The Nobel War Prize
Tariq Ali
Last year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize escalated the war in Afghanistan a few weeks after receiving the prize. The award surprised even Obama. This year the Chinese government were foolish to make a martyr of the president of Chinese PEN and neo-con Liu Xiaobo. He should never have been arrested, but the Norwegian politicians who comprise the committee, led by Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Labour prime minister, wanted to teach China a lesson. And so they ignored their hero’s views. Or perhaps they didn’t, given that their own views are not dissimilar. The committee thought about giving Bush and Blair a joint peace prize for invading Iraq but a public outcry forced a retreat.
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?
The Norwegian jurist Fredrik Heffermehl argues that the committee is in breach of the will and testament left behind by the inventor of dynamite whose bequests fund the prizes: ‘The Nobel committee has not received prize money for free use, but was entrusted with money to give to the pivotal element in creating peace, breaking the vicious circle of arms races and military power games. From this point of view the 2010 Nobel is again an illegitimate prize awarded by an illegitimate committee.’
Comments
Det er klart at menneskerettsarbeid er fredsarbeid, men det var nedrustningsarbeid Nobel ville støtte med sin pris for fredsforkjempere. Med all respekt for Liu Xiaobo er dette enda et eksempel på at det ikke lenger er Nobels fredspris som utdeles, men Stortingets fredspris
Obviously, working for human rights is working for peace, but it was disarmament work that Nobel wanted to support with his prize for agitators for peace. With all due respect to Liu Xiaobo, this is just another example that it's no longer Nobel's peace prize which is given, but the Norwegian parliament's peace prize,
Nobel intended his prize to promote a new international system, where distrust and fear, resulting in recurring military violence, must be replace by trust, co-operation and disarmament based on international law and institutions. Everyone should be concerned with this, which in the nuclear age has become a question of continued life on the planet. The dedicated work intending to achieve peace and disarmament can take many forms, and it does. But the Nobel Committee cannot - and should not - behave as if the will of Nobel does not exist and as if Nobel gave them the money for free use. The diluted and diffuse prize presently being awarded will not do anything to change the international system.
The key argument in my new book "The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel Really Wanted" (Praeger 2010) is that Nobel defined what he, writing his will, saw as the key to peace - abolition of national military forces. I would welcome a wide interpretation, and surprising, innovative prizes -as long as the committee is loyal to Nobel and shows that it has the courage to do what Nobel asked them to do: Challenge the military as a dominant factor in shaping the conduct of international affairs. John Pilger, Richard Falk, Scilla Elworthy, Bruce Kent, E.P. Thompson, Cora Weiss, Steinar Bryn, Joanna Macy, Evelin Lindner, are just some examples among the 2-300 I mention in the book.
It is a paradox, Harold Pinter might just as well have received the peace prize, while Al Gore could only be qualified for the Nobel Prize for "the best literature with of idealist content". Also the Swedish Academy has probably failed Nobel and the main intention of the testament, to change the world "to the best of humankind." It is because neither Al Gore nor Barack Obama have ever displayed a taste for abolition of military forces that they were clearly disqualified. The idea of "general and complete" global disarmament, however, is not dated, but was on the diplomatic agenda and became a binding commitment among nations in 1968, through Art VI of the (NPT) treaty on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.
Tariq Ali says that Thorbjørn Jagland & other Norwegian politicians want to teach China a lesson. I didn't know that, and in his award speech Jagland went out of his way to say the opposite. Is there any evidence? Most of all, Tariq, I think you ought to provide some citations for Liu's views a-d; I can't be alone here in not having known about them.
Anyway, when Bertha von Suttner got the prize for Die Waffen Nieder!, the German blood-and-soil writer Felix Dahn got terribly upset, and when they asked him if he'd at least read her book he said 'Read? The book of a woman? Never!'
Liu Xiabo's statement does not override his neo-conservative opinions on the various wars (that he still supports) nor does it renege on his deeply held views that colonialism is a good thing for lesser countries. 300 years remains his minimum sentence for what China needed. Stated first in 1988 he repeated it in 2006. If the Norwegian politicians wanted to embarrass China they could have found someone better.And if political prisoners are what they're looking for perhaps they could look in to Mumia Abu-Jamal death cell in the States. He's been there for thirty years, charged with a crime he did not commit. Obama is unlikely to pardon him. But the cold warrior who presides over the Committee is unlikely to even consider him.
The other issue is that of the Nobel Prize itself. There have been a number of cases in which the Nobel Prize has been given to the wrong people. The Committee should adopt a very stringent approach to candidates in order to ensure cases like that of Kissinger do not happen again. But the Prize in general has kept its dignity as most of the times it has been given to persons who truly deserve it.
And then there's the wonderful sentence: "He should never have been arrested, but the Norwegian politicians who comprise the committee, led by Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Labour prime minister, wanted to teach China a lesson", where the second clause doesn't pretend to follow from the first, just lets that first bit make Ali's implicitly authoritarian point: "He should never have been arrested, but..."
Mr. Ali would like this piece to be about the illegitimacy of the Nobel committee, because that's a banal enough statement to be correct. Instead, the glaring dishonesty shows again that Mr. Ali sheds solidarity with prisoners under authoritarian regimes when their politics differ from his own.
The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical work by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not.
'Liu Xiaobo’s statement that he does not repudiate his comments re colonialism is found at http://www.open.com.hk/0701p26.html. This same cite was forwarded to a South China Morning Post fact-checker prior to the publication of the Sautman/Yan article on Liu Xiaobo. As with op-ed pieces everywhere, not everything authors want to include is allowed to be included. With Liu Xiaobo, for example, one would have liked to say something about his vituperative support for the Iraq War and George W. Bush or perhaps something about how all the five Norwegian politicians who comprise the Nobel Peace Prize Committee are representatives of political parties that have backed the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars.'
Don't believe everything you read.
By chance, except for Jagland, the committee's current members are all women.
Bush & Blair are the men who started the wars, they're the former heads of government. If you're saying Ågot Jorunn Valle is more like Bush and Blair than like, say, Tony Benn and Clement Freud, (aren't there any female ex-MPs?) then you're barking up the wrong tree.
What they do in government is more important than what they say out of it.
But Ågot Jorunn Valle wasn't in the government! Again, you might as well blame Tony Benn for the Labour Party going to war against Iraq when, like Tariq Ali, he was a member of the Stop The War Coalition. Maybe Tariq Ali wanted to go to war; he was in the same group as members of Blair's party! I can't understand why you guys are trying tar the committee with the Bush & Blair brush.
I'd like to have found something Ågot Valle said about the wars, but I can't. That doesn't mean she's a friend of the US. In 2006, when the Storting's Foreign Relations Committee voted to allow storage of U.S. munitions in Norway, Valle stipulated that such equipment should not be used in the Iraq war. That may be what caused the SV to put her on the Nobel committee, although she's also head of an int'l women's rights group called Fokus and has apparently worked to "say no" to nuclear weapons.
Sautman & Yan got it wrong -- undeniably, I'd say -- but that has obscured the main point, which is that as Heffermehl proposes, the Storting should quit appointing former politicians to the Nobel committee and instead choose people who are better qualified and "undeniably" unbiased. The current setup was never Nobel's intention, and pre-WW2, when the Norwegian prime minister was on the committee, they changed the system. There's no reason not to revise the membership again.
As I said elsewhere, I think it's great that Liu won the peace prize. He disapproves of everyone equally, and what's more he has no enemies.
Isn't the point that politicians per se should not be running these Committees. None of the other Nobel Prizes are, thank heaven, run by politicians, so why should this one serve as a NATO instrument. A Committee of people involved in exposing the arms race, arms sales, wars, civil wars, could surely be found even if they wanted to restrict it to Norway.
Well, why not do your own research? Here are the members of the Nobel peace prize committee, below. You can translate it on google translate if you don't speak Norwegian. (Hint. The Sosialistisk Venstreparti, the Socialist Party Of The Left: what do you think their position might be?)
Den Norske Nobelkomite 2010
* Thorbjørn Jagland (60 år), leder, generalsekretær for Europarådet. Tidligere statsminister, utenriksminister og Stortingets president. Det norske Arbeiderparti.
* Karin Cecilie (Kaci) Kullmann Five (59 år), nestleder, næringsdrivende. Tidligere statsråd og stortingsrepresentant. Høyre.
* Sissel Marie Rønbeck (60 år). Tidligere statsråd og stortingsrepresentant. Det norske Arbeiderparti.
* Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (69 år), spesialrådgiver Fremskrittspartiets stortingsgruppe. Tidligere stortingsrepresentant. Fremskrittspartiet.
* Ågot Jorunn Valle (65 år). Tidligere stortingsrepresentant. Sosialistisk Venstreparti.
Varamedlemmer 2009–2011:
* 1. Knut Vollebæk (64 år), høykommissær for nasjonale minoriteter i OSSE. Tidligere utenriksminister. Kristelig Folkeparti.
* 2. Christopher Stensaker (65 år), politiker. Tidligere stortingsrepresentant. Fremskrittspartiet.
* 3. Sverre Lodgaard (65 år), seniorforsker NUPI. Det norske Arbeiderparti.
Isn’t the point that politicians per se should not be running these Committees.
They AREN'T politicians. They are all FORMER members of the Storting, the Norwegian parliament. The Storting decided that the committee should be selected to reflect the current proportions of parties within the Storting. That the winner should be decided by a committee chosen by the Storting was stipulated in Nobel's will.
why should this one serve as a NATO instrument.
If you think the Nobel peace prize is a NATO instrument, you should probably supply evidence.
A Committee of people involved in exposing the arms race, arms sales, wars, civil wars, could surely be found even if they wanted to restrict it to Norway.
I must say you are fucking rude about countries you clearly no nothing about.
no Israeli dissident have ever been honoured. Uri Avineri, Amira Hass, Gideon Levi are obvious names. And the person whose courage has become legendary: Mordechai Vanunu, who revrealed that Isrtael was a nuclear state and is still under house arrest, not allowed to leave the country. Each year from 1988 to 2004, Joseph Rotblat wrote to the Nobel Prize Committee suggesting his name. Finally Vanunu wrote himself and withdrew his name. He stated:" I am asking the committee to remove my name from the list for this year’s list of nominations. I cannot be part of a list of laureates that includes Shimon Peres, the President of Israel. He is the man who was behind all the Israeli atomic policy. Peres established and developed the atomic weapon program in Dimona in Israel..Peres was the man who ordered the kidnapping of me in Italy Rome, Sept. 30, 1986, and for the secret trial and sentencing of me as a spy and traitor for 18 years in isolation in prison in Israel. Until now he continues to oppose my freedom and release, in spite of my serving full sentence 18 years. From all these reasons I don’t want be nominated and will not accept this nomination. I say No to any nomination as long as I am not free, that is, as long as I am still forced to be in Israel. WHAT I WANT IS FREEDOM AND ONLY FREEDOM"
It seems that our fighters for peace are invisible to the Norwegian politicians. I always wondered why. This blog debate has been enlightening. I now know why.
As for Thorbjørn Jagland, I really don't care what your friends think of him; what kind of a basis is that to pass judgment on anything? The same goes for NATO and looking at it's entire role during the cold war and its collaborationist mentality and what the former editor of the Japan Times maybe thinks. This is just chatter. Give us some facts, not what someone might have thought down the pub one night.
Oh, c'mon, pleeeease! Were you born yesterday? What party did Blair belong to? Obama? Zapatero of Spain? They are from the left, liberal, or on the case of Zapatero, Socialist (he may have been against the Iraq war, but he supports the occupation of Afghanistan). In much of the West traditional left parties have supporter the US' inmoral military interventions *and* free market policies that have done nothing but increase inequalities of power and wealth. Try question this assertion with a straight face, focusing on parties who have been in government, instead of pulling off vacuous factoids out of the google hat.
