LIU XIABAO AND CHARTER '08

Imagine: an American drafts a petition and circulates it to thousands of American intellectuals.  It advocates that the USA adopt Sharia law. God, as represented by a Caliph, must have dominion over American legislators, judges, and public officials. Divine Law--as interpreted by scholars trained in the holy city of Qom--must take precedence over the rulings of the Supreme Court.

An ambitious District Attorney would file charges, but the Supreme Court would ultimately find in his favor on free speech grounds.

But if it then comes out that the activist has been taking money from an Islamic "charity" that has funded the violent overthrow of several pro-capitalist, anti-Muslim governments around the world?  And over the past 5 years, the Islamic "charity" had paid the activist $600,000?  Now it's a Federal case.

Would 11 years in jail sound right?  Because, much as we might criticize our government and value free speech, we don't want someone going behind our backs, taking serious money from a foreign theocracy to get people to sign up for a weird form of government.  Our system may suck, but (though a billion Muslims disagree) Sharia sounds worse.

There's one thing that might have prevented this mess:  if the activist had been up-front and registered with the Feds under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938.  That would have given the FBI the opportunity to warn him:  "Hey, this 'charity' looks like a terrorist front to us.  We've known about them for years; we've seen governments overthrown--with terrible bloodshed--so we want to tell you now:  You're risking prosecution for serious crimes.  DON'T TAKE THE MONEY!!"

Now imagine that, after the Sharia activist's conviction, we hear a retired Norwegian politician awarded him Nobel Peace Prize.  Imagine what Fox News would have to say.  Imagine what would happen when the next shipment of  Norwegian salmon arrived at the dock in New York!

Liu Xiabao didn't register with the Chinese feds.  He did advocate overthrowing the government.  He did take the $600,000.  The government of China has expressed outrage that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 was awarded to a convicted criminal. Here's why:

• Liu Xiabao was convicted of "attempting to incite and subvert state authority", according to the verdict of The Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality. Page 4 of the ruling, sections 1 and 2, establish his foreign agent status through the $600,000 he received from the CIA front agency (The National Endowment for Democracy) and withdrew from his wife's Bank of China account. [Hidden Harmonies]

• Though Western newspapers have reported that he was punished for publishing Charter '08 and soliciting signatures for it, this is only part of the story. Such an action, while it would have drawn the ire of the government, would have resulted in Mr. Liu's being let off with a warning.

• In fact, Mr. Liu was tried and convicted under a Chinese law that is almost identical to the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938: undue foreign influence over domestic politics. Under Chinese and American law, secrecy is not the  issue: financial sponsorship establishes foreign agent status. Being employed by a hostile foreign power and seeking to implement its policies will get you jailed in the USA and in most countries. And that's what Mr. Liu was doing.

• Liu Xiabo took $600,000 from The National Endowment for Democracy (NED).  Bill Berkowitz of Working for Change says, "The NED...provides money, technical support, supplies, training programs, media know-how, public relations assistance and state-of-the-art equipment to select political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, and other media. Its aim is to destabilize progressive movements, particularly those with a socialist or democratic socialist bent." Venezuela is a current target of the NED. Venezuela has a wildly popular, extremely democratic, often-elected government. But Venezuela's government is socialist.

• Chinese bloggers indignantly point out that the Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Thorbjørn Jagland, a retired politician, has urged his country to send more troops to fight in Afghanistan. And that not only has Mr. Liu never been involved with peace or advocated it, but that last year's Peace Prize was given to President Obama who is currently bombing China's closest neighbor, Pakistan.

• China is currently enjoying more democracy than ever in its 3,000 year history. All Chinese vote for their local and national representatives. More people vote in China than in America and Europe combined. Voting rights are steadily expanding. (Remember that the Cultural Revolution was a premature leap into democracy which nearly destroyed the country).

• The current Chinese government gets high grades from the Chinese people. It is the most popular (88% approval) and successful (30 years of 9% growth) government in the world.

This announcement from The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)--taken from its website--makes the relationship clear:  “NED joins democrats and human rights defenders in China and around the world in congratulating Charter 08 co-organizer Liu Xiaobo on receiving the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.  Liu Xiaobo's intellectual independence, moral courage, and thoughtful advocacy of democratic approaches to China's challenges have won him deep respect in his own country and abroad.”

As Tariq Ali notes:  "For the record, Liu Xiaobo has stated publicly that in his view:

(a) China's tragedy is that it wasn't colonised for at least 300 years by a Western power or Japan. This would apparently have civilised it for ever;

(b) The Korean and Vietnam wars fought by the US were wars against totalitarianism and enhanced Washington's 'moral credibility';

(c) Bush was right to go to war in Iraq and Senator Kerry's criticisms were 'slander-mongering';_

(d) Afghanistan? No surprises here: Full support for Nato's war.

He has a right to these opinions, but should they get a peace prize?

For another perspective on Liu's intentions and effects, read Stephen Gowans' thoughtful essay, "Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Prize for Capitalism".

And another, well-researched article in The Guardian:  Do supporters of Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo really know what he stands for?  Here's an excerpt from the article:

If Liu's politics were well-known, most people would not favour him for a prize, because he is a champion of war, not peace. He has endorsed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he applauded the Vietnam and Korean wars retrospectively in a 2001 essay. All these conflicts have entailed massive violations of human rights. 

Yet in his article Lessons from the Cold War, Liu argues that "The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible." During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu warmly praised George Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US's wars:

[T]he outstanding achievement made by Bush in anti-terrorism absolutely cannot be erased by Kerry's slandering … However much risk must be endured in striking down Saddam Hussein, know that no action would lead to a greater risk. This has been proven by the second world war and September 11! No matter what, the war against Saddam Hussein is just! The decision by President Bush is right!

Liu has also one-sidedly praised Israel's stance in the Middle East conflict. He places the blame for the Israel/Palestine conflict on Palestinians, who he regards as "often the provocateurs".

Liu has also advocated the total westernisation of China. In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human". He also faulted a television documentary, He Shang, or River Elegy, for not thoroughly criticising Chinese culture and not advocating westernisation enthusiastically enough: "If I were to make this I would show just how wimpy, spineless and fucked-up [weisuo, ruanruo, caodan] the Chinese really are". 

Liu considered it most unfortunate that his monolingualism bound him in a dialogue with something "very benighted [yumei] and philistine [yongsu]," the Chinese cultural sphere. Harvard researcher Lin Tongqi noted that an early 1990s book by Liu contains "pungent attacks on the Chinese national character". In a well-known statement of 1988, Liu said:

It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough.