Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am particularly pleased to join with my friend and colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports in supporting this very important private member’s motion which is currently before the House. This motion congratulates Mr Liu Xiaobo on being awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize and then notes that he was awarded that prize for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. It also highlights the fact that in 2009 Mr Liu was tried for inciting subversion of state power and on Christmas Day last year was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment and two years deprivation of political rights. He was tried in the context of his advocacy for the petition known as Charter 08, which was initially signed by 350 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists. Charter 08 calls for 19 changes to improve human rights in China, including an independent legal system, freedom of association and the elimination of one-party rule. The motion also calls for Mr Liu to be released and to have his sentence repealed and supports the right of Chinese citizens to call for political reform, greater protection of human rights and democratisation in their country.

In 2010 China seeks to be a good international citizen. Clearly, it is making economic progress that would make the rest of the world somewhat envious, and yet associated with this new economic power is a responsibility—a responsibility to be a good world citizen. In 2010 we expect that good world citizens observe certain fundamental human rights. The fact that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Mr Liu is an objective recognition that this person is someone who really is an icon, who ought to be put on a pedestal, who ought to be respected by the whole world whether or not one necessarily agrees with all of the stances that he has taken in relation to all issues.

If China is seeking to be good international citizen and not an international thug of the first order then it ought to recognise that even though the Chinese totalitarian, dictatorial, oppressive government does not agree with Mr Liu at least Mr Liu represents a strain of thought—possibly even a majority strain of thought—even in communist China itself, which says that in 2010 the communist Chinese have to do better than they have previously. Just because someone lives in mainland China, that does not mean that a person has no rights. Just because a person happens to possess citizenship of the People’s Republic of China, that does not mean that that person is a less worthy individual than another person who enjoys citizenship of another country. Just because someone happens to be of Chinese ethnicity living within the Chinese mainland, that does not mean that that person forfeits his or her fundamental rights as a citizen or as a human being.

I think that the Chinese set their cause back a thousand years every time they take the kind of mindless, unacceptable, antidemocratic, authoritarian, disgusting approach that they have taken to Mr Liu. Mr Liu is not going to be allowed, either himself or by proxy, to accept the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. I think that all honourable members and, I believe, most citizens of most countries in the world would see that the Chinese have once again overstepped the mark.

We see that with respect to Taiwan. They are denying that country’s democracy and they are denying the fact that Taiwan has a vigorous parliamentary system which is the envy of many countries in Asia. We also know that China denies the right of free determination to the Tibetan people. Tibet is a country under occupation. In 1949, Tibet was invaded by the Chinese communists and is, in fact, occupied. A system of cultural genocide is going on in Tibet. The aim of the Chinese government is to make Tibetans a minority in their own land. The Chinese government will not negotiate with His Holiness the Dalai Lama with respect to human rights or with respect to the preservation of Tibetan culture, Tibetan language or the Tibetan ethos in that country.

So China has very few runs on the board. China is being thuggish with respect to the Taiwanese and it is being thuggish with respect to the Tibetans. But one would think that, in mainland China itself, it would respect a person like Mr Liu Xiaobo, who has been recognised as a person worthy of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. His Holiness the Dalai Lama was a previous recipient of that prize. Many other people who are perceived as icons and role models for the world have been awarded this prize. It is not something that people seek to receive, but it is an objective recognition of the quality of a person’s contribution to human rights.

Mr Liu was awarded that prize, so what are the Chinese doing? The Chinese are continuing to lock him up, the Chinese have arrested Mr Liu’s wife and the Chinese are refusing to allow Mr Liu’s family to travel to receive the award on his behalf. Frankly, the Chinese are forfeiting any right or expectation they might have to be recognised as a civilised nation in the community of nations around the world.

The Chinese are, I think, appalling in their approach to Mr Liu, they are appalling in their approach to the Dalai Lama and they are appalling in their approach to the Taiwanese. The Chinese deny basic human rights to ordinary, decent people who reside within their borders. Even if Mr Liu has breached the laws of China as perceived by the government of communist China then, once he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, why will the Chinese authorities not allow him to travel to receive that prize? If the Chinese had nothing to hide, they would say that they disagree with Mr Liu Xiaobo, they would say that they were appalled by his stand in China, they would say that they disagree with the points that he asserts and they would say that the action he has taken against the Chinese dictatorship is quite inappropriate, but—if they were a country open to criticism, the way most other countries in the world are open to criticism—they would cop it on the chin. They would say that they disagree with Mr Liu Xiaobo but that they respect his right to articulate a position which is different from theirs.

Is that the approach of the Chinese communists? No. Are they interested in human rights? No. Are they interested in bringing their minorities into the mainstream? No. Are they interested in economic achievement by people who do not support the regime? No. Are they interested in encouraging freedom of expression for people who might not agree with what the government is saying? No.

In conclusion, I reiterate that Mr Liu Xiaobo has been locked up because he disagrees with an oppressive, dictatorial, authoritarian regime—a regime which has no right to exist in 2010. If the Chinese authorities had any legitimacy at all, they would not be locking up Mr Liu Xiaobo and they would not be preventing him from going to receive his Nobel Peace Price. Instead, they would be saying, ‘We disagree with this man but we respect his right to differ.’ It is a tragedy. The Chinese stand condemned and I ask them to reconsider their appalling conduct.

See this speech in context