Archive for ‘Alternative Nobel Peace Prize’

Sunday, October 11, 2015

This Week (1): If you are Chinese today, can you win a Nobel Peace Prize?

… and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Alfred Nobel, 1895, defining the scope of the Nobel Peace Prize


A book  – What Nobel really wanted – was

the elephant in the room that official Norway – politicians, most media, academics – are adamant not to see,

Fredrik S. Heffermehl, a humanist and lawyer, wrote in 2010. His campaign probably gained traction in 2010, given that the 2010 winner of the Prize was Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who reportedly, to this day, this day remains in custody, either in prison, or in a labor camp, and given that China’s authorities have taken a great interest in anything that helps to question the legitimacy of the prize. The book became available in Chinese in 2011, published by the Foreign Languages Press in Beijing.

Publicity helps – even if it comes from a totalitarian regime. When European institutions become unable to perform their acutal duties, any help should be welcome, CCP support included. But it’s a fine line, and a reasonable citizen should try to weigh and understand the factors in power games as carefully and comprehensively as he can.

Kristian Harpviken, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) (and not directly associated with the committee itself) made a pretty candid statement in an al-Jazeera discussion published on youtube last Wednesday, highlighting Beijing’s influence in Norwegian politics and on the Nobel Committee’s decisions.

Moderator: Do you think if you are Chinese today, you have a chance of winning a Nobel Peace Prize?

Harpviken: Yes, but I think there is one thing that [not readable] against any non-Chinese candidacy at the moment, and that is that the 2010 prize to Liu Xiaobo was so deeply contested by the Chinese government that for the Nobel committee, it is virtually unthinkable to give a prize that would be consistent with the government’s plans and politics, but it is equally inconceivable to give a prize to another dissident in this particular situation …

[Remaining answer unreadable, as it was cut short by moderator]

That, and what follows in a European context, makes it clear that the image of an independent committee, carrying out Alfred Nobel‘s will, is a pretty shaky and highly theoretical concept.

But a list of alternative Nobel Peace laureates, as published by the Nobel Peace Prize Watch, looks no less shaky. For one, it mainly lauds activists who target Western militarism or Western secrecy. The real world isn’t quite that uni-polar.

And there’s another problem. The list explained by its authors, at the bottom of the page, and along with several entries:

Above is the list – based on extensive research – of those who are nominated AND qualified, 
either 1) by direct work for the global disarmament plan Nobel had in mind, or (under a wide understanding of the purpose of Nobel)
 2) by peace work with high utility and relevance to realizing the “fraternity of (disarmed) nations,” or
 3) by new ideas and research, developing new methods for civilized, non-violent interrelation between peoples that enables a demilitarization of international relations.

Heffermehl’s point – as I understand it – has so far been that the committee deviates from Alfred Nobel’s will. But then, someone who wants to provide an alternative to the current committee’s practice, should interpret Nobel closely, not with a wide understanding of the purpose of Nobel. Edward Snowden would be a particular case in point. The desire to support and encourage him is a good thing. But Snowden is hardly a pacifist, or a peace activist, if you go by this Guardian account of February 2014. Even if we take into account that Snowden, under huge US prosecution (or persecution, for that matter), can’t speak his mind openly enough to convey a full picture of his views and intentions, he should rather be in the alternative list’s waiting list for now.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. It’s either a choice in accordance with Nobel’s will, or it’s an interpretation. If it’s an interpretation, the acting Nobel committee can’t be as wrong as first reported.

Once again: trying to turn public attention to an elephant – even if already in the room – is a difficult undertaking, when deemed undesirable by the establishment. It is also a fine line in terms of ethical standards, and I’m beginning to believe that it is an impossible mission, if undertaken without compromising.

Besides, there’s a predicament any institution – and opposing movement – will face: a too narrow choice of candidates, (nearly) unknown to the public, may not achieve much publicity. But without publicity, even the most sincere political plans and objectives are doomed.

Even if biased, a public list of Nobel Peace Prize candidates as published by Heffermehl and Magnusson, that provides a platform for public debate about possible Nobel Peace Prize candidates, is a good step. One can only hope that – better sooner than later – the acting committee in Oslo will understand this, and follow the example.



» National Dialogue Quartet, BBC, Oct 9, 2015
» Appeasing China, May 1, 2014
» A Panda is no Polar Bear, June 6, 2012
» Liu Xiaobo, Dec 28, 2010


Sunday, February 12, 2012

17th Central Committee’s “Culture Document” – 11: Go Global, and no Porn!

« Previous leg of this translation: part 10, Linking the Cultural Industries to the National Economy

The following is a translation of the fifth chapter of the CCP Central Committee’s “cultural document”. For more background concerning the document, see that previous post.

Main Link:

7) Deepen Reform and Opening Further, Accelerate and Establish Systems which are Conducive to the Prosperous Development of Culture


Culture guides the mood of our times, and is the area most in need of innovation. We must firmly grasp the correct direction, accelerate the promotion of cultural mechanisms, built sound leadership by party committees, administrative management, industrial self-regulation, social supervision, enterprises, institutions and units (danwei) which operate in accordance with the law, based on cultural management systems and vigorous cultural production systems, bring positive market factors in to play in the process of cultural resource allocation, make culture get past [old] patterns, and add strong dynamic force to prosperous cultural development.


a) Deepen reform of state-owned cultural units. By focusing on establishing a system of modern enterprise, accelerate and promote the reform of operational cultural units, and foster mainframes in conformity with the market. Specify the cultural units’ characters and functions scientifically, distinguish between them, classify them, take a progressive approach, open them gradually, promote normal state-owned cultural ensembles and troupes, press products which are not about current affairs or politics, [ownership transformation of news websites (?) – 新闻网站转企改制], expand the fruits of publication, distribution, and the film industry’s reform, accelerate their transformation into companies and public limited companies, perfect corporate governance structures in line with modern enterprise system requirements, and reflecting the cultural enterprises’ characteristic assets and operations and management organization. Innovate the investment and financial systems, support state-owned cultural companies’ as they face the capital markets, and support them in attracting social capital, and in carrying out joint-stock transformation. Keep the attributes of public benefit in mind, strengthen the service functions, increase vital development, comprehensively promote cultural units’ human resources and income allocation, social insurance systems’ reform, clear service specifications and the strengthening of performance evaluation in mind. Innovate public cultural service facilities’ operational mechanisms, attract personalities who represent society, professionals, and apply grassroots participation and management. Promote the progressive perfection of party publications’, radio, and television management and operational mechanisms. Promote the application of entrepreneurial management at the units, such as normal current-affairs publishing houses, non-profit publishing houses, ensembles and troupes who represent national characteristics and the country’s artistic level, enhance exposure to the markets, and the ability to serve the masses.


b) A sound, modern culture market system. To promote cultural products and key elements floating reasonably all over the country, an orderly, modern market system for unified and open competition must be built. The focus must be on the development of books and other publications, digital audio and video products, performing arts and entertainment, television series, cartoons, animation, and [computer] games, and similar markets, for the further perfection of a comprehensive international Chinese platform on fairs and exhibitions, etc. Develop chain operation, commodity circulation and distribution, e-commerce and other modern organizations and forms, accelerate the building of large-scale distribution enterprises and logistical bases for cultural products, build distributional networks for cultural products that understand urban and rural needs, with the big cities as the centers, with small- and medium-sized cities complementing them. Accelerate the development of property rights [or ownership rights], copyright, and key markets like those for technology and information, carefully manage major exchange [markets] for cultural property rights, norms, and transactions of cultural assets and artistic works. Strengthen the trade’s organizational building, and build sound intermediary structures.


c) Innovate the cultural management system. Deepen reform of administrative and management systems, accelerate the transformation of government functions, strengthen the functions of policy adjustment, market supervision, social management, and public service, promote the separation of politics and enterprise, separation of politics and business, and provide a reasonable order to the relationship between government and cultural enterprises and units, through control and adjustment. Perfect personnel management, operational management, asset management and lead it into the direction of a combined management system of state-owned cultural assets [or – not sure about the correct translation here – a state-owned management system]. Build a sound and comprehensive administrative and law-enforcement structure for the culture market, and promote a sub-provincial and sub-city administration and responsibility mainstay. Accelerate cultural legislation, define and perfect the laws and regulations concerning the protection of public cultural services, the rejuvenation of the cultural industries, cultural market management, and increase the legal level of cultural construction. Adhere to the management and organizational system, implement principles of who is responsible, and who is in charge, strictly apply policies of cultural capital, cultural enterprise, access and non-access to the cultural product markets, comprehensively apply legal, administrative, economic and technological means to increase management efficiency. Deepen the implementation of “Brush pornography away, and crack down on illegal publications”, perfect cultural market management, firmly remove decadent cultural garbage which poisons the peoples’ minds, conscientiously build a market order which ensures national cultural safety.


d) Perfect security system policies policy guarantee mechanisms. Ensure that growth in public financing of cultural construction exceeds normal growth in public finance revenues, increase the share of cultural expenses in public spending. Expand the range of public financing, perfect financial input methods, strengthen fund management, increase the efficiency of funding used, and ensure cultural service systems’ construction and operation. Implement and improve cultural economic policies, support societal organizations, organizations, donations to and start-ups of non-profit cultural activities, guide non-profit organizations to provide public cultural products and services. [] Establish a national cultural development fund, expand the scale of related cultural funds and special funds, increase the share of all kinds of lottery-generated means for the funding of non-profit undertakings. Continue the use of coherent policies on the reform of the cultural system, and support the transformation of state-owned cultural units for another five years.


e) Promote the Chinese culture’s process of going global. Carry out foreign cultural exchange on multiple channels, in multiple forms, and on multiple levels, broaden participation in the global dialog of civilizations, promote learning from each other, strengthen the inspiration that comes from Chinese culture, and Chinese culture’s influence, for the joint safeguarding of cultural diversity. Innovate ways and means of propaganda abroad, strengthen [the right to speak ones opinion – or the right to dominate others through words: 增强国际话语权], react appropriately to foreign concerns, enhance the international community’s basic understanding of our country, its values, its path of development, understanding for and knowledge of its domestic and foreign policies, and let them discover the our country’s civilizational, democratic, open, and progressive image. Implement the project of our culture going global, improve and support the policies and implementation of cultural products and services going global, support major media organizations in setting up overseas branches, foster a number of external cultural enterprises and intermediary organizations which are globally competitive, improve dubbing, recommendation and introduction, advisory and similar support mechanisms, and gain access to international cultural markets. Strengthen Chinese overseas cultural centers and Confucius Institutes, encourage academia and artistic organization which reflect our country’s level to play a constructive role within relevant international organizations, and organize the translation of outstanding artistic works and cultural quality products. Build mechanisms for cultural exchange, combine governmental exchanges and non-governmental exchanges, bring into play the role of non-governmental cultural enterprise, cultural non-profit organizations in international cultural exchanges, and support overseas Chinese in actively launching sino-foreign cultural exchanges. Establish cultural exchange mechanisms for young foreigners, and establish an award for contributions to the international dissemination of Chinese culture.


f) Actively absorb and learn from outstanding foreign cultural achievements. Adhere to the principles of self-dependance, self-regardness, to learning from every experience that helps to strengthen the building of our country’s socialist construction, from all positive achievements that can enrich our people’s cultural life, from everything that is conducive to our country’s cultural activities, and to its cultural management concepts and mechanisms. Strengthen our country’s intellectual fields, its talents, and its acquisition of technology. Attract foreign investment into fields and enterprises that are designed for this by rules and regulations, and guarantee the investors’ lawful rights and interests.Encourage cultural units to enter cooperation projects with powerful foreign cultural institutions, learn from advanced production technolgies, and from advanced management experience. Encourage foreign-invested enterprises to carry out cultural-technological research and development, and develop outsourcing. Develop international cooperation in the protection of intellectual property rights.


To be continued.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

17th Central Committee’s “Culture Document” – 11: Go Global, and no Porn!

[This was posted on Sunday, but appears as a Saturday post. This mess, and that mess, are somehow linked to each other, mefeels – JR]

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Does Confucius matter outside Asia?

JR can’t promise that this will be the last time he’s coming back to the Confucius Peace Prize (孔子和平奖) – but he’ll try not to dwell on it merely for the fun it has been.

Collateral Damage: the Noble and his Prize

Collateral Damage: the Noble and his Prize

A prize should highlight outstanding achievements. That should be the objective. Before naming a prize after someone, a jury or the founders of a prize need to think of what a name stands for.

We’ll show the rest of the world how the Chinese understand peace, Tan Liuchang, chairman of the “Confucius Peace Prize Committee”, reportedly told the Global Times.

Should a Confucius Prize encourage “ethnic”, rather than universal values?

The Granite Studio, in a post of nine random thoughts, links to sort of an obituary on the bankruptcy of the neo-traditionalism that the CCP has to turn to time and time again as it struggles to find a narrative to legitimate its authorian rule. If you simply want to scold a bunch of brain-washed fools, there’s little to add to that, other than a note of doubt that the party leadership had really much to do with the prize – except that the “civil society” which produced it is – undeniably –  the CCP’s very own brainchild – a politically overengineered society.

But JR isn’t only here to have fun. He is here to make a small contribution to future Confucius Peace Prize deliberations, too – to help to deepen mutual understanding, and friendship between nations.

Laozi might have recommended purity free from all desire and all intentional action. Couldn’t a Confucius Peace Prize – from true civil society, that is – make sense after all?  In 2009, Wang Zhicheng (王志成), a Chinese scholar, wrote a review of how Chinese Confucians – and there are many ways of how you might define yourself Confucian – think of Confucian ways in China today, and in today’s global society. Confucianism and its revival, Wang wrote, require post-modern, critical reflection. Can Confucianism contribute to the further development of global values – and if so, how?

A translation of Prof. Wang’s review starts here. It’s far from perfect, and if you can read Chinese, the original post will serve you much better.

I can’t tell if the ideas are promising. But they do address Confucianism itself.



A Peace Prize for Katya and Maria, Asian Correspondent, Dec 10, 2011


Friday, December 10, 2010

Fuchai’s Vassals: Turning Gallbladders into Strength

“The West doesn’t understand China” is a frequent phrase in Chinese-Western arguments (and to a lesser extent in other Chinese-foreign arguments, too). The phrase is a wild card in ideological conflicts – it usually comes from Chinese officials,  established Chinese scholars, or members of the Chinese public who subscribe to this idea. It may come from non-Chinese sinologists who subscribe to the idea, too – after all, they see it as their job to explain China.

The way foreign academics who – seemingly or really – argue in favor of Beijing’s position on human rights are often referred to as “China experts” by China’s media would suggest that you only understand China once you understand that China did no harm, doesn’t do harm, won’t do harm, and, for the kindness of its nature, can’t do harm. When Chinese dissidents end up in jail, this can’t mean that the state inflicted injustice on them. It only means that now it is time to start seeking the convict’s faults, especially when the judges who handed down the sentence haven’t been specific in their verdict. When the verdict was vague, it must have been because the convict poses a mortal danger to the motherland. The degree of secrecy and intransparency applied in the process is a trustworthy indicator of the threat the convict poses to the motherland. And when the judiciary process is then criticized from abroad, that would seal the proof that there is a Western conspiracy behind the dissident’s ways.

China’s judiciary is in frequent need for wild cards, to close perceived gaps in the country’s laws – whenever such gaps work to the disadvantage of those in power. Not only the courts, but China’s rulers themselves, too, are in frequent need for wild cards. And what is sometimes referred to as China’s “civil society” – as if there could be a true nationwide public under a totalitarian regime – is in frequent need of wild cards, too. Probably one of the wildest cards China has produced this year is the Confucius Peace Prize, an alternative Chinese (Nobel) peace prize. The government itself has kept a genteel formal distance to the Confucius Peace Prize committee’s workings, but the civil society which, apparently in cooperation with the ministry of culture, produced the Prize is still its immediate public diplomacy product.

The Confucius Peace Prize is a PR disaster. And while our media do often make a mountain out of a molehill (after all, neither of the jury members seems to have a particularly high profile), this disaster deserves all the limelight it has gotten. It highlights what is wrong with the official Chinese reaction to Liu Xiaobo‘s Oslo award, and with much of the Chinese public’s reaction.

The Confucius Peace Prize sets out from the position that China can’t be – morally – wrong. And if she could be wrong in some details, she can’t be wrong at all any more once Western conspiracies back an outsider in China. The West, that’s a fairly general Chinese view, wants to exercise its remaining power to sabotage China’s peaceful rise. There can’t be another explanation, because it’s exactly what China would do herself, if she was in the West’s position. And strictly domestically speaking, an outsider in China is wrong by the very fact that he or she is an outsider.

The idea that the Nobel Peace Prize is an anti-Chinese conspiracy leaves the general Western admiration for outsiders out of the account. Can you think of large crowds of Chinese people expressing admiration for a man who provides – Chinese – officials with a platform to leak state secrets?

It’s no coincidence either that the Confucius Peace Prize went to Lien Chan, a man  the jury considers a Chinese national, and who may consider himself a Chinese national, too.

The jury wasn’t well-prepared for emerging publicly. They were certainly in a hurry. The Confucius Peace Prize couldn’t wait for another year. There was a sense of ideological competition at play, and a lot of anger.

