China and the Nobel Peace Prize

[Pangloss]

Last week Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident currently in prison, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China". The Chinese government immediately reacted by slapping down heavy search restrictions on domestic use of the Web.

 

Since then an interesting discussion has arisen, initially only on the international front, but increasingly within China itself, as word gradually spreads through that country by other means. Today the Chinese government responded to the story officially, and it responded on at least two levels.

 

This opinion piece by the state-owned Xinhua News Agency clearly delineates the communist party's position on the subject:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-10/14/c_13557848.htm

 

The decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award this year's Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a convicted Chinese criminal, goes against the principles of the prize and the ideas of its founder.

 

However, Liu has been imprisoned for agitation aimed to subvert the Chinese government. What he has done goes against Alfred Nobel's will of peace.

 

Just as Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu put it, the Nobel Committee's decision was "blasphemy" and "a violation of the principles of the Peace Prize."

 

In its nearly 110-year-old history, a number of heroes and noble figures, such as Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela, have been awarded. Is it not ironic to put Liu in the same league with such big names?

 

(chuckle) Ironic. Sure.

 

One of the things that I think is interesting about the politics of China's human rights problems is that it plays across western ideological boundaries. Below are links to two editorial pieces from today's newspapers. The first one is from the conservative Wall Street Journal. The second one is from the liberal New York Times.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575551400597984266.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

One of the greatest conceits of modern Sinologists is that China is not "like" the West; that its people harbor different goals in life and freedom is not necessarily one of them. In that worldview, the Nobel Prize given last week to dissident Liu Xiaobo is a meaningless gesture made by foreigners, and unreflective of the Chinese people's wishes. Yet when China's leadership signals a tolerance, however slight, for openness, debate about freedom flowers.

 

That may be what's happening now in the wake Premier Wen Jiabao's recent statements extolling political reform. Taking the hint, 23 Communist Party elders Monday posted an open letter on the Internet calling for freedom of speech and of the press. Like the Nobel committee, they ask only for the rights already guaranteed in China's own constitution. They also noted the irony that even their own leaders' statements are sometimes censored on the mainland, and that mainland Chinese don't enjoy the same rights as peers in Hong Kong and Macau.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15iht-letter.html

 

Still others, somewhere on the spectrum between the two extremes, were pleased but struggled with conflicting emotions.

 

“Everyone knows there are problems in China related to lack of human rights and democracy,” said Ma Juan, 31, a Ph.D. candidate back home on a study break from university in the United States. “But even if you know your mother is ugly, you’re still unhappy when you hear others saying it. What you want to do is to protect and change her, not listen to others criticize her.”

 

Regardless of where they stand, many people in China are transfixed by what they say is a major quandary facing the government: what to do with Mr. Liu, who still has a decade left in prison?

 

“They can’t keep him in jail! Impossible!” said a businessman who took part in the 1989 democracy movement as a 20-year-old. He also requested anonymity.

 

This is causing me to re-think my standing belief that the Chinese don't necessarily want freedom the same way or to the same degree that people of the west do. While I'm sure that Chinese democracy, should we ever see it, will have some differences and a unique character, I think that it's a fundamental truth that all people are basically the same when it comes to human rights.

 

In terms of whether this is a sign of a better future for China, it's hard to say, but I'm hopeful.

 

What do you all think?

[CaptainPanic]

It is safe to say that different people have different goals in life. The ideal society looks different in different countries (think for example about Europeans who generally speaking like a much larger government while Americans often would rather reduce their already small government even further).

 

It is also safe to say that probably 100% of the world's population would like to have a freedom to think, say and do whatever they want. This kind of freedom is, I believe, just part of being human. That said, it's a fact that many countries have taboos, and people can live with that without much harm.

 

Finally, we should realize that something that one has owned and that was taken away is missed much more than something that one has never owned at all. To take away basic freedoms from Western people may hurt them a lot (although we seem to allow it all the time - I mean the privacy restrictions and security measures Western countries take). But Chinese people never had this freedom, and I would be able to understand if it is missed much less.

 

I'd like to add a disclaimer here: I don't know much about the Chinese culture, so this entire post should be seen as speculation.

[padren]

I think there is also a lot more suspicion overseas about what Western Democracy is all about, and the idea of having the sort of trouble we have is terrifying - we refuse to balance our budget, we have huge lapses in social safety nets, crumbling infrastructure, failing education, and we have at least 50% of the country at any given moment decrying how corruption and illegal abuses of power currently being conducted will cause an end to all we care about as we know it.

 

Our legislative process is pretty much a glass walled sausage factory and it's ugly to look at. Add to that the sheer amount of our wealth that is dependent on a lack of human rights abroad, in terms of cheap manufacturing without labor safety laws or fair wages and it's pretty understandable by some people may want more rights, and want a democratic system, but not consider any current nation a working model of those principles.

 

 

I don't think it's a question of if it's wanted, but if it's doable, how, when, and what to do between now and then to do it right.

[Pangloss]

I don't know how suspicious they could really be since they're participating in it. Cheap labor is the very thing that's bringing their citizens out of the stone age and into the 21st century. That doesn't necessarily mean no safety laws, or even unfair wages. And it doesn't mean they have to be paid $40/hour, free health care and two months paid vacation per year. Fair wage is clearly a politicized term, and very much a reflection on local cost of living.

 

One problem comes when they get part way there and then the labor market moves to a more backward nation. But if the tweeners are smart and have been building their economy, perhaps they can make the same shift to service that we have. Still not seeing a problem.

[padren]

I don't know how suspicious they could really be since they're participating in it. Cheap labor is the very thing that's bringing their citizens out of the stone age and into the 21st century. That doesn't necessarily mean no safety laws, or even unfair wages. And it doesn't mean they have to be paid $40/hour, free health care and two months paid vacation per year. Fair wage is clearly a politicized term, and very much a reflection on local cost of living.

I agree and I don't mean that the Chinese feel they are being taken advantage of right now, but I suspect they credit a strong centralized authoritarian government to ensure they are not. If you look at our politicians from their perspective, you have two sides accusing each other of trying to swindle and cheat the American people. Compared to the sense of stability and unity (and artificial absence of criticism) they currently have, trusting a system such as ours could be difficult initially.

One problem comes when they get part way there and then the labor market moves to a more backward nation. But if the tweeners are smart and have been building their economy, perhaps they can make the same shift to service that we have. Still not seeing a problem.

I think this would more likely move to more backwards parts of their own country, as they do have the population for it. By the time the last (outsourceable) 10% of labor goes overseas 90% will already have migrated to services.