Well, Even A Blind Sow...

[Lord Jim]

Chinese dissident Liu wins Nobel Peace Prize

By CHARLES HUTZLER and KARL RITTER, Associated Press Writers Charles Hutzler And Karl Ritter, Associated Press Writers – Fri Oct 8, 6:06 pm ET

BEIJING – China has long wanted a Nobel prize. Now that it has one, its leaders are furious. The Nobel committee awarded its peace prize to imprisoned democracy campaigner Liu Xiaobo on Friday, lending encouragement to China's dissident community and sending a rebuke to the authoritarian government, which sharply condemned the award.

In naming Liu, the Norwegian-based committee honored his more than two decades of advocacy for human rights and peaceful democratic change — from the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989 to a manifesto for political reform that he co-authored in 2008 and which led to his latest jail term.

President Barack Obama, last year's peace prize winner, called for Liu's immediate release.

Anticipating the award, Chinese circumvented Internet controls and called friends overseas to learn the news. Supporters and friends gathered outside Liu's central Beijing apartment, where his wife was kept inside by police. At a park, a civil rights lawyer, a retired official-turned-blogger and a dozen other people cheered and waved placards saying "Long Live Freedom of Speech." The demonstrators were later taken away by police.

A buzz of congratulations coursed through Chinese instant messaging sites before censors scrubbed postings and blocked cell phone text messages that contained the characters for Liu's name. Exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, who won the prize in 1989, joined Obama and other leaders in congratulating Liu.

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101008/ap_ ... eace_prize

So, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which in recent years has not only awarded it's highest honor to people who have done nothing to earn it.... (Like President Obama and Prime Time....)

But in fact has awarded it to people who have affirmatively undermined global peace, and made warfare more likely....

I speak of course of that yammering nimrod Jimmy" Father Of The North Korean Nuclear Bomb" Carter....

And the erstwhile Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad El Magooadei, who has done everything humanly possible to make Revolutionary Guard Iran a major nuclear armed power... (Instead of awarding this clown the Nobel Peace Prize, we ought to be investigating whether or not he's merely a world class incompetent, or a flat out Iranian Agent.)

But I digress...

The real point of the OP was not to dwell on unfortunate decisions of the past, but to give credit where credit is due....

This was a good choice.

[dales]

[Gob]

Norway can afford to piss off the Chinese.

[Lord Jim]

These are the sorts of people that we've climbed into bed with economically, and made a Faustian Bargain with:

BEIJING – China on Monday blocked European officials from meeting with the wife of the jailed Nobel Peace Prize winner, cut off her phone communication and canceled meetings with Norwegian officials — acting on its fury over the award.

As China retaliated, U.N. human rights experts called on Beijing to free imprisoned democracy campaigner Liu Xiaobo, who was permitted a brief, tearful meeting with his wife Sunday. Liu dedicated the award to the "lost souls" of the 1989 military crackdown on student demonstrators.

Liu, a slight, 54-year-old literary critic, is in the second year of an 11-year prison term for inciting subversion.

In naming him, the Norwegian-based Nobel committee honored Liu's more than two decades of advocacy of human rights and peaceful democratic change — from demonstrations for democracy at Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989 to a manifesto for political reform that he co-authored in 2008 and which led to his latest jail term.

Beijing had reacted angrily to Friday's announcement honoring Liu, calling him a criminal and warning Norway's government that relations would suffer, even though the Nobel committee is an independent organization.

On Monday, it abruptly canceled a meeting that had been scheduled for Wednesday between visiting Norwegian Fisheries Minister Lisbeth Berg-Hansen and her Chinese counterpart. Berg-Hansen was in China for a weeklong visit to the World Expo in Shanghai.

"If the meeting has been cancelled due to the Peace Prize, we find that to be an unnecessary reaction from China," said Norway's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Ragnhild Imerslund. "We have not received any reason for cancelling the meeting."

Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama criticized China for its response to the Nobel Peace Prize award, saying the government "must change," the Kyodo News agency reported. The Tibetan spiritual leader, who won the Peace Prize himself in 1989, said Beijing must recognize that fostering an open society is "the only way to save all people of China."

Also Monday, four U.N. human rights experts released a statement calling for China to immediately release Liu. The independent U.N.-appointed investigators, who examine issues ranging from breaches of the right to free speech to arbitrary detention, called on China to release Liu and "all persons detained for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression."

