Home > Latest News
PRESS RELEASE

2010-11-03
 

Since reform and opening-up, China has made remarkable achievements in its development, including continuous progress in human rights. This is widely acknowledged by the international community. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, by giving the Pease Prize to a convicted person in China, shows no respect for the judicial system of China. Politicians from some countries are using this opportunity to attack China. This is not only disrespect for China's judicial system but also puts a big question mark on their true intention. If some people try to change China's political system in this way and try to stop the Chinese people from moving forward, that is obviously making a mistake.

China's Constitution protects the freedom of speech for Chinese citizens. Citizens must exercise their rights within the framework of the Constitution and laws.

 

Part of the plot to contain China

(China Daily, October 11, 2010)

 

For the second time, the Nobel Peace Prize goes to person identified as non-peaceful in Beijing's political who's who.

Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 awardee, is behind bars serving an 11-year term for "openly slandering and inciting others to overthrow our country's State power," according to the verdict at his trial.

The Nobel Committee said it was determined to honor "the foremost symbol" of the "struggle for human rights" in China.

Some may have expectations that such a prize will effect changes inside China in the direction they desire. But it can do little expect expose, and in some ways highlight, the deep and wide ideological rift between this country and the West.

A man judged a "criminal who violated Chinese law" by a Chinese court of law, is hailed in the West as a "worthy winner" and "prominent human rights defender".

Peace, in Bejing's lexicon, stands for a good rapport among nations, at the heart of which lies mutual respect and non-interference in each other's domestic affairs. This year's Nobel Peace Prize, like the 1989 award to the Dalai Lama, angered the Chinese government because it is the West that is once again trying to interfere in domestic issues.

And, perhaps to some people's disbelief, this Nobel Peace Prize, as was true 21 years back, angered not just the government.

Most Chinese would prefer to handle their own affairs without outside interference. As ordinary citizens find more channels with which to be heard and the government grows more responsive to public concerns, there is greater confidence that domestic affairs can be sorted out without any interference from the West.

Not that the average Chinese does not covet better guarantees and protection for their rights and interests. They want their government to be clean and efficient. They are angry at corruption and injustice. They complain and protest. They stand up against abuse.

Liu's award is a provocation to China. And every time the West waves a stick, relations deteriorate. That is against the Nobel Committee's proclaimed purpose.

Nor will all Chinese embrace such gestures with appreciation and gratitude. Whether or not it has to do with out collective memories of Western abuse, this nation will not allow its own home affairs to be dictated by the West. Few would like to see their government upbraided by a condescending Western party.

Like it or not, the Nobel Peace Prize broadens the suspicion that there is a Western plot to contain a rising China.

 

 

2010 Nobel Peace Prize disgrace

(Global Times, October 9,2010)

 

Yesterday the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo, an incarcerated Chinese Criminal.

The Nobel Committee once again displayed its arrogance and prejudice against a country that was made the most remarkable economic and social progress in the past three decades.

The Nobel Prize has been generally perceived as prestigious award in China, but many Chinese feel the peace prize is loaded with Western ideology.

Last century the prize was awarded several times to pro-West advocates in the former Soviet Union, including Mikhail Gorbachev, whose efforts directly led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Western preference of the Nobel committee did not disappear with the end of the Cold War.

The committee continues to deny China's development by making paranoid choices.

In 1989, the Dalai Lama, a separatist, won the prize. Liu Xiaobo, the new winner wants to copy Western political systems in China.

There are many different perspectives to view these two people, but neither of the two is among those who made constructive contributions to China's peace and growth in recent decades.

Other Chinese dissidents, such as Rebiya Kadeer and Hu Jia, were reportedly on the shortlist for the peace prize this year, which naturally generates animosity among many Chinese against the award.

They have reason to question whether the Nobel Peace Prize has been degraded to a political tool that serves an anti-China purpose. It seems that instead of peace and unity in China, the Nobel committee would like to see the country split by an ideological rift, or better yet, collapse like the Soviet Union.

Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years in jail by the Chinese government last year. Several countries tried to interfere into China's domestic affairs. What the Nobel committee did yesterday was a continuation of that act.

The controversy in the West over Liu Xiaobo's sentence is not based on legal concerns. They are trying to impose Western values on China.

Obviously, the Nobel Peace Prize this year is meant to irritate China, but it will not succeed. On the contrary, the committee disgraced itself.

The award however makes it clearer that it is difficult for China to win applause from the West during China's development, and China needs to be more determined and confident in choosing its own development path, which is different from Western approach.

The Nobel committee made an unwise choice, but it and the political force it represents cannot dictate China's future growth. China's success story speaks louder than the Nobel Prize.

 

World should be wary of Cold War policies

(Global Times, October 12,2010)

 

The world seems to be locked in an age of agitation. While globalization is bringing countries, big and small, closer, they are also alienated from each other due to distrust.

This mood is clearly being displayed at the ongoing defense ministers meeting for ASEAN countries in Hanoi.

When countries are on alert against each other, diplomacy between countries can be charged and even provoked, and a confrontation may even seem imminent.

When the current situation is put into perspective, staying guarded against each other may be seen as progress from the violence and wars from last century. The cost of building and paying for militaries is soaring; meanwhile, mutual trust and friendship are difficult to build. Staying wary has become a pragmatic choice of many countries.

China no doubt is watching the US closely, a result of being constantly on the radar screen of the US. The uncertainty between the world's top two economies also instills a certain mood of suspicion among other Asian countries.

 This mistrust might last for a long time. Though better than the times of violence and the Cold War, there is no guarantee the countries involved can be assured of victory. If one listens to the clamor of US politicians against China, there are plenty of reasons to worry about the world returning to the dark days of Cold War.

Is mutual trust a viable goal? The ups and downs of the Sino-US relationship may suggest no, but relationships among some European nations offer some hope.

Mutual trust is the key words of politicians of both china and the US, though they are also busy figuring out how to gain the upper hand in a military conflict should it arise.

War among major powers is unlikely to happen in the age of nuclear weapons, but no country is willing take any chances when it comes to national safety and sovereignty. Since the military spending of the US is equal to next largest 15 nations combined, it sets a bad example for others to follow.

US foreign policy triggers a vicious cycle. The war on terror is good example, the more one country invests in it, the more it needs to protect against terrorist.

The question remains of how to prevent the world from slipping back into darker times. It is not easy. In an anarchical world ,the existing powers naturally tend to secure advantages by unfair means, limiting room for the new power to grow.

Rational judgment shows that moving toward mutual trust costs less than going back to the Cold War.

China is pledging to rise peacefully; perhaps the US can make a similar peaceful declaration.

<Suggest To A Friend>
  <Print>