Nobel Peace Prize Award: A shameless farce and yet another imperialist provocation against People’s China
The Nobel Peace Prize was established in accordance with
the will of the Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel, who decreed that it be awarded
to persons who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity
among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the
holding and promotion of peace congresses”.
However, far from being
a prize with some universal authority, as is often assumed, the awarding is in
the unaccountable hands of five former leading members of the parliament of
Norway, a small imperialist country of four million people, which is a member
of the war-mongering, US-led NATO alliance, and a current participant in the
predatory war against the people of Afghanistan.
Accordingly, whilst
some Nobel Peace laureates have been worthy recipients, a great many others
have had no connection (at least no positive connection) with the laudable
cause of peace, being recognised rather for their activities to undermine
socialist and anti-imperialist countries, to promote the unhindered marauding
of capitalism across the globe, and for generally serving the global interests
of US imperialism.
The award of the Nobel
Peace Prize for 2010 on 8 October to Liu Xiaobo, a convicted criminal,
presently serving a prison sentence in the People’s Republic of China, definitely meets the latter criteria.
The western media
paints Liu as purely a political activist standing for human rights and democracy.
But there is practically no mention made in the imperialist countries as to his
true agenda, one which, if it were implemented, would plunge the Chinese
people, who have lifted themselves out of poverty and oppression by dint of
enormous struggles and sacrifice, back into an abyss of destitution and
humiliation, where they would again be at the mercy of domestic capitalists and
landlords, and above all of the hated foreign colonial masters of previous
centuries.
In a 12 October opinion
piece carried in the South China Morning Post, an English-language Hong
Kong daily, Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong, academics at Hong Kong universities,
explained matters as follows:
“The award of the
2010 Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned dissident Liu Xiaobo is being celebrated
globally, mainly by elites who claim to know what Liu is about.
“They say he is for
human rights and democracy, but there is more to it than that, because much of
what he is about is ignoble….
“Liu Xiaobo’s
political and social goals have scarcely been mentioned in the current wave of
adulation, yet these goals are distinctly at variance with the interests of the
vast majority of Chinese, as they perceive them…
“In 1988, an
interviewer asked him what condition China needs to have real historical change.
“He answered that China needs to have 300 years of colonisation.
“Liu attributed what
Hong Kong is today to a hundred years of colonisation, so China would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like Hong Kong.
“That was more than
two decades ago, but in 2007, Liu stated that he did not want to take back what
he had said in 1988, because it reflects a belief he retains.”
Sautman and Yan went on
to explain how, not surprisingly, Liu’s nostalgia for colonialism, a period of
history which the overwhelming majority of Chinese people associate with dire
poverty, famine, oppression, shame and humiliation, is paralleled by his
support for the full privatisation of the Chinese economy and the outright
restoration of capitalism:
“In his 2007
statement, Liu claimed that in the economic sphere, progress could be chalked
up to privatisation.
“Not surprisingly
then, ‘Charter ’08’, a statement he mainly authored and that called for a
Western-style political system in China, also urges a ‘free market’ transfer of
state-owned enterprises to private ownership and the privatisation of land
ownership.
“Privatisation in Russia resulted in a colossal robbery of public wealth by a few oligarchs.
“To the extent
privatisation has occurred in China, it has mainly enriched former officials
and has often worsened the conditions of labour.
“An agrarian
capitalism based on landed property would have no assured benefit, but might
bring back the execrable system of landlords and landless peasants.
“Further
privatisation would likely increase the already high level of inequality in China, which is why surveys show that most Chinese oppose it.” (Medal Contention, South China Morning Post, 12 October 2010)
Having seen Liu’s
grotesque enthusiasm for colonialism, and for capitalist and landlord tyranny,
it should scarcely surprise readers of Lalkar that this Nobel Peace
Prize winner should be a vociferous supporter of US imperialism’s bloody wars,
whether against Korea and Vietnam in the past, or against Iraq and Afghanistan today. The obscenity of this is merely compounded if we recall that last year’s
‘lucky winner’ was none other than US President Obama, awarded at precisely the
time he was intensifying the war in Afghanistan, as well as stepping up US
attacks across the Afghan border into Pakistan.
Lest anyone consider we
are exaggerating in our characterisation of Liu’s views, we are fortunate in
that by far the best condemnation of this lackey emanates from his own mouth.
We therefore do not hesitate to quote from him at length.
In a 2004 interview,
Liu stated as follows:
“The US has not been without its flaws throughout history. But at least it is a free nation with the
greatest ideals and sense of mission. The US…led the fight against communist
totalitarianism in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and in the end won the 50-year
cold war between freedom and totalitarianism. In the Mideast, the US… has consistently protected Israel, surrounded as it is by Arab nations. Without US protection, the Jewish people, who had long suffered persecution and endured genocide during
WWII, would probably have been destroyed by the hate of the Muslim world. The
hatred and terrorist attacks on the US by the Muslim world is clearly related
to long-standing US support of Israel…
“In response to
existential threats to civilisation such as terrorism, the US should not hesitate to use force. Only resolute determination will prevent another 9/11, reduce
international terrorism, and reduce the threat of WMDs [weapons of mass
destruction]. This choice [first strike] is less costly than a policy
of appeasement, or waiting for another attack. This is not only in the
national interest of the US, clearly linked to the security and survival of
freedom in the United States, but is also in the long-term interests of humanity
as a whole, because it is related to the survival of world peace and the
development of global democracy…
“John Kerry
[former Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States and
currently the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee], like
all the Western left, views unprincipled peaceful coexistence as the main
content of ‘national interests’, and believes that the best means to getting
along with other countries and maintaining world peace is to condone evil
governments. So his criticisms of the ‘grand Mideast plan’ are utopian.
Instead, he advocates that the US should only be concerned with its own
security, and should not export freedom and democracy to the Mideast, or worry
if Iraqis enjoy freedom.” (Translated by the China Study Group, 15 October
2010. The original Chinese version of Liu’s interview may be found here:
http://www. observechina.net/info/artshow.asp?ID=33140)
A 24 October commentary
carried by China’s Xinhua News Agency traced the ideological trajectory
of the Nobel Prize in the Cold War and beyond:
“In the wake of the
changing international climate during the Cold War, the peace prize gradually
took on an ideologically-tainted cover, turning into an instrument of ‘peaceful
evolution’ in countries whose political systems didn’t square with those of the
West. From (Soviet dissident) Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov to
(CIA-backed leader of Polish Solidarnosc) Lech Wałęsa to (last
Soviet President who destroyed the USSR) Mikhail Gorbachev, the change in
the peace prize winners is just a reflection of East Europe’s sea
transformation, the disintegration of the former USSR, and the end of the Cold
War with the West as victors…
“As the Cold War
ended, the peace prize lapsed further into a sharp weapon for the Western
countries to spread their values and development models – under the disguise of
‘human rights first’. In the last decade, half of the prize winners are ‘human
rights fighters’ like Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi and Iran’s human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi. We could barely see those who fight truly for
peace and disarmament during the award presentation ceremony.” (‘Acting
against the will of Alfred Nobel’
As the Xinhua
article makes clear, the award to Liu Xiaobo is not some one off aberration,
but rather reflects a consistent ideological and political agenda going back
decades. As already noted, last year’s award went to Barack Obama, architect of
the intensified Afghan war, vociferously supported by both Liu and all five of
the Norwegian judges. It was equally no coincidence that, in 1989, the
recipient was the Dalai Lama, the former Tibetan slave owner and feudal relic.
1989, of course, was not only a year in which the Dalai Lama stirred up riots
in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, but above all when imperialism made a determined
attempt to overthrow socialism in China, culminating in the 4 June incident in
and around Tienanmen Square, and succeeded in doing so in the countries of
central and eastern Europe. Clearly, the timing was far from fortuitous.
Besides looking at who
receives the Nobel Prize, it is equally illuminating to see who does not
receive it. In 2000, the prize was awarded to the then president of south Korea, Kim Dae Jung, for his contribution to “peace and reconciliation with north Korea in particular”. This followed his landmark visit to Pyongyang for a
successful summit meeting with the socialist Korean leader Comrade Kim Jong Il.
Kim Dae Jung’s prize was not undeserved, but it was a glaring omission (one
even noted by Kim Dae Jung himself) that it was not shared with his north
Korean dialogue partner. Indeed, in other broadly comparable instances, this
has been the general practice of the prize committee. For example, in 1994, the
prize was awarded severally to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli
leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. In 1993, it was jointly awarded to the
South African liberation leader Nelson Mandela and the racist FW de Klerk. In
1978, to the Israeli and Egyptian leaders, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. And,
in 1973, to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Vietnam’s peace negotiator, Le Duc Tho – although the Vietnamese revolutionary took the
principled position of refusing to share the prize with an imperialist war
criminal.
Even in cases where the
prize is jointly awarded, it can be done in such a way as to illustrate that
its purpose is not even to be even handed (let alone unequivocally on the side
of peace with justice). For example, in 1998, the prize was awarded to David
Trimble, the Ulster Unionist leader who had placed every possible obstacle in
the way of the Irish peace process, and only churlishly conceded in the end in
the face of the prospect of being hung out to dry by his British masters.
Trimble shared the prize with John Hume, leader of the ‘constitutional
nationalist’ Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), which had never been a
party to the conflict, save largely for wobbling and vacillating between the
protagonists. Excluded from the prize was the republican political leader,
Comrade Gerry Adams, Trimble’s principal interlocutor in the peace process, and
the man who more than any ever deserves the credit for the substantive
resolution of the armed conflict in Ireland.
Just as the awards to
the Dalai Lama in 1989 and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 were by no means
coincidental in their timing, the same can certainly be said for this year’s
award, too. The basic contradiction between socialist China and the western imperialist powers is growing more acute. (See ‘Growing contention
between China and US imperialism’, Lalkar, May/June 2010; ‘US steps up China encirclement strategy’, Lalkar, September/October 2010)
The Xinhua News
Agency analysed the imperialist agenda and affirmed the Chinese people’s
determination to remain on the socialist road as follows:
“Repeated blame on China via the Nobel Peace Prize reflects deep-rooted fear from the West on China’s rise. In recent years, China witnessed rapid development in comprehensive national
strength, powerful economic growth and a stable general society, while the US
and most European countries lack strength in economic recovery and lose their
confidence faced with a stronger China. The West doesn’t want to see a strong China, both large and successful in many ways, having a political system different from the
West. Using a series of events during the [build up to the] Beijing
Olympics, on 14 March 2008 in Lhasa, on 5 July 2009 in Urumqi, from the Google
retreat incident to the Diaoyu Islands conflicts [between China and Japan],
the US and other countries, faced with fruitless efforts in ‘transforming’
China with all kinds of pressure, take up again the political tool of the Nobel
Peace Prize, in an attempt to back anti-Socialism forces and depend on them to
continue making trouble in China and stirring up a new anti-China wave. Those
who assess and manipulate the prize hold a vicious hope that by taking the
prize as a breakthrough, China will end in endless conflicts due to political
divisions and in the end they can realise their purpose of defeating China and
causing it to collapse.
“Massive facts prove
that these attempts by Western anti-China forces will end in vain. The road of
socialism… is a rightful choice by history and the people and can be tested by
both time and practice. We can only take the path of socialism, otherwise we
will lose our position and fall under others’ subjection. The act of using the
Nobel Peace Prize to pressure China reflects a grim situation China faces right now to fight against westernisation and disintegration. We need to be
sober enough to tell right from wrong and keep cautious. It’s inevitable to
come across some obstacles on the road. As long as we keep in the right direction
with a determined faith and a calm and united mentality, we can hold firm the
helm and have spaces to both advance and retreat against the backdrop of a
complex international situation and build China into a prosperous, democratic,
civilised and harmonious, modernised socialist country and achieve the grand
revitalisation of the Chinese nation together with the progress of other
countries in the world” (Xinhua, op. cit.).
Lalkar, together
with all progressive elements in the working class-movement, strongly condemns
the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the anti-socialist, war-mongering
criminal Liu Xiaobo, and once again demands:
Hands off China!