Although this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was given to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), who was thrown behind bars by the Chinese authorities and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), I really think the award was not aimed at rewarding Liu so much as it was aimed against Hu and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP.)
Have you ever heard of Carl von Ossietzky? Who was he? He was also a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and he had something else in common with Liu. He was a prisoner of war and was locked up by Adolf Hitler. He was a reporter and his ideas opposing German military expansion angered the Nazis, in a way very similar to how Liu’s Charter 08 struck at the heart of tyrannical rule in China.
In 1936, when the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Ossietzky, the precedent for the prize representing an interest in and even “meddling” in the internal affairs of nation states was set, and the prize became associated with the protection of human rights and standing against -tyranny. In 1971, when then-German chancellor Willy Brandt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he said that Ossietzky’s receiving the prize was a moral victory over barbarism.
The only difference this time around is that the barbarians the prize is aimed at defeating are Hu and China. Therefore, the crux of the matter is that the prize is like a “temple” and while the “god” the prize represents is not always something everyone can agree on, the “temple” always exists. This is why after Liu was awarded the prize, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, said the following in an article in the New York Times: “The authorities assert that no one has the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs, but they are wrong.”
Jagland also said that the Norwegian Nobel Committee uses the prize to encourage people who have fought for human rights over long periods of time, citing people like Andrei Sakharov and the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr as examples. This shows how all the threats and fear tactics that China employs have been dented by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
The award will be presented on Dec. 15 and China will find itself in a very delicate situation indeed because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will be damaged whether it keeps Liu in jail or lets him out. Will they let Liu or his wife attend the award ceremony? The CCP, of course, will not dare allow this and the fact that Liu’s wife, Liu Xia (劉霞), has been placed under house arrest proves the truth of Jagland’s comments even more.
However, the issue China really has to face is whether Liu’s receiving the prize will be the last straw in bringing down the CCP.
In Jagland’s words: “China has every reason to be proud of what it has achieved in the last 20 years. We want to see that progress continue, and that is why we awarded the Peace Prize to Mr Liu.”
French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville predicted a long time ago in his work The Old Regime and the Revolution that revolutions do not always happen because people’s circumstances are getting worse and that the most dangerous time for bad governments is normally the start of revolutions. Before it was announced that Liu would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said in an interview with CNN that he would promote political reforms as much as he could for as long as he could despite social criticism and resistance. Will this be the case? I guess we will all have to wait until Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平) takes over the reins to learn the answer.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS