I Have No Enemies
2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo's final statement, issued just two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison on Christmas Day, 2009
BY Liu Xiaobo
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/08/i_have_no_enemiesIn the course of my life, for more than half a century, June 1989 was the major turning point. Up to that point, I was a member of the first class to enter university when college entrance examinations were reinstated following the Cultural Revolution (Class of ’77). From BA to MA and on to PhD, my academic career was all smooth sailing. Upon receiving my degrees, I stayed on to teach at Beijing Normal University. As a teacher, I was well received by the students. At the same time, I was a public intellectual, writing articles and books that created quite a stir during the 1980s, frequently receiving invitations to give talks around the country, and going abroad as a visiting scholar upon invitation from Europe and America. 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. After that, because I had returned from the U.S. to take part in the 1989 Movement, I was thrown into prison for “the crime of counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement.” I also lost my beloved lectern and could no longer publish essays or give talks in China. Merely for publishing different political views and taking part in a peaceful democracy movement, a teacher lost his lectern, a writer lost his right to publish, and a public intellectual lost the opportunity to give talks publicly. This is a tragedy, both for me personally and for a China that has already seen thirty years of Reform and Opening Up.
When I think about it, my most dramatic experiences after June Fourth have been, surprisingly, associated with courts: My two opportunities to address the public have both been provided by trial sessions at the Beijing Municipal Intermediate People’s Court, once in January 1991, and again today. Although the crimes I have been charged with on the two occasions are different in name, their real substance is basically the same—both are speech crimes.
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). And now I have been once again shoved into the dock by the enemy mentality of the regime. But I still want to say to this regime, which is depriving me of my freedom, that I stand by the convictions I expressed in my “June Second Hunger Strike Declaration” twenty years ago—I have no enemies and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested, and interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and none of the judges who judged me are my enemies. 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.
Hatred can rot away at a person’s intelligence and conscience. Enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and hinder a nation’s progress toward freedom and democracy. That is why I hope to be able to transcend my personal experiences as I look upon our nation’s development and social change, to counter the regime’s hostility with utmost goodwill, and to dispel hatred with love.
Everyone knows that it was Reform and Opening Up that brought about our country’s development and social change. In my view, Reform and Opening Up began with the abandonment of the “using class struggle as guiding principle” government policy of the Mao era and, in its place, a commitment to economic development and social harmony. The process of abandoning the “philosophy of struggle” was also a process of gradual weakening of the enemy mentality and elimination of the psychology of hatred, and a process of squeezing out the “wolf’s milk” that had seeped into human nature.1 It was this process that provided a relaxed climate, at home and abroad, for Reform and Opening Up, gentle and humane grounds for restoring mutual affection among people and peaceful coexistence among those with different interests and values, thereby providing encouragement in keeping with humanity for the bursting forth of creativity and the restoration of compassion among our countrymen. One could say that relinquishing the “anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist” stance in foreign relations and “class struggle” at home has been the basic premise that has enabled Reform and Opening Up to continue to this very day. The market trend in the economy, the diversification of culture, and the gradual shift in social order toward the rule of law have all benefitted from the weakening of the “enemy mentality.” Even in the political arena, where progress is slowest, the weakening of the enemy mentality has led to an ever-growing tolerance for social pluralism on the part of the regime and substantial decrease in the force of persecution of political dissidents, and the official designation of the 1989 Movement has also been changed from “turmoil and riot” to “political disturbance.” The weakening of the enemy mentality has paved the way for the regime to gradually accept the universality of human rights. In [1997 and] 1998 the Chinese government made a commitment to sign two major United Nations international human rights covenants,2 signaling China’s acceptance of universal human rights standards. In 2004, the National People’s Congress (NPC) amended the Constitution, writing into the Constitution for the first time that “the state respects and guarantees human rights,” signaling that human rights have already become one of the fundamental principles of China’s rule of law. At the same time, 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.
I have also been able to feel this progress on the macro level through my own personal experience since my arrest.
Although I continue to maintain that I am innocent and that the charges against me are unconstitutional, during the one plus year since I have lost my freedom, I have been locked up at two different locations and gone through four pretrial police interrogators, three prosecutors, and two judges, but in handling my case, they have not been disrespectful, overstepped time limitations, or tried to force a confession. Their manner has been moderate and reasonable; moreover, they have often shown goodwill. On June 23, I was moved from a location where I was kept under residential surveillance to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s No. 1 Detention Center, known as “Beikan.” During my six months at Beikan, I saw improvements in prison management.
In 1996, I spent time at the old Beikan (located at Banbuqiao). Compared to the old Beikan of more than a decade ago, the present Beikan is a huge improvement, both in terms of the “hardware”— the facilities—and the “software”—the management. In particular, the humane management pioneered by the new Beikan, based on respect for the rights and integrity of detainees, has brought flexible management to bear on every aspect of the behavior of the correctional staff, and has found expression in the “comforting broadcasts,” Repentance magazine, and music before meals, on waking and at bedtime. This style of management allows detainees to experience a sense of dignity and warmth, and stirs their consciousness in maintaining prison order and opposing the bullies among inmates. Not only has it provided a humane living environment for detainees, it has also greatly improved the environment for their litigation to take place and their state of mind. I’ve had close contact with correctional officer Liu Zheng, who has been in charge of me in my cell, and his respect and care for detainees could be seen in every detail of his work, permeating his every word and deed, and giving one a warm feeling. It was perhaps my good fortune to have gotten to know this sincere, honest, conscientious, and kind correctional officer during my time at Beikan.
It is precisely because of such convictions and personal experience that I firmly believe that China’s political progress will not stop, and I, filled with optimism, look forward to the advent of a future free China. 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. I also hope that this sort of progress can be reflected in this trial as I await the impartial ruling of the collegial bench—a ruling that will withstand the test of history.
If I may be permitted to say so, the most fortunate experience of these past twenty years has been the selfless love I have received from my wife, Liu Xia. She could not be present as an observer in court today, but I still want to say to you, my dear, that I firmly believe your love for me will remain the same as it has always been. Throughout all these years that I have lived without freedom, our love was full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my prison window, stroking every inch of my skin, warming every cell of my body, allowing me to always keep peace, openness, and brightness in my heart, and filling every minute of my time in prison with meaning. My love for you, on the other hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes me stagger under its weight. I am an insensate stone in the wilderness, whipped by fierce wind and torrential rain, so cold that no one dares touch me. But my love is solid and sharp, capable of piercing through any obstacle. Even if I were crushed into powder, I would still use my ashes to embrace you.
My dear, with your love I can calmly face my impending trial, having no regrets about the choices I’ve made and optimistically awaiting tomorrow. I look forward to [the day] when my country is a land with freedom of expression, where the speech of every citizen will be treated equally well; where different values, ideas, beliefs, and political views . . . can both compete with each other and peacefully coexist; where both majority and minority views will be equally guaranteed, and where the political views that differ from those currently in power, in particular, will be fully respected and protected; where all political views will spread out under the sun for people to choose from, where every citizen can state political views without fear, and where no one can under any circumstances suffer political persecution for voicing divergent political views. I hope that I will be the last victim of China’s endless literary inquisitions and that from now on no one will be incriminated because of speech.
Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. To strangle freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, stifle humanity, and suppress truth.
In order to exercise the right to freedom of speech conferred by the Constitution, one should fulfill the social responsibility of a Chinese citizen. There is nothing criminal in anything I have done. [But] if charges are brought against me because of this, I have no complaints.
Thank you, everyone.
The Prize China Didn't Want to Win
Giving Liu Xiaobo the Nobel Peace Prize was a defeat for the government in Beijing -- and a victory for human rights everywhere
BY Nicholas Bequelin
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/06/the_prize_china_doesn_t_want_to_winUPDATE: International television broadcasts went dark in China Friday as the Nobel Prize Committee, citing "his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China," announced that Liu Xiabo was indeed the 2010 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The following article was published on Wednesday, before the announcement. - FP
Most international awards are eagerly coveted by the Chinese government, but there are exceptions. One of the names being mentioned for the Nobel Peace Prize this year is Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese writer and political essayist currently serving an 11-year prison term for his crusading views. He is one of China's most famous dissidents, known for his unflinching advocacy for free expression, human rights, and democracy over two decades. In 2009, he was charged with "incitement to subvert state power and overthrow the socialist system" as a result of his role in drafting "Charter 08," a political manifesto calling for gradual political reforms in China, and for authoring several other online essays critical of the government published between 2005 and 2007.
Born in 1955 in the northeastern industrial city of Changchun, Liu received a degree in literature from Jilin University and moved to Beijing to continue his studies. After obtaining a Ph.D. in comparative literature at Beijing Normal University, he started teaching there as a lecturer. In late 1988 he became a visiting scholar at Columbia University, but cut short his stay to participate in the 1989 Chinese democracy movement. In the early hours of June 4, 1989, as the People's Liberation Army rolled into Beijing and closed in on the remaining students in Tiananmen Square, Liu acted as a negotiator between the students and the troops, ultimately brokering a deal that allowed many students to avoid the bloodshed witnessed in other parts of the capital.
