Freedom Fighters

A Nobel Prize for Hong Kong’s Democrats
By BARI WEISS

Leaders of the “Umbrella Movement” Nathan Law, left, and Joshua Wong, center, at a rally in Hong Kong on Wednesday. 

Here’s a suggestion for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which opens its nominating season next month: Look to the three young men who earlier today became Hong Kong’s first prisoners of conscience.
In 2014, the courageous trio helped lead what become known as the Umbrella Movement — an enormous political protest defending Hong Kong’s freedoms from an increasingly aggressive Beijing. Like Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi and so many dissidents that came before them, the men were hit with a bogus charge (“unlawful assembly”), were found guilty and served out their punishments last year.
But today, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice decided that those penalties were too lenient.
Joshua Wong, who burst onto the city’s political scene at 14 years old and is the public face of its democracy movement, was sentenced to six months. 

Nathan Law and Alex Chow were sentenced to seven and eight months, respectively. 

All three had budding political careers, but these new sentences bar them from running for public office for the next five years.
As Mr. Wong put it to a reporter from The New York Times before his sentencing: “The government wanted to stop us from running in elections and directly suppress our movement.” 

He added: “There’s no longer rule of law in Hong Kong. It’s rule by law.” 

Just so.
The implications of their imprisonment are monumental. 

Since Britain handed over jurisdiction of its former colony to China 20 years ago, the city has operated under the notion of “one country, two systems.” 

That increasingly appears to be an empty slogan. 

“The outcome isn’t just a travesty for these three peaceful pro-democracy activists or free speech — it’s also a painfully clear sign that Beijing’s political dictates are eating away at Hong Kong’s judiciary, an institution essential to the territory’s autonomy,” Sophie Richardson, the China director of Human Rights Watch, told me.
Derek Lam, Mr. Wong’s best friend and a key activist in the movement, put it even more bluntly in a call from Hong Kong: “The court of Hong Kong is a slave of the Chinese government.” 

He added: “The judge doesn’t acknowledge that democracy, freedom and human rights are the reasons Joshua is doing this. He just kept insisting that they were inciting violence.”

Mr. Lam, who aspires to become a pastor, could soon be accused of the same: Next month he faces sentencing for his role in a 2016 protest.

“I am heartbroken. All my friends went to jail today. I might join them next month,” he told me. 

“But we will never regret what we have done. What we are doing is correct. It is the truth. And we will persist.” 

That relentless spirit was echoed by Mr. Law, Mr. Chow and Mr. Wong today. 

As Mr. Wong, just 20 years old, put it on Twitter before he was jailed: “You can lock up our bodies, but not our minds! We want democracy in Hong Kong. And we will not give up.”
The battle these young people are waging is far bigger than their futures — or even than Hong Kong itself. 

They are among some of the most prominent leaders pushing an authoritarian China to honor its international and political commitments. 

Can a handful of Davids hold a Goliath to account? 

The imprimatur of a Nobel Prize would help.

The EU must stand up to China

The scandalous treatment of Nobel prizewinner Liu Xiaobo means Europe has to challenge Xi Jinping over human rights at next week’s G20 summit
By Natalie Nougayrède

A pro-democracy protest in support of Liu Xiaobo and other jailed activists, in Hong Kong yesterday. ‘Who will cry out Liu’s name in Hamburg?’ 

Next week Donald Trump and Xi Jinping travel to Europe for a G20 summit in Hamburg. 

Who do you think will attract the most protests? 

Very probably Trump. 

But what about attitudes towards the Chinese leader, whose regime is currently preventing the Nobel peace prize winner Liu Xiaobo from travelling freely to receive cancer treatment in a place of his choice? 

Surely this scandal warrants a strong reaction.
Yet Liu’s oppressors are counting on silence. 

Hamburg is a unique occasion to try to help an iconic dissident and, more than that, to push back against autocracy and defend universal values. 

Will this happen? 

Will the protesters readying themselves to descend on the city also carry “Free Liu!” banners?
Like Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov in their time, Liu is a symbol of the struggle for dignity and human rights across the world, not just in his own country. 

His bravery is indisputable, his cause is universal, and his plight is scandalous.
His illness was recently revealed. 

He is dying, and he is kept under duress. 

His friends say he wants to travel outside China with his wife. 

The Chinese leadership has so far refused the request. It treats him as a criminal. In short, it is intent on making everyone forget about Liu. 

That’s how dictatorships operate.
So who will cry out Liu’s name in Hamburg? 

Alongside the anarchists and radical leftwing activists, hardline militants are promising to create a “hell” of demonstrations. 

There’s hardly any sign they have Liu in mind. 

More importantly, Europe’s leaders should be preparing to speak with one voice on upholding a rules-based global order: will they include UN human rights conventions in that?
Angela Merkel, the host of a summit being held in the city of her birth, has made it plain that confronting Trump on climate change, trade and multilateralism are her priorities. 

“If you believe you can solve the problems of this world with isolationism and protectionism you are very wrong,” she’s warned. 

She’s laid out the question that stands before Europe: “What role will the continent play in the years to come?” 

Note: she hasn’t said much about dealing with Xi on human rights.

Liu Xiaobo (left) is fed to by his wife, Liu Xia, in a hospital in China. Last month he was diagnosed with liver cancer, and his request to travel abroad for treatment has been denied. 

It’s easy to ascribe this to the cynicism that comes with protecting business interests: China is an important economic partner for Germany, and its political leverage increases with every investment or buy-up it secures in other European countries too. 

Witness Greece vetoing an EU condemnation of China’s human rights record at the UN in June.
But a larger diplomatic factor is in play: China has positioned itself as a power that might help Europe counter Trump’s views on climate and trade, and is fast capitalising on Europe’s need for its cooperation – as Xi’s performance in Davos, to loud applause, illustrated.
Here’s the crux, however: Europe feels on the up these days, and wants to show it is more confident. Its leaders insist that, with Trump in the White House, there is a growing need to be steadfast on one of the EU’s key principles: an open world where individual rights and international norms are protected, not threatened.
Citizens want that too. 

The supporters of autocrats such as Vladimir Putin – Xi’s international ally – have, after all, hardly come out victorious in recent elections across the continent. 

Against that backdrop, surely Liu’s case is one on which Europe’s voice must be heard much more clearly and combatively.
Liu’s tragedy is not just about one man – nor is it something Europe should minimise. 

Liu was imprisoned for penning Charter 08, a political manifesto calling for basic freedoms in China that was inspired by the history of eastern European dissidents in the communist bloc. 

Its particular reference was to Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77, with Václav Havel at its helm. 

He went on to become president of his country in 1990, and in many ways acted as a moral voice in Europe.
At a time of democratic backsliding in eastern Europe, a wholehearted defence of Liu would help cement the EU’s commitment to its values, and demonstrate an awareness of what courage can do in politics. 

The “power of the powerless” (to quote the title of one of Havel’s memorable texts) is what Liu symbolises.
Memories of this part of Europe’s history should be rekindled – they carry urgent messages for today. And there is another special European responsibility here: like Liu, the EU was awarded the Nobel peace prize (in 2012), in recognition of six decades of work in promoting “peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights”.

Fifth column: Greece blocks EU's criticism at UN of China's human rights record

Sadly, as Liu’s fate hangs in the balance there has been only a modest level of support for him in official EU statements. 

France, it is true, has indicated it would be ready to welcome him. 

European diplomats in Beijing are said to be closely following Liu’s situation. 

But as worthy as these steps may be, they fall short of expressly – and officially – addressing the significance of what is at stake. 

Liu’s battles should rank alongside those of other globally applauded emblems of nonviolent resistance to oppression, such as Martin Luther King or Aung San Suu Kyi.
Xi is coming to Europe and will appear before the world’s cameras at the first Trump-era G20. 

Now is the time for Europeans who care about the world they want to live in to show some solidarity on human rights – not just on climate and trade. 

Now is the time for some naming and shaming. 

If the Chinese leader gets through this summit without any pressure over Liu’s full freedom, the illiberal state model he promotes will only be strengthened. 

No one would stand to gain.
Targeting Trump in Hamburg is understandable, but we can confidently hope America’s democratic system will one day get the better of him. 

There are no such checks and balances in China, as Hong Kong dissidents well know. 

Chinese human rights activists have only their courage to count on, and the hope that the outside world, its citizens and its democratic governments, will somehow show support.
If you’re getting ready to protest in Hamburg, think about Liu Xiaobo. 

This is the time and place to act: to show you care about one man’s brave struggle against a regime’s impunity. 

It wouldn’t be about “western imperialism”: it would be about people power. 

Remember the man who in 1989 stood in front of a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square. 

Liu is like that man.

The Quiet Death of 'Liu Xiaobo Plaza'

Just as China has one party, the United States has one party, when it comes to policy toward China: Whatever you do, do not annoy the CCP.
By Jay Nordlinger

Readers of National Review are well aware of “Liu Xiaobo Plaza.” 
We have editorialized in favor of it, and I have written about it from time to time. 
A bill has passed the Senate. 
It has apparently been killed by the House — the Republican House. 
Worse, it has been killed in silence, without explanation. 
Let me back up. 
Liu Xiaobo is a Chinese intellectual, democracy activist, and political prisoner. He has been imprisoned since 2008. Two years later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (in absentia, of course). 
I wrote about this here. 
Liu’s wife, Liu Xia, has been under house arrest for all this time: a brutal form of house arrest. She has no access to the outside world. No television or Internet. 
Guards make sure she is locked in, day and night. 
According to reports, she is in bad physical and mental shape. 
In the mid-1980s, Congress, with President Reagan, did something symbolic: They renamed the area outside the Soviet embassy in Washington “Andrei Sakharov Plaza” — in honor of the great Russian scientist and dissident (who was also a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize). 
Taking a page from the anti-Communists and freedom champions of that era, Senator Ted Cruz and others proposed “Liu Xiaobo Plaza” — an area outside the Chinese embassy named after one of the dictatorship’s most prominent political prisoners, and one of the greatest men in all of China. 
The Senate passed the bill, by unanimous consent, in February. 
Since then, it has gone to the House — to the committee chaired by Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), as I understand it. 
He has refused to move on the bill. 
The speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has refused to move as well. 
Chaffetz, I don’t know much about. It seems to me he had about 17 positions on Donald Trump during the recent campaign. 
Ryan, I do know something about: and he has long been a freedom champion. 
A Reaganite. An old-style Republican. 
In the vice-presidential debate four years ago, he ripped Joe Biden six ways to Sunday on this question of freedom. 
The Obama administration had betrayed our values, he said. 
This was particularly true in Iran, whose Green Revolution was essentially ignored by Obama, Biden & Co. 
Jared Genser is a well-known human-rights lawyer. 
He represents both Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia (pro bono). About two weeks ago, he had an article in the Wall Street Journal, urging Ryan to act. 
There has been no sign of action. 
Why? 
To my knowledge, neither Ryan nor Jason Chaffetz nor anybody else has offered a word of explanation. 
That is their right, I suppose. 
Even public officials can keep mum, if they want. 
But I think they owe the public an answer. 
I think the public — or somebody — should demand an answer. 
President Obama would no doubt veto a Liu bill. 
So? 
Is the House GOP’s view the same as Obama’s? 
So far as I know, the 2009 Nobel peace laureate (Obama) has never lifted a finger for the 2010 Nobel peace laureate (Liu). 
For decades now, I have said that, just as China has one party, the United States has one party, when it comes to policy toward China: Whatever you do, do not annoy the CCP. 
There are some honorable exceptions to this rule — George W. Bush appeared in public with the Dalai Lama — but not enough. 
My guess is, Republican donors don’t like the idea of “Liu Xiaobo Plaza,” because they want commercial relations with China. 
They fear that honoring a dissident will endanger commercial relations. 
I doubt this is so. 
The Free World has more leverage than it knows. 
I should say, too, that I’m all for commercial relations. 
In fact, I’m more for them than are most. 
But there are other considerations in life, such as standing up to a one-party dictatorship with a gulag. 
Standing up for the values and principles that constitute our heritage — that constitute our very reason for being. 
Evidently, “Liu Xiaobo Plaza” is dead in this session of Congress — killed by the House Republicans. 
If it is to come to pass, it must be revived in a future session: starting from square one. 
I hope that Speaker Ryan will have a change of mind. 
And that President Trump will sign the bill. 
Human rights are not all of foreign policy, heaven knows. But they are a component. 
And Americans are a peculiar nation, a peculiar people — not like all the others. 
Freedom has few enough friends as it is. 
If it loses us, it barely stands a chance.

How Congress Can Help a Chinese Dissident

Honor Liu Xiaobo—a Nobel winner—with a street sign in front of China’s Embassy.
By JARED GENSER

In the waning days of the current Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan has an opportunity to send a message to Beijing about the value Americans place on human rights. 

He can bring to the floor for a vote a bill adopted unanimously in the Senate to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy for Liu Xiaobo, China’s jailed Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Mr. Liu was arrested in December 2008 after penning a series of essays and participating in the drafting of a pro-democracy manifesto known as Charter 08. 

The government held him in solitary confinement without charge or access to legal counsel before ultimately sentencing him to 11 years in prison for “inciting subversion.”

The dissident in April 2008.

Shortly after Mr. Liu won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, his wife, Liu Xia, was placed under house arrest. 

She has been held in her apartment in Beijing without charge or trial for more than five years. 

A guard is posted outside her door 24 hours a day.
When Chinese dissidents organize and challenge the one-party system, Beijing responds with an iron fist, imprisoning and torturing those who dare to speak out. 

Chinese authorities highlight Liu Xiaobo’s case to many of these troublemakers, pointing out that the world won’t help even Nobelist Liu Xiaobo.
Obama has raised Mr. Liu’s case publicly just twice. 

But neither he nor anyone from the White House has publicly mentioned Liu Xia’s name let alone challenged China’s claim that she is free. 

If Obama has made any private efforts on behalf of the Lius, they have had no discernible effect.
In February the Senate adopted a bill to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy. 

This legislation followed the bipartisan tradition of a bill adopted by Congress in 1984 and signed into law by President Reagan renaming the street in front of the Soviet Embassy for dissident Andrei Sakharov, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975.
Speaking after the Senate action, State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner indicated that the president would veto the bill if it reaches his desk. 

“We view this kind of legislative action as something that only complicates our efforts, so we oppose this approach,” he said.
Meanwhile, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, agrees with the administration and is blocking the bill from being considered in his committee. 

Speaker Ryan has the authority to move the bill to an immediate vote on the House floor, where it would likely pass by a bipartisan, veto-proof majority.
Surely the United States should celebrate the courage of individuals who stand up to authoritarian regimes. 

If Obama wants to veto this bill and stand with China against his fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, then let that be his legacy on human rights.