So I'm calling for some team work here. Instead of the bravado of who's the greatest Norway buff, or the most fearless anti-Nato-er, what about starting with the facts of which of the 4 views attributed to Xiabo he is meant to have written or said when, and in which context, and where that's published. Regarding statements originally written or said in Xiabo's native language, could a sinologist who is reading - once Ali has provided citations - comment briefly on the political neutrality of how Ali has paraphrased the original Chinese/Mandarin? If Xiabo's alleged description of Kerry's Bush critique - "slander-mongering" as Ali puts it in a direct quote - was originally stated in Mandarin, could the Mandarin characters for "slander-mongering" go up on this blog?
No, I don't see this argument at all as a game; but it is an argument in which the details will are decisive. Finally, I don't get what Ali's doing by applying the epiphet "neo-con" to Xiabo. It is possible that Xiabo shares some important convictions with the US neo-cons, but what's the game with the cultural imperialism of taking a classification that only gets its meaning because the US political landscape is how it is, and forcing it down on an utterly different Chinese political landscape, the one that matters to Xiabo? When does a "con" become a "neo-con" anyway? When he swaps his tweed jacket for a combat jacket? If the word "neo-con" actually means anything internationally - if it's not just slander-mongering - could Ali give us a quick "neo-cons for beginners"? Like say, which of the UK conservative party MPs are "cons" and which are "neo-cons"? Equipped with such useful info, we'll soon be ready to judge: is Ali telling the truth?
Sautman and Yan say Liu Xiabao 'has long been financed by the US government's National Endowment for Democracy.'
'Barry Sautman is a political scientist and lawyer at Hong Kong University of Science & Technology' who makes a living defending the Chinese regime on grounds I'm too ignorant to judge. 'Yan Hairong is an anthropologist at Hong Kong Polytechnic University,' ditto.
Welcome to Asian politics: please pick your own stooge.
October 14th, 2010 at 06:10 | #4 Reply | Quote
Barry, Liu explicitly said in the same interview:
“Q. Under what circumstances can China carry out a genuine historical transformation?
A. Three hundred years of colonialism. Hong Kong became like this after one hundred years of colonialism. China is so much larger, so obviously it will take three hundred years of colonialism. I am still doubtful whether three hundred years of colonialism will be enough to turn China into Hong Kong today.
Q. This is 100% “treason.”
A. I will cite one sentence from Marx’s Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Workers do not have motherlands. You cannot take away what they don’t have.”…
Q. You are saying that you want China to take Hong Kong’s path?
A. But history will not give this opportunity to the Chinese people. The era of colonialism has gone by. Nobody is willing to bear the burden known as China.”
That is, Liu explicitly said that he did not think it was possible for China to take Hong Kong’s path. How, therefore, can this be said to be his goal? As for praising colonial rule in Hong Kong, the recent letter signed by Li Rui (amongst others) does pretty much the same thing.
I also note that, unlike other people on this website, you do at least note that his imprisonment is totally unnecessary. Will you also agree that it was unjust?
http://mclc.osu.edu bibliographies at Literature > Author Studies > Liu Xiaobo
There are other sources as well.
But none of this changes the fact that Tariq Ali has correctly identified some of the sources of extreme discomfort that this prize has caused among those in China, Chinese abroad, and others involved in China-related work. Liu is a very divisive figure, not b/c of government propaganda but in spite of it. There are of course the ultra-nationalists, who conceived the "Confucius Peace Prize" in a semi-comical attempt to upstage the Nobel ceremony; one can almost write them off, except they do represent a certain faction in Chinese elite circles (not necessarily all government-related). But, there are also very reputable leftists and semi-leftists and liberals who know Liu Xiaobo and his work and who are made extremely uncomfortable by this prize. These are not people susceptible to Party propaganda, but are people who have struggled with Liu's work over the past two decades and who have disputed his 'scholarly' and other output. None of these believe Liu should be in prison; but few believe he should be the recepient of the Nobel prize.
