What Ought to Inform the ICC Review: How the PRC Leadership Reacted to the Nobel Prize Being Awarded to an Imprisoned Democracy Advocate
© 2010 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
The entire civilized world thought imperialistic totalitarianism was put to rest at the end of the 1980s with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some decade and a half later that belief and hope was proven inaccurate when the China-Canada military alliance persisted with global ambitions in the face of tenacious diplomacy. How the Chinese leadership behaves ought to be taken into account when deciding whether there is an ICC prosecution.
China’s citizens are just like us – desirous of a better future for themselves and their children through what capitalism offers. However, the country’s leadership continues to harbor what was mainstream amongst medieval elites, namely the ideological view that neighbors are to be conquered, their populations subjugated and their wealth plundered. It was hoped in the mid-1990s that the injection of what’s driven economic prosperity in the West during the 20th century into the communist country would produce political liberalization. However, the reverse occurred. The Beijing elite became evermore cashed up and instead of moving towards a more enlightened paradigm of governance used this new vast wealth to lock the nation down even more; imposing an even stricter kind of totalitarian rule.
This development outraged world leaders, business moguls and the uber-wealthy. But they’re caught in and immobilized by a serious conundrum. Western governments are drowning in massive debt that was exacerbated by the global financial crisis. And to solve their problems they’ve had no choice but to rely on the PRC leadership’s good graces. In that environment of inescapable dependency Hu Jintao and his ilk brazenly and enthusiastically engaged in WTO violating trade practices, currency manipulation, did nothing substantive to halt spying, military and corporate espionage and curb trade secret and intellectual property theft – all driven by a militaristic prediction that over the coming decades the world will eventually succumb to what the Soviets sought to spread.
The search for and exploitation of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in democracy and capitalism was assisted by the PRC’s secret relationship with Canada’s elite. The door to the vault of this knowledge was swung wide open beginning in the late 1970s; and by the end of the ‘90s not only did the Chinese possess the kind of intel necessary to begin insidiously undermining that which keeps democratic states strong, they had the key to consciousness itself. The successful R&D of stealth cognition technologies provided a hitherto untapped resource with which to engage the enemy. It created a kind of new arms race – one that caught the West off-guard and which scrambled to build defences against. What hampered that progress was this capital dependency on China; and that weakness has been exploited at every opportunity.
A microscope of critical observation has been laser beam focused on those who govern the most populace and capitalistically dynamic nation on Earth to determine what they’re up to and what they’re planning. Being the next and only elite on a trajectory to achieve a kind of military and economic superpower status that will rival the United States, it is of the utmost in terms of national security importance that everything there is to know is known about the leadership’s abilities and ambitions. What’s been seen is as unsettling as the day the Soviet’s got the A-bomb and moved nuclear missiles to Cuba. Instead of wanting to be welcome and highly respected members of the international community that pursue peace, security and prosperity, the Chinese and their Canadian collaborators forged ahead to fully develop and operationalize their Pandora’s Box capabilities. Their refusal over a half decade to stand down this unlawfulness and threat galvanized even more the world’s movers and shakers in politics, the military, the financial community and other factions of western society.
The most recent evidence that everything possible must continue being done to prevent the China-Canada military alliance from expanding its global sphere of control and influence is how Beijing reacted to the Nobel Committee’s choice for the 2010 Peace Prize. In the last twenty-one years the Chinese elite was denounced for its non-modern conduct three times and in the last three years twice. In 1989 the Dalai Lama received the Nobel Prize. In 2007 in the diplomatic back-channel the Canadian lawyer was awarded the world’s most prestigious honor; and in 2010 Liu Xiaobo.
China livid as dissident Liu wins Nobel Peace Prize
by Wojciech Moskwa and Ben Blanchard
Reuters
October 8, 2010
OSLO/BEIJING - Jailed Chinese democracy activist Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for two decades of non-violent struggle for human rights, infuriating China, which called the award "an obscenity".
The prize shines a spotlight on human rights in China at a time when it is starting to play a leading role on the global stage as a result of its growing economic might.
[…]
China, which had warned against giving the prize to Liu, summoned Norway's ambassador to protest. "This is an obscenity against the peace prize," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said in a statement.
Jailed Chinese Dissident Wins Nobel Peace Prize
by RFE/RL
globalsecurity.org
October 8, 2010
[...]
In his statement in Oslo, Nobel Committee Chairman Jagland said Liu has argued his sentence violates China's constitution and fundamental human rights. The verdict, handed down in December 2009, received international condemnation.
Gregory May, an official with the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, criticized the sentence in a statement to journalists just after the verdict.
