Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A437-W244

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A437-W244

Release Date: January 17, 2009

发布日：2009年1月17日

Topic: The Hot Debate at the Hearing in Der Deutscher Bundestag (National Parliament of Germany) on Deutsche Welle (the German Wave)

标题：德国议会“德国之声”听证会上唇枪舌战的大争论

Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)

此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）

Note: Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese parts of this release. If this mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request for special delivery to us or visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2009/report2009-01/hearingGermanParliament090117DeutscheWelleA437-W244.htm　which contains identical information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Hot Debate at the Hearing in Der Deutscher Bundestag (National Parliament of Germany) on Deutsche Welle (the German Wave)

(Note: this is a recap of the hearing according to memory; please refer to the Chinese version for more details of other testimonies.)

After Mr. Wei's visit to German Parliament at the end of November 2008 following his open letter to the German Parliament in October 2008, a hearing was set for the afternoon of December 18, 2008, on the issue of Deutsche Welle's Chinese language service. This hearing was organized by four committees of the German Parliament: the Committee on Cultural and Media Affairs, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Human Rights Committee, and the Petition Committee.

At 15:30 that day, more than 20 parliament members of five major parties in Germany attended the hearing. Others attending also included the director-general of Deutsche Welle, Mr. Erik Bettermann; the former German ambassador to China, Dr. Volker Stanzel; and Mr. Schmidt, chair of broadcasting administrative committee for Deutsche Welle. Those people invited to testify were: Mr. Wei Jingsheng; Dr. Geipel, representing the Federal writers of Germany; Chinese dissident Mr. Peng XiaoMing; Dr. Sandschneider of the German Foreign Policy Research Institute; Mr. Spanswick of the Association for International broadcasting in Britain, and Bautigam, a former journalist.

The hearing was delayed for 10 minutes while waiting for Mr. Wei's long distrance drive from France on that day. The chair of the leading committee (Committee on Cultural and Media Affairs), Mr. Hans-Joachim Otto, chaired the hearing session. He reported to the attendees on the theme of the hearing, and introduced the invited guests for testimony, as well as Ms. Ciping Huang, the driver and translator who accompanied Wei Jingsheng to Germany on that day.

During the hearing, Professor Geipel pointed out and listed details of the Chinese Communist government's infiltration of the economic and cultural circles of the West, including the news media. She urged the western governments and society to be alert and oppose the Chinese government's infiltration.

Mr. Schmidt talked about professional morals of a journalist, as well as human rights to be the principle and standard. However, the dissidents' criticism is not in details. Fortunately, all the broadcasting materials will be kept for a long time for review and monitoring. We need supervision of the station.

Mr. Peng pointed out that Chinese articles translated for examination after the problem of Deutsche Welle was revealed were carefully selected ones, instead of the problem ones we had pointed out.

British visitor Mr. Spanswick emphasized the importance of passing on mainstream values of the West, as well as basic information to foreign countries, especially to the third world countries. These include introducing human rights and democracy value systems to the Chinese people. He further stated that Chinese news media is not free, but strictly controlled by the Chinese government, which meanwhile tries to infiltrate the Western news media. This is a serious matter that should not be overlooked. We must communicate with the Chinese people more and they need our information.

Bautigam stated his opinion that although the Deutsche Welle is funded by the German taxpayers' money, the Parliament has no right to supervise it, not to mention comment on the detailed operation of the reporters and editors.

Professor Sandschneider called for protecting the human rights of the editor of Deutsche Welle, Zhang Danhong. Although he agreed that Zhang's statements on China were not right, he argued that German was not Zhang's native language, so she may made some errors.

Parliament member Dr. Eisel was not satisfied with the introduction of Mr. Wei Jingsheng. So he gave a more detailed description of Mr. Wei, especially that Wei was an awardee of the European Parliament's Sahkarov Prize, and also attend the ceremony in Strassbourg the previous day. (All the members knocked their tables to show their respect to Wei.) He said, now that Mr. Wei has pointed out the problems with Deutsche Welle's Chinese language service, the German Parliament should not avoid this sensitive subject. Most of us do not know Chinese. "How could we monintor these broadcasts and find the problems? Do you have good experience?" he asked Mr. Wei.

