We have to speak when others cannot speak...

He is currently serving his eleven-year sentence in Jinzhou, Liaoning province, 500 kilometers north of Beijing.
The prisoner now shares a thirty square meter cell with five other detainees, after having spent the first six months of his detention in solitary confinement.
Though compelled to wear the customary white prison garb, he does not have to work, unlike most other prisoners.
As such, Liu Xiaobo, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient spends his days learning English with a dictionary and reading works of history and novels, including, befittingly, those of Franz Kafka, overt political works being forbidden.
The material he has written while in detention will most likely never be published and the authorities destroyed the poems composed during his various stints in prison.
His wife, Liu Xia is only authorized to visit him once a month, for sixty minutes. In order to do so, she must undertake a six-hour long journey from their home in Beijing to Jinzhou.
Nominated for the prize by Vaclav Havel and Desmond Tutu, among others, the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to grant him the Nobel Peace Prize of 2010 in honor of his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.
Indeed, the citation continued, China is in breach of several international agreements to which it is a signatory, as well as of its own provisions concerning political rights…
Liu has become the foremost symbol of this wide-ranging struggle for human rights in China.
It was a bold and brave act on the part of the Nobel Committee, for the West has refrained from taking Beijing to task over its abuse of human rights, so as not to jeopardize its lucrative and now vital economic ties with China.
Liu Xiaobo is only the third recipient to win the prize while in detention. The German pacifist Carl von Ossietsky in 1935, and Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the Burmese opposition, in 1991 (who is currently still under house arrest) were honored in similar circumstances.
Liu Xiaobo has been a human rights

activist since 1989 and the pro-democracy campaign that led to the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4.
A visiting scholar at Columbia University at the time, Liu Xiaobo returned home in late May shortly before the bloody crackdown.
As the situation was becoming ever more tense and dangerous in the first days of June 1989, Liu and three other fellow intellectuals went on a hunger strike in order to demonstrate their support for the students.
When the army stormed the Square on June 4, Liu and his colleagues negotiated with the military to allow the students to evacuate the area peacefully..
If not for the work of Liu and the others to broker a peaceful withdrawal from the square, Tiananmen Square would have been a field of blood on June 4, Gao Yu, a dissident arrested on that day told the NYT.
Nevertheless, although the exact figure remains a state secret, it is believed that several thousands of people were killed and wounded during what the authorities call the political turmoil of that spring.
Liu was himself arrested after the June Massacre and spent the following two years in prison.
It was the traumatic events of Tiananmen that transformed Liu Xiaobo from a successful scholar into a proscribed human rights activist.
Twenty years have passed, but the ghosts of June Fourth have not yet been laid to rest. Upon release from Qincheng Prison in 1991, I, who had been led onto the path of political dissent by the psychological chains of June Fourth, lost the right to speak publicly in my own country and could only speak through the foreign media. Because of this, I was subjected to year-round monitoring, kept under residential surveillance (May 1995 to January 1996) and sent to Reeducation-Through-Labor (October 1996 to October 1999), he later wrote.
In 2008, Liu Xiaobo was arrested following his role in the writing and dissemination of Charter 08 on the internet. Modeled after Charter 77, written by Vaclav Havel and other Czech dissidents, the document called for the establishment of a democratic China and the respect of fundamental human rights.
Over 10,000 Chinese citizens eventually signed the document before it was banished form the internet by the authorities.
On Christmas day 2009, Liu was sentenced to an eleven years in prison for incitement to subvert state power (please refer to this previous BWR post for detailed coverage of that event).
While others were researching the same problems from a theoretical or policy standpoint, he was actively protesting and actually doing things, Zhang Zuhua, who also collaborated in drafting Charter 08, told the NYT.
He is a person who wants to live in truth, Jean-Philippe Béja, of the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris and a friend of the dissident, told The Guardian.
After 1989, Liu could no longer countenance the regime’s systematic human rights violations. Remaining silent and passive entailed implicitly collaborating with the repressive regime and condoning its unjust policies and practices.
The official Chinese reaction to the news that Liu Xiaobo had won the Nobel Peace Prize was swift and predictable. Liu Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese judicial departments for violating Chinese law, the foreign ministry declared in a statement. Giving Liu the award runs completely counter to the principle of the prize and is also a blasphemy to the peace prize, a foreign ministry spokesman said.
Chinese websites avoided the subject altogether. Liu’s name was deleted from internet chat rooms, and all text messages containing the three Chinese characters of Liu’s name were blocked.
CNN and BBC coverage of the event was censored in China.
The Chinese authorities had been putting pressure on the Norwegians for some time, explicitly warning the latter that honoring Liu would undermine bilateral relations.
Yet, the Norwegian Nobel Committee refused to be intimidated (the pressure may have had the opposite effect), and attempts by the Norwegian government to explain to the Chinese that the Committee was an independent body that made its own decisions, and not a governmental one seem to have been unsuccessful, the very notion of independence being a concept foreign to the Chinese oligarchs…
We have to speak when others cannot speak. As China is rising, we should have the right to criticize, Thorbjoern Jagland, the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told Reuters.
Shortly after the Committee’s announcement, plain clothed police officers compelled Mrs. Liu to leave her home. About one hundred people had gathered in front of her building, as well as dozens of journalists. All were prevented from seeing Mrs. Liu by scores of police officers.
They are forcing me to leave Beijing. They want me to go to Liaoning to see Xiaobo. They want to distance me from the media, she told Reuters.
Mrs. Liu saw her husband in Jinzhou on Sunday. Prison officials had already notified him that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize…This is for the lost souls of June 4th, he told his wife, referring to the prize, according to the NYT.
Mrs. Liu was then taken back to Beijing, where she was placed under house arrest, and deprived of all phone and internet connections.
Over fifty police officers arrested some twenty human rights activists who were attempting to celebrate Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Prize on Friday.
Some ten to twenty supporters gathered in central Beijing, shouting Long Live Freedom of Speech, Long Live Democracy. They were promptly arrested also and taken away by the police.
The objectives of the authorities were clear: ensure that the Chinese population remains unaware, if possible, that an imprisoned Chinese citizen had just been awarded one of the world’s most prestigious prizes.
The (national security) officers say that the police have rigid orders from higher authorities that they must work resolutely to thwart celebratory activities to mark this event. They are keeping a strict eye on the most active people, in order to reduce its impact to the smallest degree possible, Teng Biao, a civil rights lawyer, told the NYT.
This may prove very difficult however. They've worked very hard to marginalize dissident voices and keep them outside of the mainstream… But there's nothing more mainstream than the Nobel Peace prize, Larry Siems, international programs director in New York for PEN, a literary and human rights organization, told McClatchy Newspapers.
It must be said however, that not all Chinese dissidents approved the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s choice.
A group of fourteen exiled Chinese activists wrote a letter to the Committee in order to dissuade it from granting the prize to Liu Xiaobo.
His open praise in the last 20 years for the Chinese Communist Party, which has never stopped trampling on human rights, has been extremely misleading and influential, they wrote.
Some, including Wei Jingsheng, believe his approach is too accommodating and conciliatory. In 1979, Wei posted a letter on Beijing’s Democracy Wall demanding, a Fifth Modernization, democracy.
People should have democracy. When they ask for democracy, they are only demanding what is rightfully theirs. Anyone refusing to give it to them is a shameless bandit no better than a capitalist who robs workers of their money earned with their sweat and blood. Do the people have democracy now? No. Do they want to be masters of their own destiny? Definitely yes, he wrote.
The four official modernizations that were to be the focus of official Chinese policies included agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology.
Wei was arrested and sentenced to fifteen years in jail on espionage charges.
He was released in 1993, arrested yet again shortly after and finally deported to the US in 1997.
Raising the reputation of moderate reformists would increase people’s desire to cooperate with the government, thus helping stabilize the political situation in China and delaying the time when people overthrow the dictatorial government, he told AFP in Washington DC.
It is undeniable that Liu Xiaobo’ approach has been non-confrontational. What is more surprising, given his circumstances, is the fact that he has evinced remarkable tolerance, some would say naïveté (or is he being cleverly deceitful so as not to antagonize his oppressors) vis-à-vis those who sustain the regime’s repressive apparatus.
His approach is straightforward, and not typical of a politician or militant.
What I demanded of myself was this: whether as a person or as a writer, I would lead a life of honesty, responsibility, and dignity, he wrote in a statement released December 23, 2009, two days before he was sentenced to eleven years in prison.
In essence, he refuses to do anything that would compromise his, ideals and ethics. This became a personal imperative.
Yet, since an authoritarian state demands absolute political loyalty from its citizens, confrontation with the authorities was inevitable.
For, loyalty to the regime entails that one recognize its legitimacy, and the moral authority of its rulers to lead the country.
What legitimacy does China’s oligarchy possess?
None.
It has never been elected.
It remains in power only because it firmly controls the security apparatus and the nation’s armed forces. Chiefly however, it has succeeded in purchasing the people’s complicity and thus passivity with double-digit economic growth for over a generation…
That is the Chinese social contact: submission in exchange for relative prosperity and material wellbeing.
Those who perceive the corruptive nature of such a pact (for it demands of the citizen that he should ignore his conscience and sense of morality, and willingly renounce his rights as a citizen) and repudiate it incur the wrath of the regime, particularly if the act of defiance is a public one…
Liu Xiaobo openly rejected the regime’s Faustian bargain and has been persecuted ever since.
The regime’s greatest fear is that others should follow suit, and, like Liu, cease to be afraid, and thus no longer obey.
An authoritarian regime that is no longer capable of instilling fear in those it rules is doomed. Hence, the regime’s aggressive, vindictive response to any public calls for greater freedom and democracy.
Yet, Mr. Liu’s approach is not an aggressive one. He does not confront the regime; it is the regime that confronts him because it cannot allow defiance to go unpunished.
Paradoxically, Liu’s reaction to persecution is conciliatory, as if this is a necessary stage on the long road to democracy.
I have no enemies and no hatred, he affirms, downplaying the violence of the struggle being waged between the oligarchy and the dissident.
Moreover, he goes even further. Although there is no way I can accept your monitoring, arrests, indictments, and verdicts, I respect your professions and your integrity, including those of the two prosecutors, Zhang Rongge and Pan Xueqing, who are now bringing charges against me on behalf of the prosecution. During interrogation on December 3, I could sense your respect and your good faith, he wrote.
Not only does he not vilify the oligarchy’s henchmen, he pays them tribute…
Can the willing servants of a repressive system truly retain their integrity and good faith?
Hardly…They serve their masters and execute their despicable orders because it is worth their while or because they lack the courage to refrain from doing so…
If they respect the persecuted individual, then why are they victimizing him? They surely have no respect for his cause!
Perhaps Liu hopes that a little flattery will induce his tormentors to be lenient.
If so, he is deluding himself.
Leniency is out of the question for the regime believes that this would be construed as a sign of weakness. Painstaking and unmitigated repression is the regime’s modus operandi in such cases. The regime’s viability and longevity depend on it.
As such, it deals ruthlessly with all those brazen enough to question its authority publicly.
Leniency would spell the beginning of the end for it would suggest the regime no longer has the necessary determination to assert itself, and that the offender may have had attenuating circumstances when committing the sacrilegious act of defiance.
To show mercy could inspire others to imitate Liu Xiaobo, and that cannot be tolerated by the Chinese oligarchy.
Furthermore, Liu hopes to dispel hatred with love (his mission clearly has a religious, missionary dimension), after he has conceded that the regime’s repressive nature is the result of the enemy mentality that it cultivated for so long.
Yet, he believes that it is slowly weakening.
The regime did gradually loosen its stranglehold on the economy, allowing the development of a private sector. The ensuing economic growth benefited everyone, and thus the regime (there are now some 64 billionaires in China. It ranks third in the world, behind the US and India.).
Liu Xiaobo also seemingly takes the regime's intentions seriously, even if they are but that, and have no practical consequences.
The current regime puts forth the ideas of “putting people first” and “creating a harmonious society,” signaling progress in the CPC’s concept of rule, he writes.
Is he simply naïve, or inviting his readers to evaluate the regime’s success in implementing policies to fulfill objectives it has itself defined?
In addition, he extols the humane management of the new Beikan prison, based on respect for the rights and integrity of detainees, instilling in the latter a sense of dignity and warmth, and providing a humane living environment.
It is reassuring to note that prison conditions are improving in China…
But, by imprisoning on bogus charges those bold enough to take the Chinese Constitution seriously (Article 35 states the following: Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration), has not the repressive Chinese oligarchy stripped the persecuted of their rights and thus their dignity and integrity?
One can try to retain both while in detention if one has uncommon resilience and fortitude.
Nevertheless, does a regime interested in preserving and cherishing the integrity and dignity of its citizens throw them in jail on artificial pretexts such as incitement to subvert state power?
Were the Chinese prosecutors, who displayed such goodwill and integrity, to quote Mr. Liu, able to explain how adhering to the Chinese Constitution, particularly Article 35, was tantamount to subverting state power?
Yet, Liu Xiaobo refuses to make such arguments, and prefers instead to praise his correctional officer, Liu Zheng.
It was perhaps my good fortune to have gotten to know this sincere, honest, conscientious, and kind correctional officer during my time at Beikan, he stated.
Is it truly possible that someone possessing the qualities Liu Xiaobo descried in the correctional officer could be an active participant in the regime’s repressive apparatus?
In today’s China, with its booming economy, employment opportunities are varied and numerous, presumably, particularly for someone with Liu Zheng’s attributes.
In short, no one is compelled to be the repressive regime’s accomplice in persecuting political prisoners unless one is so inclined…
Liu Xiaobo knows the system too well to be naïve.
He clearly does not want to antagonize the regime in the hope of being able to, one day, negotiate with it, and at last come to some modus vivendi with the powers that be.
The philosopher Xu Youyu aptly summarized the dissident’s approach:
His activities in 1989 can be seen as formative in the entirety of his following writings and other works, characterized by an unwavering bravery and refusal to back down in the face of danger and suppression, by the pursuit and defense of human rights, humanism, peace and other universal values and, finally, adherence to the practice of rational dialogue, compromise and non-violence, he wrote in an article quoted by The Guardian.
The idea is to reach the coveted goal-democracy- through rational dialogue and compromise with the current regime, and not violent revolution.
Liu is convinced that his cause will inevitably prevail. For there is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom, and China will in the end become a nation ruled by law, where human rights reign supreme, he wrote.
Some in the exiled Chinese community clearly condemn Liu’s willingness to establish a dialogue with a regime they loathe and believe should be overthrown.
Yet, unlike his critics, Liu has chosen to remain in China.
The stakes are therefore not the same. Liu Xiaobo is an important Chinese intellectual because he does two things — he criticizes the government and he lives in China. And in order to do that and not be dead, you have to make compromises. He’s a democrat, he’s a human rights activist — that’s what he’s after. But he’s willing to make tactical adjustments in order to be effective and the most important one has been remaining inside China. Yes, he hasn’t been as emphatic or hasn’t addressed topics we have addressed internationally. But we don’t live in China and we don’t have the police coming around the corner, Timothy Cheek, a China expert at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told AFP.
What effect will Liu’s Nobel Prize have on the Chinese human rights movement?
The following seems clear: in spite of the regime’s strenuous efforts to crush the pro-democracy movement in China, it has failed to do so.
Similarly, not everyone in the West can be cowed into ignoring its appalling human rights record and vile persecution of those whose sole crime is to demand that the regime respect its own laws, and the international covenants that it has signed. The Norwegian Nobel Committe should be commended for its courageous choice.
This award will no doubt infuriate the Chinese government by putting its human rights record squarely back into the international debate. But this Nobel Prize honors not only Liu’s unflinching advocacy; it honors all those in China who struggle daily to make the government more accountable, Sarah Richardson, of Human Rights Watch, told the CSM.
Like everything that happens in China today, the democracy movement here exists in a global context. So this will be a lesson to China: it can’t bottle up the democracy movement forever, Cui Weiping, a professor at the Beijing Film Academy, told the NYT.
Liao Yiwu, a writer and friend of the Nobel recipient, also believes the award will have beneficial effects. This is a big moment in Chinese history. It will greatly promote democratic developments in China and it is a huge encouragement to us and our friends, he told The Guardian.
It's a huge boost to those who are basically isolated. The government of China had done everything in the past to deny their voices, Bao Pu, a Hong Kong publisher who in the past has printed texts banned in mainland China, told McClatchy.
The pedestrian view, however, was quite different.
If the person who won got it because he opposed the government, then I don't think it's good. People who defy the Chinese government should not get this prize and if they do, it's because people overseas are trying to split China, a migrant worker who had never heard of Liu Xiaobo told AP.
On Twitter, one Chinese denounced Mr. Liu as an elite traitor.
The average person in China doesn’t know who Liu Xiaobo is and the responses will be based in large part on what people’s political perspective is. Nationalists will interpret this as an attempt to undermine China’s national strength while many liberals will probably be saddened by the fact their country has been embarrassed in this way, David Zweig, director of the Centre for China’s Transnational Relations at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, told the Financial Times.
And what of China’s youth?
What will they make of it?
I worry about the effect of this prize on China’s younger generation. It will be seen as new evidence about how the West is unfriendly to China, Zhu Feng, a professor of International Relations at Beijing University, told the WP.
In any case and initially at least, the regime is likely to respond harshly as has been its wont in the recent past.
But controls on us are tougher than even a few years ago. Things I could once read on the internet are no longer accessible. The restrictions on the flow of information means that some activists I know had never heard of Liu until yesterday. This does not give me much hope going forward, Xinna, the wife of an ethnic Mongolian activist told Reuters.
The immediate future of the human rights movement is in the Chinese oligarchy’s hands…It cannot be destroyed or defeated, however.
The issue of human rights and democracy will not go away.
The day will come when, their material needs satisfied, the Chinese will demand a voice in the way their nation is being ruled.
When that fundamental right is finally wrested away from the regime, perhaps the Chinese people will then know who Liu Xiaobo is…
We have no regrets. All of this has been of our choosing. It will always be so. We’ll bear the consequences together, Liu Xia said last week.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee justly rewarded Liu’s courage and determination. Liu Xiaobo is exactly the kind of committed citizen who deserves such an award and that is the reason why I, together with my friends, nominated him, Vaclav Havel told AP.
May Liu’s Nobel Peace Prize protect him and lead to his early release.
May it also inspire his fellow citizens to follow his example and simply demand what is rightfully theirs, justice and democracy…
(the photograph of activists in Hong Kong demanding Liu Xiaobo’s release is by Reuters).