China’s Aborted Openness

Xiaorong Li

2005-10-24

[Today, six years after I wrote this article, the blind Chinese activist, "bare-foot" citizen lawyer Chen Guangcheng remains under house arrest after serving 4 1/2 years in jail. He has been detained at home since his release in September 2010, together with his wife and two small children, in Dongshigu Village, Linyi, Shandong Province. In the last few weeks, activists and public intellectuals have spoken up openly online, calling for "Free Chen Guangcheng". Some activists have traveled to Linyi, trying to break up the illegal confinement, so far without success. Chinese police have tried to stop them and intimidated them. It's nonetheless encouraging and it lifts my spirit to see such calls and actions.  I post this article here to join their call, in a small way, to free Chen Guangcheng.  - Xiaorong Li, Oct. 15, 2011.] 




China’s state-run Xinhua news agency recently reported on a government investigation into a string of forced sterilizations and abortions in the village of Linyi, Shandong province. The speed of the investigation – said to have begun days after the kidnapping of Chen Guangcheng, a blind activist who had been a public advocate for the victims – and the candor of the report created the impression of greater government responsiveness and bolder official media. Is this impression right?

The story in Linyi is the kind of news that propaganda officials usually bury in the Communist Party’s secret files. According to reports, local authorities in Linyi, seeking to avoid exceeding birth quotas under China’s “one-child” policy, forced several women to undergo abortions and forcibly sterilized many couples with more than one child. Villagers who hid to avoid the campaign reportedly saw their family members jailed. Some in Linyi alleged degrading treatment, torture, and extortion.

Why investigate and report this scandal? The Xinhua reports, I believe, are best read as damage control.

China is trying to secure funding from the United Nations to improve reproductive health – an effort that has been set back by reports of forced abortion. Central authorities did not investigate the Linyi abuses until news of the harassment of Chen Guangcheng – and his abduction with the help of Beijing police – spread into international media.

Chen had reported the abuses to officials and asked a non-governmental organization, the Citizens’ Rights Defense Group, to investigate. The group went to Linyi in May. A month later, the network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported the group’s findings and demanded the intervention of the central government’s Family Planning Commission (FPC). 

As a volunteer for the network, I was in touch with Chen and followed events closely. In July, having failed to elicit any government response, Chen began seeking legal aid from prominent lawyers to prepare lawsuits on behalf of the victims, causing alarm among local officials. Pursued by police, Chen went into hiding. My “personal safety was threatened,” he wrote on August 30 in the last email I received from him.

Following strenuous international protests over Chen’s kidnapping, the FPC decided to investigate. Xinhua announced that local officials responsible for the violence might be prosecuted. Central authorities seemed to sense an immediate need to quell criticism of its controversial population-control efforts. And Xinhua wasted no time in claiming that the abuses were limited to a few towns.

However, central government authorities have done little to halt intimidation of Linyi’s villagers. Chen was released from detention but remains under house arrest and was dragged back to the police station on September 2 for unknown reasons.

Police refuse to return Chen’s personal computer and cell phone. The village, too, is mysteriously without phone service. Meanwhile, through arrests, threats, and bribery, authorities are forcing villagers to withdraw accounts of abuse and back out of their lawsuits, warning of the dire consequences of cooperating with Chen and the lawyers.

The FPC declines to intervene, citing lack of law-enforcement powers. On October 10, the villagers’ lawyers were told that the court hearing scheduled that day was canceled. On their way back to Beijing, thugs reportedly assaulted the lawyers.

Viewed in this context, the belief that the government’s approach to Linyi reflects a new responsiveness to human-rights abuses seems naïve. If the government were truly becoming more responsive, why have we not seen similar responses to other disputes over the theft of farmland, compromised investors’ rights, or high-level corruption?

In all these cases, authorities have responded with repression, including the hiring of plain-clothes militias to kidnap or beat up people who attempt to publicize problems. China’s belated bouts of openness about the rural spread of AIDS and the SARS epidemic clearly indicate that the central government regards transparency solely as a matter of expediency.

Others argue that China’s government is simply losing its grip over local authorities. This prospect is hardly encouraging. If abuses and repression in the provinces continue no matter how attentive the central government, or how assertive the press might have become, what then? 

More likely, however, the central authorities are following a policy that most Chinese know well: neijin waisong, or “controlled inside, relaxed outside.” Applied here, the policy means consolidating power at home while disarming critics abroad.  

I believe that the government’s loss of control in the provinces has been stage-managed. Chaos provides a cover for crackdowns. It is too convenient when unidentified strongmen beat and harass activists who question Party rule, and it is too easy for officials to blame an out-of-control “criminal society” when international media start asking questions.

Suspiciously targeted “criminal” assaults have, indeed, occurred in places other than Linyi. Thugs thrashed civil rights activist Lu Banglie in the Guangdong town of Taishi in early October. Six villagers in the Hebei village of Dingzhou, protesting government seizure of their land, died after bloody clashes with a gang of toughs in July. The list goes on.

State media recently started releasing year-end “mass incident” statistics. Last year, the government said, there were 74,000 such incidents. Observers marvel that China’s leaders admit to such a staggering number of protests. But here, again, the government is hiding in plain sight. State-run media organs have been forced to admit that these protests test the Party’s will to maintain power. They neglect to tell the real story of how the Party exercises that will, trusting that the admission itself will satisfy us. We should not be so quick to play along.

(Published at Project Syndicate:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/xiaorong1/English)

旧文：我的“自由陈光诚”长跑

（今天是国际盲人节。国内许多网友在呼吁“自由陈光诚”，不少人最近还冒险去临沂东师古村，想突破地方痞子对陈光诚及其家人的非法监视居住。这篇短文写于5年前，贴在这儿，算是支持网友“自由陈光诚”活动的一点表示吧。这些年来，海内外有一批固执的人坚持为陈光诚呼吁，“陈光诚”这个名字已经在外交界和国际媒体广为人知。然而今天不同的是，有这么多国内的网友包括名人微博写手敢于出来为陈光诚说话。令人欣慰。  2011年10月15日）

我不是长跑运动员。中学时田径竞赛，班上体育委员为了凑数，把我拉去，跑过几次200米、400米。我也不是做文人的料，至从与灰色的理论接缘，整天培着书本和电脑，但是书桌前总坐不住，到下午时分老想起来动动。

我们家住处没什么锻炼的空间。眼下租借的公寓居巴黎城中，在一栋19世纪初建造的旧楼房里。这个区域的不少建筑逃脱了19世纪中、后期巴黎的城市改建大拆迁，这里狭窄的胡同旧楼曾一度为清贫的艺术家们提供一脚徙居之地，恐怕也是普契尼歌剧《波西米娅人》的素材。我们住在顶层上，起居室里的楼梯通到上面的阁楼。 外面异国情调的景色倒是不错：从临街的窗口能看到远处蒙玛特尔高地“圣心”教堂圆顶，下面街道近处是“疯狂的母羊妇”夜总会。 （据说法国大革命时老百姓痛恨路易16的一个原因是他和王后玛丽安东内经常在这个夜总会狂欢、搞化妆舞会，不顾百姓疾苦， 误了国事，不幸的国王一家，包括未成年的孩子，全被送上了断头台。看来还是和平的“颜色革命”文明一点）。

于是我就出门跑步去了。正好每天下午要去埃佛塔附近接放学的孩子，给跑步增加了实用价值。我这个实用主义者很难为了锻炼而锻炼。锻炼对我来说不是太累，而是太单调。于是本人长期缺乏锻炼，人到中年，开始有点害怕进入体态龙钟的年代了。

我经过的线路穿插着许多名胜，这些景点颇吸引眼球，丝毫不让人感到枯燥。第一天竞一气跑了五公里！ 几次跑步下来，我注意到一个有趣现象：我自己成了吸引眼球的对象！路上行人多半是外国游客，或疲劳的下班族，看见有人在跑步锻炼，不少人投来好奇、鼓励或羡慕的眼光。忽然，我来了灵感：为何不利用如此难得地吸引来的眼光去传递一点有用的信息？ 尤其是人们平时不会主动去收集的信息。这也叫送货上门、服务到家吧！

