(Mr. Ben Mah, author of America and China, America and the World, America in the Age of Neoliberalism, and Financial Tsunami and Economic Crisis – The End of American Hegemony, is a frequent contributor to this website.)
The first U.S. government-funded organization out of the gate to congratulate Liu Xiaobo for winning the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The NED also unblushingly proclaimed that it has provided funding for Liu’s organizations to promote free inquiry and freedom of expression in China over the years.
Ironically, it was Liu’s connection to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that was largely responsible for landing him in Chinese court where he was sentenced to 11 years in prison for subversive activities. The NED was established in the 1980s to carry out covert actions for the CIA under the cover of promoting democracy and human rights. The NED has served as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy with the objective to launch “democratic” wars, after having realized that modern warfare is too destructive to conduct against a major power such as China.
Ostensibly, The NED is supposedly a private organization; however, all of its funding is provided by the U.S. Congress. American taxpayers provide funding for various dissident groups such as Liu Xiaobo’s organizations which have received $650,000 over the years, according to the data provided on the NED website.
Liu’s sentence by the Chinese high court in Beijing raised an international outcry, but his treatment was little different from similar cases in the United States, where violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act is punishable by up to 25 years in prison.1.
In the Western media, the fact that Liu had received funds from a foreign organization engaging in subversive activities hostile to China was never reported. Instead, Liu was reported to be prosecuted for “peaceful agitating for democracy”, punished for “practicing freedom of expression,” and for his drafting of Charter 08.
The Charter 08 document, which was released on the 30th anniversary of China’s reform and opening up, was modeled after Charter 77 drafted by Czechoslovakian dissidents headed by Vaclav Havel in 1977. Charter 77 criticized the Czech government for its failure to implement human rights under the constitution and UN covenants. Charter 77 demanded a dialogue with the former Czechoslovakian government and was linked to the U.S. Endowment for Democracy (NED). In China, Liu is “demanding nothing less than the overthrow of the People’s Republic of China. Unlike petitions from other Chinese ‘dissidents’, the ‘Charter 08’, which he co-authored, is no human rights resolution, but rather a comprehensive political program, seeking a fundamental transformation of China.”2.
The program for the transformation of China calls for the revision of China’s constitution, the creation of a federal state, complete privatization of the state-owned enterprises and farmlands together with private property rights. “The authors of Charter 08 are in line with the wishes of Western companies, expanding to China—pleading continuously for a lifting of the limitations—especially those on foreign ownership of property.”2.
As a result of China’s WTO entry, Western multinational corporations have increasingly dominated key sectors of the Chinese economy. In recent years, foreign subsidiaries in China have grown rapidly, and the products manufactured by these foreign-owned subsidiaries are largely for export. Overnight, China became a country dependent on foreign trade and that trade dependency worsened when China became the favored destination for outsourcing by Western multinationals.
Under the banner of national treatment for foreign direct investment, U.S. capital has increased its efforts to dominate broad sectors of the Chinese economy, from manufacturing industry, consumer market, insurance, telecommunication and gradually moving into banking. However, bureaucratic regulation and nationalism of some officials have added costs and caused delays to the multinationals’ operations in China. This is especially evident with the passing of a new anti-monopoly law and the proclamation of an Indigenous Innovation policy in China. Many CEOs of multinationals have expressed frustrations with the pace of China’s liberalization and complained to their governments that the investment environment has deteriorated in the country. They have demanded equal treatments with Chinese firms. Recently, Western governments headed by the United States have put pressure on China for fair treatment for their corporations. The United States has also clamored for Chinese currency revaluation, threatened China with billions in trade sanctions and declared its intention to launch complaints to the WTO.
It is obvious that a weak central government without the capacity to pass law in China to protect her national interest would be the most desirable outcome for the Western multinational firms. Liu Xiaobo’s advocacy of the federal Chinese state, where each region of China will be a proxy of imperial powers will conform to the interests of Western multinational firms as well as the geopolitical interests of U.S. and her Western allies. Under this scenario, China will return to the 20s of the 20th century, where when warlords backed by different imperial interests divided and ruled China amidst chaos, bloodshed and starvation among the Chinese people.
It is not a big surprise then, that Liu Xiaobo who is a “dissident” of diminishing status in China would be declared a favorite candidate for 2010 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Since the beginning of 1990s, Western governments “have increasingly been using the so-called dissidents as a means of applying pressure on Beijing.”3. In Germany, “regardless of their concrete political demands, ‘dissidents’ are presented to the German public as ‘human rights activists’ to stir up anti-Beijing sentiments. Even though they currently have no influence in their country, these ‘dissidents’ are being kept at the ready, as potential cooperation partners for the in case of a change of system in China.”3.
For this reason, one has to examine the political beliefs and worldviews of Liu Xiaobo, as many Chinese consider him a traitor to their nation, a client of the U.S. subversive organization NED, and a convenient tool of foreign powers which that seek to destroy China.
Liu firmly believes in the Westernization of China, a country with thousands of years of tradition and a distinct culture. According to Liu, the U.S. is the driving force for democracy, and for this reason, he supports the U.S. wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and the subsequent U.S. military occupations. The United States, in response to threats upon its security, should not hesitate to use force, Liu has declared. What is even more disturbing is that in an interview in 1988, Liu stated that China needs to have another 300 years of colonization to effect a real change. Liu’s supporters in the West attribute this as a small mistake on his part that happened more than 20 years ago and should be overlooked. However, Liu has steadfastly confirmed that this is still his belief. This is hardly in common with the vast majority of the Chinese people: racial discrimination, foreign control of the Chinese economy and dominant influence over Chinese politics are some of the key characteristics of past colonialism which are all too painful to erase from their memories.1.4.
Liu, who was indoctrinated by American professors after having spent a year or two in an American university, has never seen the dark side of American society, has wholeheartedly embraced American style of democracy. Little does he know that America, after 300 years of capitalism and considered to be the richest country in the world, has yet to solve their own problems of hunger and health care. The American financial system is corrupt, predatory and bankrupt. Money culture has corrupted American politics to the point where the principle of one-person-one vote has become a complete fallacy.
Liu’s view is myopic, as Western democracy has been a complete failure in Asia. China’s neighbor, the Philippines, after over half a century of democratization imposed by the Americans, became the poorest country in the world with no true democracy and one of the most unstable countries in Asia.
Liu embraced privatization, and viewed it as a panacea for China’s development. Unfortunately, as a result of privatization, Russia’s industry has been completely destroyed. Russian Oligarch and Foreign companies took over large sections of the Russian economy, and Russian currency was greatly devalued and inflation soared out of sight and wiped out most of Russian savings. The standard of living of the Russian people went into a nosedive, with a dramatic decline in life expectancy. In light of this horrific experience, one wonders why any person with a sound mind and with the welfare of the Chinese people at heart would still clamor for privatization. However, privatization in China conforms to the interests of Western multinationals as privatization will make it possible to take over China’s industry for a fraction of its real value. In this regard, Liu has lost credibility and his views have been completely discredited in the eyes of the Chinese people. No wonder he is regarded as shallow and a light-weight by China’s intelligentsia.1.
While Liu has been completely discredited in China, his winning the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize has been celebrated by a certain circle other than the NED in the West. Kwame Anthony Appiah, the president of the global literary and human rights NGO PEN, in his nominating letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, cited Liu’s “distinguished and principled leadership in the area of human and political rights and freedom of expression.”6. Appiah stated that Liu’s ideas “are shared by a significant cross section of Chinese society.” That is a blatant exaggeration to say the least.
