当马查多获诺贝尔和平奖，我想起了刘晓波（观点, 中英对照）

诺贝尔委员会近期宣布委内瑞拉反对派领袖玛丽亚·科丽娜·马查多（María Corina Machado）荣获2025年诺贝尔和平奖。该决定的轰动效应远远超出了马查多所居的拉丁美洲， 它是在向全世界宣告，追求民主始终是人类最艰险却最崇高的目标。对我而言，这个决定让我想起另一位该奖的获得者，即已故的中国异议人士刘晓波，刘在2010年因呼吁中国建立民主制度而获得同样的殊荣。

When the Nobel Committee announced that Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado had won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, the decision resonated far beyond Latin America. It reminded the world that the fight for democracy remains one of humanity’s most perilous, yet most honorable pursuits. For many, including myself, the award brought to mind another courageous figure — Liu Xiaobo, the late Chinese dissident who received the same prize in 2010 for calling for a democratic system in China.

获奖的刘晓波却从未能出席颁奖典礼。刘曾因与他人共同起草呼吁宪政改革与提倡基本人权的宣言《零八宪章》而被控“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”，被判处十一年徒刑。奥斯陆颁奖礼上那张空荡的椅子，成为他缺席的象征，也成为对专制压迫的最无声但却最为震撼的控诉。七年后，刘晓波在中国监狱中去世，甚至被剥夺了赴海外就医的最后自由。

Liu never made it to the ceremony. He was serving an 11-year prison sentence for “inciting subversion of state power” after co-authoring Charter 08, a manifesto demanding constitutional reform and human rights. His absence was marked by an empty chair in Oslo — a silent, haunting symbol of repression. He died in Chinese custody seven years later, denied even the freedom to seek medical treatment abroad.

和刘晓波一样，委内瑞拉的玛丽亚·科丽娜·马查多也因敢于挑战专制政权而遭受迫害。她被禁止参加委内瑞拉2024年总统大选，长期受到威胁，并一度被迫隐匿行踪。即便如此，她仍坚持为数百万渴望自由的委内瑞拉人发声。她在强权打压面前展现出的坚定勇气，与刘晓波的执着精神相互呼应，向世人展示对民主的追求可跨越国界、文化与语言的障碍。

Like Liu, María Corina Machado has endured persecution for daring to challenge an authoritarian regime. Barred from running in Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, threatened, and forced into hiding, she nonetheless continues to speak for millions of Venezuelans yearning for liberty. Her unwavering courage in the face of repression echoes Liu’s determination, proving that the struggle for democracy transcends borders, cultures, and languages.

马查多和刘晓波的获奖都体现了诺贝尔委员会热爱“和平”的初衷，即和平并非仅仅意味着没有战争，而更是良知战胜恐惧的体现。他们的抗争经历证明，没有自由便没有真正的和平，而民主也绝非西方世界的特权，而是全人类共同的追求。诺贝尔委员会在授予马查多这一奖项时，再次重申了这样一个信念：道德的勇气与非暴力的抵抗乃是通往和平之路最强大的力量。

Both figures exemplify the Nobel Committee’s original vision of peace — not as the mere absence of war, but as the triumph of conscience over fear. Their defiance shows that peace cannot exist without freedom, and that democracy is not a Western privilege but a universal human aspiration. In honoring Machado, the Nobel Committee reaffirmed that moral courage and nonviolent resistance remain the most powerful forces for peace.

这一决定也是对特朗普多年来公开渴求诺贝尔和平奖的野心的有力抨击。特朗普常以自己在从朝鲜到中东等外交上的举措而觊觎该奖。然而，诺贝尔委员会的选择却明确地表明，和平奖从来不是对权力或个人魅力的认可，而是对那些为捍卫人类共同尊严而付出巨大个人代价者的嘉奖。

The decision also stands in stark contrast to the ambitions of Donald Trump, who had publicly coveted the Nobel Peace Prize for years. Trump often cited his diplomatic overtures — from North Korea to the Middle East — as grounds for the honor. Yet the Nobel Committee’s choice made a profound statement about what the prize truly represents. It is not a reward for power or personality, but for those who defend humanity’s shared dignity at great personal cost.

与马查多和刘晓波为民主事业牺牲自由不同，特朗普的所作所为却常常削弱那些维系全球和平的多边关系。他推行的“美国优先”政策削弱了同盟体系，在民主国家之间制造分裂，并助长了专制政权的气焰。因此，诺贝尔委员会的这一决定，不仅是对特朗普自我推销式野心的否定，而是在更有力的宣称，真正的和平源于同理心、牺牲精神与道德信念，而不是建立在权宜交易之上的政治算计。

While Machado and Liu sacrificed their freedom for democracy, Trump’s actions often undermined the very multilateral relationships that sustain global peace. His “America First” policy weakened alliances, sowed division among democratic partners, and emboldened autocratic regimes. The Nobel Committee’s decision, therefore, was not merely a rejection of Trump’s self-promotion but a reaffirmation that peace grows from empathy, sacrifice, and moral conviction — not from transactional politics.

在许多层面上，刘晓波与玛丽亚·科丽娜·马查多可谓同是面临打压但仍勇敢追求民主的盟友，而那些利用民主制度，通过制造分裂与恐惧以谋取个人权力者则与他们背道而驰。某种程度上，特朗普正代表着这种对立面，他虽并非以赤裸的暴政示人，却通过侵蚀真相、破坏礼治与瓦解国际合作来削弱民主的根基。因此，诺贝尔委员会的决定划出了一条清晰的道德界线，它区分着勇气与胁迫，民主捍卫者与蚕食者。诺奖的这一决定提醒世人：对自由的抗争从来不是暂时的和区域性的，而是我们这个时代最深远、最具决定性的使命。

In many ways, Liu Xiaobo and María Corina Machado stand on one side of history — the side of those who courageously pursue democracy despite repression. On the other side are those who exploit democratic systems for personal power, feeding on division and fear. Trump, to some extent, represents that force — not through overt tyranny, but through the corrosion of truth, civility, and international cooperation. The Nobel Committee’s decision thus draws a moral line between courage and coercion, between those who defend democracy and those who erode it. It reminds us that the battle for freedom is never merely local — it is the defining struggle of our time.