再次出门跑步时，我穿上了一位国内朋友夏天带来的一件T-shirt.，上面印着陈光诚图像以及“盲人，陈光诚，自由”和“山东临沂东师古村”字样。朋友们曾穿着同样设计的T-shirts 在北京召集记者招待会、去山东沂南法院声援被庭审的陈光诚。但是公安没收了大部分印制好了的T-shirts。记者招待会也被禁止掉了。好几位出面公开声援的人如今已经入狱或被监控起来。 如今恐怕穿出来这样一件衣衫也是“犯法”。可是我可以穿出去，警察不会过问。巴黎不愧时装之都，如何穿着打扮、奇装异服出门，都不会让人感到不自然。穿着自由、表达自由，不享受且不可惜了？

不知谁设计的，反正我挺喜欢这件T-shirt。 要是上面有法文或英文字样，则更方便。但是设计者可能万万没想到这样一件体惜在“开放、文明”的大国也没有容身之地，还会流亡到海外来？ 我喜欢体惜上陈光诚带着墨镜的照片，颇有摇滚乐歌星的风度！难怪呢，虽然文字都是中文，我这一路吸引了比往日更多的眼球。当我遇到成群的大陆游客时，我有意放慢脚步，让他们有机会看到“盲人，陈光诚，自由”。 我希望他们当中有人会叫住我，打听谁是陈光诚。我真想知道他（她）们看到“盲人，陈光诚，自由”的字样，心里是否有所触动或是否产生任何好奇？会有人敢给我来一张合照？

(巴黎，2006年10月7日)

What I Told Obama About Beijing’s Human Rights Problem

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jan/18/obama-china-human-rights-problem/

Xiaorong Li

                                           (January 19, 2011, 7pm, Penn. Ave, 16th St., Washington, DC) 

On January 13, President Obama invited me and four other activists and scholars—the writer Zha Jianying, whose brother is a former political prisoner in China;Andrew Nathan, a Columbia professor; author Bette Bao Lord; and Paul Gewirtz, director of Yale’s China Law Center—to meet with him at the White House to discuss the current state of human rights and reform in China. The meeting, which lasted more than an hour, took place as the president prepares for this week’s meeting with Chinese president Hu Jintao in Washington. He wanted to know whether we think his approach on these issues is working, and how that approach might be improved. For me, it was an opportunity to bring to the direct attention of the president some critical questions about China’s human rights record I hope he will take up in the summit. The following outlines some of the issues I raised with the president, including a series of specific recommendations concerning US policy toward China.

The human rights situation in China has not fundamentally improved after a generation of economic development, after many rounds of US-China human rights dialogues, and after millions of dollars of assistance to promote “rule of law” and other “reforms” in China.

Despite the country’s impressive GDP and growing prosperity, popular discontent in China is deep and widespread. Millions of people have been flooding to governmentoffices to complain about injustices; there have been numerous workers’ strikes over lack of labor protection, violent clashes over land and housing rights, and demonstrations organized by teachers, veterans, bank employees, victims of pollution, and by parents whose children were poisoned by dairy products or died in school buildings that collapsed during the Szechuan earthquake in 2008. There have been protests by ethnic and religious minorities about discrimination and cultural destruction. According to the government’s own statistics, in each of the past five years, about 90,000 “mass protests” have taken place. The actual numbers are undoubtedly higher than this.