President Obama also joined in the choir by demanding that Liu Xiaobo be released as he declared: “But this award reminds us that political reform has not kept pace, and that the basic human rights of every man, woman and child must be respected.”7. In this regard, Obama should reflect on his own behavior. After having won the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama bombed civilians including women and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama is in fact conducting a war against humanity and violating human rights. In any case, the Nobel Peace Prize has always been politicized. Indeed, considerable political pressure was being exerted on the Norwegian Nobel Committee on the eve of this year’s announcement. Liu Xiaobo, a convicted criminal offender under the law of China and a man many Chinese considered a henchman of foreign powers was chosen not for his contribution to or the defense of peace, but rather as an instrument for containing China. But the real reason as stated candidly by German-Foreign-Policy.com: “But the ‘dissidents’ can be effectively used for scare tactics and to create animosity toward Beijing in Germany. Besides, in the West they are considered possible cooperation partners, to be kept in reserve for the future, in case a—currently improbable—radical transformation in the direction of the proposals in the ‘Charter 08’ actually takes place. Their role-models are the ‘dissidents’ in the eastern and southeastern European socialist countries of the 80s, some of whom came to office after the transformations of the 1990s—very much in the interests of the Western powers.”3.
Thus, the names of Lech Walesa of Poland and Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia resurface and immediately come to mind. The possibility of Liu Xiaobo becoming the next Lech Walesa—who was also a Nobel Peace Prize winner—of China is indeed enticing to leaders such as Obama and Merkel and the leading political circle in the West. As a matter of fact, Vin Webber, former Chairman of NED, is very proud of the assistance which NED has given to the dissidents in Eastern Europe as he unabashedly said out loud: “NED has a truly remarkable track record of support for democratic groups in every corner of the world that have effected real change in their societies. There are well-known examples like NED's early support for the Polish Solidarity trade union and Czechoslovakia's Charter 77 movement, whose leaders, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, each became the democratically elected president of his country.”8.
Here lies the fundamental problem of the contemporary world or the “Clash of Civilizations” as the late Professor Samuel Huntingdon calls it. In China, a dissident such as Liu Xiaobo who received money from subversive organization NED, embracing Westernization and glorifying colonialism has no chance of being a leader. Chinese people of all political persuasions, once they know a little more about him, would treat him as a traitor to the motherland and look upon him with disdain and mistrust.
For this reason, the use of the Nobel Peace Prize as a political tool has been exposed to the Chinese people. The dirty work of subversive organizations such as the NED and other NGOs which cite the jailing of Liu Xiaobo to demonize China has also been exposed. China, on the other hand, places herself in this position largely due to the fact that she has not vigorously upheld her rights as a sovereign power in her relationship with the West. She has allowed U.S. government-funded NED to provide financial support to separatist groups which conducted terrorist acts against her people, as in the case of the 2008 Tibetan riot and the ethnic strife in Xingiang in 2009.9.10. This is a violation of China’s sovereignty and undermines China’s vital national interests. In this regard, a more forceful response, for example, sanctions against American commercial interests in China when China’s sovereignty is challenged, might stop U.S. covert actions once and for all.
Notes:
1. De Wang: “The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo and what it means to the Chinese?” October 8, 2010 Hiddenharmonies.org
2. German-Foreign-Policy.Com: “Federal Republic of China”, October 11, 2010
3. German-Foreign-Policy.Com: “Germany versus China”, October 7, 2010
4. China Study Group.net: “another war-mongering peace prize winner”, October 15, 2010
5. Sautman, Bary, Yan, Hairong: “Liu Xiaobo Deserves an Ig Nobel Peace Prize”, October 12, South China Morning Post
6. Appiah, Kwame Anthony: “Why I Nominated Liu Xiaobo?”, October 8, 2010
7. Democracy Digest: “Obama tells China to release Liu Xiaobo”, October 8, 2010
8. Weeber, Vin: “Defeding the Well-endowed”, Washington Times March 11, 2010
9. Mah, Ben: “Financial Tsunami and Economic Crisis”, PP183-188 Tri-City Press 2010
10. Mah, Ben: “The July Riots in Xingiang”, July 18, 2009 Xinfajia.net
|