In other words, this is not a simple "Chinese Communist Party vs. the world" issue, at least not in China. This is a serious issue of a scholar who has written and done some very unpopular things in the academic sphere, which have raised legitimate questions about his fitness as a Peace Prize recepient. I repeat, nobody argues that he should be in prison; and everyone is embarassed by the ham-handedness and hysteria of the Party's response. That does not mean that there are not legitimate issues one can debate. Tariq Ali has offered several.
A reader of ours left a link to one of his writings with some bits translated:
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/10/liu-xiaobo-deserves-an-ig-nobel-peace-prize-the-latest-reaction-to-buzz-the-west/#comment-38455
Liu was convicted for "attempt to subvert state power" - though the verdict didn't mention the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) specifically, he received closed to $1million over a period of some years - according to NED's own documents.
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/10/the-2010-nobel-peace-prize-to-liu-xiaobo-and-what-it-means-to-the-chinese/
Liu strikes me as a typical writer for the LRB: he's a sarcastic intellectual who disapproves of everybody equally. I think it's great that he won. Nordic academics "neither understand their own culture, (and) do not understand China", of Oslo University: "I still say that their is a scholar in the ninety-eight% waste, poor quality academics". I'm sure some of the people he met in Oslo (the "Norwegian elite") recommended him -- there are Norwegian advisers to the committee who write reports on the candidates -- he doesn't come off as being beholden to anyone. He probably didn't expect nitwitted Westerners to take his 300 years of colonialism comment at face value, but he underestimates Western paranoia.
Of course he has more criticisms of China than of elsewhere; that's because HE'S CHINESE, not because he's a sockpuppet of Dick Cheney.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why China sees Liu as a paid lacky of the US
-
Liu Xiaobo and the Nobel Peace Prize
Research by: Charles Liu (USA), c/o webmaster@foolsmountain.com
Liu Xiaobo has as president 2003-2007 and thereafter Honorary President of
the "Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc." (Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo), and as founder of "Democratic
China, Inc.", received the following amounts of money from NED (Noffices in
Washington DC:
To "Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc."
2004: $ 85,000
2005: $ 99 500
2006: $ 135,000
2007: $ 135,000
2008: $ 152,350
2009: $ 152,950
Sum: $ 759 800
To "Democra tic China, Inc.":
2004: $ 135,000
2005: $ 136,000
2006: $ 136,000
2007: $ 145,000
2008: $ 150,000
2009: $ 195,000
2009: $ 18,000 (Supplement)
Sum: US$ 915 000
Total support from NED during these years is $ 1 674 800 (759 800 +
915 000) which is approximately 11 million yuan - a huge sum of money in
China - where a normal salary is about 20% of the level in the West.
Links:
To find the amount of money, go to the link, scroll down to "Independent
Chinese PEN Centre, Inc." and also to "Democratic China, Inc." Do not get
led astray by all the nice words:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20081120104646/http://www.NED.org/grants/04
programs/grants-asia04.html
http://www.NED.org/publications/annual-reports/2005-annual-report/asia/descr
iption-of-2005-grants/china
http://www.NED.org/publications/annual-reports/2006-annual-report/asia/descr
iption-of-2006-grants/china
http://www.NED.org/publications/annual-reports/2007-annual-report/asia/descr
iption-of-2007-grants/china
http://www.NED.org/publications/annual-reports/2008-annual-report/asia/descr
iption-of-2008-grants/china
http://www.NED.org/where-we-work/asia/china (2009)
It is unclear how the money during the years has been delivered by the
Americans.
It is also not clear how the money have been spent. The verdict of Liu
Xiaobo mentions money from abroad received to the account of Liu Xia, his
wife. See the English (unofficial) translation of the
verdict:
http://bbs.translators.com.cn/mtsbbs/viewthread;jsessionid=9525AA734E0D6F813
35BA797DDAE9275?thread=65697
(Scroll down to Beijing Municipal No. 1 Intermediate People's Court
-- Criminal Verdict).
