¡@
The empty chair that said it all
Two key anniversaries coincided in Oslo yesterday with the presentation of this
year¡¦s Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (¼B¾åªi). For just the
second time in the prize¡¦s 109-year history, neither the recipient nor a close
family member was able to attend the ceremony because his government would not
allow it. An empty chair said it all.
Dec. 10 is notable as the day in 1889 that Swedish chemist and weapons
manufacturer Alfred Nobel died. It was also the day in 1948 that the UN adopted
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1950, the UN General Assembly
picked the day to be commemorated as Human Rights Day, while the Nobel Peace
Prize has been awarded on the anniversary of Nobel¡¦s death since Nobel prizes
were inaugurated in 1901, with 19 exceptions. Those interruptions have usually
been during times of war.
It seems especially fitting this year that Liu is being honored on Human Rights
Day, since his life¡¦s work epitomizes what the UN was trying to achieve with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The recognition that human beings, no
matter where they live, have an unconditional right to life, equality before the
law and fair trials, freedom of thought, conscience and expression and freedom
of religion. All these are rights that embody democratic values, not just
Western ones.
Perhaps that is what has made Liu¡¦s prize so galling to Beijing, which is known
to desperately want to have a Chinese still living and working in China win a
Nobel, any Nobel. Liu would certainly fit this category, except for the
inconvenient fact that his work, especially in coauthoring Charter 08, goes
against everything Beijing stands for.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman in Beijing told reporters with a
straight face on Thursday that Liu had not been imprisoned because of anything
he had said, but because he went beyond general criticism by trying to persuade
others to act, something she said jeopardized society. She could have been
quoting Alan Rickman¡¦s character, the Interrogator, in the brilliant 1991 film
Closet Land, who accuses a children¡¦s book author of being ¡§guilty of subliminal
indoctrination¡¨ by trying, through her writings, to teach children to live
without fear and being ¡§part of the tribe that thinks too much.¡¨
Perhaps Liu wasn¡¦t the best choice of a Chinese dissident; there were several
who said so in the run-up to the announcement of the prize last month. Since
then, however, by its very acts, Beijing has made him a prime example of why the
peace prize and Human Rights Day can be such powerful motivators and an
inspiration to people around the world.
That is also why the list of no-shows among the 65 countries invited to attend
the Oslo ceremony by virtue of having an embassy in that city served as a potent
reminder of repressive regimes as well as Beijing¡¦s might as a trading power and
a UN Security Council member. China led the list of non-believers in free
speech, which included Cuba, Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Vietnam. Trade or
politics played a role in decisions by Sudan, Venezuela, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi
Arabia, Colombia, Morocco, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and, unfortunately, the
Philippines.
The absence of a representative from Manila was the most glaring, despite the
Philippine foreign secretary saying his country was not taking sides with China.
His government is led by a man whose father was assassinated for standing up for
the same rights and freedoms that Liu avows. The ghost of Benigno Aquino Jr will
surely be haunting Malacanang Palace this weekend.
Liu now joins a distinguished list of people who have struggled to improve the
lives of their fellow citizens through democractic rights and freedoms,
including Martin Luther King in 1964, Lech Walesa in 1983, Andrei Sakharov in
1985 and Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991. Some, like Liu, are still fighting that
battle, but he can rest assured that he will not be the last.
¡@
|