<blockquote>
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”- Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>
'..individuals who work patiently for the improvement of the legal system, for the protection of the environment, for more open and sophisticated media..'<blockquote>'...the committee opted for a highly divisive choice. Contrary to Alfred Nobel’s will which points at the recognition of a person “who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations”, the 2010 announcement brings discord, incomprehension and confusion between China and the West when one should create the conditions for harmony and synergy.
The committee believes that a strict reference to abstract principles enshrined in international agreements is conducive to convergence but its choice does not integrate the subtle balance between the existence of universal values and the no less real difference between levels of development. In a sense, the committee’s pure idealism excluded history whereas it is the combination of the two, a genuine political philosophy, which has relevance and significance.
Finally, given China’s past two centuries and her memory of Western imperialism, the decision is, to a certain extent, counterproductive. Beijing’s conservative forces opposed to the deepening of reforms always capitalize on the crusade against what is perceived as public and direct foreign interference in China’s internal affairs.
The disapproval of the committee’s decision is not a call for Beijing’s immobility, but it stems from the conviction that necessary gradual adjustments will have to be responsibly designed within China, and, given the PRC’s objective situation, within the Communist Party itself.
As a matter of fact, China’s political transformation is already at work and occupies an increasingly central position in the Party’s internal debates. In August, during a visit in Shenzhen to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Special Economic Zone, China’s Premier Wen Jiabao explained : “Without the safeguard of political reform, the fruits of economic reform would be lost and the goal of modernization would not materialize”. Later, in a rare interview with CNN, he insisted : “Freedom of speech is indispensable for any country,” adding “the people's wishes and needs for democracy and freedom are irresistible.” Already in 2008 on the same program with Fareed Zakaria, Wen Jiabao announced : “I believe that while moving ahead with economic reforms, we also need to advance political reforms, as our development is comprehensive in nature, our reform should also be comprehensive”.
Jefferson’s ideal, eloquently expressed in his First Inaugural Address, can serve as an universal source of inspiration : “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it”. However, the third president of the United States of America was also the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the Chinese people, and only them, will define the exact terms and pace of Beijing’s democratization. In the 21st century, the West’s influence can not be imposed by spectacular lessons of governance but can only be proportionate with its capacity to perfect itself.
...
The committee could recognize, for example, the efforts of Chinese individuals who work patiently for the improvement of the legal system, for the protection of the environment, for more open and sophisticated media without adopting the radical approach of the dissidence.'
- David Gosset (
Source)
David Gosset is director of the Euro-China Center for International and Business Relations (ECCIR) at CEIBS, Shanghai & Beijing, and founder of the Euro-China Forum.</blockquote>