The Charter begins with a discussion of the past hundred years of China’s struggle for political change, and concludes with nineteen specific proposals for fundamental change, including legislative democracy, an independent judiciary, guarantees of human rights, freedom to assemble, freedom of expression, and protection of the environment. To date, more than ten thousand Chinese citizens have signed the Charter, and several have presented themselves to the Chinese authorities as ‘accomplices’ of Liu Xiaobo and asked to be imprisoned with him for signing the Charter.
The conviction of Liu for peaceably publishing these words of protest is itself clear evidence of the need for the political reforms demanded in Charter 08. Liu Xiaobo and the other signatories of Charter 08 challenge the ruling Chinese Communist Party to a serious public debate. Charter 08 confronts the PRC leadership with the question about what kind of political future China should aspire to. At stake are the civil and political rights of the Chinese people. But, so far, the only response has been repression.
As China continues to build its economic and military power, everyone in the world increasingly has a stake in how the Chinese people will answer that question. What kind of polity will we be dealing with in trade, investment, and strategic negotiations? What assumptions can we make about shared values and political principles when constructing new multilateral institutions within which the PRC is a crucial participant? What meaning will the terms ‘peace, ‘mutual benefit,’ and ‘sustainability’ have for the Chinese leadership? Charter 08 presents potential answers to these questions. What is the Chinese Communist Party’s reply?
Peter Van Ness is a visiting fellow in the College of Asia and the Pacific at the ANU, and coordinator of the PeaceBuilder project on linking historical reconciliation and security cooperation in Northeast Asia
Having just read Link’s translation of the Charter 08, I was wondering whether it was too big a step, with the unrealistic expectations and imprudent tactics in wording.
It appears that China needs a gradual and continuous change, especially politically.
A big bang revolution may not necessarily produce good results to the Chinese people, no matter how well intended it may be.
With regard to Lincoln Fung’s suggestion that China needs gradual and continuous political change, many Chinese have attempted such changes and been jailed for speaking out. For example, Wei Jingsheng, back in the 1970s published proposals for democratic reform in connection with the Democracy Wall movement, but was jailed from 1979 to 1993 and again in 1994 before finally going into exile in the US (his writings are collected in “The Courage to Stand Alone,” Viking, 1997).
Former Premier and General Secretary of the CCP, Zhao Ziyang tried to introduce political reform from the top in the 1980s, but was purged by the Party during the June 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations and was placed under house arrest until he died in 2005. His memoirs have been published in English as “Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Premier Zhao Ziyang” (Simon and Schuster, 2009). The failure of the CCP leadership to implement rule of law in China affects all of its relations, domestic and foreign. Jerome Cohen, America’s leading specialist on Chinese legal issues, commented for CNN on December 31, 2009 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/31/cohen.china.dissidents/) in his essay: “China’s Hollow ‘Rule of Law'”.
Liu Xiaobo has received hundreds of thousands of US government funding via the NED in the past five years. Check NED’s China grants for Independent Chinese Pen Center and Zhongguo Minzhu magazine, which Liu heads.
If Liu were American he would be in violation of FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act).
Wei Jinsheng was well known in China back then, although I do not know exactly how he was jailed.
As for Zhao Ziyang, his fall from power was not necessarily due to his reforms. I personally thought that he was a victim of the chaos that went out of control. It would be interesting to see what would happen to him if the protesters did not persist that long until the troops finally came in.
Further, there had been many thousands, perhaps millions of Chinese who died of some causes before. Compared to those, you can certainly mention a few by your standard.
While it is sort of a ‘tragedy’ for Liu to be sent to prison due to the Charter, I do not think the Charter has any new things there. For me, it is like an empty declaration copied by scholars from western ideas who have not thought of feasibility issues. I do not know why, being one of the most ancient civilizaitons in the world, China cannot develop its own political system which might benefit most of the Chinese people. So it is very surprising to me that the Charter are totally based on the Western political philosphies without incorporating any ‘Chinese elements’.
Freedom of speech, human rights…are the universal values and it is good for the country. I also believe the current way will lead China to nowhere without further political reform. However, for a country as large and complicated as China, the governmet needs to be cautious. Besides, most of the Chinese people still have distrusts on the Western, especially the American policy towards China. And the Chinese people can still see that many measures are trying to be taken to overthrow the CCP and split the country. It is my belief, that someday, the Chinese people can find its own way to build another ‘prosperity’.
Thanks to Lincoln Fung, Chas, and especially Ted for their comments.
With respect to Chas’ comment about funding, the verdict on Liu Xiaobo said nothing about funding, but only addressed his writing and publishing of articles, some published in China and some abroad, and the Charter 08. Liu’s conviction on “incitement to overthrow state power” was solely based on speech and writing. (For both Chinese and English texts of the verdict, see http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/liu_xiaobo_verdict-en-ch.pdf)
The influence of one country on the domestic affairs of another country is always a sensitive issue, as Chas’ comment suggests. For a look at influence in the opposite direction, i.e., China on the US, see John Pomfret, “China’s Lobbying Efforts Yield New Influence, Oppeness on Capitol Hill,” Washington Post, January 9, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803710.html?waporef=ak
Peter, Prof. Clark’s conclusion is not quite correct – page 3, prosecution evidence section, item 2 states financial record obtained by prosecution proves Liu Xia’s account accepted foreign remittance.
Also, please note the term “境外”(foreign), being used throughout the verdict. It is obvious the Chinese court saw Liu Xiaobo’s political speech as exceeding “limit of free speech”(超出言论自由的范畴), is due to foreign sponsorship.
That, is consistent with our own law, specifically FARA.
BTW, has the Chinese lobby ever advocated abolition of our constitution?
To my mind awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is questionable in intent and one more attempt to hold China down in its relentless strive to bring about vast benefits to its people and China to its rightful place as a rich, respectful, powerful and responsible country not only to its own citizens but to all other peoples in the world.
Unfortunately the direction of China’s progress is perceived as a contest to the power base dominated principally by America and other Western countries who would have not otherwise be so loud and incessant in berating China: Tiananmen, prison labour, Wen Jiangseng (Mr Democracy), Rubaiya Kader (ethnic unrest in Xinjiang), the refusal to deal with the Dalai Lama with respect to Tibet, prison labour (employed in industries), illegitimate regime for being not democratic (in not being a mirror image of Western democratic form of government where multi-parties vie for power periodically), the manipulation of yuan, Additonally, the unfavorable reports of China’s claims to Taiwan, Paracel Islands and the atols south of them, Diaoyu Islands and the questioning of China’s trade and relation with African countries are rather telling.
If China were like North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba or China were still like it was three or four decades ago then the gift of the Noble Peace Prize would be understandable and may be considered appropriate.
The notion or the implications of democracy are not beyond China’s understanding and, more importantly, can China be left alone as a soveriegn country to take its time to evolve as it thinks fit? By and large the majority of people in China and Chinese people overseas fully accept the way the country is being governed and are proud of China in its journey to its rightful place in the world as a world power to be reckoned with and engaged with respect. China deserves to be applauded and not berated. Consider China as a worthwhile partner for world peace and prosperity – rather than one to be shunned.