[08.4.9 美国 CNN] 我们为何向中国抗议

三宅一生

原文：

Commentary: Why we protest China



By Jill Savitt
The Olympics are an appropriate forum for political gestures; I would argue, in fact, that the Olympics are a necessary forum for political speech.
The Olympic movement -- especially the International Olympic Committee -- claims that its goal is to put on a sporting event. President Bush said the same when asked whether he would attend. "I view the Olympics as a sporting event," the president said as he rejected the idea of a boycott.
But the Olympics is not a sporting event. The Super Bowl is a sporting event, and the World Series, the World Cup and the Tour de France. The Olympics, by charter, are something different: an international forum with a mandate to promote peace. The Olympic Charter says, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity."
The Olympics have been widely used as a political forum. China, in fact, has used the Games as a blunt political tool for 50 years, denying athletes from Taiwan the right to participate. The United States participated in -- even led -- a boycott of the Games and the IOC banned the delegation from South Africa during apartheid. Athletes have made statements or gestures from the medal platforms on a range of humanitarian and political issues.
With the Beijing Games, of course, it's been political from the start. The IOC and corporations defended awarding the Olympics to China because, they said, the Games would serve to open China to the world.
Protests are at the heart of open government. The right to protest and the ability to assemble and speak freely are some of the most basic human rights. The free exercise of these rights is what separates, in many cases, democracies from dictatorships. To call for a cessation of protests is to deny those basic rights and all they represent.
In fact, it is because China prohibits free speech and assembly that demonstrations at the official torch events are so important. It is the only way to express a view contrary to the Chinese government.
The Olympic corporate sponsors and the IOC have been silent about the Olympic host's destructive role in the Darfur genocide, leading China to believe, perhaps, that these organizations agree with China's policies. It now appears likely that there will be a genocide unfolding while the world gathers to celebrate peace and cooperation. The Olympic host is underwriting that genocide, thereby making a mockery of all that the Olympics are supposed to embody.
The question is not, "Should protests be tied to the Olympics?" The question is, "Why aren't more people raising their voices?"
Jill Savitt is executive director of Dream for Darfur. Her organization has been at the forefront of linking China, Darfur and the Olympics for the past year.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

链接：http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/08/commentary.savitt/index.html

存档： Commentary Why we protest China - CNN_com.rar (168.91 KB, 下载次数: 118)

2008-4-14 06:29 上传

点击文件名下载附件

译者：

译文：

同心

【原文連接】http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/08/commentary.savitt/index.html
【聲明】本文翻譯僅限Anti-CNN使用，謝絕轉載。
【原文】
Why we protest China
The Olympics are an appropriate forum for political gestures; I would argue, in fact, that the Olympics are a necessary forum for political speech.
The Olympic movement -- especially the International Olympic Committee -- claims that its goal is to put on a sporting event. President Bush said the same when asked whether he would attend. "I view the Olympics as a sporting event," the president said as he rejected the idea of a boycott.

But the Olympics is not a sporting event. The Super Bowl is a sporting event, and the World Series, the World Cup and the Tour de France. The Olympics, by charter, are something different: an international forum with a mandate to promote peace. The Olympic Charter says, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity."

The Olympics have been widely used as a political forum. China, in fact, has used the Games as a blunt political tool for 50 years, denying athletes from Taiwan the right to participate. The United States participated in -- even led -- a boycott of the Games and the IOC banned the delegation from South Africa during apartheid. Athletes have made statements or gestures from the medal platforms on a range of humanitarian and political issues.

With the Beijing Games, of course, it's been political from the start. The IOC and corporations defended awarding the Olympics to China because, they said, the Games would serve to open China to the world.

Protests are at the heart of open government. The right to protest and the ability to assemble and speak freely are some of the most basic human rights. The free exercise of these rights is what separates, in many cases, democracies from dictatorships. To call for a cessation of protests is to deny those basic rights and all they represent.

In fact, it is because China prohibits free speech and assembly that demonstrations at the official torch events are so important. It is the only way to express a view contrary to the Chinese government.

The Olympic corporate sponsors and the IOC have been silent about the Olympic host's destructive role in the Darfur genocide, leading China to believe, perhaps, that these organizations agree with China's policies. It now appears likely that there will be a genocide unfolding while the world gathers to celebrate peace and cooperation. The Olympic host is underwriting that genocide, thereby making a mockery of all that the Olympics are supposed to embody.

The question is not, "Should protests be tied to the Olympics?" The question is, "Why aren't more people raising their voices?"

Jill Savitt is executive director of Dream for Darfur. Her organization has been at the forefront of linking China, Darfur and the Olympics for the past year.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

【中文翻譯】
我们为何向中国抗议
我想辩论说，奥林匹克运动会是一个表达政治姿态的合适论坛。其实，奥林匹克运动会是一个必要的政治演讲论坛。

奥林匹克运动，尤其是国际奥委会声称奥运会的目的是一场运动盛会。布什总统在被问道是否要参加的时候也说了同样的话。他在拒绝抵制的时说：“我把奥运会当作一项体育活动。”

然而奥运会并不是一项体育活动。橄榄球大赛是一项体育事件，世界职业棒球大赛, 世界杯和环法自行车赛也是。奥运会宪章说，奥运会的目的是从促进一个关系到保存人类尊严的和平社会的角度，来让体育服务于人类和谐的发展。

奥运会已经被广泛的用作政治讲台。事实上中国已经把奥运会当作一个生硬的政治工具用了50年，来拒绝台湾运动员参加的权利。美国曾经参加，甚至说是领导了一个对奥运会的抵制－－国际奥林匹克委员在南非种族隔离时期取缔了其代表团。运动员们已经在领奖台上对于一系列的人道主义和政治问题发表过声明或者做出过姿态。

当然，对于北京奥运会，从一开始就染上了政治的色彩。国际奥委会及其他团体辩护其把奥运会主办权教给中国，说，奥运会会促使中国向世界更开放。

抗议者是开放政府的信仰。抗议的权利和召集和自由言论的能力是最基本的人权之一。对于这些权利的自由实践在很多种情况下区分了民主和专政。要求停止抗议是对这些基本人权以及其所代表的内涵的否定。

事实上，正是因为中国禁止言论自由，在火炬传递时召集示威活动才变得如此重要。因为这是唯一能表达同中国政府对立观点的办法。

奥运会合作伙伴和国际奥组委在奥运会主办国在达尔弗尔种族屠杀中所扮演的破坏性角色保持沉默，从而导致中国认为，也许这些组织赞同中国的政治立场。现在看起来更像是在当世界聚集在一起庆祝和平和合作的时候，将有一场种族屠杀被揭露。奥运会主办国正在签下这场种族屠杀，因此来嘲笑奥运会本来所应当体现的东西。

现在问题已经不是“抗议应该和奥运会联系在一起吗？”。问题应该是，“为什么没有更多的人发出他们的声音？”

Jill Savitt 是"达尔弗尔之梦"的执行理事。她的组织在最近几年活动在联系中国，达尔弗尔和奥运会的最前沿。
本文所表达观点仅出自于作者本人。


[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-6-23 11:35 编辑 ]

同心