奥斯陆的空椅子

写于2010年12月8日

自1901年以来，诺奖委已经颁布了九十一个诺贝尔和平奖。除了没发奖的那几年外，其间只有四次出现领奖人缺席的情况。12月10日星期五，在奥斯陆的和平奖颁奖仪式上，又会有一把空椅子。

今年的得主刘晓波在中国东北锦州监狱中服刑，“罪行”是支持倡导民主人权的《零八宪章》，被判刑十一年。他的妻子和其他亲属近友也去不了奥斯陆，因为他/她们也被软禁或被监控起来了。

这次的这张空椅子比能有人去领奖更能说明中国人权状况的恶劣。中国的经济和政治实力在扩增，但是这种实力并没有带动人权的改善。这张空椅子也道出了人们在中国倡导自由民主所付出的代价。空而富有内涵，好比无声的呐喊。
自诺奖在10月8日公布以来，全国各地公安对那些敢于庆祝或传播这一消息的人们进行了威胁和惩罚。刘晓波的妻子刘霞最后一次在推特上发推条是10月18日，据说20日以后就再也没有她的任何音讯。官方警告刘晓波的老父和三个兄弟不准对媒体发表评论也别想去奥斯陆领奖。刘晓波在北京的好些朋友和同事被国保日夜监控。官方因担心他们会去奥斯陆，堵住了刘晓波的律师莫少平和北大法学教授贺卫方，不让他们去伦敦参加一个国际律协会议。有好几十人因商务或学术会议出国，包括著名经济学家矛予试和艺术家艾未未，就因为涉嫌绕道去奥斯陆，受到边控。至少已经有一百多人被公安传唤或请“喝茶”，有的受到威胁：如果就诺奖接受媒体采访将会面临严重后果。有几位支持晓波的人或“零八宪章”签署人已经被以无端捏造的罪名拘留或送去“劳教”。

中国政府的这些威胁和报复行为从一个侧面表明，诺奖委把今年的和平奖授予刘晓波很明智，也挺有勇气。这个决定使国际社会上更多人知道中国还有像刘晓波这样因言论被严重治罪的人，对其它上千中国狱中良心犯的关注可能会达到1989年以后的第二个高点。世界主流终于开始悟出一个道理：一个国家的经济总产值增长与人权自由压制可以并行，别以为前者一定会带动后者，因此也不要因为有了前者就不再批评后者。

抵制诺贝尔和平奖、报复获奖人，在这方面中国政府这次比缅甸的军统集团、甚至希特勒的纳粹德国走的更远。1991年，缅甸的反对派民主党领袖昂山素姬获诺贝尔和平奖，她当时被拘禁在家里，但她的儿子还能出席颁奖仪式致答谢词。在她2010年11月获释之前，昂山素姬有15年是在软禁中度过的，但她有时还能见到外国使节。1936年，德国的反战记者卡尔. 冯. 奥赛茨基获和平奖，他当时被关押在集中营，重病在身。纳粹德国把他转入市民医院，并公开宣布他可以自由去挪威领奖，但没给他办护照。刘晓波获奖后，中国官方发言人和媒体连篇诋毁诺奖委和诺贝尔和平奖倡导的普世价值：和平、公正、人权，不但没有任何释放刘晓波的迹象，而且对刘晓波进行人格攻击，把刘霞软禁起来，对他们的近亲好友进行了各种形式的打压。在国际层面，中国外交部门公开向各国驻挪威领馆施压，要它们抵制12月10日在奥斯陆举行的和平奖颁奖仪式。

过去十几年中，中国政府投入巨资在国际上营造“软外交”公关工程，塑造良好国际形象。耗资庞大的北京奥运和上海世贸就是这样的“公关”战绩。但是它对诺奖的反应是对这些工程的自我瓦解，与它这些年来刻意营造良好国际形象和信誉的意愿背道而驰。一个继续监禁诺贝尔和平奖得主的政府，不可能受到国际道义和舆论的亲睐，更不可能在世界上有“良好”形象。刘晓波继续被关押在监狱里多久，中国政府的人权劣绩被国际社会重点关注就会持续多久。诺奖提高了对民主国家和多国机构领导人的期望值：他们会感到更大的压力推动他们就人权问题向中国领导人加压。

历史可以佐证。除中国之外，近代还有四个个国家在自己的公民获诺奖后继续监控他（她）们：纳粹法西斯德国（奥赛茨基1936年获奖），苏联政府（沙哈诺夫1975年获奖），波兰政府（瓦文萨1983年获奖），缅甸军统政府（昂山素姬1991年获奖）。

中国政府在颁奖仪式前一天推出一个“孔子和平奖”与诺贝尔和平奖对阵，以此表达官方的一贯说法：“人权”和“民主”是西方概念、“和谐稳定”繁荣才是中国人所向往的。“孔子和平奖”第一任获奖人、台湾前副总统连战已经谢绝接受。在儒家伦理与人权理念之间制造对立，这不仅是一个学术不严谨的问题。当代儒家学者当中一个非常活跃的流派一直在论证儒家的“仁爱”、“宽恕”和“官逼民反”思想是与人权思想一致的。1946年，罗斯福夫人牵头、由世界各国学者组成《世界人权宣言》起草委员会里就有一位中国学者张彭春。他的渊博学术论述说服了起草委员会在最后的文本里接纳了饱含儒家伦理的理念，如《宣言》第一条“人人生而自由,在尊严和权利上一律平等。他们赋有理性和良心,并应以兄弟关系的精神相对待”中“良心”、“兄弟关系”等提法。

中国政府在国际台面上表现的很自信、强大，然而它在国内对待本国公民的作法却显得十分怯弱和恐惧。把一个书生文人打入牢狱11年，恰好说明了这个政府害怕他，怕他是因为他替普通人说话。限制言论自由、惩罚表达民怨的声音，这样的政府出面来说“中国人不要民主人权，”怎么会有信誉？只有开放言论自由，让人们充分表达自己的观点，自由辩论是非，才能真正了解中国民众的价值观和向往。否则，政府官员和官方操控媒体的说法只能代表中国政府的观点。也就是说，“不要人权民主”是中国政府，不是中国民众。

去年的诺贝尔和平奖得主奥巴马在他的答谢词中说，“在一个公民被剥夺言论自由、宗教自由，和无畏选择自己的领导人和集会的权利的国家，和平不可能长久。”奥巴马应该为那些没有表达自由的人们说话，为诺奖最新得主刘晓波的自由呼吁，只有这样，他才能说话算话。

诺奖颁奖仪式实况将会被网警屏蔽，但是中国的四亿多网民当中不少人会通过他们自己的途径翻墙观看并传播仪式的影像和信息。 中国政府把刘晓波、刘霞和她邀请的140多中国贵宾都堵在了牢墙里或国门内，不让去领奖或参加典礼，但是它堵不住刘晓波多年来倡导的那些得到诺贝尔和平奖肯定的理念和价值观穿越国界和防火墙。

12月10日那天，人们会更加树耳倾听刘晓波从他的空椅子上发出的沉寂的声音。

Empty Chair in Oslo

The missing Nobel laureate

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-xia-nobelist-20101209,0,469228.story

Neither China's Liu Xiaobo nor his wife or family or friends will be in Oslo to receive his Peace Prize. Who will speak up for him?
By Renee Xia
December 9, 2010

Ninety-one Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded since 1901. On Friday, at the Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, there will be an empty chair.

