be easily pointed out. First, the Selecting Criteria of the Swedish Academy, (this is the entrusted institution with the task of choosing a winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature), has never been announced publicly.
I would say that even the Academy would face difficulty to define the criteria clearly, because they have to reflect the expectation of the global community through different periods of time. Plus, there are so many processes involved. And final assessment will be governed by the discussion of 18 members of the Swedish Academy. The Academy used to be a Gentlemen’s Institute, but now thanks to structural change, no less than a third of its membership has to be women. In addition, preliminary selection committee members with expertise in literature had to deal with the hardest works, the background of each candidate, the application of formal rules for the nomination of candidates, the choice of literature, the clarification of various recommendations, and etc. etc. There is no possibility of leaking the criteria assessment and/or principles as a whole to the outside world.
It will be safe to guess that the process is similar to a weather forecast, which is always based upon a certain degree of prediction even in this super-computer world. Therefore, every literary critic can easily say like
“it was just as I had predicted”, after the official announcement was made.
In those circumstances there was one special case, which I precisely predicted. Japanese literary journalists did not believe me even though they came over to see me to hear my prediction. It was the 2012 Nobel Prize for Literature. Of course, among many strong candidates I stressed upon one Chinese writer, but no one actually believed that he would win. They wanted to believe other writers had a better chance. It was natural for them to do so. They simply wanted to trust their own conviction.
The Academy announced Mo Yan, a Chinese writer, as the Nobel Prize winner for the year 2012. After the announcement, a few gossips and critics spread comments worldwide. Some of them were really convincing and worthy of believing. But, generally speaking, those gossips’ and critics’ rumors won’t be proved. So, let’s leave it to everyone’s imagination, or suspicion. However, I dare to say that there happened a coincidence relating to this award. From 2009 to 2012, I did concentrate on following the trajectory and behavior of Mo Yan as well as the Chinese government. While tracking him from place to place, finally, I reached my own conclusion. Most of my observations were learnt through the various events of PEN International.
At present the world should cautiously watch China’s tremendous socio-economic progress as it rises to become a super power state in line with the United States and Russia. It is therefore no wonder when we talk about her greatness appealing to the world mainly in economics and politics, but also increasing its influence in the cultural and literary worlds.
I can give you another, yet similar case with detailed background, which was the London Book Fair held in 2009. At that time, China’s counterpart was the British Council and they invited China as an honorary guest state. Naturally, the British intellectuals, including English PEN, made a fuss and openly protested the decision. Intellectuals severely criticized the restrictions on freedom of speech and stated that it was funny to invite such a country where all publications, including media, were under the tight grip of government censorship.
However, the British Council was up front and defended China’s position stubbornly. They made it clear saying that keeping engaged in ongoing, long-lasting, yet patient negotiations, would only lead to a change in society of China, and claimed that this particular decision was a part of this expectation. European powers, including France and Germany, also began to look at China as the biggest and most promising market for economic growth.
Thanks to the success of this Fair, the Chinese government was encouraged and decided to move further on in the literary and publication areas. It officially joined the International Publishers Association, called GAPP (General Administration of Press and Publication).
Going back to the London Book Fair, to the best of my knowledge, there was registered more than 180 Chinese publishers as official members, and 57 artists participated. Interpreters, public relations, administrative officers, and executives of the Communist Party were on the Chinese delegation, which was the largest delegation of the Fair. Among them I saw Mo Yan.
I had the chance to speak with him briefly, but ended the discussions with very light and friendly greetings. One year ago, before the London Book Fair, Japan PEN invited him as the main guest speaker to the event “Natural disaster and literature,” organized by Japan PEN in celebration of the 70th anniversary of Japan PEN in 2008.
He was with the secretary general of China PEN, so obviously he was dispatched by the Communist Party. He was confident and eloquent. So why not take this opportunity to talk about the lapsed membership problem of Chinese PEN?
China PEN actually walked away from any activities of PEN International since the Tienanmen Massacre. I emphasized my ideas for them to come back to the table without arguing political matters. Instead, I stressed there is room for both of us to talk about literature in a friendly atmosphere, but with one condition. PEN International Assembly is an open place for anybody who firmly believes that the freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, thus China has to share the same floor with Tibetan and Uyghurs in exile, Taiwanese, and Chinese poets and writers based overseas for any reasons. It was a pretty intense and tough talk, but he was patient.
I thought of another interesting occasion which took place at Frankfurt Messe, the World’s biggest Book Fair, in 2009. China sent a big delegation that was beyond my imagination and exactly the same situation took place. China was the Guest of Honor Country of the year 2009 and many German writers complained and protested against the invitation issued by the Frankfurt Messe organizer. The excuse of the Messe organizer was the same as at the London Book Fair, and repeated the similar statement. One good thing which the organizer tried to compromise on was to accept Chinese and Tibetan writers in exile, or dissidents such as Bei Ling, Yang Lian, Dai Qing and Gao Xingjian (nationalized French, but born in China) as participants in the same symposium. China desperately tried to stop their participation. Meanwhile, Beijing and Shanghai Book Fairs were also held in China, where Mo Yan was under the limelight.
And in October, the Nobel Prize for literature award was announced. The Chinese Government highly and proudly declared that China had now become a great power even in the literary world. The Chinese People were also excited with this news. It was exactly the award that the Chinese government wanted so badly, and the way they managed it worked perfectly.
But, when Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Peace Prize, ironically none of the Chinese media said even one word.
I clearly remember the behavior of Mo Yan when I first met him at the symposium held in Tokyo. And based upon my observations (I may be wrong), I guessed that Mo Yan himself did evaluate positively the value or significance of the Nobel Prize award for literature, as far as he continues to keep living in China. He must know the benefit of the award both economically and politically.
