Much has been written about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), who is serving an 11-year prison sentence for his advocacy of democracy in China. We know that he is China’s leading political dissident and was one of the authors of Charter 08, a call for political reform and democratization.
However, the more one knows about him the more one understands why China’s oligarchy is so deadset against him.
First, the charter succinctly exposes the contradictions of the existing political system — a cruel Orwellian joke on its people.
“The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws, but no rule of law; it has a Constitution, but no constitutional government,” the charter says
Not surprisingly, “The stultifying results are endemic official corruption … weak human rights, decay in public ethics, crony capitalism, growing inequality between rich and poor, pillage of the natural environment … and the exacerbation of a long list of social conflicts,” it says.
Which leads to the logical conclusion that: “The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.”
Charter 08 then goes on to propose the enactment of a new Constitution based on the democratic principles of separation of legislative, judicial and executive power as well as enshrining a guarantee of human rights, freedom of expression and a whole lot more.
Such a prescriptive charter would be the death knell of the political monopoly of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). No wonder, China’s rulers went ballistic against Norway and the committee that awarded the prize, while at home they rounded up activists.
Beijing has stopped dialogue with Norway on furthering trade relations and demanded an apology from the Nobel committee for awarding the peace prize to a “criminal,” thus showing disrespect for China’s legal system.
These days China is big on demanding apologies. Japan too was asked to apologize over the detention of the captain of a Chinese fishing trawler that collided with Japanese coast guard boats in the East China Sea, but that is another story.
However, Liu is one of those rare people who will not back down from fighting for his beliefs. The party would like to see the back of him if he were to leave China for comfortable pastures abroad, where he has had academic stints in prestigious universities in the US and elsewhere.
However, he keeps coming back to pursue his passion and commitment to change his homeland. Though his current 11-year stint in jail is the longest so far, he is not new to such persecution at the hands of his country’s communist oligarchs.
He was jailed for 20 months in 1989 when he went on hunger strike to support the democracy movement. Beginning in 1996, he spent another three years at a re-education camp for his criticism of the party’s monopoly on power.
After serving his current sentence at the pleasure of his country’s communist cabal, he will have spent 16 years in jail.
Still, Liu remains unbowed with his indomitable will to pursue the cause of political reform for his country. If -democracy has to succeed in China at some point, men like Liu are the ones who will keep the torch alive.
Speaking at his trial on Dec. 23, he recalled, “[After] I was imprisoned [in 1989] for ‘counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement to crime’ … I was never again allowed to publish or speak in public in China … but I still want to tell the regime that deprives me of my freedom … I have no enemies and no hatred … For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience.”
Speaking on a note of hope, he said, “I hope to be the last victim of China’s endless literary inquisition, and that after this no one else will be jailed for their speech.”
“Freedom of expression is the basis of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth,” he said.
From a perusal of the text of his statement at the trial last year, Liu comes out as a towering personality of immense courage and compassion.
It is hard to believe that he is regarded as a “criminal” in his own country for exercising his right to free speech and saying things that some of China’s top leaders have also said at times.
For instance, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) reportedly said in 2003 that the CCP faced “inevitable extinction” if it did not increase press freedoms.
More recently, Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) told CNN that: “Freedom of speech is indispensable for any nation. China’s Constitution endows the people with freedom of speech.”
“The demands of the people for democracy cannot be resisted,” he said.
If so, why is Liu in one of Wen’s jails for exercising his right to free speech under the Chinese Constitution? Or is it all a charade?
Liu’s Noble Peace Prize created a bit of excitement among some CCP elders and a group of academics who made renewed calls for democratic reforms.
In an open letter, 100 Chinese academics urged that “China should join the mainstream of civilized humanity by embracing universal values.”
“Such is the only route to becoming a ‘great nation’ that is capable of playing a positive and responsible role on the world stage,” they wrote.
All this activity urging political reforms was probably intended to influence the deliberations of the CCP plenum just held, but it was ignored, as has happened in the past.
The only passing reference to this in the communique read: “Great impetus should be given to reform of the economic system, while vigorous yet steady efforts should be made to promote reform of the political structure.”
Which is neither here nor there.
Some China-watchers were heartened by Wen’s support for political reforms. However, Wen’s background as an aide to Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) during the tumultuous days preceding the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre and his conversion thereafter testifies to his great instinct for political survival and coming out a winner.
Therefore, one shouldn’t read too much into his rebirth as a political reformer.
However, Liu and his band of political dissidents could one day become the rallying point of a popular movement against the party’s corrupt and politically suffocating rule.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past