Labeled by the government as a "ringleader" and a "black hand" of the student movement, Liu was arrested on June 6 and spent 18 months in Qincheng Prison on charges of "counterrevolution." He was ultimately released in January 1991, but barred from teaching or holding any academic position. He continued to write essays in favor of freedom of expression and human rights, gaining a national and international following as "China's conscience" for his unflinching, selfless, and peaceful advocacy for his ideals. In 1995 he was placed under house arrest and later sentenced to three years of "re-education through labor" for a series of essays criticizing the government. Upon his release in October 1999, Liu continued to write critical essays, mostly published overseas but widely circulated inside China.
Then on Dec. 8, 2008, Liu was arrested again. It was the eve of Human Rights Day, the date that the more than 300 original Chinese signatories had chosen for the publication of Charter 08.
Charter 08 was consciously modeled after Charter 77, the pathbreaking document published in 1977 in which Czech and Slovak intellectuals courageously pledged "to strive individually and collectively for respect for human and civil rights in our country and throughout the world." It called for an end to the Communist Party's one-party rule and the establishment of a system based on human rights, the rule of law, and democracy in the former state of Czechoslovakia. Liu is sometimes called the Vaclav Havel of China.
"The Chinese people," wrote the Charter 08 signatories, "include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values."
Charter 08, drafted over several months, did not come to the attention of Chinese authorities until several days before it was to be released. After Liu's arrest, a large-scale coordinated police operation was launched to "root out the organizers" and prevent the distribution of Charter 08. In the following weeks and months, the police interviewed each of the 303 initial signatories, among them writers, lawyers, journalists, academics, former party members, and ordinary citizens, stressing that the Chinese authorities thought that Charter 08 was "different" from earlier dissident statements and "a fairly grave matter."
The Chinese government may have been initially worried about a possible global outcry over the arrest of the country's most famous dissident. However, the international diplomatic response was at best muted.
Meanwhile, in February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged on the eve of a visit to Beijing that the United States would not let human rights concerns "interfere" with other important aspects of the U.S.-China relationship.
On June 23, 2009, Liu was formally arrested and transferred to Beijing's main detention center, Beikan. The trial, which took less than two hours, was held on Dec. 23, and Liu's sentence -- the longest given for charges of "inciting subversion" since that crime was included in the Chinese criminal code in 1996 -- was announced on Christmas Day, when much of the foreign press corps was on vacation, in an apparent attempt to minimize international coverage.
During Liu's trial, the government argued that Liu had "exceeded" the limits of freedom of expression by authoring essays that had "openly slander[ed] and incite[d] others to overthrow our country's state power." The appeals court that upheld the original 11-year sentence wrote, "Furthermore, the crime was committed over a long period of time, and the subjective malice was immense. The published articles were widely linked, reproduced, and viewed, spreading vile influence. He is a major criminal offender and should be given severe punishment according to the law."
In fact, in the nine essays that the prosecution singled out, Liu consistently defended the idea that political change could only be gradual and peaceful. Liu stressed in the court statement he prepared but was never allowed to deliver, "in the past two decades ... I have always expressed the view that China's political reforms should be gradual, peaceful, orderly, and controlled. I have also consistently opposed quick one-leap radical reforms, and even more so violent revolution."
Liu's lawyers crafted legal arguments for his defense along these lines, invoking Chinese legal provisions and international standards on freedom of expression. The court's response consisted of one line at the end of the judgment: "There is insufficient reasoning in the defense's appeal statement by Liu's Xiaobo's counsel; therefore, this court does not accept the arguments."
(The nine essays listed by the prosecution as evidence, along with all the legal documents from Liu's trial, are available on the site of China Rights Forum, an online and print magazine published by the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights in China.)
http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/category?cid=1072The trial provided a thin veneer of legality to a political decision made about Liu in advance by the Chinese leadership. Liu himself was clear-eyed about the outcome: "I have long been aware that when an independent intellectual stands up to an autocratic state, step one toward freedom is often a step into prison," he wrote after his arrest. "Now I am taking that step; and true freedom is that much nearer."
Liu is the most famous of countless Chinese government critics languishing in prison for peacefully expressing their views. He falls squarely into the Nobel Peace Prize tradition of honoring human rights activists who are calling for peaceful political reform. Kim Dae-jung, Lech Walesa, and Aung San Suu Kyi are but a few previous such winners.
If Liu were to win, the most positive effect would be a groundswell of interest in Charter 08 and Liu's writings in China itself. Whereas the writings of dissidents have so far been limited to the relatively small circles of Chinese citizens who know how to circumvent Beijing's extensive Internet censorship, the Nobel Prize would confer to Liu an instant notoriety that would make it impossible to prevent the mass diffusion of Charter 08 and Liu's other writings.
As the Chinese leadership seemed to have feared when it decided to jail Liu, many among the larger Chinese public -- including party and government officials -- might recognize themselves in the propositions advanced by Charter 08.
Dignitaries including Havel himself have urged the Nobel Committee to award Liu this year's peace prize. Despite the Chinese government's warning that giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu would be "totally wrong," history might judge otherwise.
Václav Havel on Liu Xiaobo, Charter 08, and the Struggle for Democratic Reform
http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5fid=173921&item%5fid=173807On January 19, 2010, Václav Havel—playwright and former dissident who became the last president of Czechoslovakia and later the first president of the Czech Republic—spoke with HRIC executive director Sharon Hom about Liu Xiaobo, Charter 08, and the difficult process of democratic reform in Communist systems. Havel was a drafter of Charter 77, a manifesto calling for human rights and political reform in the former Czechoslovakia, which inspired Charter 08. Havel has been a vocal supporter of Liu since Liu’s detention in December 2008. On January 6, 2010, Havel co-signed with two other former Czech dissidents an open letter addressed to Chinese president Hu Jintao to protest Liu’s “inciting subversion of state power” conviction and 11-year prison sentence. When the three went to the Chinese Embassy in Prague to deliver the letter, no one came to answer the door. Havel has also, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates, and others, jointly called for the nomination of Liu for the Nobel Peace Prize. (The appeal has since been followed by a formal nomination letter by PEN American Center president Kwame Anthony Appiah to the Nobel Committee, endorsed by other writers including Salman Rushdie, Ian Buruma, and Ha Jin.) In reaction, the spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying on February 2: “If the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to such a person, it is obvious that it is totally wrong.”
Sharon Hom: I thought we might start by looking back at the former Czechoslovakia in 1977; could you share some of the challenges that the Charter 77 movement faced? We’re particularly interested in examples of international action that you found, at that time, helpful both to you and to the Charter 77 movement.
Václav Havel: The Charter 77 people, I myself, and all political prisoners enjoyed political support and solidarity that were very helpful because they gave us a sense of purpose for doing our work. I think [the support and solidarity were] important for two reasons. First, it is important to encourage the political prisoners and to make sure that they know that they are not by themselves, that the world knows about them, and that the work [they are doing] has a certain meaning. And the other important reason is that this action makes the government know it can’t just do whatever it wishes.
That’s why it’s up to us—who have lived through those times and those experiences, [whose] conditions have changed now that we have been released—to be among the first ones to show solidarity with those who are persecuted for the same reasons. And that’s why we are interested in the [Liu Xiaobo] case and that’s why, for example, within the EU, we are trying to point out the most severe cases.
Sharon Hom: I was very struck by your writing about this kind of legacy, the baggage that a society and people who come out of the communist totalitarian system carry. Some of that legacy is the lack of trust, or fear, and that is very true for China too, which suffered sixty years of Communist rule and the Cultural Revolution, which destroyed the whole social fabric. So individuals like Liu Xiaobo and other writers or journalists, or artists, and rights defense lawyers who speak out know they’re taking great risks. If you look at the Czechoslovakia of 1977 and China today, how would you compare the different tools of control and repression used in Czechoslovakia then, and in China now?
Václav Havel: There are of course big differences and similarities as well. The similarities, I would say, are in the basic structure of human rights reflected in a democratic system, which of course the regime doesn’t want. The regime wishes for the dictatorship of one party. I think this is where Charter 08 and Charter 77 are similar: they have similar targets and similar messages to deliver to the [respective] regimes.
I had an interesting experience when I was in the U.S. a long time [ago]. I organized some sort of public gathering of dissidents from many countries. I mean there were dissidents present from China, from Iran, from Cuba. It was some sort of international gathering of people who knew what they wanted. And it was very interesting to see how they all understood each other. Even though [they came from] regimes with different ideologies, still it was always the same [things] at stake, mainly, assuming power, and rejection of basic human rights, the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
Now the differences are that during Charter 77, Czechoslovakia was in an inconspicuous and slow decline, whereas China is growing and developing, on a steep rise. The other difference is, of course, that we are a small country, whereas China is a superpower, a member of the Security Council, and it thinks it can dare [to do whatever] as a result. For a long time, I thought that dictatorship could not coexist with market economy, but now it seems [in fact] they coexist [quite well] in China, and now, the question is whether it will last or not, whether the market economy will then force changes in the system. So either they can go together, or perhaps it’s just a temporary phenomenon, and market freedom will [eventually] force other changes to happen.
Sharon Hom: But perhaps what’s developing in China is not really a market economy, but a market economy with “Chinese characteristics”—an economy controlled still by the Party, one grappling with rampant corruption. But if there is no accountability and no transparency, there will also be no protection of human rights or economic rights either. So I think that’s an ongoing debate in China today.
China today not only has economic and political power, but also soft power, such as through the media. We push the EU, we push national governments, and the UN. But they, including the Human Rights Council, are not very effective. And you personally have written Op/Ed pieces, took part in an award ceremony to recognize Chinese rights defenders, and most recently wrote an open letter to the Chinese president, Hu Jintao. You’ve done quite a bit.
Do you have any thoughts about how you can take what you’ve done to get more international leaders to take concrete actions?
Václav Havel: Well, that’s a very profound and fundamental question. I mean, why is the world always so cautious in the name of economic interests, always shutting its eyes when it comes to human rights?
I think there are very profound reasons why this happens. I think this has probably been a policy of some kind of appeasement or some kind of compromise, which is of course very dangerous.
So, I think what will have to happen is either some kind of bigger crisis or some bigger catastrophe that will then wake up the politicians. Or on the other hand, changes could be achieved by some permanent and persistent pressure exerted by intellectuals and politicians, pressure exerted by the EU, [for example,] as we are members of the EU.
I myself, in a recent speech in front of the European Parliament on the anniversary of the collapse of the iron curtain, specified the importance of solidarity. I [believe that] to exert pressure on the European Union [and] on the UN is very important.
Sharon Hom: One of the lessons that you pointed out in Charter 77 was that a legitimate government cannot use intimidation, repression, and propaganda. And you pointed out recently that China does not appear to have learned this lesson. In 1990 you wrote that if you have confidence you can be more tolerant. I think that is what we don’t see in China: a confident government that can trust its own people so that it can be tolerant.
Charter 77 was very important to Liu Xiaobo and Charter 08; they even used the word “charter” in Chinese to echo it and that must have been incredibly threatening to the Party in China. Because we all know what happened after Charter 77, raising the possibility of a peaceful revolution in China and the possibility to move on to a more democratic future. I think that’s why they couldn’t answer the door at the Chinese Embassy in Prague: they don’t want that future and they’re not welcoming that future knocking on the door.
But in 1989 when you came out of prison and heard about the violent government crackdown on unarmed civilians—do you recall your reaction at the time?
Václav Havel: Well, I remember the massacre on Tiananmen Square . . . it really outraged me. I tried to seize every opportunity to talk about it on the radio, in the media. The attention wasn’t so [great] here, because we were too much looking into ourselves and looking into our own troubles. I was talking about it on the radio, and all the editors were shocked I was bringing it up.
Sharon Hom: We spoke to family members and we told them that you agreed to speak to us. They were very, very moved, and thanked you for the support because it’s a very difficult time for the family. You have already delivered a very strong message to the Chinese government, and issued a very strong call to the international community to take responsibility. What message would you like to send to Liu Xia, the family, and to Liu Xiaobo and the rights defenders in China?
Václav Havel: I would like to tell them that I’m not the only one thinking about them and sympathizing with them. I would like to wish them to be patient and to enjoy solidarity. I would very much like to tell them that they shouldn’t take things too close to their hearts. Because this can help them in overcoming the very upsetting and difficult situations.
My basic experience shows me that a person who is striving for something, who is going into this conflict has to be ready to say what he or she thinks and shouldn’t count on immediate success. [But] he has to do it because he knows that it’s good, because it’s good for his conscience, because it has meaning. How this will be reflected, whether this will be reflected in some sort of change in the conscience of society or some political changes, we don’t know. It would be unwise to hope that these things would be reflected immediately. But it’s important to know that this will be reflected later on. One has to be patient.
Sharon Hom: Your words will give Liu’s family and lawyers great support and encouragement. Liu’s case is clearly about more than one person; it’s about the future of freedom of expression and of this Charter 08 movement in China. So, thank you again for taking the time to speak with me. It has been a great honor and pleasure.
Text of Charter 08 here:
http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=173861&item%5fid=85717and here:
http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5fid=174002&item%5fid=173687
Author
Logged
