Will the Nobel Peace Prize promote democracy?

Posted By Will Inboden Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 11:42 AM Share

On Friday the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Oslo will announce the winner of this year's prize. One of the leading candidates (the odds-on favorite according to Irish book-makers Paddy Power) is imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Liu is the intrepid author of the "Charter 08" document calling for democracy in China. Modeled on the landmark "Charter 77" that played an instrumental role in galvanizing freedom's voices behind the Iron Curtain (and written in part by then-Czech dissident Vaclav Havel, himself a supporter of Liu's Nobel candidacy), Charter 08 has been signed by hundreds of Chinese intellectuals. It has prompted wide attention and support from Chinese dissidents, and the wrath of the Chinese Communist Party, such that Liu is now serving an 11-year prison sentence.

The Chinese Government fears that Liu might receive the Peace Prize, evidenced by the PRC's preemptive threats against the Norwegian Government. Nobel Institute director Geir Lundestad astutely dismissed China's ham-handed efforts at intimidation: "China has come with warnings before, but they have no influence on the committee's work."  

The Peace Prize might go to another worthy recipient, such as Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai or Afghan women's rights advocate Sima Samar. We will all know soon enough. This is an opportunity for the White House to begin putting some follow-up action behind President Obama's laudable UNGA speech two weeks ago, affirming his commitment to promoting human rights and democracy - and to show support for a fellow Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. 

For example, if Liu does indeed receive the prize on Friday, how about President Obama makes an in-person, live statement to the press congratulating Liu and calling on the Chinese government to release him from prison, immediately and unconditionally? (The latter meaning not house-arrest but true freedom of movement, speech, and association.) This would be a profound show of support not only for Liu but for all of China's dissidents and prisoners of conscience. And on next month's trip to Asia, President Obama could encourage the leaders of the other Asian democracies he visits -- such as India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan -- to speak out on Liu's behalf as well. This would make clear that China's repressive system is not just an American concern but a concern to all free nations. 

China's recent thuggish attempts at power-projection in Asia have alarmed many neighboring nations. But the core problem with China is not that it is a rising power; it is the nature of the regime. China's rising power would be much more welcomed by the region if the Chinese government was accountable to its citizens and respected their rights and freedoms. This is the kind of China that Liu Xiaobo and the other signatories to Charter 08 seek to bring about. They deserve our support.

MIKE CLARKE/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:EUROPE, AFGHANISTAN, CHINA, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

DANIELJ315

5:16 PM ET

October 5, 2010

Counter-Productive?

"China's rising power would be much more welcomed by the region if the Chinese government was accountable to its citizens and respected their rights and freedoms"

Questionable, merely transposing a democratic system would do little to calm any fears that countries in Asia may have. For example: Would Japan feel safer if China had a multi-party democratic system with a large nationalist party in charge? If anything the situation would stay the same or perhaps China's foreign policy would become a little more reactive.

Although democracy is an admirable goal it is no panacea and wouldn't necessarily lead to a revaluation of the RMB or a less westphalian few of foreign policy and International Relations

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

7:21 PM ET

October 5, 2010

Yes and no

I agree that China should free this dissident and all other dissidents in their country. But I agree with Daniel that a transition to democracy that is too rapid or a blind copy of the Western system without any thought to the particularities of China could lead to the unleashing of pent-up social forces that are potentially very destructive, both for the Chinese and their neighbors. Look at what has happened in the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia; many of the governments were or are arguably less free and more corrupt than the Soviet government was, and it resulted in a nationalist explosion which left hundreds of thousands displaced or killed.

For instance, Beijing is horrible to its ethnic minorities, but it could potentially be far worse if its government represents the most nationalist elements in China. The people, fed anti-Tibetan and anti-Turkish propaganda for decades, and often in social and economic conflict with those populations, may become, paradoxically, far more ruthless without the current system.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

7:24 PM ET

October 5, 2010

not to mention -

would demanding this just make China crack down harder on democratic forces and take a more militant attitude towards the US? Perhaps thats what conservatives want; China, with its authoritarian politics and market socialism makes a great enemy for conservatives to holler about. Perhaps antagonizing them is the best way to protect the power of the pro-militarist and pro-interventionist wing of the Republican party?

 

MARTY MARTEL

8:24 PM ET

October 5, 2010

Of course NOT......

If opening of vast consumer markets and innumerable contacts with the Chinese society have NOT brought ‘democracy’ to China than what makes Mr. Inboden think that one paltry Nobel peace price will bring ’democracy’ to China?

There is no boundary to ‘sheer wishful thinking’ of these American sinologists.

China will remain what it has been even before Nixon’s 1972 China visit - a one party monolithic Communsit dictatorship.

By opening up American and European markets to cheap Chinese products, Western democracies have actually strengthened the hold of Communist Party over Chinese society by allowing the Communist leaders to wear a capitalist mask and generate huge employment opportunities for China’s hungry masses and in the process allow China to accumulate vast forex reserves that China successfully uses to buy all kind of military technology and natural resources worldwide.

All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting.

Nixon’s 1972 trip to China was supposed to benefit US businesses by opening up a billion-strong Chinese consumer market. Instead China has benefited far more from 300 million US and 250 million European consumers.

Now Communist China has democratic US by its tail. US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Sears or Home Depot filled with Chinese goods proves and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US treasuries.

Little could Mao or even Deng have imagined that by wearing a capitalist mask, their followers will beat capitalists at their own game. Lenin used to say that ’capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them’. With the West selling such ropes (in the form of technology transfers), China has proved that Lenin saying quite prophetic.

 

BILL888

2:54 AM ET

October 6, 2010

There is no credibility with the Nobel Peace Prize

With last year's Nobel Peace Prize awarded to a new president, who had not done anything for peace yet, there remains very little prestige with the title. I think the intent of the Nobel Peace Prize had changed over the years and became politicized.

 

NICOLAS19

8:04 AM ET

October 6, 2010

spot on

Ever since some of the Nobel prizes are awarded by political correctness, they've begun to mean nothing. The literature prize goes to the ones writing not the best books but of the most controversial and politically correct subjects. The peace prize goes where the world powers' (mainly the US's) interests are currently aligned. It's not gained by merit, but by political usefulness. The prize is simply a tool to project more attention to a specific subject.

 

BOBBY FLETCHER

8:53 AM ET

October 7, 2010

Liu Xiaobo took $ from Uncle Sam, making him an American spy

Liu on the take from US government is a fact. Even our own law (FARA) states financial sponsorship by foreignty entity, in part or whole, substantiates foreign agent status.

Evidence of Liu taking over a million dollars from US government is publically available - in NED's China grant publication. Liu started two political organizations, ICPC and Mingzhu Zhongguo, to received funding from a quasi-government entity funded by the US congress.

Come on, people, this is double standard. Would an American on the take from China advocating abolition of US constitution ever be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize? Heck no.

 

CARDSHARP

3:18 AM ET

October 13, 2010

Dammit it's time for Team Bush to rise again and teach those

yellow commie bastard a lesson. Give me a break. We were dupes to listen to you the first time.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More