At the same time, some questions arose in my mind as to the decision of the Swedish Academy. I presume that the decision can be seen as a compromise of the Swedish Academy given the standing of China in the future world. The Swedish Academy must have re-evaluated the impact and merit of these two Nobel prizes given to Chinese even though Peace award is nominated by the Norway Nobel commission (Gao Xingjian who was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 2000, and Liu Xiaobo, the founder of Independent Chinese PEN, who gained the Peace Prize in 2010.) At the time I felt that the Swedish Academy might try to improve its relationship with China in the foreseeable future.
In any event, Mo Yan and Gao Xinjian met in Tokyo for the literary event, which was a rather embarrassing encounter for them, but when I look back at the scene, I can say that it was destiny for them. Both of them were decent and very quiet men. Despite that I could easily sense the tumult of their life experience and their conviction that lurks from the bottom of their hearts, which brewed a calm atmosphere around them. Indeed, it was palpable.
After this event, I visited Beijing again wishing to invite Mo Yan as the guest speaker for PEN International Congress held in Tokyo. However, Chinese authorities gave me an excuse on his behalf. They said he returned to his hometown to take care of his daughter, who was due to give birth anytime and this was his immediate priority. This conversation made me conclude that the Chinese authorities must be guarding him for some reason.
And then in September 2017, there was some amazing news. Liu Xiaobo, who was still in prison when he received the Nobel Peace Prize, was released from jail. Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years in jail for the alleged reason that he was attempting to overthrow the state. The authorities explained that the reason he was released was that he was suffering from terminal liver cancer and needed to receive special medical treatment outside of prison.
However, as time went on, the world came to know that his health condition was serious and was deteriorating quickly. Naturally, Liu Xiaobo and his wife expressed their wish to receive the best treatment possible in Western Europe, specifically in Germany. The German government responded quickly and expressed their willingness to accept them. At the same time, European human right activists, PEN International, Amnesty International, and many others, started massive campaigns and asked for the release of Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia: “This is exactly the same as the death penalty. We can’t understand the fact why his liver cancer had deteriorated in such a short time. Chinese authorities have a responsibility to explain explicitly why his cancer progressed so quickly to the terminal stage.”
Then, shocking news followed that Liu Xiaobo had died in a Chinese hospital. Immediately, the Chinese authorities stated it was “the wishes of his family that the body be immediately cremated and his ashes scattered in the sea.” Their final comment stated “It was his own wish.”
Regarding this tragedy, the world accused the Chinese authorities of causing this tragic death and allowing him to die in prison without the treatment he needed.
The death of Liu Xiaobo symbolizes the serious suppression by the Chinese government against democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights.
The Chinese government thus ignited the voice of protest from all over the world and a series of memorial events have been taking place everywhere and our still continuing.
Of course, after the protest movement of the students involved in the 1989 Tiananmen Incident, a major crackdown followed in China and many Chinese students and writers were forced to escape abroad and to live in exile. Exposed to democratic societies in the West, writers strengthened criticism against China through various means of expression. This led to the establishment of Independent Chinese PEN and Liu Xiaobo as one of its founders being elected as the second president even though he had been living in China since 1989.
Up to this point I have tried to overview the whole situation of how China dealt with Nobel Peace and Literature Awards under various circumstances.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to add one more special remark about the death of Liu Xiaobo. His death created a new page for the future history of China, and it will never ever be wiped out no matter how long the single party dictatorship regime lasts, or whether the democratization of China will take place.
In other words, we can say that his death set up the concrete measures to face the “solid, yet invincible truth.” To the contrary, the Chinese government had been bogged down deeply by so called “unfaithful facts.”
We should remember another Nobel Literature prize awarded to an author who wrote about China almost 80 years ago. The book was “The Good Earth,” written by Pearl S. Buck. She painted China’s landscape with the colorful life of farmers on the agrarian soil. What we learned from history is that most outstanding Chinese literature was created under a dictatorship or autocratic regime, and at the same time it is a fact that there is no significant difference between peace and outstanding literary works.
It is no doubt that the loss of Liu Xiaobo under the spirit of “the realization of an open democratic society” will be surely inherited by the next generation worldwide, along with the words of “No enemies, No hatred.”
Simply speaking, the Nobel Awards Laureates that China won after the revolution were Liu Xiaobo for Peace and Mo Yan for Literature. However, there exists major difference in the decision-making process between the two as far as the Chinese government is concerned. It is so obvious if you visit the Nobel Museum in Stockholm. There is no distinction at all between the two laureates as far as their exhibit presentation is concerned. However, China appreciated only the Literary Award and issued an official statement proudly showing its confidence: “Modern Chinese literature has proven itself to be at the top level in the world,” whereas China neglected Liu Xiaobo with respect to the Peace Prize. To the contrary, his life was destroyed in prison like breaking a living tree into pieces.
I have rather good experiences and memories of China. Whenever I visit China, I always try to meet as many people as possible regardless of whether they are apparatchik of the Communist Party or ordinary citizens on the street. They are generally kind, warm-hearted people. That is why I dare to say that the fundamental problem which China has been facing comes from the one-party system with strong partisan mentality.
They monopolize the whole social system and tend to ignore all kinds of social contradictions. Society thus functions as a prison with a coldblooded face. But, it is still possible to find some free, untouched space for anyone if they trust their own mind and heart. Then, any government is unable to touch them. They can only destroy mankind physically. Literature can remain and be sustainable forever as it is in pursuit of human dignity and so is the case of Peace.