Fearful of losing control, China’s rulers have developed the world’s most sophisticated Internet censorship system, which they use to block information, silence dissent, and conduct surreptitious monitoring of online activism. The security police have gained enormous power in recent years and use it against dissident writers like Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Laureate who is now serving an 11-year jail sentence; or activists like Xu Zhiyong, whose NGO, the Open Constitution (gong meng), was shut down, and Hu Jia, who worked to raise awareness about AIDS and the environment, and who now also is in prison on charges of “inciting subversion against state power”; or the rural organizer and legal advocate Chen Guangcheng, who, recently released from prison, is now subjected to unlawful house arrest; or human rightslawyers like Gao Zhisheng, who was imprisoned, tortured, released, then taken away again, and now has disappeared without a trace. Today, there are unknown numbers of such prisoners of conscience in Chinese jails and extra-legal “re-education through labor camps” where hundreds of thousands of people are held without trial. In 2009 the Chinese authorities spent $75 billion on “internal security,” nearly as much as the $80 billion they spent on national defense.

Many Chinese activists view state-sponsored “political reform” in China as simply dead. Human rights lawyers and legal scholars have concluded that “rule of law” reform is regressing. Flagrant human rights violations—including torture, arbitrary detention, censorship, repression of religious and ethnic minorities—continue unabated. (These practices are well documented in annual US State Department reports and the Congressional Executive Commission on China, as well as by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.) Yet the major Western democracies have largely chosen to remain silent—as each competes, apparently, for a piece of China’s “miracle growth.” Such economic interests make multilateral efforts to address China’s human rights problems difficult. But the US could change this pattern by taking a strong stand now.

Looking beyond the upcoming summit, the US administration should also formulate a clear longer-range strategy toward the problems of human rights in China, bearing in mind that this issue profoundly undergirds virtually all of the other issues that the USand the world face with China. Here are some suggestions:

1. Support civil society, and in particular activists and lawyers who are taking great personal risks to promote human rights and democracy. The good news is that Chinese citizens are learning to speak up, to organize, and to demand that their rights be respected. For nearly a decade now, a civil rights movement known as the “rights defense movement” has spread among citizens of many backgrounds. Victims of forced eviction or migrant laborers are transformed into rights activists when they see their efforts to remedy injustices answered with censorship, police brutality, and corruption in legal institutions. Most of the 12,000 signers of Charter 08 —farmers, workers, AIDS activists, environmentalists, and others—are citizens who decided to endorse the charter even after police had suppressed it and imprisoned one of its authors, Liu Xiaobo.

Some practical ideas for supporting civil society:

(a) Make strong and clear public statements in support of human rights activists and that speak directly to the Chinese people: Rhetoric is important. The Norwegian Nobel Committee did a great service by speaking past the Chinese government and directly to the Chinese people, saying, in effect, “we see you, too, and we honor you.” The most significant and sensitive divide in China today is between the Chinese state and its citizens. People in the democratic governments of the world should bear in mind that the Chinese state still dominates the Chinese press and rules without popular consent. It is insensitive to lump rulers and ruled together as if they were the same thing and as if only the rulers can speak for the whole.

(b) Facilitate Internet freedom: Today the Internet is the most important way, in China as much as in other repressive societies, for ordinary citizens to access information, express their views, organize themselves, and engage in activism. TheUS government should do what it can to provide Chinese Internet users with technical support to get around the “Great Firewall” that the Chinese government has erected to block political dissent and prevent access to information. At a minimum, the USgovernment should work to discourage American IT companies from the sordid practice of supplying the Chinese government with technology that facilitates censorship and surveillance.

(c) Strengthen direct contacts with activists and provide them support: US officials should publicly raise concerns about individual cases at high-level meetings; USleaders visiting China should meet Chinese civil-society activists personally; the State Department international visitor program should invite civil society actors only; the current practice of sending the US ambassador or someone from his embassy staff to attend the trials of dissidents, or their talks at civic forums, should continue and increase; small grants from the embassy for public civil-society activities should increase.

2. Focus on holding the Chinese government to its own rhetorical commitments to its citizens. Such an emphasis is effective in its own right and will also help avoid stirring up “nationalist,” anti-Western sentiment. The Chinese government, although it constantly abuses human rights, continually claims to observe them. “Human rights” no longer is a taboo phrase in official discourse. Such rhetoric creates opportunities to push the authorities to deliver. Western democracies can answer the Chinese government’s accusations about “interference in China’s internal affairs” by citing its own rhetoric. If the Chinese government is called upon to observe the constitutional and legal commitments that it has made to its own citizens—some of which are inscribed in international protocols—it can hardly claim “interference.”