European diplomats, meanwhile, were prevented from visiting his wife, Liu Xia, who has been living under house arrest since Friday. Liu Xia has been told that if she wants to leave her home she must be escorted in a police car, the New York-based group Human Rights in China said.

She reported that her phone communications, along with her Internet, has been cut off; both her and her brother's mobile phones have been interfered with, HRIC said. She is not being allowed to contact the media or her friends, the group said.

Simon Sharpe, the first secretary of political affairs of the EU delegation in China, said he went to see Liu Xia at her home in Beijing to personally deliver a letter of congratulations from the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso.

Sharpe was accompanied by diplomats from 10 other countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Italy and Australia.

But three uniformed guards at the main gate of Liu's apartment complex prevented the group from entering, saying someone from inside the building had to come out and fetch them.

"We were told that we could only go in if we called somebody from the inside and if they came out to meet us. But of course, we can't call Liu Xia, because it's impossible to get through to her phone," Sharpe told reporters at the entrance to the compound.

Sharpe read out a message from Barroso that said the decision to award Liu was "a strong message of support to all those around the world who sometimes with great personal sacrifice are struggling for freedom and human rights."

The Beijing public security bureau and the foreign ministry had no immediate comment on why authorities were apparently restricting the movements of Liu Xia, who has not been charged with anything. But "soft detention" is a common tactic used by the Chinese government to intimidate and muffle activists and critics.

In recent days, Beijing has also stepped up its harassment of other activists, detaining several when they tried to organize a dinner to celebrate Liu's Nobel.

Zhang Jiannan, who runs an Internet forum on political matters, told The Associated Press that he and other activists had gone out Friday to celebrate Liu's victory. He was placed under house arrest Saturday and warned by police not to participate in political activities.

"Our (bulletin board system) had been warmly discussing Liu Xiaobo winning the award and passing the news to more people. I think police feel the pressure. They want to crack down on this circle of dissidents, and I and my site became a good target to set an example for others," he said.

Zhang said he has agreed to shut down his website because he is fearful of police retaliation against his family.

On Monday, lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was the latest to be detained by police, according to his assistant, who did not want to be identified. Pu had sent out a message via Twitter Sunday that said security officials had showed up telling him not to accept interviews with foreign media.

In Australia, Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said Monday he would raise to Chinese authorities Canberra's objections to the 11-year prison sentence imposed on Liu and to restrictions placed on the movements of the dissident's wife.

___

Associated Press Writers Gillian Wong, Ken Teh and Isolda Morillo in Beijing, Bjoern H. Amland in Oslo, Norway, and Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm contributed to this report.

[Lord Jim]

I have said for twenty plus years, that we should have nothing to do with this gangster regime, this thugocracy, beyond the minimal contacts necessary to avoid a shooting war....

We should never, as we have under successive Administrations, both Democratic and Republican, become so intertwined with such an immoral entity as The People's Republic Of China...

This is not to say that there's anything bad about Chinese people, it's not a "racial" thing... Asian people have had, and continue to have, an enormously positive impact on the growth of our country....

This is about a regime....

I'm a realist, and I know that given the extent to which we have gotten ourselves involved with this totalitarian gang of thugs we can not disengage ourselves from them over night; the way I would ideally like to see us do....

But we can make a start....

[Crackpot]

I wouldn't go so far as you Jim, by and large it's a good thing that we've helped get their middle class economy going as it has had massive repercussions on what their state can get away with. That being said, it should have been done much more gingerly to avoid the massive influence they now hold over us.

[Gob]

I have to say Jim, that you will have far more influence for the good by China becoming a big trading partner, than if you cut economic ties.

As distasteful as dealing with the regime may be, trade with the world is forcing more and more openness.

What do you think would be the state of play with this dissident, if the world was not now trading with China?

[Andrew D]

I disagree, Gob. By its policy of "engagement," the US has propped up a one-party dictatorship in China. We Americans have become instrumental in the maintenance of a regime that belongs in the dustbin of history.

On the human-rights front, the US is no angel; far from it. But if you want a good picture of China on the human-rights front, take Gitmo and multiply it by about 100,000.

We should long ago have stopped accepting imports from China. Instead, we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated into a position where doing so would have very bad results for the US. But it would have even worse results for China: If the US were to ban all imports from China, the US economy would take a big hit. But China's economy would collapse. And that would lead to "regime change" in China. Which would be, at least in the long run, a very good thing.

What do you think would be the state of play with this dissident, if the world was not now trading with China?

If we had been doing the right thing all along, this dissident would not be where he is today. The totally illegitimate pseudo-government of the PRC would long since have been history, and this dissident would be enjoying the plaudits befitting a national and international hero rather than languishing in some miserable prison.

[Lord Jim]

Strop, I remember the same sorts of arguments being made back in the late 70's when I was in high school and college, about the Soviet Union. The fact is that all the sweetheart wheat deals and other trade agreements with them did exactly zero to improve the human rights situation in that country, or to curb their expansionist efforts. They responded by cracking down on dissidents and invading Afghanistan.

The twenty plus years of ever expanding trade with China hasn't freed a single dissident, or done anything to improve the regime's external or internal behavior. (in fact it's gotten worse.) Why would it be logical to think that more of the same would make things any better?

[rubato]

I disagree, Gob.

"...
We should long ago have stopped accepting imports from China. Instead, we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated into a position where doing so would have very bad results for the US. But it would have even worse results for China: If the US were to ban all imports from China, the US economy would take a big hit. But China's economy would collapse. And that would lead to "regime change" in China. Which would be, at least in the long run, a very good thing.
... "

The ChiCom government still holds nearly all control over the media and would react to a US trade war by telling their people that the US is attacking them because they are Chinese. The Chinese (including many of the educated ones I meet over here) are deeply racist and very patriotic supporters of their own government and don't think its totalitarian aspects are embarrassing at all. I've heard them parrot the "the Dalai Lama Clique" party line and uncritically believe the least plausible anti-tibetan propaganda as 'obvious truth'. They have learned how to exercise effective mind control over their population with very imperfect censorship.


Thinking it would bring about regime change is mere wishful thinking. It is possible, but not the most probable outcome.


We have deluded ourselves into thinking that other people want freedom when they often really want something else much more.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Strop, I remember the same sorts of arguments being made back in the late 70's when I was in high school and college, about the Soviet Union. The fact is that all the sweetheart wheat deals and other trade agreements with them did exactly zero to improve the human rights situation in that country, or to curb their expansionist efforts.

It didn't help among our allies in the Middle East or in central and South America either. Indeed, you're presuming the US government really cared about the rights of common people--our policies reveal we did not, and some of our closest allies, from the Shah to Pinochet, were among the worst human rights abusers in the world.

That being said, ignoring a country as big as China (or maintaining that the Chung kai Shek regime (not all that great a supporter of human rights either) was the real ruler of the country like we did for decades) doesn't do much either. Capitalism and its excesses are a big draw, especially among a privileged ruling class, and while we may not get the Chinese government to respect the rights of their citizens any more than they did before, we get a government that is happier to engage us in the field of commerce rather than battle, which I guess is a "win" for a coutnry with the track record we have re supporting of human rights.

[rubato]

Strop, I remember the same sorts of arguments being made back in the late 70's when I was in high school and college, about the Soviet Union. The fact is that all the sweetheart wheat deals and other trade agreements with them did exactly zero to improve the human rights situation in that country, or to curb their expansionist efforts.

It didn't help among our allies in the Middle East or in central and South America either. Indeed, you're presuming the US government really cared about the rights of common people--our policies reveal we did not, and some of our closest allies, from the Shah to Pinochet, were among the worst human rights abusers in the world.

That being said, ignoring a country as big as China (or maintaining that the Chung kai Shek regime (not all that great a supporter of human rights either) was the real ruler of the country like we did for decades) doesn't do much either. Capitalism and its excesses are a big draw, especially among a privileged ruling class, and while we may not get the Chinese government to respect the rights of their citizens any more than they did before, we get a government that is happier to engage us in the field of commerce rather than battle, which I guess is a "win" for a coutnry with the track record we have re supporting of human rights.

True, the 'sweetheart wheat deals' ( a strange malformation ) existed to subsidize US farmers at the expense of US taxpayers.



yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

The twenty plus years of ever expanding trade with China hasn't freed a single dissident, or done anything to improve the regime's external or internal behavior. (in fact it's gotten worse.) Why would it be logical to think that more of the same would make things any better?

I have to disagree with you there mate, although their current standards of human rights are far from what we would call first world, they are improving incrementally.

