Contributed by Ying Jiang
Source: The Times, Washington Street Journal, wikipedia
Two decades of "long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China" was the rationale for awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese writer and political dissident still jailed in Shenyang for "煽动颠覆国家政权罪" ("instigating the subversion of the national political regime"), starting early this year. In 1989, Liu Xiaobo, together with three other scholars, attempted to render a rational voice to the students in the Tiananmen Square Student Democracy Movement. They were known as the "Four Gentlemen of the Square", who've pursued different paths since. While the others have settled down as scholars of various disciplines in political science and philosophy, Liu Xiaobo has maintained a actively critical stance towards China's administration. In 2008, he helped to draft a reformist manifesto, the "Charter 08", styled after Vaclav Haval's 1977 document for human rights in Czechoslovakia. It was this document that landed him his current jail sentence.
No matter what your interpretations of the Nobel Peace Prize are, it has certainly diverged from the initial, rather literal meaning: awarding those who prevented war and created peace (often in the process of trying to, unlike the physical sciences awards which are certainly meant for concluded accomplishments). As the world morphs into modern geopolitical and economic situations, awarding the prize to political dissidents against authoritarian regimes, who speak up for human rights and free society, is getting popular. One can perhaps think in this way: freeing up a society and the people's lives and mind, less oppression, would probably create a happier, more balanced national psyche - the inner peace of a nation, almost. On the other hand, there are people who think the Norwegian committee has been exercising its own political agenda, infuriating the Chinese government, which, after all, isn't sending soldiers to wars, to curry favor with Euro-American global interest.
In any case, the Chinese government has had its share of "humiliation" these months, with what was perceived a forced appreciation of its currency and now almost the most direct insult to its political legitimacy in history. (Bush has escalated the Taiwan sovereignty issue in 2002 and made the Chinese very mad, but Bush is Bush.) While human rights issues were never completely off the radar, they more served as co-news of the generally positively reviewed Olympic festival, and were pretty much replaced with economic priorities recently in the Western nations' agenda towards China. With what it seems to be a re-harshening of stance, where would China and US relationship go next? The leadership of today in both the East and the West are different from before. While a solution is not easy, more sophisticated thinking is in order.
No comments:
Post a Comment