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
No comments:
Post a Comment