On Christmas Day, one of China’s best-known rights activists, writer and university professor Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), was condemned to 11 years in prison. Liu is a drafter of Charter 08, a petition inspired by Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77, calling on Beijing to adhere to its laws and Constitution, and demanding the open election of officials, freedom of religion and expression and abolition of “subversion” laws.
For his bravery and clarity of thought about China’s future, Liu deserves the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. There are two reasons why we believe that Liu would be a worthy recipient of that prestigious award.
First and foremost, he stands in the tradition of Peace Prize laureates recognized for their contribution to the struggle for human rights. Nobel laureates such as Martin Luther King, Lech Walesa and Aung San Suu Kyi are but a few of the many examples that the Nobel Committee has recognized in previous years.
The concepts that Liu and his colleagues put down on paper in December 2008 are both universal and timeless. These ideals — respect for human rights and human dignity, and the responsibility of citizens to ensure that their governments respect those rights — represent humanity’s highest aspirations.
Should the Nobel Committee choose to recognize Liu’s courage and sacrifice in articulating these ideals, it would not only draw global attention to the injustice of Liu’s 11-year sentence, but also help to amplify within China the universal and humanistic values for which Liu has spent so much of his life fighting.
The second reason why Liu deserves the Nobel Peace Prize resonates with Alfred Nobel’s original intent for the award. In working to promote human rights, political reform and democratization in China, Liu has made a significant contribution to the values of peace and fraternity among nations that Nobel had in mind when he created the award more than a century ago.
Of course, democratization does not automatically guarantee better behavior on the world stage. But it does facilitate a full and rigorous public debate over key questions of a state’s foreign and domestic policies. This active and searching conversation, the hallmark of a democratic polity, is the best hope for better decisions by governments, both at home and abroad.
Liu’s committed advocacy on behalf of democracy in China is, above all, intended for the benefit of the Chinese people. But his courage and example may help to accelerate the dawn of the day when China’s participation in international affairs is aided by the expertise and oversight of civil-society groups, an independent media and an engaged citizenry able to express its views through the ballot box.
It is primarily for these two reasons that we believe that Liu would be a worthy recipient of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. In conferring on Liu one of the world’s highest honors, the Committee would be signaling once again the importance of human rights and democracy on the one hand, and world peace and international solidarity on the other.
Liu’s harsh prison sentence was meant as an exemplary measure, a warning to all other Chinese who might want to follow his path. We are convinced that there are moments when exemplary civic engagement, such as Liu’s, requires an exemplary response. Awarding him the Peace Prize is the response that his courage deserves.
Vaclav Havel is former president of the Czech Republic; the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism; Andre Glucksmann is a philosopher; Vartan Gregorian is president of Carnegie Corporation of New York; Mike Moore is former director of the WTO; Karel Schwarzenberg is former foreign minister of the Czech Republic; Desmond Tutu is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate; Grigory Yavlinsky is former chairman of the Russian United Democratic Party, Yabloko.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS