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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
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
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS