Jailed Chinese writer and dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Last year, just around Christmas, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for “inciting subversion” as a co-author of Charter ’08, even though it was little more than a low-key manifesto for the rights of the Chinese people.
The day before the Nobel Committee named him the recipient of this year’s peace prize, several overseas human rights campaigners denounced Liu for being a “moderate,” saying he was not critical enough of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Radicals did not see him as being radical enough, as he advocated a gradual path to constitutional democracy in China, believing that it wasn’t something that could happen overnight.
Nationalists and the New Left also came out in criticism of Liu. These groups attacked the ideals of democracy and democratic reform in the name of anti--Westernization, saying that constitutional government was not suited to China. For them, liberal democracy is “US-style democracy” or “Western democracy” and as such does not conform to Chinese national sentiment or incorporate anything “Chinese.”
Liu’s concept of gradual political reform, however, does have merit. Last year China witnessed just shy of 100,000 demonstrations. This year, spending on maintaining peace and order has actually exceeded military expenditure. The whole national public expenditure would probably not be enough to contain public discontent. The problems stem from China’s political stagnation.
Social stability is certainly important, but the way Chinese authorities enforce order differs very much from a democratically ruled nation. China cannot go on like this forever, and cracks are already showing. Capitalism has not only ushered in rapid economic development, but also an increasing clamor for people’s rights. Maintaining order by suppression alone will not work in the long run. It’s a dead-end policy. The legendary founder of the Xia Dynasty, Yu the Great (大禹), is said to have tamed the floods in ancient China by digging drainage channels to divert the floodwaters, as simply shoring up flood defenses had failed. The CCP would do well to learn from his example.
The anti-democracy rhetoric of the nationalists and New Left is born out of narrow-minded nationalism. As for anti-CCP radicals, they fail to take into account the fundamental nature of Chinese society today. China has to develop the correct social and political conditions over time if it is to transform itself into a stable constitutional democracy. Rome, as they say, was not built in a day.
Taking a gradual approach is not an excuse for delaying political reform, which will only lead to ruin for Chinese society. Should Liu’s Nobel Prize be interpreted as an attempt by the West to continue lording it over China, it is China that stands to lose. Liu’s award gives us hope that China can still embark on the gradual road to political reform, and that it will be able to do so without meeting many obstacles on the way. One day we might look back on this as China’s first tentative steps to her “political rise.”
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS