Two key anniversaries coincided in Oslo yesterday with the presentation of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波). For just the second time in the prize’s 109-year history, neither the recipient nor a close family member was able to attend the ceremony because his government would not allow it. An empty chair said it all.
Dec. 10 is notable as the day in 1889 that Swedish chemist and weapons manufacturer Alfred Nobel died. It was also the day in 1948 that the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1950, the UN General Assembly picked the day to be commemorated as Human Rights Day, while the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded on the anniversary of Nobel’s death since Nobel prizes were inaugurated in 1901, with 19 exceptions. Those interruptions have usually been during times of war.
It seems especially fitting this year that Liu is being honored on Human Rights Day, since his life’s work epitomizes what the UN was trying to achieve with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The recognition that human beings, no matter where they live, have an unconditional right to life, equality before the law and fair trials, freedom of thought, conscience and expression and freedom of religion. All these are rights that embody democratic values, not just Western ones.
Perhaps that is what has made Liu’s prize so galling to Beijing, which is known to desperately want to have a Chinese still living and working in China win a Nobel, any Nobel. Liu would certainly fit this category, except for the inconvenient fact that his work, especially in coauthoring Charter 08, goes against everything Beijing stands for.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman in Beijing told reporters with a straight face on Thursday that Liu had not been imprisoned because of anything he had said, but because he went beyond general criticism by trying to persuade others to act, something she said jeopardized society. She could have been quoting Alan Rickman’s character, the Interrogator, in the brilliant 1991 film Closet Land, who accuses a children’s book author of being “guilty of subliminal indoctrination” by trying, through her writings, to teach children to live without fear and being “part of the tribe that thinks too much.”
Perhaps Liu wasn’t the best choice of a Chinese dissident; there were several who said so in the run-up to the announcement of the prize last month. Since then, however, by its very acts, Beijing has made him a prime example of why the peace prize and Human Rights Day can be such powerful motivators and an inspiration to people around the world.
That is also why the list of no-shows among the 65 countries invited to attend the Oslo ceremony by virtue of having an embassy in that city served as a potent reminder of repressive regimes as well as Beijing’s might as a trading power and a UN Security Council member. China led the list of non-believers in free speech, which included Cuba, Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Vietnam. Trade or politics played a role in decisions by Sudan, Venezuela, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Morocco, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and, unfortunately, the Philippines.
The absence of a representative from Manila was the most glaring, despite the Philippine foreign secretary saying his country was not taking sides with China. His government is led by a man whose father was assassinated for standing up for the same rights and freedoms that Liu avows. The ghost of Benigno Aquino Jr will surely be haunting Malacanang Palace this weekend.
Liu now joins a distinguished list of people who have struggled to improve the lives of their fellow citizens through democractic rights and freedoms, including Martin Luther King in 1964, Lech Walesa in 1983, Andrei Sakharov in 1985 and Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991. Some, like Liu, are still fighting that battle, but he can rest assured that he will not be the last.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS