近日，我校公共外交研究中心张中载教授撰写的《劝亚格兰们多到中国走走》和《Int'l standards cannot override sovereignty》，被11月30日的《环球时报》中文版和12月1日《环球时报》英文版全文刊载，引起了社会广泛关注。以下是文章全文和相关链接。
劝亚格兰们多到中国走走
张中载
人权与主权到底谁更重要，这个老问题近期又被西方人搬出来，并用“国际人权法和标准高于民族和国家”的老调为诺委会今年的和
张中载
人权与主权到底谁更重要，这个老问题近期又被西方人搬出来，并用“国际人权法和标准高于民族和国家”的老调为诺委会今年的和
平奖辩护。这是非常荒谬的。
主权概念起源于中世纪强大的教会与世俗国家的冲突。1648年，欧洲结束了“三十年战争”，签订《威斯特伐利亚和约》，从此国家主权才有了独立国家的意义。主权概念同民族、国家的概念一样，是一个不断演变、动态的概念。从1648年至今日的欧盟，主权概念在不断演变。但是有哪个国家敢抛弃国家主权，或者让所谓的“人权”凌驾于主权之上？
诺委会主席亚格兰近期鼓吹：“随着世界从民族主义转向国际主义，上世纪国家主权概念又发生了变化。”很明显，这个论点的实质是企图淡化国家主权，最终用国际主义取代国家主权，达到全球资本主义一体化的目的。这与利用全球化实行新型殖民主义扩张异曲同工。
极具讽刺意味的是，这些论述人权最多的西方国家恰恰正是在非洲、亚洲、拉丁美洲实行殖民统治，侵犯殖民地人权最无情的国家。几百年来，西方帝国主义总是以维护人权为借口出兵干涉他国内政，肆意践踏他国的主权和人权。在人类已进入新世纪的2003年，美国出兵侵占伊拉克，长达八年，伊拉克平民伤亡多达十余万。同为西方国家的欧盟却对此保持沉默。
西方一些政府及精英在人权上的虚伪性和双重标准已经越来越明显。今年诺委会的颁奖会将近一半的国家拒绝参加，就是有力的证明。在人权与主权问题上，诺委会和那些怀有偏见的西方人应该怀有基本的宽容与理性之心。笔者建议亚格兰和诺委会的先生们到中国来走走，问问中国老百姓的真实想法。尽管比起发达国家来，中国在政治、经济、社会发展上都还有很长的路要走，但推动中国人权进步的只能是中国人自己，不可能是外国人。这是被中国历史实践反复证明，也为中国老百姓所一致认同的。亚格兰们切勿让偏见和无知搅乱了思维和判断。
▲（作者是北京外国语大学公共外交研究中心教授。）
相关链接：http://opinion.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-11/1301650.html
主权概念起源于中世纪强大的教会与世俗国家的冲突。1648年，欧洲结束了“三十年战争”，签订《威斯特伐利亚和约》，从此国家主权才有了独立国家的意义。主权概念同民族、国家的概念一样，是一个不断演变、动态的概念。从1648年至今日的欧盟，主权概念在不断演变。但是有哪个国家敢抛弃国家主权，或者让所谓的“人权”凌驾于主权之上？
诺委会主席亚格兰近期鼓吹：“随着世界从民族主义转向国际主义，上世纪国家主权概念又发生了变化。”很明显，这个论点的实质是企图淡化国家主权，最终用国际主义取代国家主权，达到全球资本主义一体化的目的。这与利用全球化实行新型殖民主义扩张异曲同工。
极具讽刺意味的是，这些论述人权最多的西方国家恰恰正是在非洲、亚洲、拉丁美洲实行殖民统治，侵犯殖民地人权最无情的国家。几百年来，西方帝国主义总是以维护人权为借口出兵干涉他国内政，肆意践踏他国的主权和人权。在人类已进入新世纪的2003年，美国出兵侵占伊拉克，长达八年，伊拉克平民伤亡多达十余万。同为西方国家的欧盟却对此保持沉默。
西方一些政府及精英在人权上的虚伪性和双重标准已经越来越明显。今年诺委会的颁奖会将近一半的国家拒绝参加，就是有力的证明。在人权与主权问题上，诺委会和那些怀有偏见的西方人应该怀有基本的宽容与理性之心。笔者建议亚格兰和诺委会的先生们到中国来走走，问问中国老百姓的真实想法。尽管比起发达国家来，中国在政治、经济、社会发展上都还有很长的路要走，但推动中国人权进步的只能是中国人自己，不可能是外国人。这是被中国历史实践反复证明，也为中国老百姓所一致认同的。亚格兰们切勿让偏见和无知搅乱了思维和判断。
▲（作者是北京外国语大学公共外交研究中心教授。）
相关链接：http://opinion.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-11/1301650.html
Int'l standards cannot override sovereignty
Source: Global Times
[08:20 December 01 2010]
Comments
By Zhang Zhongzai
Source: Global Times
[08:20 December 01 2010]
Comments
By Zhang Zhongzai
The York Times recently published an article by Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, "Why We Gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel," in reply to the criticism voiced by China and others on the committee's decision.
Jagland defended the committee's position on grounds that "international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state." And in so doing, he put "international human rights law and standards" above national sovereignty.
The word sovereignty means supreme legal power in Latin. A sovereign state has unlimited legal power within its territory to protect its land and people from external interference
It was not until the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years' War in Germany that the sovereign state acquired its independent authority. Like the nation-state, sovereignty is an ever-changing concept that lends itself to diverse interpretations in today's world.
The concept and form of nation-states in the West went hand in hand with colonialism and it is precisely the colonial rule of the imperialist powers that deprived the colonized of their nation-state and their sovereignty.
Likewise, from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 to the establishment of today's European Union, the concept of sovereignty has been evolving. But no country has the audacity to give up its sovereignty or put "human rights" above it. In fact, many countries have been seeking to support or enhance their sovereignty through their legal and ideological institutions as they deem appropriate.
It is considered a moral obligation and a noble aspiration for the citizens of a nation to love their own homeland and contribute to nation-building. That is also where the national strength lies. It is no wonder that today the Third World countries with their past colonial experience are more keenly conscious of their state sovereignty.
Jagland wrote, "The idea of sovereignty changed again during the last century, as the world moved from nationalism to internationalism."
He failed to offer a definition of the "nationalism" and "internationalism," nor did he explain how the transition occurred. But the point of the argument is to deconstruct the nation-state, eliminate its border, dilute state sovereignty, and ultimately replace it with internationalism so as to achieve capitalist integration around the globe.
This is no different from pushing through neocolonialism by means of globalization.
China's enormous progress in protecting human rights has been widely acknowledged. Jagland and other members of the Nobel committee are advised to come to visit China to see for themselves how life has changed over the past 30 years. Hundred of millions of people have been lifted from poverty, millions of tourists go abroad every year, and there is stunning economic development and rising living standards.
Awarding the Peace Prize to an advocate of colonialism and violent revolution, a prisoner serving his sentence for violating Article 105 of China's Criminal Law, not only tarnishes the Prize, but also interferes with China's internal affairs and challenges the Chinese laws.
It runs counter to the will of Alfred Nobel: To award the prize to people who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations."
Chinese culture cherishes the concepts of benevolence (ren) and harmony (he). Upheld as the moral values of the nation, "benevolence" is all about amity and goodwill between the people. Confucius wrote, "Benevolence is what defines a man." Mozi remarked, "A benevolent person is loving and caring." Zhuangzi observed, "Loving men and benefiting things is what is meant by benevolence."
The idea is even reflected in the name of a famous 350 year-old pharmaceutical company in China: Tong Ren Tang, literally meaning the Hall of Common Pursuit of Benevolence, whose motto is to "nurture benevolence and serve the people." So this benevolence gives full expression to the Chinese high respect for humanity and human rights.
"Harmony" is also a traditional virtue and valued code of conduct in Chinese culture. Confucius wrote, "Gentlemen accommodate their differences and live in harmony; whereas the petty-minded mean people live in disharmony despite their uniformity." The Master also believed that "harmony is the most valuable thing in the world."
Harmony among people, between humanity and nature, and between a person's body and mind, represents the noblest pursuit of the Chinese people. The word peace in Chinese (heping) is made up of two morphemes standing for harmony and safety respectively.
The Nobel Peace Prize was set to promote world peace and harmony among nations. When it goes against this principle and serves as a political or ideological tool, it no longer advances harmony and peace, but, on the contrary, breeds clashes and conflicts among different cultures and people.
The author is a professor of the Public Diplomacy Research Center, Beijing Foreign Studies University.