[rubato]

The Chinese communist government have made a clear (and I would have thought by now obvious) choice to persue economic liberalization and material development within a centralized totalitarian structure. The calculations they have made in doing so include the thought that most people will gladly ignore issues like freedom of speech and religion as long as they're getting more food and money each year with a little racist and nationalistic pride thrown in for entertainment value. So far they have been proven completely right, but we will see what happens when they have a generation which grows up in relative affluence. The contrasting approach is the Soviet system where Gorbachev and Yeltsin brought down the economic system and the structure of government in a complete revolution. It's hard to say that they did it right. Their std of living is worse overall than before and the reemergence of 'authoritarian' government makes it look less and less like liberalization after all. The clearest message is that neither the Russian nor Chinese people really give much of a shit for abstractions like 'freedom', 'democracy' et al and are really quite happy with a paternalist state.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Its worth asking the question 'what is the higher good'? If you could turn the clock back to 1985, before Gorbachev and the Russian leadership decided to undergo a traumatic revision of society, and ask 'what would be the best way to do this' would you decide to take the Chinese approach? Little improvement in civil rights and no real democracy but continuous improvement in std of living vs a near total collapse of society resulting in a level of corruption never seen in a 1st world country, poor economic development, the re-institution of authoritarian government, shortened life spans, a large percentage of your educated class fleeing to other countries because a janitor in 1990 in Moscow was paid more than a PhD chemist?

In many ways the Chinese seem to have been more wise. They got progressive improvement and less trauma.

I am appalled equally by the lack of concern for civil rights by the citizens of both countries, I can never respect either as equals; people willing to enslave themselves for the sake of security (Russia) or a little more money (China) or 'stability' (both).

yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

[Gob]

hey Jim, how about this?

A group of 23 Communist Party elders in China has written a letter calling for an end to the country's restrictions on freedom of speech.

The letter says freedom of expression is promised in the Chinese constitution but not allowed in practice.

They want people to be able to freely express themselves on the internet and want more respect for journalists.

The call comes just days after the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Mr Liu was sent to prison for 11 years in 2009 for expressing his desire to see peaceful political change in China.

The letter's release also comes ahead of a key party meeting that is expected to promote future leaders and shape policy for the next few years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11529920

[rubato]

The Chicom government are more subtle and sophisticated than most, by far.

That smells like the sort of tactic they had waiting in the bag to put unrest to sleep with.

"Look, children, the wise and paternalistic ChiCom leadership are already working on it, do nothing. Be quiet, do nothing. ((psst. most of the tienanmin sq dissidents disappeared without a trace)) Go back to your job, think about that new scooter you want."

They are better judges of human psychology than you are.


yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

The Chinese Govt seems to be slowly working toward either a one party democracy or local democracy with a one party federal Govt. My bet is on the former.

[Lord Jim]

The letter says freedom of expression is promised in the Chinese constitution

You know, I don't believe there has ever been a Communist country that didn't have some sort of guarantee like this in its Constitution....

Which just goes to show how little words on a piece of paper can mean if their enforcement isn't insisted on by a vigilant populace....

As for the letter itself Strop, I applaud the courage of these folks, (though obviously it would have been better had they come forward when they were actually in a position to do something about the situation....maybe they figure they're too old for the regime to bother them with serious reprisals) but I don't expect it to amount to much, or lead anywhere...

Don't get me wrong; I'd love to be mistaken about this....I'd love to see a sequence of events leading to larger and larger demonstrations, culminating in the regime either stepping down en masse or reforming itself out of existence...

But the gangsters who run this regime have made very clear in the past what they are willing do to avoid having to yield to democratic reform...

They would of course prefer to avoid another Tienanmen (that sort of thing is very bad for one's PR image) so they will act much as the Iranians did should another yearning for freedom begin to emerge; mass arrests, disrupt communications, break up any gathering of more than a couple of people, random intimidation, etc., so that mass protests can not materialize.

The Chinese Govt seems to be slowly working toward either a one party democracy or local democracy with a one party federal Govt. My bet is on the former.

I don't think the regime is working toward democracy of any sort CP....

I think they're attempting (I believe the Vietnamese are on this course as well) to do what the dictators that used to rule South Korea and Taiwan tried to do....

To allow the people to achieve a measure of economic power, while retaining a monopoly on political power....

You can do this for a time, but ultimately this course will fail and the dictators will be swept aside, just as happened in the two examples I cited....

The reason is simple; once you create a large enough educated, economically empowered group of people they are not going to sit still for being told what they can and can not do think or say by a self appointed tyrannical oligarchy....

Also, in order to have a strong modern economy, you have to have a law based system for setting rules and resolving disputes....

Once people start having to respect the concept of law in one area, it tends to catch on.