This year's recipient, Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese writer and dissident currently serving 11 years in prison for supporting the pro-democracy and human rights manifesto Charter 08, will not be here to receive the honor. Nor will his wife or any other relatives or close friends, as they have been placed under house arrest or police surveillance, or barred from traveling abroad.

The empty chair will speak volumes about the deteriorating human rights conditions in China, a rising economic and political power unchecked by democratic balances. It will also speak of the tremendous sacrifices that Chinese human rights and pro-democracy activists have made, and the urgent need to support their struggle for justice and human rights for those living in China, and for upholding universal values.

Since the Nobel was announced Oct. 8, police across China have been intimidating and penalizing anyone who tries to celebrate or spread the good news. Liu's wife, Liu Xia, was last heard from on Twitter on Oct. 18. Authorities warned Liu Xiaobo's father and brothers to stay silent. Several of Liu's friends and associates in Beijing are guarded around the clock by police. Border control authorities barred his lawyer, Mo Shaoping, and outspoken Beijing University professor He Weifang from traveling to London for a seminar, for fear they would go to Oslo. Dozens of other friends or supporters of Liu, including the economist Mao Yushi and the artist Ai Weiwei, also have been stopped from leaving the country for conferences. At least 100 activists have been visited by police and threatened with severe consequences for speaking to the media about the prize. Several supporters of Liu and signatories of Charter 08 have been detained or sent to "re-education through labor" camps on trumped-up charges.

This campaign of intimidation and retaliation makes it evident that the Nobel Committee made a wise and courageous decision to award the Peace Prize to Liu, one of thousands of prisoners of conscience in China.

Chinese leaders have outdone Myanmar's military junta and even Hitler's Nazi Germany in their efforts to snub the Nobel Peace Prize and retaliate against the recipient. When Burmese democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi won the Peace Prize in 1991 while she was under house arrest, her son made the acceptance speech at the ceremony. When Carl von Ossietzky, the German pacifist journalist, won in 1935 while imprisoned in a concentration camp, Nazi Germany declared that Ossietzky was free to go to Norway to accept the prize, while refusing him a passport. The Chinese government is handing out a competing Confucius Peace Prize.

Over the last decade, the Chinese government has invested heavily in soft diplomacy and image beautification projects, such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics and this year's Shanghai Expo. But international opinion will not look kindly on a government that jails its first Nobel Peace Prize winner. Keeping Liu in prison provides a platform for international mobilization to end rights abuses in China, and will continue to shame the government for its failures to honor its international treaty obligations to respect human rights.

Beijing puts out the Confucius prize to boost its claims that rights and freedoms are Western ideas, and that "stability" and prosperity are more desirable to the Chinese people. On the world stage, China appears as a confident and powerful player. Yet at home, the government is nervous about losing control, terrified that the people will find their own voice. Liu Xiaobo has articulated their voice. By silencing him, the government is silencing the voice of conscience. It is not the silenced Chinese people but the government that rejects the universal values of human rights and democracy.

President Obama, the recipient of last year's Nobel Peace Prize, has a special responsibility to advocate for the freedom of fellow laureate Liu. Obama should attend the Nobel ceremony and take the opportunity to speak publicly about China's worsening human rights conditions. He should ask Chinese President Hu Jintao to free Liu, release his wife from house arrest and allow them to travel to Oslo. Indeed, Obama has a solemn responsibility to speak for the Chinese citizens who cannot, to give substance to the words in his acceptance speech in Oslo a year ago: "Peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear."

Despite Beijing's information blackout on the prize ceremony, many of China's 420 million netizens will find ways to watch the ceremony and spread the word online. Chinese authorities may have succeeded in keeping Liu, his wife and invited guests from China away from the Nobel ceremony. But they cannot prevent the ideas and values that Liu has spent his life promoting from traveling across national borders and China's great Internet firewall.

Renee Xia is international director of the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, which documents human rights abuses in China.

Chinese Leaders' “Catch 22”

Since the Nobel Committee announced that the 2010 Peace Prize is awarded to Liu Xiaobo, China's prominent prisoner of conscience, the Chinese government has respond with furious denouncement of the decision, blockage of information in the media and on the Internet, and harassment of Liu's family and supporters.

The leaders of this one-party state could have reacted very differently, that is, if they would choose to do so. They could have welcomed this prestigious prize and demonstrate that China as capable of embracing universal values such as peace, freedom, and justice.
Either way, whichever of the two responses they choose to adopt, they’d have to abandon the oxymoron of holding on to authoritarian capitalism and, at the same time, gaining world recognition -- that they much desire – as a respected member of modern nations in good standing.
The reason that the government has demonstrated no intention to take the course of positive reaction to the Nobel decision is clear: If it had embraced the 2010 Peace Prize, the Chinese government would have to release Liu Xiaobo from prison, where he is serving an 11-year term for expressing his views critical of the one-party state, writing about its corruption and abuses of human rights. Releasing Liu Xiaobo would be tantamount to tolerating free speech and admitting the wrong of imprisoning and detaining thousands of others for peaceful expression. Releasing all prisoners of conscience would also open the floodgate for free speech and free press, lifting censorship on the Internet, and so on, which is very likely to undermine the Communist Party's monopoly of power and ultimately putting the “Chinese model” for development -- authoritarian capitalism – on its death bed.

However, by taking the opposite stance to the above – denouncing the Nobel decision for “interfering in China's internal affair” and “blaspheme” the principles of Nobel Peace Prize, telling the world that Liu Xiaobo, jailed for his speech, is “a convicted criminal”, and putting Liu's wife and other supporters under house arrest, detaining people who tried to celebrate the Peace Prize, and canceling trade talks with the Norwegians – the Chinese government sets itself back twenty years in its diplomatic quest for a polished image and investment in acquiring a world imminence fit for its economic power.

Indeed, by telling the Nobel Committee that it has “blasphemed” its mandate of promoting universal values, the Chinese government blasphemed the Chinese Constitution and its international pledges and treaty obligations.

The Chinese Constitution, Article 35, grants all Chinese citizens the rights to free expression, assembly, and association. China signed the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights in 1998, thus committed to not violating this international treaty. China is an active member of the UN Human Rights Council, to be elected to which, it made a voluntary pledge to uphold the highest standards of human rights, and China has run and won a second term on the Council. Each year in the past several years, China’s State Council released its annual report on the human rights records of the US. Early this year, the government released its Human Rights Plan of Action promising to comply with its international obligations to respect human rights.

Does the Chinese government care about the negative publicity, unflattering to the image it had invested billions to polish – displaying itself as an irresponsible, unreliable, self-contradictory, bullying power? Its reactions to the Nobel decision have only reinforced these seedy sides of this increasingly influential hereby intimidating player on world stage.
One could almost be certainly though that the Chinese government cares a great deal about its appearances as a respectable power player in good standing in world politics. In recent years, the government has engaged in “soft diplomacy” to polish its image and dissuade those who fear and warn against China’s ascending power status. The state-funded global 24-hour English TV news network will dish out positive news about China and “promote a Chinese perspective” on world events. Chinese government also funded hundreds of “Confucian Institutes” in many US and European universities, prompting worries about Chinese influence on academic studies and minds of youth by cultivating sympathetic sentiments toward the Chinese government. China had spent billions to host the 2008 Summer Olympics and the Shanghai Expo, making these glittering mega attractions.

Awarding of the Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo practically canceled out much of the effort China invested. And it will take as long as the Chinese government chooses to keep Liu Xiaobo and the thousands of other prisoners behind bars to undo the damages. No doubt the Chinese government is so furious at Norway and its retaliation against Chinese activists has since the Nobel announcement reached frenzy unseen since before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Only the top leaders in the Chinese Communist Party can bail China out of its dilemma. Otherwise, they can count on sustained pressure and its shaming factor on the regime as long as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate remain in Chinese jail. Everyday goes by, with Liu Xiaobo imprisoned, Chinese government’s efforts to soften and polish its image will have diminishing return. Releasing Liu Xiaobo now would win China good praises from all around the world, yet the one-party state and its authoritarian capitalism “model” will suffer a blunt blow.

Xiaorong Li

World Reactions to 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for Jailed Chinese Activist Liu Xiaobo

World leaders, governments, and international organizations around the world have reacted to the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the prize to the jailed human rights campaigner. Below, following the official announcement is an incomplete list of these reactions, edited and amended on the basis of a BBC report.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2010
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace. Such rights are a prerequisite for the "fraternity between nations" of which Alfred Nobel wrote in his will.

Over the past decades, China has achieved economic advances to which history can hardly show any equal. The country now has the world's second largest economy; hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. Scope for political participation has also broadened.
China's new status must entail increased responsibility. China is in breach of several international agreements to which it is a signatory, as well as of its own provisions concerning political rights. Article 35 of China's constitution lays down that "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration". In practice, these freedoms have proved to be distinctly curtailed for China's citizens.

For over two decades, Liu Xiaobo has been a strong spokesman for the application of fundamental human rights also in China. He took part in the Tiananmen protests in 1989; he was a leading author behind Charter 08, the manifesto of such rights in China which was published on the 60th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 10th of December 2008. The following year, Liu was sentenced to eleven years in prison and two years' deprivation of political rights for “inciting subversion of state power". Liu has consistently maintained that the sentence violates both China's own constitution and fundamental human rights.

The campaign to establish universal human rights also in China is being waged by many Chinese, both in China itself and abroad. Through the severe punishment meted out to him, Liu has become the foremost symbol of this wide-ranging struggle for human rights in China.
Oslo, October 8, 2010

Chinese Foreign Ministry
The Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to people who "promote national harmony and international friendship, who promote disarmament and peace". Those are Mr Nobel's wishes.
Liu Xiaobo is a criminal who violated Chinese law.

It's a complete violation of the principles of the prize and an insult to the Peace Prize itself for the Nobel committee to award the prize to such a person.

In recent years, Chinese-Norwegian relations have maintained sound development, which is conducive to the two countries and two peoples' interests.

The Nobel Committee awarding Liu this prize, which runs contrary to the principle of the Peace Prize, will bring damage to two-way relations.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg
I would like to congratulate Liu Xiaobo, who has been awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his work to promote democracy and human rights.

The Nobel Committee's decision directs a spotlight on the human rights situation in China, and underscores the links between development, democracy and universal human rights. Liu Xiaobo has been awarded the prize for defending freedom of expression and democracy in a way that deserves attention and respect.

China has made huge economic and social progress over the last decades. The standard of living has improved in step with these developments, and the Chinese people have gained greater individual freedom. However, there are still challenges that need to be addressed with regard to several universal human rights.

Norway enjoys close and extensive cooperation with China. Our ties are longstanding and cover all the areas that link our countries together. Discussions of human rights issues are part of these relations.

US President Barack Obama
Last year, I noted that so many others who have received the award had sacrificed so much more than I. That list now includes Mr Liu, who has sacrificed his freedom for his beliefs.

By granting the prize to Mr Liu, the Nobel Committee has chosen someone who has been an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and non-violent means, including his support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

As I said last year in Oslo, even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal to all human beings.

Over the last 30 years, China has made dramatic progress in economic reform and improving the lives of its people, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. But this award reminds us that political reform has not kept pace, and that the basic human rights of every man, woman and child must be respected.

We call on the Chinese government to release Mr Liu as soon as possible.

Václav Havel, former president of Czech Republic
“I congratulate Mr Liou Xiaobo on the award of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize and I rejoice over the fact that he is historically the first Chinese citizen to receive it. Liu Xiaobo is the prototype of committed citizen to whom such award is due – that, too, is the reason why, together with friends, I have proposed his nomination and supported it during the whole nomination period. I would like to repeat my appreciation of the Charter 08 initiative, as well as of all its signatories and their families. Appreciation is due also to the Norwegian Nobel Committee for resisting the warnings aired by Chinese authorities and refusing to put economic interests above human rights.” http://bit.ly/cR0ar6

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office
The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo of China is a recognition of the growing international consensus for improving human rights practices and culture around the world.
The secretary-general has consistently emphasised the importance of human rights, along with development and peace and security, as the three main pillars of the work of the United Nations.
Over the past years, China has achieved remarkable economic advances, lifted millions out of poverty, broadened political participation and steadily joined the international mainstream in its adherence to recognised human rights instruments and practices.

The secretary-general expresses his sincere hope that any differences on this decision will not detract from advancement of the human rights agenda globally or the high prestige and inspirational power of the award.

Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou
This is not only a personal honour for Liu but it has major historic significance for China's human rights development and the global Chinese society.

China's economic developments have impressed the world and it would win the recognition of Taiwanese people and the international community if it can make progress and a breakthrough in human rights issues.

UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay
I welcome the award because it recognises not only the prominence of Liu Xiaobo, whose release I have often called for, but it recognises the very important role of human rights defenders not only in China but in many parts of the world, where for bringing up human rights issues, calling for reform, they are being punished in various ways.

UN Human Rights Experts
Four UN experts* today added their voices to those welcoming the decision of the Nobel Committee, on Friday, to award the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, and urged for his immediate release.

Liu Xiaobo participated in the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in Beijing in 1989, worked as a professor at Beijing Normal University, and co-authored the Charter 08 document which called for multiparty democracy and greater respect for human rights in the country.

“Liu Xiaobo is a courageous human rights defender who has continuously and peacefully advocated for greater respect for human rights in the People’s Republic of China. We welcome the recognition of his work,” stated the experts.

“For many years, we have expressed to the Government of the People’s Republic of China concerns regarding violations of Liu Xiaobo’s fundamental human rights,” noted the experts. “This includes his detention in October 1997 and the sentence of re-education through labour for speaking out about the country’s one-party political system, found to be arbitrary in a decision** adopted by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.”

Most recently, Liu Xiaobo was convicted by the Beijing No.1 Municipal Court for “inciting subversion of State power” and, on 25 December 2009, was sentenced to 11 years in prison and two years’ deprivation of political rights. “Such a harsh sentence for his peaceful activities in drafting and organizing the signing of Charter 08 is a clear violation of international human rights standards on the right to freedom of expression,” the experts stated. They also noted that there were many irregularities with the trial which did not conform to international standards regarding the right to a fair and public hearing.

“On this occasion, we appeal to the Government of the People’s Republic of China to release all persons detained for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression and to respect the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Government is a signatory,” said the experts. “We encourage the Government to take the final step and ratify this important international instrument.”

German government spokesman
The [German] government would like to see him released soon and receive his prize in person. The government has pressed for his release in the past and will continue to do so.

He is a brave man, a man who wants to advance democracy and human rights in his country, but one who knows and has always said that this would be a difficult and drawn-out process that should stay peaceful whatever happens.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner
This decision embodies the defence of human rights everywhere in the world. France, like the European Union, expressed its concern after his arrest and has called for him to be released on a number of occasions. It reiterates that appeal.

British Foreign Office
The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Liu Xiaobo shines a spotlight on the situation of human rights defenders worldwide.

British Ministers, including Foreign Secretary William Hague, have raised his case in China since his imprisonment in 2009. We continue to call for his release and to champion freedom of expression in all countries.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso
The decision of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is a strong message of support to all those around the world who, sometimes with great personal sacrifice, are struggling for freedom and human rights. These values are at the core of the European Union.

Chinese Human Rights Defenders
(Chinese Human Rights Defenders, October 8, 2010) – CHRD hails the Nobel Committee’s announcement and congratulates the imprisoned activist, writer and intellectual, Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波), on being awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize honors Liu for his decades-long dedication to promoting democracy and human rights in China. Mr. Liu is serving an 11-year prison sentence for “inciting subversion of state power,” primarily for his support ofCharter 08, a citizens’ manifesto calling for democratic reform published in December 2008 to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“The Prize honors the more than 10,000 Chinese citizens who have bravely signed on in support of the ideas expressed in Charter 08 and all prisoners of conscience in China,” said Zhang Zuhua, a Beijing-based activist who originally drafted Charter 08. “These principles of nonviolence, equality, and respect for human rights could not be more aligned with the values of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

Of the 303 original signatories to Charter 08, many were interrogated by the police, and several had their homes raided and personal property confiscated. Others have been put under house arrest or police surveillance. The government has tried to censor the document within China by removing it from websites and online forums. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu will undoubtedly introduce Charter 08 to a new and wider audience.

“Awarding the Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo also honors all Chinese human rights defenders—Chen Guangcheng, Hu Jia, Gao Zhisheng, and countless others—who have suffered a great deal for advocating human rights,” noted Renee Xia, CHRD’s International Director. “We can only hope that the Peace Prize will add momentum to the efforts for their freedom and encouragement for their long road ahead,” said Xia.

CHRD specifically wishes to thank those who have worked hard to nominate Liu as well as those who have advocated on his behalf, especially the former Czech President Václav Havel. CHRD commends the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for standing up to the Chinese government, which tried to influence its decision by threatening severe consequences for diplomatic relations with the Norwegian government.

CHRD asks US President Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, to ask Chinese President Hu Jintao to free Mr. Liu at the G20 summit in South Korea on November 11 and 12.

Human Rights Watch
(New York, October 8, 2010) – The awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to the Chinese writer and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo underscores the urgent need for rights reforms in China, Human Rights Watch said today.

“This award will no doubt infuriate the Chinese government by putting its human rights record squarely back into the international debate,” said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “But this Nobel Prize honors not only Liu’s unflinching advocacy; it honors all those in China who struggle daily to make the government more accountable.”
“The Nobel Committee made an important decision this year to highlight a reality few want to acknowledge about China – that its government continues to persecute human rights advocates, lawyers, and journalists,” said Richardson. “Liu Xiaobo epitomizes the Nobel Peace Prize ideals by never deviating from his belief in peacefully expressing universal ideals and speaking truth to power.”

“The Chinese government should see Liu Xiaobo as the Nobel Committee clearly does: not as an enemy or an embarrassment, but rather as someone whose courageous advocacy embodies the best of China,” said Richardson.

Amnesty International
Liu Xiaobo is a worthy winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. We hope it will keep the spotlight on the struggle for fundamental freedoms and concrete protection of human rights that Liu Xiaobo and many other activists in China are dedicated to.

This award can only make a real difference if it prompts more international pressure on China to release Liu, along with the numerous other prisoners of conscience languishing in Chinese jails for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

The Dalai Lama
I would like to offer my heart-felt congratulations to Mr Liu Xiaobo for being awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Awarding the Peace Prize to him is the international community's recognition of the increasing voices among the Chinese people in pushing China towards political, legal and constitutional reforms.

Desmond M. Tutu and Václav Havel
On Friday, the writer Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
for his more than two decades of calling for democratic change in
China.

Immediately, the Chinese government responded by calling him a
criminal and accusing the Norwegian Nobel Committee of blasphemy.
Having already sentenced Liu to 11 years in prison, it moved quickly
on Friday to cordon off his wife, Liu Xia, from the rest of the
world, surrounding her with security agents in their Beijing
apartment. We have seen this before: in the dark days of apartheid,
under the long shadow of the Iron Curtain; whenever we took a small
step forward in securing the freedom of our people, we were stripped
of our own.

As we write today, Liu remains cloistered in a remote prison in
northeast China. Liu’s present incarceration—it is his fourth—came
after he co-authored Charter 08, which calls on the Chinese
government to institute democratic reforms and guarantee the
freedoms of assembly, religion, and expression. Though Charter 08
was modeled after Czechoslovakia’s Charter ‘77, the fundamental
values it invokes are no more Western than they are Chinese.

We nominated Liu for the Nobel Peace Prize this year because of the
universality of his call for fundamental freedoms for his people.

At its core, Charter 08 asks the Chinese government to honor those
rights already enshrined in the Chinese Constitution. The government
already willingly signed the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and ratified the International Covenant on Economic
and Social Rights. Just last week, Premier Wen Jiabao, acknowledged
that, “Freedom of speech is indispensable . . . The people’s wishes
for, and needs for, democracy and freedom are irresistible.”

This need not be a moment of shame or insult for China. This should
be a moment of pride, celebrating that one of China’s own is
recognized as the world’s greatest contributor to that which all
nations seek: peace. It is an affirmation of humankind's oldest
living language that Liu’s words in Charter 08, Chinese words, could
inspire such admiration. It is a testament to the strength and
courage of the Chinese people that Liu’s actions have earned him
such widespread respect.

This is an opportunity for China to embrace its newfound standing in
the world and turn the page on a century of victimization. We know
there are many wrongs that have been perpetrated against China and
its people throughout history. But awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to
Liu is not one of them. Nor is the peaceful call for reform from the
more than 10,000 Chinese citizens who dared to sign Charter 08.

More than at any other time in history, the world looks to China as
a leader. This is an opportunity to show that China, as it has been
for thousands of years, is a forward-looking nation. If it keeps Liu
behind bars, the Chinese government is no more progressive than the
ever paranoid and closeted Burmese junta, the only other regime with
the gall to lock away another recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize,
Aung San Suu Kyi. Release Liu, and China continues its impressive
emergence on the world stage. It has helped keep the global economy
afloat; now it can show the world that it also has the confidence to
face criticism and embrace change.

China has done it before. Thirty years ago, while we—like Liu
today—were still being punished simply for speaking our minds, the
Chinese government opened up its economy and unleashed the
industriousness and ingenuity of the Chinese people on the world’s
markets. The world, in turn, has watched with awe as China has
pulled itself out of poverty and into a thriving, dynamic future.
This is an opportunity for China to open up once again, to give its
people the ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas where,
surely, they will prove just as extraordinary.

We know this because we have seen this before. We have seen it in
the churches of Soweto and the theaters of Prague, and in the hushed
corners of freedom all over the world, and we know how it ends. We
are able to write today, free of fear and full of hope, because in
the end, we won our freedom back, and so did our people. We know
that in time, Liu, and the Chinese people, will win their freedom.

After Liu's sentencing last year, he had a simple statement
released: "I have long been aware that when an independent
intellectual stands up to an autocratic state, step one toward
freedom is often a step into prison," it said. "Now I am taking that
step; and true freedom is that much nearer."

This is an opportunity for the Chinese government. It can continue
to fight a losing battle, against the forces of democracy and
freedom that its own Premier has called “irresistible.”

Or it can stand on the side of justice, and free Liu Xiaobo.

Guardians of Charter 77 Legacy & Czech Helsinki Committee
Dear friends from Charter 08, dear Mrs. Liu Xia,

As the guardians of the legacy of Charter 77 we, in the name of the activists and signatories of Charter 77 and the Czech Helsinki Committee that also originated in the pre-1990 era, send our congratulations on the occasion of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Liu Xiaobo.

We are immensely happy with the awarding of the prize. Please relay to Liu Xiaobo our hope that the Nobel Prize will aid in gaining his quick release from jail, and also in bringing about further concessions from the political state authorities, as well as acknowledgement of human dignity and protection of human rights. As a part of a world-wide effort we will urge for the People’s Republic of China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 12 years after the Chinese government signed it. By doing this, China will commit to upholding the rights enumerated in the covenant. This covenant, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, is a strong link between Charter 77 and Charter 08, between Czechoslovak and the Chinese people. Both of the covenants were an inspiration for both of our charters.

Just as you, we are convinced that Chinese citizens should be guaranteed their basic rights and democratic freedoms, and that Charter 08 advocates the protection of these civil rights.
We wish to help you in this cause with all that is within our power.

We send you brotherly greetings

Prague, 11 Oct 2010

Guardians of the legacy of Charter 77: Rudolf Battěk, Jiří Gruntorád and Dana Němcová;
Chair of the Czech Helsinki Committee, Anna Šabatová

UN Chief's Imbalanced Statement on Nobel Peace Prize for Liu Xiaobo

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s statement, released through his spokesperson, on the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, which is awarded to China’s jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo last Friday, has gone too far in assuaging China’s furious authorities.

The statement offered little, if anything, about the achievement of Liu Xiaobo while devoting most part of this brief statement to sing the praises to the Chinese government for improving human rights. Facing potential pressure from China in his bid for a second term as the UN chief, Mr. Ban, in his well-known non-confrontational style, might have done better to stand firm on UN human rights principles while refraining from offering Chinese authorities praises that contradict the UN human rights expert bodies’ own findings.

Ban’s statement said, "the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo of China is a recognition of the growing international consensus for improving human rights practices and culture around the world." Ban went on to praise China: "Over the past years, China has achieved remarkable economic advances, lifted millions out of poverty, broadened political participation and steadily joined the international mainstream in its adherence to recognized human rights instruments and practices." “Lifting millions out of poverty” maybe, but “broadened political participation?” This claim pays no attention to the mere fact of China’s recent harsh crackdown on Chinese citizens who supported a political reform manifesto, Charter 08, since its publication on December 9, 2008, one day after Liu Xiaobo’s arrest for his role in drafting and organizing support for this expression of democratic aspirations.

Ban said nothing in terms of appealing to China to free Liu Xiaobo, but instead expressed his "sincere hope that any differences on this decision will not detract from advancement of the human rights agenda globally or the high prestige and inspirational power of the Award." This conclusion gives the impression that China was advancing the human rights agenda and it may also hint that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo might detract the prestige of the award while saying nothing about China’s bullying of Norway by issuing threats on diplomatic and trade relations for months prior to the Nobel Committee’s decision.

As if to counter-balance the UN chief’s statement, some UN human rights experts released a statement on Oct. 11 on Liu Xiaobo’s winning of the Peace Prize. The experts urge China to “respect human rights and release all persons detained for peacefully exercising their rights”. The experts have communicated their concerns over the arbitrary detention of Liu Xiaobo for expressing his democratic aspirations in the past two years.

In contrast to Ban’s statement, President Barack Obama, last year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, in his statement issued last Friday, praised Liu Xiaobo "as an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and non-violent means" and urged China to release Liu Xiaobo as soon as possible.

The reporter Nikola Krastev of Radio Free Europe called Ban’s statement a “congratulatory” message to both Liu and the Chinese authorities who jailed him. Krastev noted that Ban is caught between “a rock and a hard place”: on the one hand, China’s support to Ban as the UN chief, and on the other, the importance of giving this year’s Peace Prize to an imprisoned Chinese dissident.

Colum Lynch, the longtime Washington Post correspondent who reports on all things United Nations for Turtle Bay, shared his view on what might be going on behind such a compromising statement: Ban’s statement took a “diplomatic approach to Beijing”. The UN Secretary General “who will need China's support if he hopes to win a second term as secretary general in 2011.”

China displayed an uncontrolled outrage at the Nobel Committee’s decision since Friday. It has quickly censored media reports and the Internet on related news. Chinese police warned against and rounded up Chinese activists who tried to spread the good news and celebrate, calling for his release.

Mr. Ban is reasonably concerned about a diplomatic show-down with China. Yet, Mr. Ban went one step too far than it is necessary in pursuing his signature “non-confrontational” diplomatic approach to the “China vs. Nobel Committee” face-off.

(Oct. 11, 2010)

An Important Follow-up to China's Obligations to Implement Convention against Torture

Chinese human rights activists tend to focus on urging the Chinese government to sign or ratify international human rights treaties, but the more demanding work lies in follow-up with the government's implementation of its treaty obligations. International human rights groups have done some good work in this front. But the participation in UN human rights activities by Chinese or China-based NGOs is a key to the UN system's success. It is in light of these observations, the work of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), a China-based and international NGO, in trying to bridge some gaps deserves noticing.

CHRD has involved Chinese activists in some follow-up work with regard to the UN Convention against Torture, which China ratified some 22 years ago! CHRD just puts out a press release saying that “With China’s fifth periodic report to the Committee against Torture (CAT) upcoming, many key problems raised by CAT in 2008 as it considered China’s fourth periodic report have yet to be adequately addressed.” The organization produced a report, by working together with local activists, and sent it to CAT recently. The report “outlines a number of issues and cases for the Committee to include in the List of Issues that the Chinese government will be requested to address in its next report.” (http://chrdnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Issues-and-Cases-CHRD-Recommends-CAT-Include-in-its-LOI-for-China.pdf)

“The Chinese government plays up its participation with the UN human rights regime for public relations purposes, yet it continues to ignore or actively challenge recommendations made by the Committee against Torture,” said Renee Xia, CHRD’s International Director. “Meanwhile, torture remains a serious problem across China, and some of the issues raised by CAT in 2008, such as unnatural deaths in detention and the harassment of human rights defenders, have worsened.”
CAT is doing something new, before a government submits a periodic report, the Committee is to present that government a “list of issues” (LOI), which will require information formt eh government on specific, follow-up issues that have previously concerned CAT. Before, the CAT only sent governments LOI after they have submitted their reports. (For information on the Committee against Torture’s working methods:http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/workingmethods.htm)

Thus, while the Chinese government is due to submit its fifth periodic report to CAT in November 2012, the Committee will present China with a LOI. To prepare CAT with an informative LOI, NGOs and civil society groups should provide information while CAT is preparing the LOI for China.
CHRD’s submission to CAT for this purpose “highlights a number of problems previously identified by CAT, providing updated information on recent developments and calling for continued pressure for positive change in these areas.”
Here are some substantive issues that CHRD has highlighted for CAT to ask the Chinese government to address:

1. The use of torture to extract confessions. The Chinese government promulgated in summer 2010 regulations banning evidence obtained through torture in criminal trials. That was more an indication of the prevalence of this problem than a sign of progress! CHRD points out that “these regulations contain problematic language and stresses that their true value will be determined only by their implementation.” One case CHRD brought to the attention of CAT is that of Fan Qihang, whose death sentence based on a confession extracted through torture is currently being reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court. If China’s highest court fails to ask the lower court to throw out evidence extracted by torture, Fan is likely to be executed within days of the highest court’s ruling. (http://chrdnet.org/2010/08/03/chinas-highest-court-must-overturn-death-sentence-based-on-confession-extracted-by-torture/)
2. The ongoing pattern of harassment and abuse of human rights lawyers, human rights defenders, and petitioners. Most people probably don’t consider this issue a matter of CAT’s concern. But it is. CAT raised this concern prominently in its November 2008 Concluding Observations and Recommendations after it reviewed China’s state report. (China’s fourth periodic state report to CAT, submitted February 14, 2006, and related documents, including CAT’s Concluding Observations, adopted November 21, 2008: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/cats41.htm) CHRD finds that the government “failed to take any concrete steps in the past two years to better protect the rights or personal safety” of human rights defenders.
3. Other problems such as “unnatural deaths in detention centers, arbitrary detention in Re-education through Labor camps, and illegal detention in black jails and psychiatric institutions, as well as abuses in these facilities”. CHRD points out that the government has been either unable or unwilling to effectively address these problems that CAT raised concerns about in its 2008 review.

Shanghai Expo of Human Rights Abuses 上海世博人权侵害展览

Xiaorong Li

The Chinese Human Rights Defenders pointed out, in a press release on April 28, 2010, that "As the 2010 Shanghai World Expo opens on May 1, conspicuously absent from the festivities will be the residents of Shanghai who have lost their homes, businesses, and freedom to exercise their rights in the government’s drive to bring its ambitious plans for the Expo to fruition. Ahead of the arrival of an estimated 70 million visitors over the next six months, officials in Shanghai have detained, placed under surveillance, or threatened activists, dissidents, and petitioners across the city and in surrounding areas. Police in other cities have warned activists not to travel to Shanghai."

I wish that those few world leaders who plan to attend the opening ceremony of the Expo, including the EU President and French President, would be reading the CHRD press release! They may brush off the claims of human rights abuses associated with preparations for the Expo, insisting that the Shanghai World Expo is only a "trade show" and they ought to be there to promote trade and commerce. But the Chinese government has politicized the trade show. The CHRD press release cites one local activist as saying:

“The government is working to create an atmosphere of fear in the activist community in Shanghai and elsewhere,” said one activist who has been closely monitoring developments ahead of the Expo. “Many activists, dissidents, and petitioners are under some form of restriction of movement or surveillance. Some are refraining from speaking out for themselves or getting in touch with others for fear of serious retribution.”

According to CHRD, police have sought out high-profile local activists and made it clear that any efforts to expose abuses by the government will be met with swift and serious retaliation. For example, Feng Zhenghu (冯正虎), a veteran Shanghai activist who for years has sought to draw attention to the failures of the Shanghai judicial system, had planned to set up a “Shanghai Expo of Unjust Court Cases” during the Expo. Around midnight on April 19, Shanghai police raided his home, confiscated his computer equipment and took him away for a four-hour interrogation. Police threatened that if he spoke out during the Expo they would “make him disappear like Gao Zhisheng (高智晟).”

Other activists have been placed in detention to ensure that they will be out of sight for the duration of the Expo. CHRD has documented six cases of Shanghai petitioners-turned-activists who have been sent to Re-education through Labor (RTL) since January for reasons related to the World Expo, and a total of 10 dating back to the latter half of 2009.[1] For example, Tong Guojing (童国菁) was sent to 18 months of RTL on February 13. Tong, like most of those sent to RTL, started petitioning after his home was forcibly demolished, and became an activist as he learned about the plight of fellow petitioners.

A number of activists in the provinces surrounding Shanghai, such as Wen Kejian (温克坚) and Zou Wei (邹巍) in Zhejiang Province, and Zhang Lin (张林) in Anhui Province, have been warned by local police against traveling to Shanghai during the Expo. CHRD has received reports that activists in cities as far away as Guangzhou, Xi’an, and Beijing have been asked to “tea” or questioned by police in recent days, and warned not to travel to Shanghai or speak out during the World Expo.

Forced evictions carried out in preparation for the Expo have been a source of widespread anger among Shanghai citizens for years. According to official statistics, 18,000 households were relocated to clear the grounds for the Expo, but activists argue that, taking into account other development related to the Expo, many more residents were affected.[2] Shanghai officials estimated in 2009 that complaints over forced eviction and demolition accounted for “70 or 80 percent” of petitions originating from the city (for interviews with Shanghai residents affected by Expo-related forced evictions, please see CHRD’s report, Thrown Out: Human Rights Abuses in China’s Breakneck Real Estate Development).[3]

To prevent victims of forced evictions from drawing attention to their grievances during the Expo, police are detaining, harassing, and threatening petitioners. Many are being held under “soft detention” at home. For example, Huang Yuqin (黄玉芹), a resident of Minhang District, Shanghai, whose home was demolished on March 2, has been under “soft detention” since April 19. Security guards have followed her whenever she leaves her home, and have prevented her from leaving on at least one occasion. Huang also received a notice warning her not to gather with others or petition on or near the Expo grounds for duration of the Expo. Other Shanghai petitioners have received an identical notice in recent weeks, threatening “strict punishment” for any who disregard the instructions.[4]

Finally, some veteran Shanghai petitioners have been detained as a warning to others ahead of the event. For example, Shen Peilan (沈佩兰), who has been petitioning since the forced demolition of her home in 2003, was administratively detained for 15 days in the Minhang District Detention Center in late March and early April. Shen, who was beaten during her detention, has since been released, and has gone into hiding in Shanghai.

The international media and human rights organizations have, as of yesterday, turned their spotlight on the Shanghai Expo, exposing such abuses as forced eviction and demolition, interviewing disgruntled local residents, and revealing government ordinances restricting freedom of expression and the press. Un-intended perhaps by the Chinese government, the Shanghai Expo will also be an Expo to the world of Shanghai's human rights problems.

Googlegate: Raising the Bar of Business Code of Conduct 谷歌门事件：提升商业道德的水准

Xiaorong Li

In mid-January, Google threatened to pull its business out of China unless China lifts filters of its search engine (google.cn and google.com) results. What is this all about? Only Google can explain the intent or motives behind its decisions. Despite the motives, Google may have done some good by spotlighting and picking fight with cyber censorship and cyber infiltration. Google and other foreign (mostly US) Internet technology corporations should have protested, even at the cost to their own profit, a long time ago or should have never accepted culprit role in the government’s online censorship as pre-condition for entering the Chinese market in the first place.

If Google did the right thing this time, then, it implies that Google has not been doing the right thing to doing business in China under the condition of assisting censorship. And it also means that the other Internet companies are still doing the wrong thing by keeping doing business under such compromising conditions. If hackers breaking into human rights activists’ email (gmail, Yahoo, hotmail) accounts should prompt such reactions as Google’s, then, such reactions are overdue since hackering emails has been an ongoing reality for several years. Typically, the hackers would enter somebody’s email account and send emails to all on the user’s address list, spreading rumors or sending attachments containing viruses. Curiously, such hacking seems to target activists rather than random victims. I have received “important messages” frequently from so-called Google Administrators alerting me “due to irregular actions in your account, it will be soon closed” and so on, trying to get me to click a link or open an attachment. But the senders’ addresses, upon inspection, often end with “.tw” or “.ho”. These are clearly fake email addresses and such emails cannot come from Google. Others who are less careful might have been tricked. Many in the Chinese activist community, inside China or on exile, have been victims of routine email hacking so much so they rarely communicate anything “sensitive” via emails.

Surely it is never too late to correct one’s mistakes. We all need time to get over our learning curve – to come to the realization of having made a mistake.

Google made a fuss more like because it is alarmed by the sophisticated, large-scale cyber attacks on its site and the sites of more than 30 other Internet companies doing business in China, intended perhaps to steel intellectual property or install spyware. Whatever the triggers are, Google’s act raises important ethical questions about the moral standing of American companies doing their part in assisting the Chinese government’s Internet censorship. It is worth raising such issues and sounding the alarm, since the other Internet companies who have said nothing will apparently continue their collaboration with the authoritarian regime. The repercussions of the Google action, including a televised speech on Internet freedom by Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, on January contributed to a wave of public discussions about corporate responsibilities in the era of globalization of Internet technology.

Aside from intentions and repercussions, many Americans may not know the fact that Google’s Chinese search engine in China, www.google.cn, accepted ethically compromising conditions set by Chinese authorities to censors so-called “sensitive” contents. Google.cn filters “sensitive” words, thus contributing to upholding the Chinese government’s Great Fire Wall to block Chinese users’ access to open information online. An easy test can be performed to demonstrate how much information is censored by Google.cn. A user on outside the Great Fire Wall can search for the same words such as “Tiananmen incident”, or “Falun Gong”, on both google.cn and google.com. One will see two very different pages of search results. In volume, the Google.com search produces 10-15 times more items of results than Google.cn does. In contents, predictably, the results out of Google.cn are one-sided, reflecting the government’s point of view. It is difficult for Chinese users to directly link to Google.com and gmail (which is hosted outside China) -- connecting from China is either very slow or not accessible. And like all websites outside the country, once opened in China, Google.com’s search results are subjected to censorship – politically sensitive contents would also be filtered and some pages are blocked.

Google wants to make clear that its mission is to promote open information and its motto is “Don’t be evil!” But this mission has been seriously compromised since Google entered China in 2006. Much like Google, other American internet companies, such as Yahoo, Microsoft, News Corp (MySpace), accepted the Chinese authorities’ policies of Internet censorship and practiced self-censorship under pressure.

One plausible argument for entering the Chinese market even if it means obeying ethically compromising local regulations is this: Internet companies will get a significant market share of the world’s largest pool of potential users, 1.3 billion. This will not only enable American companies to make profit, but also enable Chinese users to benefit from information technology. While some politically sensitive information is blocked, this argument goes, the vast majority of the Chinese population only need “un-sensitive” information about products, services, or daily life necessities.

This argument did not foresee the reality that, after years’ trying, most foreign Internet companies that had entered China have not been able to claim significant shares of the Chinese market. Google has about a 30% share of the market, while its Chinese competitor Baidu take more than 60%. Chinese companies are good at imitating foreign products but also have less or no prohibitions in providing services – such as free music download -- at the expense of certain regulations on copyrights and so on. And these companies are good at meeting the socio-psychological needs of Chinese consumers. Google is the only one so far who has go public about this frustrations and is willing to cut its looses, which may turn out to be insignificant in comparison to Google’s global revenues. Google may have calculated that the benefit of losing its share of the Chinese market is not worth keeping at the cost to its intellectual property being hacked and its reputation.

Though Google’s announcement raised the ethical bar for doing business in an authoritarian police state, other US Internet companies have not come around the learning curve to do such a calculation. For example, do the revenues for Yahoo in China really trump Yahoo’s interest in maintaining a clean reputation or peace of its CEOs’ conscience? Yahoo’s reputation nosedived after it was exposed for having handed over email recordings to Chinese police, which resulted in the imprisonment of several internet writers and journalists. One of them, Shi Tao, a journalist, is serving a 10-year sentence for leaking “state secret” through his Yahoo email! Microsoft also suffered in its reputation after it was exposed for shutting down the blog of the Chinese journalist Zhao Jing, who had written and posted an article about the government’s censoring of a Beijing newspaper. Unfortunately, most foreign Internet companies are so infatuated with their vision of selling products and services to a significant fraction of the 1.3 billion consumers, such that they would write off the losses of their reputation and overlook the fact that significant market shares have gone to Chinese companies. Thus, as of today, every page on the MySpace China site included a link allowing users or monitors to “report inappropriate information” to authorities, and Apple’s iTunes forbids Chinese users to download applications that refer to the Dalai Lama.

It may be true that the majority of China’s 380 million ordinary Internet users may not search for such words as “Tiananmen”, “Falun Gong”, or “Dalai Lama.” But if anyone ever does, Google.cn and other foreign Internet (website, blog, email) providers doing business in China have helped the Chinese government to make the information unavailable to that person. And the Chinese government’s increasingly long list of “sensitive” words for Internet blocking suggests that more and more people might be searching for these words, which is the only plausible explanation of the expanding official list.

Though victimhood does not relieve one of implication in Internet censorship, it is only fair to point out that Google and other companies, Chinese or foreign, are victims of China’s cyber policing regime, or at lease willing victims in the case of the foreign companies.

The cyber attack on Google website has been coordinated between technical and non-technological tactics. In June 2009, government-controlled media accused Google of spreading unhealthy pornographic contents. Chinese cyber activists conducted analysis of search words entered in Google.cn search engine, they found repeated searches from locations in Beijing of pornographic words. The frequency of such searches was later used by official media in its accusations against Google. Analysts believe that such deliberative acts are those of government-paid cyber thugs, known as the “50 cents party”. The objective of the members of the “50 cents party” is to harass and inform on online activists, monitor contents of websites, blogs, and Twitter, infiltrate activists’ interactive sites or chat groups, and hack websites\email accounts.

In addition to paying cyber thugs to petrol the Internet, the government also uses the following non-technological tactics:
1. The government adopted administrative regulations to control online magazines, scan mobile phone text messages, require internet/blog address registers to use real names, and so on. Various government agencies have issued many directives to control particular types of internet media, organizations, and usage, including online magazines, website registrations, interactive forums and bulletin board services (BBS), blogs, and video websites.
2. They deployed the “110 cyber police” on webpages. Cyber police petrol often appears as images of policemen or links for readers to click. They facilitate reporting of “illegal or unhealthy” contents on webpages.
3. They implemented a point system to punish internet media for infractions. Companies that accumulated points may have their registration licenses suspended or pay hefty fines. Through a complex system of administrative incentives and punishments, the government coerces companies into practicing self-censorship – to filter sensitive contents, block or delete articles, or close down websites and blogs on their own sites.
4. The government organized a "vigilant informants network", known at the "50 cents party" with paid cyber petrol men to collect information on netizens, infiltrate and subortage websites or online interactive sites frequented by dissidents/activists.
5. The government continues to use the criminal law to persecute internet users for expressing their views online.
6. In one extreme case, government shut down the Internet and cell phone networks for the entire Xinjiang Autonomous Region after the riot last July. As of last month, only a couple of official websites was made accessible.

Will Google’s pullout be a loss to Chinese users? Will it have any huge impact on online activists? If it is, this would offset any cost-benefit calculation that may have figured into Google’s decision to threat to pull out. Since the Chinese government has not budged, nor will it budge, to lift censorship. Lately, the government has indicated that hackers outside the government must be responsible for such hackings at Google’s sites.

Chinese online activists and even Chinese IT company professionals are delighted by Google’s announcement. One website portal owner was the first to lay flowers in front of Google’s Beijing headquarter. A card attached to a bunch of flowers reads, “Google [acted like] a real man”. (Photos) The Chinese internet companies too are victims of the government’s censorship.

If Google pulls out of China, general users will lose Google.cn as a search engine, but they can’t find certain information there anyway and they can instead find government-sanitized information on Chinese website portals like Baidu. Such Chinese competitors will have an even bigger share of the market. However, Chinese consumers have a taste for forbidden fruits – banned books, movies, or unavailable (pirated) brand-name designer handbags or CDs, often become hot items. Upon learning about the alternative, “forbidden” Google products – their superior quality and efficiency, consumers may have stronger desires than before to get their hands on them, which is what gives teeth to Google’s threat, otherwise largely symbolic move.

Those netizens who are un-satiable for information and online activists who have a penchant for alternative (un-censored) information, however, are unlikely to have less access to information and to Google tools, such as Google Document, Google Translation, Gmail Groups, etc., since most of them are already gaining access to the open Internet via proxy servers – which allow them to bypass the Chinese government blocking devises: the Great Fire Wall.

If the Chinese government’s Internet censorship is mostly furbished by American companies, a small fraction of the Chinese population – the online activists – have also benefited from technology. But the credit does not necessarily go to companies that have compromised principles to enter China. Rather, those Chinese who have the will to undermine official censorship have made creative use of Internet tools. The hope for a future of free expression and open information in China lies in these younger and creative Netizens. They are very vocal in denouncing cyber censorship and demanding Internet freedom. They have become very creative in using the new online media to mobilize and “climb over” the Great Fire Wall. Though Twitter is blocked in China, however, after China closed down the popular Chinese social networking site Fanfou last September, many users switched to Twitter and found their way to access the site by proxy or alternative links. Today, Twitter has become one of the most effective tools for networking and mobilization of Chinese activists. Another example of this is the protest in Panyu, Guangdong province, against the construction of a waste processing station last November, which was entirely organized and reported on Twitter. In another example, in January, when the government began implementing a new regulation to scan text message and suspend users’ accounts if “illegal, unhealthy” contents are discovered, many Chinese users repeated texted censored words in order to overwhelm the censors. Finally, when authorities censored the words “Charter 08” on Chinese websites, activists used words with different characters but the same spelling “county chief with swollen glands” to evade the blocking.

One of the most useful tools for bypassing the Great Fire Wall (GFW) is proxy server. Users inside the Wall can connect to such a server, which is based outside the Wall, which enables them to visit the open Internet, including all the officially blocked websites. The best known proxy servers are called Freegate and Gardengate, developed and maintained by Falun Gong networks in the US, which are providing the most-needed Internet technology tools to Chinese netizens walled in by perhaps the most sophisticated, high-tech engineered, state censorship in the world.

It’s hard to know how many Chinese netizens are served by such technologies – how many are using available tools to access the open Internet, to engage digital disobedience and online activism, but the number must have grown to such an extent that the Chinese government has invested billions of dollars to strengthen its blockage with the Golden Shield Project while shutting down many websites, blogs, and social networking sites.

What we have seen is this pattern: the more draconic measures the government takes to censor the Internet, the more innovative the netizens become and the more of them manage to find their way to access online tools to undermine censorship. In this game between the super-fat cat and millions of mice, there may have not been a clear winner for now, but the price of controlling millions of mice is growing increasingly high. Google’s act of protest has the effect of raising that price.

(Adapted from a talk on Jan. 22, 2010 at a forum sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy and Center for International Media Assistance)

“Aspirations for Rule of Law Spur Growth of Civil Society” 对法制的追求刺激公民社会的成长

Xiaorong Li

Obviously the growth of a civil society and the development of the rule of law are mutually supportive and mutually beneficial. Professor Cohen has made huge imprints in leading the way to develop the latter, but also indirectly and directly to develop the former. Let me use my 5 minutes to say something about one part of this point, that is, how developing the rule of law helps the growth of civil society.

When I say civil society, I refer to a public space sandwiched between the private realm where for-profit interests dominate and the space where the State dominates. A sizable and lively public space is a fact of life in China today. Yes, you’re right, this civil society still has to fight hard for its life and for every inch of the space for independent action, against powerful forces from both sides that try to invade it and obliterate it. No matter how fragile and precarious, the fact that such a Chinese civil society is alive and kicking is monumental and it is, to a large extent, a gift from those who worked tirelessly to help the development of rule of law in the past many years, and the person who has been at the forefront of that hardworking troupe is the person we’re honoring here today.

There are many ways in which the emergence of a legal system and the promise of rule of law have boosted civil society. Three come to mind:

First, the promise of rule of law gave people hope, inspires them, and the law supplied the ammunition. The Chinese law has been the double-sword which the party-state uses to put people in their place but it is also used by the people to hold the government accountable and seek justice.

Second, many young lawyers, products of the newly minted law schools in China’s universities, take the government’s promise of rule of law and what they learnt in law textbooks literarily, but as they meet the reality of rule by the CCP political and legal committees, they become the front-row challengers of the system, and leaders in the civil rights movement.

Thirdly, members of the Chinese civil society have used the law to some extent effectively to extract positive changes, not without paying the prices, of course.

Take for example what is known as the “rights-defense movement”. Several things about this phenomenon deserve our attention:

1st, it has commanded a broad participation from many social classes/groups, not limited to the educated elite.

2nd, participants have made good use of the internet as their tools for communication & mobilization – to bypass draconic rules controlling organizing, and they have NOT been crushed by the Great Fire Wall and the heavy deployment of cyber-police;

3rd, while NGO organizing has become the primary target of the government’s war against civil society, many forms of informal organizing have been invented and they are carrying on the bulk of citizen actions;

And finally, this movement remains largely non-violent, participants appeal to the law & the Constitution, despite the fact that there have been an increasing number of violent mass incidents in clashes between protesters and the police.

These features are worth noticing because they may offer explanations as to why some small positive changes have been extracted by civil society activism from the authoritarian police state. We need only look back at the past half year to find several mini-steps forward, not mentioning earlier landmark decisions like the abolition of the Custody & Repatriation detention system. These recent steps include:
- the uncharacteristically light sentence for the young woman Deng Yujiao who accidentally killed an official in self-defense last summer;
- the backing out by government from its order to mandatorily install filtering software Green Dam Youth Escort on new computers last July;
- the quiet acknowledgement of “black jails” in the official media in recent weeks,
- and the lift of ban by the Shanghai government two weeks ago on activist Feng Zhenghu's return from Japan after his 92-days protest at the Tokyo airport.

In short, three decades of foreign legal aid and rule of law programs have helped nurture aspirations and provide tools for activists in the Chinese civil society to fight for justice. Jerry and many of you who are here today played an important role in making this possible. I second what Jerry said in his South China Morning Post article 3 days ago that such programs and the international pressure have helped pave the way for an easier transition once the fundamental changes take place. However, we must face up to the troubling reality that none of these efforts has stopped the Chinese government from engaging in extra-legal persecution of Gao Zhisheng, and mis-use of the law to persecute Liu Xiaobo and many others good citizens including Chen Guangcheng, Hu Jia, Huang Qi, Tan Zuoren (the list can go on), to punish them for having spoken up for or taken actions to protect the rights and interest of disadvantaged groups of fellow Chinese citizens.

As a testimony to Jerry’s integrity and contributions, I end my remark by reminding us that, over the years, Jerry has actually befriended some of those whose names I just mentioned, spoken up on their behalf, and, in some cases, acted as legal adviser to their lawyers. Thank you, Jerry!

(Remarks made at the Conference: “Half a Century of Asian Law: A Celebration of Prof. Jerome Cohen”, George Washington University School of Law, Feb. 19, 2010)