"The United States government is deeply concerned by the sentence of 11 years in prison announced today in the case of prominent Chinese democracy activist Liu Xiaobo, under the charge of inciting subversion of state power," May said. "Persecution of individuals for the peaceful expression of political views is inconsistent with internationally recognized norms of human rights. Mr. Liu has peacefully worked for establishment of democratic processes in China."
[...]
"Article 35 of China's Constitution […says] 'Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration'.
In the days that followed, these reports:
China's global quarrels
by Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk
October 11, 2010
[…]
China's furious reaction to the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to the prominent dissident Liu Xiaobo underscored the cultural disconnect. It also smacked of injured pride and insecurity. China Daily said the award was "part of the plot to contain China" and amounted to gross interference in its internal affairs. "It can do little except … highlight the deep and wide ideological rift between this country and the west," it said.
The angry stand-off between American and Chinese negotiators at the latest climate change talks also reflected a fundamental difference of approach. As with the diverging views of human rights dramatised by Liu's award, Beijing firmly defended its "right" to pursue its own developmental path…
Beijing Says Nobel Committee Disrespects China's Judicial System
by Stephanie Ho
Voice of America
October 12, 2010
[…]
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu criticized the Nobel Committee for awarding this year's Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo [… and] says the … decision to present the Peace Prize to a Chinese convict shows no respect for the Chinese judicial system.
Nobel Institute director: Hold Chinese leaders accountable to their own constitution
Deutsche Welle
October 11, 2010
[...]
[T]here are certain international treaties and there are clauses even in the Chinese constitution – I am referring to article 35 and 41 in particular – where the Chinese government itself addresses the importance of human rights. And at a time when China has become so important in international affairs, I think these Chinese leaders should expect to be held accountable to the treaties they have signed or ratified and to the relevant clauses in their own constitution.
It’s no coincidence that PRC and Canadian leaders don’t follow their respective constitutions or laws. Seriously problematic is the two groups that married each other in the late 1970s proliferating that approach to the rule of law and human rights around the world.
Worthy of note is the China Daily remark that the West is interfering in the country’s internal affairs by awarding this honor to a convicted dissident. This mirrors what was said on the matter four years ago. On June 6, 2006 the Chinese government stated on its official website it “resolutely opposes interference in its internal affairs”. It’s the height of hypocrisy to say so given the PRC leadership has been secretly joint governing Canada since the late 1970s. And who can forget what happened in the spring of 2009:
Dalai Lama banned to placate China, S Africa admits
ABC News (Australia)
March 26, 2009
The South African Government has admitted it barred the Dalai Lama from attending a peace conference in the country to avoid undermining relations with China.
The Tibetan spiritual leader was due to attend the anti-racism conference in South Africa last Friday.
The Government originally denied it was pressured by China to refuse him entry, but today a spokesman said it was decided South Africa's interests would be better served if it gave priority to making sure bilateral relations with China were not compromised.
How did the Chinada malfeasant react to the authorship of the Nobel Prize and this supplemental? They took their anger out on the Custodian Chief as documented in What Ought to Inform the ICC Review: How the PRC Leadership Reacted to the Nobel Prize Being Awarded to an Imprisoned Democracy Advocate and when it was about to be uploaded they sabotaged the Internet connection to prevent access to the server. While the Custodian Chief could access his hotmail account, YouTube and other sites, he couldn’t get on to the Yola website that hosts the coalition archive.
It happened again the next day twice after preparing an addition to the originally uploaded chapter. The documentation of this news report triggered violations of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Nobel 'encourages crime', says China
by Michael Sainsbury and Zhang Yufei
The Australian
October 15, 2010
China last night denounced the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to dissident Liu Xiaobo as tantamount to "encouraging crime". Chinese state media said the prize was part of a Western "ideological war" against Beijing.
The second time cyber-sabotage was employed he got into the website but was prevented from accessing the web page for adding the news report. Access was stalled here:
This unlawfulness falls into the same category of arrogant belligerence and guilty conscience evidence that is documented in Chinada’s Pubescent Sociopaths Easily Provoked Into Revealing Just How Advanced Their Remote Computer Sabotage Has Become and the RCC’s posting June 26, 2010: Cyber-Sabotage Continues to Plague RCC Reform and Accountability Initiative, RCC News.
With Canada enjoying an undeserved reputation throughout the world as an enviable democracy and China the world’s banker and exploiting that dependency for all its militarily and imperialistically worth, the United States government and many public sector coalition partners are in significant measure hog-tied from aggressively addressing the Chinada threat. Like awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, an ICC prosecution is a way to guarantee that the gains made by democracy and human rights in the 20th century are not jeopardized.