Mr. Wei expressed his thoughts about Deutsche Welle. He said that he never listened to Deutsche Welle, but instead learns about various broadcasts of each country according to the feedback from people inside China. These friends told him that Voice of America and Radio Free Asia are ok, but Deutsche Welle is almost like the broadcasting by the Chinese government's Central Broadcasting Radio station that is not very interesting. In recent years, the Chinese government used a lot of resources, both financially and in manpower, to infiltrate the news media in the Western countries. So of course Deutsche Welle is on the top of their list. He recalled that for the more than one decade he was in exile, Deutsche Welle only interviewed him a total of one dozen or so times. This time after Deutsche Welle's Chinese language service received severe criticism, Wei even received calls from friends inside China saying that they have always thought that it was a station sponsored by the Chinese government. They were shocked to know that the German government sponsors it. This proves that the problem with Deutsche Welle's Chinese service is not an average error anymore.

Mr. Wei emphasized that Deutsche Welle should give full coverage of China's information; it should be a good supplement for free speech. Free speech does not mean every news media could say all the opinions. Of course every news media will have its leaning. Only through news media of various leanings can we realize free speech. Nowadays inside China, there is only the word from the Chinese Communist Party, which will not let other kinds of thoughts and opinions propagate. So people really need different information. As a supplement to free speech, the Deutsche Welle also defined its direction as to propagate the value system of democracy and human rights, as well as the information the Chinese could not learn. This direction is totally correct; this is exactly the kind of radio station that the Chinese people need. Yet, due to lack of supervision, most of the programs of the Deutsche Welle's Chinese service have departed from what its laws required. Deutsche Welle should learn from the experiences of Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, to take an effective supervision on its editors and broadcasting members. Deutsche Welle should not have treated the dissidents like Ms. He QingLian that way; instead, it should rely on people like her and her friends to monitor its own programs.

The former German ambassador to China, Dr. Volker Stanzel, stated that people's impressions are different, and China's situation is very complicated. He said that his impression in Beijing is different than Wei's, that many people think Deutsche Welle is a pretty good station, despite not all the programs being satisfactory, despite that he once criticized the Chinese service.

Parliament member Griefan emphasized the need to use these broadcasting programs to pass on value systems and news value outside of Germany. But the issue is how to monotor the programs and improve the quality.

Another parliament member Johimsen thought that China has changed a lot, everyone could have different opinions. Mr. Wei learned about Deutsche Welle via the others, so he really does not know that much. Professor Geipel talked about infiltration by the Chinese government, but what can one do about it?

Mr. Wei immediately rebuffed: as a matter of fact, one's own impression by listening to the station may not be that accurate; instead, the judgment of the general audience helps to learn the truth. It is impossible that the Chinese government does not infiltrate the news media of the Western countries. You Germans should know how the Communist Party of East Germany infiltrated the Western news media, or at least know how the news media of the Nazi's infiltrated the Western news media. So how could the Chinese Communist party be the exemption? According the Chinese Communist Party's own theory, the importance of infiltrating the news media is not less important than infiltrating the military and governmental organizations. The question is how to monitor your own news media to prevent infiltration, instead of trying to ignore the existence of the problem.

Parliament member Dr. Eid urged for the monitoring process. She criticized the director-general of Deutsche Welle, Mr. Erik Bettermann, for lack of a full explanation, as well as those people who resist the criticism of Deutsche Welle by accusing the people who criticize as "cold war thinkers" and "Puppets of Falun Gong".

Parliament member Dr. Daubler-Gmelin thought that there has been progress in Chinese human rights, although in many areas people's basic human rights are violated and are terrible.

Parliament member Sonksen thought that the problem of Deutsche Welle also exists with the Chinese language services of the other countries. The director-general of Deutsche Welle, Mr. Erik Bettermann has already admitted in the newspaper that there are problem areas. The issue is how to deal with the issues in Deutsche Welle. He asked if Mr. Wei could introduce some methods.

Mr. Wei talked about some experiences with Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, although he thinks what they have done is far less than totally preventing the infiltration of the Chinese Communist Party.

Parliament member Steinback asked Mr. Peng for his already translated articles that have the problems. He pointed out that the Human Rights Committee has requested to visit China, but was always refused by the Chinese government. Steinback asked Dr. Sandschneider if he cares about Zhang Danhong's human rights and defends her, why does not he care about those detained and sentenced poets, writers, journalists and rights defenders' human rights in China and write open letters for them? This is not what a political professor should be doing, not even a human should be doing. We condemn the Chinese government's conduct in Zimbabwe and care about human rights of Tibetans and Uyghurs.

Parliament member Grinkel was particularly concerned that the Duetsche Welle uses the phrases that the Chinese government uses. He said: when we talked about the holocaust, it is different than Nazi's. Both are talking about killing the Jews, but with different expressions.

As an opposition member of the former East Germany, Dr. Geipel went on further to criticize Deutsche Welle's working style and that its Chinese language service does not fit what the Chinese people under the dictatorship need. She gave more suggestions on the supervision of the station.

Mr. Peng showed the translated articles he brought with him and asked the participants to have a copy if they wished. He also pointed out that Deutsche Welle rarely communicates with Chinese dissidents. It would be laughable to research on the China issue without communication with dissidents.

It had already passed 18:00, the original end of the hearing. The director-general of Deutsche Welle, Mr. Erik Bettermann, spoke in response to everyone. He pointed out that all the international radio stations have this serious issue as to how to broadcast to the dictatorial countries.

Bettermann said, this issue indeed has its international significance. The Chinese government and the Internet also reacted strongly. In the past, Deutsche Welle has run into related problems in the Arabic language service. He stated that as the news media of Germany, we must keep distance from the Chinese government, but also keep distance from your dissidents. As the human rights voice of global multi-media, I could not have fully monitored all the 30 different languages and it would be very expensive. Now we have seen our weakness in the past, including problems in the personnel decisions. I will respect the opinions of the parliament members to improve our work in the future. After this incident happened, we have all felt the pressure. I am not going to defend myself either. Now that this problem has gone public, we will adjust adequately.

The hearing was extended for more than 40 minutes.

Related photos:

1. Wei Jingsheng in the German Parliament:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/pic/newsletters/newsletters2009/newsletters2009-1/GermanParliament081218WeiJS-c-3.jpg

2. Inside of the German Parliament in Berlin:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/pic/newsletters/newsletters2009/newsletters2009-1/GermanParliament081218inside-5.jpg

3. Wei Jingsheng and Huang Ciping meeting with German Parliament member Dr. Eisel:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/pic/newsletters/newsletters2009/newsletters2009-1/EiselS081222HuangCP-c-2.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org

The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help in any means. We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet.

You are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org

Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well. You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.

For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org

To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:

www.WeiJingSheng.org and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org

for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.

You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or

Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-543-1538 Fax: 1-202-543-1539

Wei Jingsheng Foundation's address is:

415 East Capitol Street, SE, Suite 2, Washington, DC 20003-3810, USA

Its postal address is:

Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA

You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process your request.

*****************************************************************

中文版

Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A437-W244

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A437-W244

Release Date: January 17, 2009

发布日：2009年1月17日

Topic: The Hot Debate at the Hearing in Der Deutscher Bundestag (National Parliament of Germany) on Deutsche Welle (the German Wave)

标题：德国议会“德国之声”听证会上唇枪舌战的大争论

Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)

此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）

如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2009/report2009-01/hearingGermanParliament090117DeutscheWelleA437-W244.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

德国议会“德国之声”听证会上唇枪舌战的大争论

在魏京生先生2008年11月底就“德国之声”中文部的问题拜访了包括德国议会在内的柏林政界后，德国议会的四个委员会（文化与媒体委员会，外交委员会，人权委员会，申诉委员会）决定在12月18日联合举办有关德国之声问题的听证会。

2008年12月18日15点30分，德国议会五大党派（基督教民主联盟、社会民主党、绿党、自由民主党、左派党）的二十多名议员聚集在议会大厦的讨论厅，其中社民党的议员有七名。德国之声监事会主席施密特、台长贝特曼及前驻华大使施丹泽等人列席了会议。德国议会邀请了中国著名异议人士魏京生、联邦共和国作家圈代表盖佩尔教授（女），流亡德国的中国民运人士彭小明，德国对外政策研究所主任桑德施耐德教授，英国BBC的斯班赛韦克和前德国电视一台编辑博劳伊梯根六位特邀嘉宾作证。由于当日从法国赶来的魏京生长途驱车略微迟到，会议延迟了十来分钟开始。德国议会文化与媒体委员会主席奥托向与会政治家们报告了大会主题，介绍了各位作证的嘉宾以及陪同魏京生先生来访的黄慈萍。

