Heat and light


Written by Tayyab Siddiqui • Special Features • November 2010

Neighborpic The annual ritual of awarding Nobel Peace Prize, among others, by the Nobel committee in Norway has, this year, given rise to an international controversy, generating more heat than light.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 has been awarded to a Chinese human right activist and dissident Liu Xiaobo. It is the first time that a Chinese individual has been conferred this prestigious award. However the event has elicited strong negative reaction from the Chinese government. The Norwegian Ambassador in Beijing was summoned to the Foreign Office and given a dressing down for “insulting the Chinese people”. The award was described as a “blasphemy and obscenity”.

Liu Xiaobo, a former literature professor was sentenced last year to 11 years in prison for “inciting subversion of the state” through a manifesto– Charter 08, advocating free speech, human rights and democratic reforms in the political system of China. The Nobel Committee acknowledged Xiaobo’s “long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights and peace”. The 54 year old activist came to prominence with his participation in the pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and staged a hunger strike. Since then he has been detained repeatedly for his activities. His arrest and conviction for 11 years in last December was in response to his Charter 08, which called for respect for human rights and equality, “as universal values shared by all human kind”. The manifesto briefly on the internet and then withdrawn by the authorities also spoke of judicial independence, direct election and an end to the one party system.

The extreme reaction of the Chinese government has not been primarily at the contents of Xiaobo’s message but its exploitation by foreign powers to malign China and meddle in its internal affairs. The episode is a painful but vivid reminder of the Tiananmen Square events and the systematic manner the western media and government raised hell over the issue. China with its intemperate reaction has conveyed that it will neither be pressurized nor influenced by foreigners.

Tiananmen Square movement of 1989 is one of the most searing events in the history of modern China. There were series of demonstrations by Chinese youth mostly students beginning April 1989, sparked by the death of Hu Yaobang, Secretary General of the Communist Party of China (CPC) revered for calls for rapid reforms. About 100000 people gathered at his funeral. The gathering had no specific cause or leadership. However calls were made against government’s authoritarianism and for democratic change. The demonstrations were held in Tiananmen Square lasting over seven weeks.

Hu Yaobang remembered for his advocacy of democracy attracted large number of students on his funeral on April 21. The gathering was followed with strikes in the universities in support of demand for freedom of press and against one party political system. The demonstrations erupted in other cities also. On May 4th about 100000 students and workers marched in Beijing demanding dialogue with authorities for accelerated political reforms. The demands led to hunger strikes which gained considerable national support and also un-nerved the authorities. The government in a move to defuse the situation decided to have dialogue with student leaders. On May 19, Premier Li Peng and General Secretary Zhao Ziyng met the student leaders and persuaded the student to abandon the protest. The leadership was diverse and without focus on particular demands and hence the talks failed. The top leadership led by Deng Xiaoping, Chairman of the Central Military Commission declared martial law as it was concluded that continue demonstration without any clear and specific demand were “a threat to the stability of the state”.

The troops moved on June 4 to clear the ground of the protesters with tanks and live fire. The incident was christened by western media as Massacre. According to the New York Times, about 50 security men and 400 to 800 protestors were killed. The Tiananmen Square Massacre however led to major purges in the party hierarchy and change in the policies. China banned the foreign press in the country for its highly exaggerated reports and censor was imposed on the local media.

This detailed background is essential to the understanding of China’s violent reaction to the Xiabao affair.

Since the day the award was announced, foreign leaders and media have orchestrated a campaign to embarrass China and demand Liu’s release. President Obama praised him as “an eloquent and courageous spokesman for the advance of universal values through peaceful and non violence means” and called on China “to release Mr. Liu as soon as possible”. German chancellor Merkel also echoed similar sentiments. The media blackout of the episode in China has, however been complete. Except for some academicians and intellectual, few Chinese are familiar with Xiaobo’s name or work. To imagine that the Nobel Prize would have any dramatic or direct effect on China’s political system or be a catalyst for a movement for civil rights, would be an exaggeration. Chinese leadership is pragmatic and convinced that to maintain its rate of economic growth and social stability and modernity, “a stable and harmonious” polity is needed. Premature debate on democracy and other acts of dissent can endanger this stability. China has against all predictions, maintained a steady growth of economic prosperity and those who predicted 21st century as “China’s century” may soon be vindicated.

There are other aspects of the Nobel peace prize awarded in the recent past that make the current debate on Xiaobo’s peace award particularly significant. Quite a few of these awards have been deemed politically motivated and hence controversial in impact. Many cases of erroneous assessment and unjust opinion have influenced the Committee to confer these awards affecting their prestige. The recipients of this coveted prize included Henry Kissinger (1973) Menachim Begin (1978), Aung San Suu Kyi (1991) and Shimon Perez (1994) and President Obama (2009). Subsequent developments have shown that these awardees, if judge dispassionately did not, on balance, meet the criteria laid down for such honorific title. Nor has there been any empirical evidence that recognition of Nobel Laureates such as the Burmese civil right activist, Aung San Suu Kyi has brought any political reform or change in the country. China’s reminder that “the Nobel Peace prize be awarded to some body who promoted peace between people, promoted international friendship and disarmament” is absolutely valid.

The award to Xiaobo was particularly misplaced and ill-timed as Premier Jia Bao has already a reform agenda. In an interview to CNN with Fareed Zakaria Wen declared, “I believe freedom of the speech is in dispensable for any country, a country in the course of development and a country became strong. I believe all the Chinese have such a conviction that China will make continuous progress and the people wishes for and needs for democracy and freedom are irresistible.”

Those advocating for human rights in China seem to have a very narrow vision and definition of human rights. There is no adequate appreciation of the fact that for the first time China has raised 1.2 billion Chinese out of absolute poverty and the current policies promise food and shelter – the basic human rights – to larger number of Chinese then ever in its history.