The decision by the Norwegian Nobel committee to award the Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo is, from my point of view, a mistake because Mr Liu was found guilty of breaching article 105 of the criminal law of the People’s Republic of China. The committee’s choice, a deliberate disrespect for the judicial sovereignty of China, has shown how little the committee understands my country. Then, we see some governments and politicians also support this wrong decision. This is hard to understand and accept on the part of many in China.
To sum up the comments and opinions in support of this wrong decision, there are mainly two issues at stake.
The first question is whether the political system in China suits the country as it is today. Should China copy the western system or follow its own path?
In the opinions of some people, politicians and the media in Norway and some western countries, China’s economic progress is correct and laudable. And, yet, China’s political system is wrong or, at least, stagnant.
Then, my question is: What is the purpose of a political system? How can a sovereign country achieve all-round social and economic progress and meet the needs of the people without a proper political system? Is a political system only an empty framework hanging there only for the sake of being there? Good interaction between the economic and political systems of a country is the bedrocks of successful social development. A wrong political system just does not have any chance to lead and support sustained and robust economic and social progress on a massive scale. So why so many in the west deliberately blur this common-sense?
The west so adores its own political system, it would love to have it globalised. The question is why such a “politically correct” system is at the moment also meeting so much economic and social difficulty? Why for decades the west has been promoting its system in other parts of the world but has yet to produce convincing results?
The fact is that many western governments are also making reforms to overcome their weaknesses and improve their governance. China, together with other developing countries, learns from the west but, more importantly, we have to follow our own reality. If the achievement of China in the last three decades is acknowledged, then one should also acknowledge that China made the right choice for its path and it has a right political system and has followed the right policies. Economic progress cannot be separated from an enabling political system.
Admittedly, our system is not perfect. It will take us a very long time to continuously improve our socialist system, which is only at its initial stage. At the just concluded fifth plenary session of the 17th National Party Congress, it was admitted that many challenges are facing us, including weakness in economic structure, a still-fragile agricultural sector, disparities in urban and rural development and in income distribution and a plethora of social issues crying out for attention.
Just in case you may not know, among 1.3 billion Chinese, there are still 150 million living under the poverty line and 160 million senior citizens above 60 years of age who need to be taken care of. We are under pressure for generating 270 million jobs and, at the same time, 12 million more people come into the labour force every single year.
The suggested 12th five-year programme will focus very much on the wellbeing of the people, with priority on generating more jobs. We will speed up the development of social programmes to ensure our citizens’ equal access to basic public services. And we will make more efforts to readjust income distribution to make sure our development benefits the public with rising prosperity and quality of life.
If you follow carefully the progress in China, you will find the Chinese people very interested in national development and participating in debating major policy decisions and the party and government quite capable of accepting criticism and engaging in self-criticism for improvement. This is rightfully the key ingredient for China to succeed in reform. It is just often overlooked by outsiders, especially the western world.
China is in a process of rapid changes. From my personal experience, China has made headway in democratic policy making, in ensuring people’s right to know, to participate, to express, to supervise and in the rule of law. If one compares the China of two or three decades ago with today’s China, it is not too difficult to find that many of the issues we discussed then have long been addressed with the advancement of our reforms. And, yet, we are now facing and working on new issues. That’s why we are committed to reform and opening-up to develop socialist democracy and human rights, not to accommodate foreign pressure but because of the need of our own development and our people.
The second question is: Is this about freedom of expression or the rule of law?
“Freedom of expression” was too often politicised in the Cold War. Now that the world has come out of the Cold War, it should not be judged from an ideological point of view any more. After over 30 years of reform and opening up, China is now already a vibrant society when it comes to expression of views and opinions. China is among the world’s top publishers with over 2,000 newspapers and over 9,000 magazines. We are home to millions of websites and over 200 million blogs. More than four million blog entries or comments are made every single day, making the Chinese cybersphere the most populous ground for expression in the world.
In China, people enjoy freedom of expression, provided it is exercised within the limits of law. Undermining national security by abusing freedom of expression is an offence and will be punished by law. The border between freedom of expression and rule of law should not and cannot be blurred. When the border is crossed, it is no longer an issue of freedom of expression but one of rule of law. Such a border exists not only in China but also in most countries in the world.
One does not need to be reminded that, according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it “special duties and responsibilities”, “for respecting the rights and reputations of others” and “for the protection of national security or public order…” According to the United States Code, “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof or gives aid or comfort thereto shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years…”
It is not uncommon in western countries to apply criminal disposition to individuals for seditious words or actions that threaten national security and social order. Freedom of expression cannot exceed the boundary of law in your countries but you never see it as a human rights issue here.
The western countries protect their values and political system by law. China too has the right to do so. Is someone from China worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize just because he happens to advocate western values and replacing the Chinese system with a western system? Isn’t that double standards?
I have noticed that Geir Lundestad, secretary-general of the Norwegian Nobel committee, recently confessed in the UK the committee’s choice for 2010 was indeed political and targeted at China. More than two decades after the end of the Cold War that was supposed to end ideological divide, a prize for peace set up by Alfred Nobel over a century ago is still harnessed as a political boot to trample countries considered “different”. It is such a pity.
The author is Ambassador of China to Norway.