A Chinese martyr – LIU XIAOBO
Liu Xiaobo had only one weapon, words. And after all that could be learned about him, he would never have seen a weapon in the Word, even in the most powerful word.
For he was an almost superhuman-looking way of life. One who, as far as we know, never lost his composure. He did not want to hate and could not hate. He, cruel and, above all, relentlessly persecuted by the Chinese judiciary, who had been surrounded by priests and persecutors for decades, said: “I have no enemies.”
Liu Xiaobo was of a gentleness almost reminiscent of the gentleness of Jesus Christ. On Thursday he, one of about 1.4 billion Chinese, succumbed to his liver cancer in a hospital sealed by the military. It is not to be expected that the world public will ever know how and why he fell ill, how the illness went, and how he died.
He was a Chinese citizen who wanted to be an individual, he was an individual. He believed that there is a moral compass that every person can follow if he wants.
The barbaric “cultural revolution”, which had nothing to do with culture, was the defining experience of the writer and literary scholar. This should never be again, everything must be done to prevent such a state-driven act of violence forever.
A kingdom in which the individual counts, nothing!
The maddening years had not only shown that China’s party was ready and capable of extreme violence, they had also shown the potential violence in the Chinese people. Liu Xiaobo followed a principle which has no tradition and is not rooted in China: the principle that one must always proceed from the individual and the necessity of his integrity.
To do this consistently in an empire in which the individual traditionally literally counts nothing, was obviously a provocative unbearable for the regime. It would not have feared the peaceful reformer, but the reversal of the party values, which Liu theoretically undertook, could in no case be accepted. This is the only way to explain the cold revenge with which this man of the word has been harassed and humiliated into his death.
The absurdity is that he was not exactly what the judiciary and the government were accusing him of. He was no revolutionary, no revolt. On the contrary, he was an evolutionary and an intermediary. When the student unrest of 1989 announced, he returned immediately from a study stay in the US to join the protest movement for freedom of expression and democracy.
Giggling, as if Merkel had said something obscene
But not to tip them, but to find peaceful ways. The moment he announced that the military would storm Tiananmen Square in Beijing, he and his associates deprived a large number of demonstrators to withdraw. He hinged that more people were killed.
A few years ago, Chancellor Angela Merkel attended the Party College of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. In a discussion with the cadre students gathered there, she explained in simple terms why, in her opinion, a multi-party system was better suited than a one-party system to solve complicated future problems: since no one could be the truth, the competition between different political ideas was better Way as the dictation of a single party.
The students reacted giggling and whispering almost as if the Chancellor had said something obscene. At least it was a provocation. It was, of course, also a great provocation, which Liu Xiaobo and his 300 colleagues in 2008 demanded in their “Charter 08”, as if it were the most self-evident in the world: free elections, division of powers and – entirely against China’s centralist Reichsidee – the introduction of federal structures.
Human rights in China absurd?
The Western friends of the People’s Republic of China would like to point out the completely different cultural traditions of China, which this Western thought would never fit. The former Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who is to stand here for many, has gladly expressed his contempt for the absurd notion in his eyes that one can come to the Chinese with human rights.
Liu Xiaobo, as an almost exemplary dissident in China, was actually very isolated and lonely. However, he and his friends have managed to find more than 5000 signatories for the “Charter 08”. When Liu was arrested, his wife was put under house arrest without charge, family way.
If you believe that democracy, division of powers, and human rights are valuable achievements, then you should not relativize them because there are places in the world where all that counts. Sure, in China there are many traditions against Western values. But their seed – that is the universal thing about them – can rise everywhere. Liu Xiaobo has contributed to this. As peaceful as he was, he was a fighter. Nothing could be removed from his way. This has brought him the blame that he was inflexible, a stubborn head and a maximumist.
Better a bad government than chaos of anarchy
That this is not the case is proved by a sentence from the speech which he could not hold in 2010 when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he was already in prison. “China’s political reform should be gradual, peaceful, orderly and controlled. The order of a bad government is better than the chaos of anarchy. “Anyone who says this knows what is at stake in autocratic China.
All that is under heaven: With this sentence, China was described in the imperial tradition. In other words, that China is all that it is the center of the world. This thought of choice, which is nevertheless always endangered and therefore defended against external as well as internal enemies, has been tough in China. Whether emperors or KP officials rule, there is no difference.
One should not put too much emphasis on the propaganda tapes of the centuries-old cultic China. This culture is certain, their testimonies are impressive. But China has never succeeded in helping the individual to his right. Taking him seriously. Respecting him with respect. The cold hardness, the feelinglessness, and the iron intransigence with which the regime has departed with the peaceful Liu Xiaobo may have been a calculated power demonstration.
A Street in Washington was named into Liu.
It also reveals the wretchedness of the Chinese nomenclature, which is hailed by many Western politicians and many more Western managers. China is called the People’s Republic. But it is a state in which the individuals from whom the people are composed have no value at all as individual men.
State policy must always be a realpolitik. From this point of view it is understandable that Germany can not surrender to China because of the one Liu Xiaobo. The least, however, would be that a street is named after him in the capital of the country into which Liu wanted to be fled – as happened in Washington in 2014. At that time, the road where China’s embassy was located in Washington was named after the imprisoned freedom fighter Liu Xiaobo.
Translated from Source