Rumors speculate in how the couple, without the NED-money, could have
afforded a flat in a compound at 9 South Yuyuantan Street in Beijing.
Conclusion:
Liu Xiaobo has by receiving the NED-money in many peoples eyes lost his
innocence and, willingly or unwillingly, become a foreign agent.
Authorities in the US has, since he for many years has been working to
discredit and harm China, been satisfied with his work, and NED has
therefore every year since 2003 renewed the payment, and even in some
years increased it.
What is NED?
NED (National Endowment for Democracy) is funded by the American government,
and is subject to congressional oversight - which is a prettier word for
"government control". The purpose is to fund individuals, political parties
and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) which are favourable to US interests and willing to spread their
ideology.
In 1991, Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED,
candidly said: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by
the CIA." In effect, the CIA launders money through NED. (Washington Post,
Sept.22, 1991)
New York Times wrote on December 4, 1985: "The National Endowment for
Democracy is a quasi-governmental foundation created by the Reagan
Administration in 1983 to channel millions of Federal dollars into
anti-Communist 'private diplomacy.'"
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/l/labor_role_in
_politics/index.html?s=oldest&query=POLITICS%20AND%20GOVERNMENT&field=des&ma
tch=exact
Testifying before the Sub-committee on International Operations and Human
Rights of the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives on March 13,1997, Mr.Carl Gershman, President of the NED,
said: " I just want to say that the Endowment's work is based upon a very,
very simple proposition. And that is, where there are people who share our
values, where there are people who might be called the natural friends of
America, then it is our obligation to help those people in some way."
Bill Berkowitz of "Working for Change" writes: "The NED functions as a
full-service infrastructure building clearinghouse. It 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."
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy
Republican congressman from the Texas Gulf Coast, Dr. Ron Paul, who is more
Libertarian than Republican, writes: "The misnamed National Endowment for
Democracy is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds
to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED
does in foreign countries ... would be rightly illegal in the United
States."
http://www.iefd.org/articles/paying_to_make_enemies.php
NED gives i 2009 high priority to destabilize China: Of the 28 NGOs in Asia
funded by the NED i 2009, 14 focus on China (50%), and in addition 4 focus
on Tibetan exiles, and 4 on Uyghur (Xinjiang) exiles.
The following Uygur organizations got in 2009 money from NED:
International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation $25,000
(Supplement); International Uyghur PEN Club (IUPC) $69,502; Uyghur American
Association $249,000; World Uyghur Congress $186,000. all together $ 529
502.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com
Shocking information on the case of Rebiya Kadeer with similarities to Liu
Xiaobo:
Once she arrived in the US however, she has been committed to "Xinjiang
independence" activities. In the same year, she founded the US-based
International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation (IUHRDF). In
2006, she became president of the Uyghur American Association (UAA) and was
elected as president of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) at its Second
General Assembly in the same year. As soon as Rebiya arrived in the US, the
"renowned" National Endowment for Democracy (NED) came to visit her,
expressing a willingness to offer financial support. It has been disclosed
that the NED annually grants 200,000 USD to the UAA (Uyghur American
Association). In 2007, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) organizations,
including the WUC (World Uyghur Congress) and IUHRDF (Uyghur Human Rights
and Democracy Foundation) led by Rebiya, received a total of 520,000 USD of
financial support from the NED.
In addition, some anti-China US congressmen have become guests of honor for
Rebiya, and frequently invited her to deliver speeches at the so-called
"Congressional Human Rights Caucus Meeting." Even former president George W.
Bush met with Rebiya twice in 2007 and
2008 prior to the Beijing Olympics, calling her a freedom warrior.
