Sonja heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "Nobelprijs Applaus" achtergelaten:
Niet alles is zoals het lijkt. Opmerkelijke informatie over Nobel Prijswinnaar Liu Xiaobo:The Nobel War Prize (Tariq Ali 11 December 2010)
Zie ook:Liu Xiaobo stands for war, not peace
Niet alles is zoals het lijkt. Opmerkelijke informatie over Nobel Prijswinnaar Liu Xiaobo:The Nobel War Prize (Tariq Ali 11 December 2010)
Zie ook:Liu Xiaobo stands for war, not peace
Gelezen op Twitter: If an innocent person held in Guantanamo won a Nobel Peace Prize would the US let him go to the ceremony?
Liu Xiaobo stands for war, not peaceBARRY SAUTMAN AND YAN HAIRONG - Oct 25 2010 14:59 |
39 comments
Few, if any, African states have congratulated Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 winner of the Nobel peace prize. Whatever their motives in not doing so, congratulations are not deserved, because Liu's perspectives and goals are not compatible with the interests of most Chinese.
All one hears in the international media about Liu is that he is a heroic fighter for democracy.
In fact that is not the case. But, even if he were, his prescriptions for China would remain untenable.
First, the precondition for being awarded a Nobel peace prize should be that one is for peace. Liu is not.
He has vituperatively endorsed wars, including the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and, retrospectively, the Korean and Vietnam wars.
It is not surprising that the Nobel committee would overlook the fact that Liu has supported wars that the United Nations refused to authorise.
Committee members represent the principal parties in the Norwegian Parliament.
Leaving aside the question of why the world should credit a prize awarded by five white politicians of one nationality, it should be noted that their parties endorsed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which Norway has provided troops.
Second, Liu stated in a 1988 interview with a Hong Kong magazine that China should undergo 300 years of colonialism to make it like Hong Kong. He reiterated this view in an interview with the same magazine in 2006.
Given the massive violations of human rights under colonialism, it doesn't go down well in China or, one would assume, most ex-colonies.
Third, the Charter '08 document that led to Liu's arrest called for the privatisation of industry and land in China.
The Soviet Union's privatisation led to the confiscation of the core of the economy by a handful of oligarchs.
And the partial privatisation of state assets in China, which mainly enriched officials, has caused most Chinese to indicate in surveys their opposition to the wholesale privatisation Liu proposes.
Fourth, Liu, who has long been financed by the US government's National Endowment for Democracy, proposes an instant shift to electoral democracy as the solution to China's problems.
That does not hold out promise for China at all.
Professor Randall Peerenboom of Columbia University's Law School has shown that some non-democratic states (such as Singapore and some Arab states) are rated highly in terms of the rule of law, while electoral democracies (such as Guatemala, Kenya and Papua New Guinea) rate poorly.
States that have made the transition to electoral democracy at low levels of wealth (and China is still very much a developing country) have low levels of development and considerable instability.
Only a few small states, at the high-end of developing countries, have sustained electoral democracy. The exception is India, but in many economic and social aspects it compares unfavourably with China.
India also has a hugely problematic political system. Peerenboom has observed that "anyone who believes that most Chinese citizens are likely to see elections as the answer to their problems based on the experiences of Asian countries should think again.
Elections… hardly inspire confidence or match the inflated rhetoric about the ability of democracy to hold government officials accountable."
Studies also show that only the "highest levels of democracy" improve human rights practices. In many cases the transition to electoral democracy in developing countries worsens rights.
If most Chinese knew what Liu stands for, they would reject him. In that respect the Chinese government not only unnecessarily imprisoned Liu but ineptly condemned the awarding of the peace prize solely on the fact that Liu is a convicted criminal.
It would have been simply far better to show the world what Liu stands for. Then most of it, like Africa's states, would have no reason to congratulate him.
Barry Sautman is a political scientist and lawyer at Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. Yan Hairong is an anthropologist at Hong Kong Polytechnic University
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-10-25-liu-xiaobo-stands-for-war-not-peace
The Nobel War Prize
11 December 2010
Tags: nobel
Last year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize escalated the war in Afghanistan a few weeks after receiving the prize. The award surprised even Obama. This year the Chinese government were foolish to make a martyr of the president of Chinese PEN and neo-con Liu Xiaobo. He should never have been arrested, but the Norwegian politicians who comprise the committee, led by Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Labour prime minister, wanted to teach China a lesson. And so they ignored their hero’s views. Or perhaps they didn’t, given that their own views are not dissimilar. The committee thought about giving Bush and Blair a joint peace prize for invading Iraq but a public outcry forced a retreat.
For the record, Liu Xiaobo has stated publicly that in his view:
(a) China’s tragedy is that it wasn’t colonised for at least 300 years by a Western power or Japan. This would apparently have civilised it for ever;
(b) The Korean and Vietnam wars fought by the US were wars against totalitarianism and enhanced Washington’s ‘moral credibility’;
(c) Bush was right to go to war in Iraq and Senator Kerry’s criticisms were ‘slander-mongering’;
(d) Afghanistan? No surprises here: Full support for Nato’s war.
He has a right to these opinions, but should they get a peace prize?
The Norwegian jurist Fredrik Heffermehl argues that the committee is in breach of the will and testament left behind by the inventor of dynamite whose bequests fund the prizes: ‘The Nobel committee has not received prize money for free use, but was entrusted with money to give to the pivotal element in creating peace, breaking the vicious circle of arms races and military power games. From this point of view the 2010 Nobel is again an illegitimate prize awarded by an illegitimate committee.’
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten