Recognizing the work of political activists/dissidents can have a number of effects and responses. The Nobel Peace prize was just awarded to Liu Xiaobo, who is currently imprisoned by the Government of China for his advocacy on human rights issues and democratization in his own country, while using non-violent means to achieve such ends. Such high profile recognition confers legitimacy (and money should he be able to somehow receive it) on such efforts and gives a boost to such activists that there is international support for their cause.
Making such a selection is far from politically neutral. As reported in the New York Times, the Norwegian Nobel Committee observed that China holds "the world’s second biggest economy, [and] should be commended for lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But it chastised the government for ignoring basic rights guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution and the international conventions to which Beijing is a party."
Like most of its counterparts, China is sensitive to criticism with respect to its treatment of one of its own citizens that engages in criticism against it. For many states, there is an acknowledgment that human rights violations occur, they just happen more often than not in some other country and not within their own borders. And certainly the Government of China is reacting as one would expect. A government spokesperson stated that: “The Nobel Committee giving the Peace Prize to such a person runs completely contrary to the aims of the prize.” Further, “Liu Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese judicial departments for violating Chinese law.”
It is of course trite that when governments imprison activists, they must, in order to justify their actions construct those subjected to such oppression as criminals who have violated the laws of the state and/or as being "anti-national" elements working against the interests of the people. By contrast the awarding of the prize injects a different construction of such activists - they are persons engaged in legitimate conduct in conformity with international legal principles. Furthermore, through their imprisonment, they are unjustly victimized. Where there is a victim, there is a victimizer - in this case - the state itself.
But Liu does not fit the usual imagination of the victim as some hapless person tormented by the state for something innate. Unlike those who are attacked by state actors for some immutable characteristic, he is imprisoned for some affirmative activity he is engaged in. Given his prior imprisonment following the crackdown on activists after Tiananmen Square in 1989, he more than likely expected his work would elicit a similar response. Nevertheless, he is still persecuted for his political views and conduct taken in furtherance of those views. He is both an agentive victim and a victimized resister.
Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize therefore serves as both an act of legitimacy for such non-violent resistance at the same time as rebuking the state that would persecute such an individual.
Source:
Andrew Jacob and Jonathan Ansfield, "Nobel Peace Prize Given to Jailed Chinese Dissident" New York Times (8 October 2010), online: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/world/09nobel.html
Making such a selection is far from politically neutral. As reported in the New York Times, the Norwegian Nobel Committee observed that China holds "the world’s second biggest economy, [and] should be commended for lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But it chastised the government for ignoring basic rights guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution and the international conventions to which Beijing is a party."
Like most of its counterparts, China is sensitive to criticism with respect to its treatment of one of its own citizens that engages in criticism against it. For many states, there is an acknowledgment that human rights violations occur, they just happen more often than not in some other country and not within their own borders. And certainly the Government of China is reacting as one would expect. A government spokesperson stated that: “The Nobel Committee giving the Peace Prize to such a person runs completely contrary to the aims of the prize.” Further, “Liu Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese judicial departments for violating Chinese law.”
It is of course trite that when governments imprison activists, they must, in order to justify their actions construct those subjected to such oppression as criminals who have violated the laws of the state and/or as being "anti-national" elements working against the interests of the people. By contrast the awarding of the prize injects a different construction of such activists - they are persons engaged in legitimate conduct in conformity with international legal principles. Furthermore, through their imprisonment, they are unjustly victimized. Where there is a victim, there is a victimizer - in this case - the state itself.
But Liu does not fit the usual imagination of the victim as some hapless person tormented by the state for something innate. Unlike those who are attacked by state actors for some immutable characteristic, he is imprisoned for some affirmative activity he is engaged in. Given his prior imprisonment following the crackdown on activists after Tiananmen Square in 1989, he more than likely expected his work would elicit a similar response. Nevertheless, he is still persecuted for his political views and conduct taken in furtherance of those views. He is both an agentive victim and a victimized resister.
Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize therefore serves as both an act of legitimacy for such non-violent resistance at the same time as rebuking the state that would persecute such an individual.
Source:
Andrew Jacob and Jonathan Ansfield, "Nobel Peace Prize Given to Jailed Chinese Dissident" New York Times (8 October 2010), online: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/world/09nobel.html
No comments:
Post a Comment