【大紀元3月23日訊】16年前，當我還是一個在北京大學歷史系讀書的一年級學生的時候，是盧梭﹑洛克這些歐洲思想家的著作給了我對民主自由理念的啟蒙，是法國大革命的歷史給了我理想主義的熱情。1989年中國爆發了大規模的學生運動，當年也正好是法國大革命200周年。歐洲在人類歷史上重大貢獻之一，就是使民主自由的理念成為人類社會的不可動搖的基礎。這，本來應當是歐洲的驕傲。
16年前，中共用常規戰爭的規模鎮壓手無寸鐵的學生，當時的歐盟集體決議，對中國政府進行武器禁運以表達憤慨，這讓我們這些已經受到逮捕﹑監禁﹑流亡等等命運的學生深受鼓舞，讓我們知道，在國際社會，是有正義作為國際關系的基礎的。然而，今天，我們惊詫地听到，歐盟已經要決定解除當年的這項禁令了。
是當年發表禁令的條件已經不存在了嗎？當然不是。有的歐洲政治領袖說，中國的人權狀況已經有了進步，這完全是對中國實際狀況的不了解。不錯，中國的經濟進步是有目共睹的，但是在政治方面，應當說是有退步的。以我個人為例，1988年的時候我在北京大學草地上組織民主沙龍，當局雖然不滿，但是并未強行阻止，但是今天，原北大學生楊子立等四人私下組織關于政治問題的討論，不僅被判重刑，而且在獄中受到虐待。請問，這是進步還是退步？
有人說，六四問題已經過去了。事實是這樣嗎？當然不是。今天，大批原來參与六四的人滯留海外不能回國，我本人就是一個例子。我原來持有的中國護照，5年期限到了，中國使館拒絕給我延期，剝奪我做一個中國人的權利。這都是因為我參与了六四，對于六四受到鎮壓的一方來說，中共政權對我們的打擊從來沒有中斷過。今天在中國，公開悼念六四死難者都不是被允許的事情。我們有什么理由說，已經具備解除對華武器禁運的條件了呢？
我充分理解与中國保持接触的重要性，事實上，我本人支持過美國給中國貿易最惠國待遇，支持過中國獲得奧運會主辦權。但是，對華輸出武器是另一回事。保持与中國的貿易關系，得到好處的是中國老百姓；而賣武器給中國，得到好處的，只是那些軍火商和政府官員，對促進中國公民社會的發展，對提高中國民眾的生活水平沒有關系。我不明白為什么在六四問題仍然沒有解決，在中國人權狀況不進反退的情況下，歐盟卻堅持要解除對華武器禁運。
歐洲在我的心目中，代表著人類對自由的追求的發源地，歐洲得到的尊重就來自于對這种傳統价值的捍衛。如果中共至今仍然堅持當年屠殺學生是正确的───事實上他們正是如此───的時候，歐盟卻堅持送給屠夫武器，這樣的歐洲，還值得尊敬嗎？
歐洲，請不要讓我失望。
轉載自3月23日的英國《金融時報》
英文：
History tells us to keep the arms ban on China
By Wang Dan
Published: March 22 2005 20:03 | Last updated: March 22 2005 20:03
The likelihood that the European Union will delay plans to lift its embargo on arms sales to China is a welcome sign of pressure from various quarters to maintain it. But the push within Europe to lift the ban has acquired momentum, and the issue is bound to return high on the agenda of EU leaders soon.
That is why it is important to remember why the EU imposed its embargo in the first place: in response to the June 1989 massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. Ironically, perhaps, it was classical European thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke whose ideas of democracy and liberty enlightened me 16 years ago, when I was studying history at Beijing university. One episode of history that ignited my idealistic passion was the French revolution; its 200th anniversary coincided with the 1989 Chinese student protests. Europe has made an important contribution to history by firmly grounding its societies in ideals of democracy and freedom. This should make EU leaders proud.
When the EU adopted its resolution 16 years ago to ban weapons sales to China, it was an expression of moral outrage at the Chinese government’s use of the military against peaceful demonstrators. Such reactions from the international community both moved and inspired us – the student leaders who were arrested, imprisoned, or exiled at the time. They showed us that justice remained a fundamental principle in international relations. In this context, our concern about the EU’s move to lift the embargo is surely understandable.
The arguments in Europe in favour of lifting the ban imply – or in some cases directly suggest – that the appalling human rights conditions that prompted the embargo in 1989 have been rectified. That is not the case. Some European leaders have even commended China for progress in human rights. Such claims reveal ignorance of the realities in China. No doubt everyone has watched the country’s economic progress, but in political reform China has gone backwards.
Take my own example. In 1988, the government did not force me to disband, although it was unhappy with, the pro-democracy group I organised, which often met openly on campus at Beijing university. Today, however, when Yang Zili, a Beijing university student, and three other youths held private meetings to discuss political issues, they were sentenced to many years in jail and subjected to abuse in prison. Is this progress or regression?
Some European leaders have referred to the June 4 massacre as belonging to “another era”. This is not factually correct. Today, many participants in the 1989 democracy movement are in exile overseas and barred by the Chinese government from returning to their country. My own story is, again, an example. After my Chinese passport expired, the Chinese embassy in America refused to extend it, depriving me of my citizenship rights – simply because I participated in the 1989 movement. Today, the government still prohibits anyone from publicly mourning those killed in the protests. There seems little evidence that conditions are even nearly ripe for lifting the EU’s weapons ban.
I understand the importance of engaging China. I personally supported the US move to grant China “most favoured nation” trading status, and also the country’s bid to host the Olympic Games. But selling weapons to China is an entirely different matter. From solid trading relations, ordinary Chinese people can benefit; but weapons sales only benefit the officials involved in the arms deals and the Chinese government. They do nothing to help development of Chinese civil society or raise living standards of ordinary Chinese. It puzzles me why some EU leaders want to lift the arms ban while the Chinese government still refuses to deal with questions of truth and accountability concerning the June 4 massacre, and while human rights conditions in China continue to deteriorate.
To me, Europe symbolises the origin of humanity’s quest for freedom. My respect for Europe comes from its protection of democratic traditions and the values of freedom. As China’s regime still defends the slaughtering of peaceful student protesters, the notion that the EU might be willing to make more weapons available distresses me greatly; I can only hope that Europe will keep our hopes alive.
The writer, a Chinese student leader in the 1989 democracy movement who was imprisoned for seven years for his political activism, was exiled to the US in 1998 and is currently studying for a doctorate in history at Harvard University
(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