Members of the CIA often disguised as reporters and non-government
organization (NGO) volunteers expressed their concerns to her, keeping close
touch with her on the issue of ETIM prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Rebiya once said they would plan some penetration and sabotage activities at
the third General Assembly targeting the grand celebration for the 60th
anniversary of the People's Republic of China; and formulate a plan of
"three phases for Xinjiang independence in 50 years." The WUC website
impressively showed that the WUC Third General Assembly was unexpectedly
held in the South Congressional Meeting Room with the participation of
nearly 10 US congressmen. Most of these congressmen are veteran anti-China
politicians.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=14327
----------------
I like others have witnessed NED money being spread all around the world to further some very questionable projects which always coincide with US foreign policy aims. I wonder how AJP Crown would like NED money pouring into England or Norway to inluence elections of those persons NED felt needed to be in parliament. Anyone out there ever hear: Different strokes for different strokes.
Your lack of criticism of the Chinese regime, or your support of it, discredit your comments.
A tour for the history of Communist China would be advisable: 70 million killed since 1949 (Chang & Hallyday, Mao. The Unknown Story, p.3)
And perhaps you would care to do a tour of the recent history of the US: maintaining a prison complex that holds more people than that of China or Russia, military interventions that have led to the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands, and the displacement of millions. Are we supposed to believe that this country and its fellow travelers abroad will truly replace the regimes they despise with glorious examples of freedom, democracy and yes, freedom of expression? Perhaps you would like to take a look at the example of Georgia...
I have already made the tour about the crimes of the US -my country has been a victim of US imperialism since I was a child, and since the early 1980's I have been in protests against the US. I am well aware of the interventions of the US in Latin America, since 1846 in Mexico, to the more recent in Panama, Granada, Venezuela, Haiti and Honduras -around sixty in total. You do not mention crimes against humanity like the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor the carpet bombing -with the help of the British- of German cities and villages (circa 600.000 civilians, refugees, prisoners, foreigners killed).
So it is not that I am not aware of US criminal record, nor that by criticising China, or if you want, the USSR, North Korea, Cambodia, etc., I am promoting US imperialism. You are using the same argument used against Amnesty by states of all colours: Amnesty would be a puppet of Capitalist governments, of comunist governments, and so on. And with Amnesty we get to the criteria that guides my defence of Liu Xiabo and my critique of China: it is not a political question between states or empires. It is the defence of the victims and peaceful defenders of human rights whatever the culprit is.
Keith Smith finishes with this sentence: "The elite interests itself in the Peace Prize, and there is quite a bit of discussion about it, the content of which the Committee is well aware." My comment: But the Committee pays no attention, behaving as if it is above the law and above discussion.
"The guidelines governing our work are nevertheless clearly set out: these are to be found in Alfred Nobel's testament, written nearly a hundred years ago.// The award this year is very much in line with Alfred Nobel's own wishes and desires. Nobel wanted the prize to be awarded to someone who had worked to promote "fraternity between nations". That was the expression generally used in his day to denote the substitution of international cooperation for conflict. Nobel also wished his prize to be given to someone who had actively promoted a reduction in "standing armies" and worked for the "holding of peace congresses", what we today would call disarmament and negotiation. // Seldom has our Committee felt more in tune with Alfred Nobel's wishes than this year."
The optimistic sense of a world onto a new start and a window of opportunity for a profound change of international relations at the end of the Cold War was reflected in some introductory remarks in Gidske Anderson´s speech:
"We are experiencing dramatic changes in a world that is still rent with conflict. Nevertheless, we also have clear evidence that a peace process has started. East and West, the two mighty power blocs, have managed to abandon their life-threatening confrontation and have, instead, embarked on the long and patient road to cooperation on the basis of negotiation. The task now is to create a peaceful framework for the far-reaching transformation which will inevitably continue to take place in our part of the world. // We have already seen the fruits of this new climate between East and West."
But - as I explain in the book - after an uncertain period, temporarily, out of balance, the military (acting, again, in a very unpatriotic way, and against the interest of the nation) soon got back on its feet and recreated the enemy and fear that they depend on to be able to continue to bite a big chunk of taxpayers money.