盖佩尔教授发言提出了红色渗透的问题。中共党政集团利用名利手段，也利用海外华人的关系打入各国经济文化界，例如对新闻部门渗透，已经有较长的历史。尤其在美国，而欧洲近来也日益明显。例如孔子学院等打着民间旗号，实际是官方工具。西方民主国家缺乏足够经验对付专制政权，对于东方的异国情调更加缺乏警惕。经过文化包装，很难识别它们的真实面貌，渗透就在包装之下开始了。

一些中国问题专家在个人利益方面被收买或被利用。他们在中国被款待，拿到优厚的利益，就放弃了客观公正的立场。他们的言论造成德国社会对中国评价上的混乱。中国方面除了收买和利诱，还严厉打击和威胁西方记者和其他外来人员，动辄驱逐和用暴力对待秉持公道的外国媒体人员，迫使他们不敢说出真相。

西方政府和社会必须抵制中国当局的这类手段。有远见、有观察能力的作家、批评家必须站出来发表公正言论，揭露真相，例如揭露德国之声问题，声援刘晓波等等。联邦德国作家圈开展了这些工作。她强调，后来发自中国的声援公开信签署人是一批中国共产党的退休老干部，是一群早年追求民主、今天更加追求民主的高干。以及许多著名作家、记者、律师等民间人士。

德国之声的广播管理委员会主席施密特谈到对外广播的职业道德，人权是标准，是原则。但异议人士对中文编辑部的批评还不够具体，必须继续讨论如何改进。好在编辑部的新闻稿都长期保存，可以审核。广播管理委员会在法律上是监督管理机构，监督电台是否保持多元化形象，对发生在中国的讨论也要报道。总的来说，方法是对的。

彭小明感谢德国议会给予中国不同政见人士这样的机会，为德国之声案向德国议会申诉。但德国之声的广播委员会并没这样做。德国之声号称将中文部的一万份新闻稿翻译成德文，其实仅将几十份经德国之声自行挑选的翻译稿交给了广播管理委员会。所有遭到我们批评的文稿根本不在其中。因此，广播委员会是基于完全错误的信息而做出了完全错误的判断！为什么德国之声没有将被我们指责的文稿提供给广播管理委员会？这类文稿到底偏离了德国之声的人权职责有多远？

来自英国的斯班赛韦克强调，国际电台的历史说明，德国需要有一个对外的新闻媒体，资金来自纳税人的税款。德国之声法61款确定不受国家监督，那为什么还是要讨论？就是因为民主国家的新闻自由不可或缺。美国、英国、法国都有对外广播，德国之声也参加进来，就是要把西方的主流价值和基本信息传达给外国，传达到第三世界。必须向中国、中国人民介绍民主人权的价值观。中国的媒体不自由，官方严厉地管制着媒体。并且长期向西方的媒体渗透，这已经成为一个不可忽视的严重问题。我们要跟中国人民交流，他们需要更多的信息。就需要防止这种渗透。我访问中国，看到中国高干的家庭都安装着香港电视节目，而不仅是中央电视台。美国、英国的对外广播都遭受各方面的批评。这次德国之声遭到如此激烈的批评，也是很自然的事。

博劳伊梯根认为，德国之声法规定该电台的广播管理委员会是监督管理德国之声的机构，议会无权再对它监管。即使广播管理委员会也只是大致管理，不可直接干预记者、编辑的具体操作。他强调了《德国之声法》第61条：德国之声不服从国家的专业监管。

桑德施耐德教授是四十九名汉学家和政治家共同签署公开信的代表。他说，他们的公开信是为了伸张德国之声编辑张丹红的人权而签署的。张丹红讲到中国共产党使得中国四亿人口脱贫是了不起的功绩，是对人权的最大贡献。她还把中国当局封锁自由网路跟封锁纳粹网页和色情网页相提并论。对此说法可以有争议。然而张丹红是一个外国人，德语不是她的母语，她的言论失误情有可原。什么才是德国社会的主流形象？怎样才能准确表达德国社会的形象？恐怕是非常困难的。正因如此才需要多元报道。反过来，德国也要多元地看中国，对中国的看法也在变。中国的市场和企业，过去德国人认为是投资机会，后来又认为是竞争威胁。这次四十九人的公开信发表后，又有很多人、可以说所有德国的汉学家和中国问题专家都联署了。对于中国，人们有不同的看法，我的老师就说过很多中国的坏话，我却说了很多中国的好话。三月西藏骚乱中，藏人暴力打击汉人，汉人愤怒。我们的报道也要多元才行。

基督教民主联盟的议员艾泽尔强调了当前欧州议会给胡佳颁发萨哈洛夫人权奖的意义，并再次向大家介绍魏京生先生是1996年的萨哈洛夫奖获得者。（全体敲桌子表示尊敬）。现在魏先生也提出了德国之声有问题，德国议会决不能避讳敏感问题。他再次强调广播管理委员会的"平反"是错误的，博劳伊梯根的说法简直岂有此理！文稿的翻译是谁选择的？翻译有不同的文本，一万篇文稿仅选了几十篇，这里面有问题！而且同样是德国之声网页，中文内容跟德文内容有明显区别，本来应该是一致的，这里面也有问题！中国当局将德国之声网页封锁，仅仅挑选需要的文章加以转载。中国的新华社不加一字就可以使用，这证明德国之声的文章已经被共产党工具化。我们大部分人都不懂中文，文章被中国利用怎样监督？现在对德国之声问题出现了两大阵营。桑德施耐德先生，你的胆子也太大了！你竟敢宣称所有汉学家都跟着你们签了名，我就知道好几个东亚和汉学研究所的人都没有签名！（桑德施耐德等人）这类懂中文的人写了文章给中国当局作工具，我们不懂中文的人怎样监督？魏先生，你有没有这方面的好经验？

魏京生谈了他对德国之声的看法。他说，他从来都不听德国之声广播，只是通过国内的朋友们来了解各国广播在中国的反映。他的国内朋友们告诉他，美国之音和自由亚洲还可以听听，而德国之声简直就跟中央人民广播电台差不多，没有什么好听的。中国方面近些年来花费大量财力和人力，对西方国家的新闻媒体进行渗透，收买、利诱、什么手段都用上了。他们对德国之声这样的媒体当然要重点渗透，不渗透是不可能的。他回忆说，他从中国监狱里被直接遣送出国已经十多年了，德国之声只采访了他十来次。这次德国之声中文部遭到严厉批评之后，甚至有国内的朋友来电话说；过去一直以为德国之声是中共在海外办的电台，这次才知道是德国政府办的。这证明德国之声的问题已经不是一般性的错误。

魏京生说：德国之声应该全面报道中国信息，应该成为言论自由的补充。言论自由不是每一个媒体都可以发表所有的意见。每一个媒体当然都有他们自己的倾向。通过各种不同倾向的媒体都可以发表自己的意见，达到了言论自由的实现。在中国只有共产党的一面之词，不允许各种不同的意见发表。因此人们非常需要得到不同的信息。作为言论自由的补充，德国之声法也规定了它的编辑方向，是传播人权民主的价值观念和中国人听不到的消息。这个方针完全正确，这正是中国人民需要的电台。但由于缺乏监督，德国之声的节目大多数都背离了法律的规定。这就需要学习自由亚洲和美国之音等外台的经验，对编播人员实行有效的监督。德国之声不应该那样对待何清涟这样的异议人士，而应该依靠他们和她们的朋友监督自己的节目。

前驻华大使、现任外交委员会主任史丹泽说：中国的情况非常复杂，可以说，中国人有了比以前多一点的自由，也可以说，中国政府侵犯了人民更多的自由。魏京生先生谈到德国之声完全是负面印象。我在北京的感觉不完全相同，人们对德国之声的看法不完全一致。很多人认为德国之声是个不错的电台。中国方面也不断地干扰它、封锁它。对它的节目也要有所区别，当然这些节目不能使所有人都满意。

社会民主党议员格莉凡女士说，德国之声不是国家电台，而是公法机构，具有多元的性质。我们的广播节目当然要传达我们的价值观念，也要传达多元的新闻观念。德国之声是我们的对话工具，要把民主自由传播到国外去。我们的监督不是去减少这样的多元性，而是要让国外听众也了解我们的价值观，了解在民主自由的国家，节目是多元的。监督应该怎样进行，是应该考虑，提高质量需要更多的资金。

左翼党议员约辛森认为，中国的形象在变化，跟十年前有很大不同。过去我们反对计划生育，认为是侵犯人权。可是谁愿意人口超过对地球的压力？对于中国的经济增长，我们每个人都可能有不同的看法。魏京生先生是通过别人的说法了解德国之声，实际上并不太了解。盖佩尔女士说了那么多关于中国红色渗透的话，在具体操作上有什么办法？

对此魏京生当即反驳道：靠自己听到的印象并不一定准确，反而靠广大听众的反映作判断才有可能了解问题的真相。中共当局对西方国家的媒体不渗透是不可能的。你们德国人应该知道东德共产党是如何渗透西方媒体的，至少也知道纳粹是如何渗透西方媒体的。为什么中国共产党就会是例外呢？按中共自己的理论，渗透媒体的重要性不亚于渗透国防和政府机构。问题是怎样监督自己的媒体不被渗透，而不是无视问题的存在。

绿党议员艾德女士发言时情绪十分激动。她说，必须有监督这个过程，监督之后才能有所改善。她批评德国之声台长贝特曼没有做出解释，他们的翻译文稿是谁挑选的？是怎样选择的？不要把这次对德国之声的审查说成是一场运动，这是必要的监督。她愤怒地谴责博劳伊梯根和他的支持者。她说，这些人竟将向德国议会申诉的公开信说成是冷战挑衅者，是法轮功行为。最不能容忍的是，凡是不同意他们那封公开信内容的人都被他们一概指斥为法轮功的傀儡。这样的言行不符合记者的行为准则。学者和教授是科学家，应该掌握科学真理，捍卫人权。有的汉学家签署四十九人公开信，却没有签署呼吁释放刘晓波的公开信。她质问桑德施耐德教授："是否所有签了你公开信的人，又签署了声援刘晓波的公开信？为什么你不签署为刘晓波呼吁的公开信？"

桑德施耐德教授抱怨他的"人权"没有得到保护。他说，彭先生竟说他是中国共产党的代言人，他是绝对不能同意的。他没有看到关于呼吁释放刘晓波的公开信。"如果有人拿来给我看，我也会签名"。他也承认，中国的确是一个专制政权。

社会民主党议员葛梅因女士反驳绿党议员的谴责。说"艾德女士令我愤怒"。我们应该看到，中国的人权情况有进步。但还有很多地方人们的基本自由遭到践踏，非常糟糕。中国著名律师张思之先生在柏林获奖，我跟他见面，交谈。他对德国之声、对两国对话没有提出批评。我希望魏京生先生和异议人士要为中国的人权说话，不要为了一个组织的利益说话。另外，奥运前人权委员会访华不受欢迎，现在奥运已经过去，应该又可以跟中国对话了。

自由民主党议员桑克森表示，不仅德国之声存在问题，其他外国的对华广播也有问题。德国之声台长贝特曼在报刊上发表谈话，已经承认有不好的地方。在对中国的看法上有分歧是正常的，问题是，中文部怎样处理好一些突发问题。我们不懂中文，不了解节目情况。德国之声应该有接受投诉的办法。另外，德国之声的广播常遭干扰，网站常被封锁，我们也要寻求对策。魏京生先生能否介绍有什么处理办法？

魏先生向他们介绍了美国之音和自由亚洲电台的一些做法。并认为这些做法还远远不能够完全阻止中共的渗透。

基督教民主联盟议员施坦因巴克问，彭小明先生说他们选择了其他文稿，翻译了出来。我们可以拿来看一看。我们从人权委员会的角度出发，向中国提出的访问请求，都不断被拒绝。我一直对此作低调处理。我们要等到面对面对话的时候直接提出人权问题。桑德施耐德先生，你的样子很"酷"嘛！你为张丹红的人权辩护，为什么不为那些在中国被关押判刑的诗人、作家、律师、记者和维权人士的人权写公开信？！当政治学教授不应该这样，做人也不应该这样。我们谴责中国在津巴布韦罔顾人权的行为，关注西藏人和维吾尔人的人权。彭先生，德国之声对西藏、新疆问题有没有足够的报道？

基督教民主联盟议员格林克尔说，广播管理委员会监督和管理德国之声是履行职责。一定要掌握好这个机制，并继续发挥它的作用。对于中文部的五大议题，我特别关注。应当调查，德国之声的新闻使用的是中国当局的用语，是否有这个现象？纳粹说大屠杀，跟我们说大屠杀，都是说杀害犹太人，可用的不是同一个表达方式。张丹红受到德国之声中文部的保护，甚至整个中文部得到了"彻底平反"，我个人认为，这是他们的自我漂白！

盖佩尔教授再发言说，我们都是来自专制政权下的知识分子（盖佩尔女士曾经是东德短跑冠军，反对派人士）。我们发现德国之声的工作方式不对。我们对专制国家的宣传和封锁很了解，德国之声这样的方式无法适应中国专制统治下中国人民的需要。张丹红的八月讲话完全是荒谬的，我们必须指出她的错误。至于今后的批评方式，我们可以直接地把意见提出来给他们看。可以设立独立的观察员，组成常设顾问团，由汉学家、异议人士、还有既懂汉语、又懂德语的专家组成。海外的对华广播、新闻媒体都有类似的问题。中国和俄罗斯都在进行渗透，我们绝不可掉以轻心。

彭小明补充发言，再次向大家展示他所带来的翻译文本，希望会后大家人手一册，可以仔细阅读分析德国之声中文部的倾向性和用语情况。在德国也居住着许多异议人士，但德国之声跟他们联系太少了。不论是德国之声、汉学家、中国问题专家，都应当跟中国异议人士更多地交流和接触。如果不跟异议人士接触，这样的中国问题研究都是可笑的。

BBC的斯班赛韦克补充说；各国都看到类似问题。目前中国对美国之音、BBC、法广和德国之声都有干扰和封网，只有对澳大利亚的澳广没有封杀。要彻底清查外国势力的渗透，比如中国共产党对德国之声的渗透，影响它的节目、报道方式。查清的可能性很小，只有在媒体中工作的人才知道个中艰辛。压力大，时间紧，而且总不免会有差错，拿着话筒就可能出洋相。还要对另一种语言有很高的要求。所以监督、抽查、翻译是必不可少的，这些监督相当昂贵，全部审核耗费一定巨大。对外广播的事业是艰难的，但为了推介欧洲的价值观，我们必须去做。

已近六点，超过原定的时间。台长贝特曼讲话以回应各位发言。中国异议人士和作家圈等七封公开信提出了这个严肃问题，所有国际电台都面临怎样向专制国家播音的问题，这个问题具有国际意义。中国方面对此事件非常注意，官方和网络的反应都很强烈。德国之声过去在阿拉伯语方面也遭遇到有关问题，后来通过劳工法采取了制裁行动。对于中国异议人士，我还是要坦率地表达我们的立场。魏京生先生，我并没有贬低您的意思，还有彭先生，作为广播电台、德国的新闻媒体，我们既要对中国政府保持距离，也跟你们保持一定的距离。盖佩尔教授谈到的翻译稿件，不是全部新闻稿，但比议员们所说的要多得多。中国异议人士的申诉信所提出的批评并没有十分具体的实例，我们很难有针对性地改进。对是否有倾向性的批评，还有其他的批评，我们选择了一万份稿件，找了一家独立的翻译机构翻译成德文。这也是一次总结。然后在《法兰克福汇报》的访谈中已经给了公众一个交待。

台长贝特曼又说：德国之声将成为全球性多媒体的人权之声，作为台长，我不可能对所有三十种不同的语言实行全面监控，全面审核的费用将超出150万欧元，也是无法承受的。编辑部将努力完成最佳的组合，跟异议人士保持联系，同时又保持一定距离，使电台保持必要的多元性。现在我们已经看到我们过去的弱点，在人员组合、人事使用上确有一定问题。我将尊重诸位议员的意见，改进工作。这次事件发生后，全体同仁都感到了压力。我也不为自己护短。现在问题已完全公开化，中文部的广播部和网络部将合并，并将同时作出人事上的调整。

这次议会的专业听证会就到此结束，比原定时间延长了40多分钟。盖佩尔教授高兴地与魏京生、彭小明握手祝贺合作成功。当魏京生尚未到达的时候，她真有点担心，恐怕魏先生不能出席，连忙与彭先生一起打魏京生的手机。分手之前，盖佩尔教授高兴地对彭小明说：“想不到那位大名鼎鼎的桑德施耐德先生竟然如此窝囊和不堪一击！”。