3. Strengthen US involvement in multilateral forums such as the UN Human Rights Council. The Chinese government participates actively in the UN Human Rights Council. If it is eager to be a global player in this forum for promoting human rights around the world, then of course it should observe international standards for human rights. The US should use the UN HRC more effectively, to press the Chinese government to adhere to the international human-rights conventions that it has signed and/or ratified. Such a policy would require the US to take a leadership role in forums such as the UN HRC and to build multilateral coalitions to hold the Chinese government accountable for its failure to respect international conventions. This kind of international scrutiny will undercut the Chinese government’s exceptionalist claims about “human rights views with Chinese characteristics” and will render vacuous its reflexive accusation that discussion of its human rights record amounts to “interference in internal affairs.” It will also limit the Chinese government’s ability to fan nationalist sentiment at home into opposition to “Western” human rights.

4. US programs to assist “Rule of law” reforms and to facilitate exchanges of “legal experts” should be designed to address the particular administrative and legal problems in China that have led to human rights abuses. Current US legal assistance to China is misconceived insofar as it assists the existing legal system in becoming more efficient. Instead, US assistance would be better directed toward problems such as widespread torture. The Chinese government ratified the Convention against Torture in 1988. On paper, “torture to force confession” is no longer legal in China, and in legal circles torture is no longer a taboo topic. The US might use its legal-aid resources to address issues such as how to prevent deaths in detention and how, in court trials, to reject evidence that was extracted by forced confession. US legal aid could also be used to strengthen protections for criminal defense lawyers to help them avoid arbitrary prosecution or disbarment. Such lawyers —especially those who defend human rights activists, Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans, Uighurs, and underground Christians—are already in very short supply.

5. The proposed US-China talk of “open government” must address China’s draconian “state secret” law. In January 2007, the Chinese State Council adopted the“Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Open Government Information”that was supposed to take effect in May 2008. But the government has ignored these regulations wherever it relates to human rights. For example the number of death sentences and executions remain “state secrets,” and authorities continue to use vaguely-defined “state secret” provisions of the criminal law code to prosecute many people for “leaking,” “stealing,” or “possessing” state secrets. Victims of such abuses have included not only Chinese human rights activists and protesters in ethnic minority regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang, but also American businessmen and a scientific researcher. Any talk about “open government” with the government of China must address this area of law and practice. Since Americans are among those who have been ensnared—and might again be in the future—this is not an “internal matter.”

6. Resume the “US-China Human Rights Dialogue” only if transparency and participation by representatives of civil society in China are guaranteed. Previous“dialogues” brought no real change and were even counterproductive because they allowed the Chinese government to claim an “achievement” on human rights when in fact no progress was being made. The dialogue should not only address abuses of social and economic rights but also sensitive issues concerning serious violations of civil and political rights. Any future dialogues should be open—i.e., publicly reported in full. The lack of free press and free association (genuine NGOs devoted to human rights) in China has allowed the government to distort earlier dialogues in the state-run media and prevented them from having any broader educational impact for Chinese citizens. Maintaining secrecy diminishes the opportunity to authenticate and follow up with what the Chinese officials provided as “information” or promised to do behind doors. Each round of the dialogues should be followed by an honest and public assessment of impact, and talks should be resumed only if it can be shown that real progress has resulted from the previous round. Non-government human rights organizations in both countries should be invited to participate, or to engage in parallel dialogues, or they should at least be consulted and heard well in advance and afterward.

Finally, I conveyed this message to the President: The US should lead by example. The US will have an impact on positive changes in China and elsewhere by respecting human rights and strengthening democracy at home and taking a global leadership in upholding human rights as the guiding principle of its foreign policy. When the US ends torture, protects free press, or makes healthcare affordable to everyone, those who promote human rights and speak out against abuses in hostile environments can hold their heads high and carry on their arduous struggle, often at great personal risk.

January 18, 2011 10:15 a.m.

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