The death blow the prize suffered didn’t come from the audience of press people who had the time of their life in Tan Changliu‘s comedian press conference. The spectacular and entertaining implosion was the prize’s built-in device. The prize does what nationalist Chinese hate most: it apes the West – it apes the Nobel Peace Prize. It apes the procedure, it apes Western-style public relations, and it apes what the Confucius Peace Prize believes are “the West’s ulterior motives” – trying to steal the  limelight from a competitor. The Confucius Peace Prize came – and had to come – just ahead of the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony. It will – most probably – be short-lived, because it failed to serve its purpose this time, and because next-year’s Nobel Peace Prize probably won’t require another flurry of Chinese “civil-society” activism.

I don’t think that Tan Changliu would be plain stupid. Rather, he was ideologically and morally blinded by his view that China can’t be wrong. That was the outset, and from there, it had to go wrong anyway.

But there is something that many people outside China indeed don’t understand about China. JR isn’t claiming that he has the full picture. But in discussions with Chinese fenqings, with not-so-fenqing Chinese people, and with foreign expats in China, it has dawned on him that the biggest problem is that China’s rulers feel that they can’t leave anything to chances. The process of reform and opening is an engineering process. Not only the process itself need to be engineered. The CCP’s totalitarian nature prescribes that every individual’s conscience needs to be engineered, too, to pretty much one universal blueprint.

The CCP has understood that its own ideological treasure chambers are poorer than its  Palace Museum, when compared to Taiwan’s National Palace Museum. It has reacted to that, in that they have accroached China’s history in general now, rather than continuing to discard most of what happened prior to 1949.

There may be arguments within the CCP leadership as to how China’s development should continue. But the current party line, as it manifests itself in its daily business of government, isn’t about human rights at all. To the CCP, the issue of individual liberties is a (revocable, if need be) modernization technicality, not a human rights issue. That’s why the law is deemed faulty, whenever it offers no convenient operating handle to silence shitlisted members of the Chinese “public”. It never seems to dawn on those who run the country, or on too many Chinese citizens, that these “gaps” are the law itself. It’s the nature of the law that it limits what the powerful can do to the relatively powerless.

Chinese officials sometimes sneer at foreign misgivings about a stronger China – even if the criticism is specific. Many decisions taken by Beijing which would be domestically indefensible otherwise, are successfully justified with making Chinese citizens feel afraid of the outside world, especially America, and possibly Europe, too. This creates an impression on many Chinese that there is no other option than – sometimes lawless – repression by those who themselves write the law. And that’s why fear and loathing is the only thing many Chinese can think of as Western motivations when Westerners are acting in an “unfriendly” way. And if non-Western foreigners act in such ways, a Western conspiracy (or some cultural imperialism) can’t be far behind it.

Jeremiah Jenne, in the Granite Studio, suggests that the best way Beijing could have reacted to the Norwegian award to Liu Xiaobo would have been

to say nothing and save a little dignity; simply release a statement that while they disagree with the decision, they respect the right of the Norwegians to award the prize to whomever makes their glands swell and hearts go pitter-patter…then put a bag over Liu Xiaοbο’s head and put him on the first flight to Newark.  Problem solved.

But I believe that he’s missing the point. Jenne is indeed guilty of not understanding China, or at least guilty of not understanding the workings of its dictatorship. Liu Xiaobo’s award came as unwelcome news to the CCP indeed, but China’s leaders are  actually making the best of it. They stokes nationalist feelings among the  population, and get many of the angry citizens to rally around the CCP.

Of course there would be other options, such as the one Jenne suggests. But they wouldn’t be equally useful for Beijing at this point in time – and every organization in China, from the eery “Confucius” prize jury to the propaganda department, tends to seize the opportunities of the moment now, rather than appyling more far-sighted strategies.

The Economist, a magazine which may or may not understand China, focuses on one story and two interpretations this week. The story is about Goujian, the King of Yue (越王勾踐). It’s an old story, and my first impression is that the Economist has recounted in a more colorful way than it is usually narrated, but the two interpretations are relevant, anyway. Goujian, the magazine says,

was taken prisoner after a disastrous campaign against King Fuchaio, his neighbour to the north. Goujian was put to work in the royal stables where he bore his captivity with such dignity that he gradually won Fuchai’s respect. After a few years Fuchai let him return home as his vassal.1)

Goujian, after his return home, slept on brushwood and hung a gall bladder in his room, licking it daily to feed his appetite for revenge – and succeeded in the end.

The unnamed author with the Economist cites two ways to read Goujian’s story. The first one:

The king who slept on brushwood and tasted gall2) is as familiar to Chinese as King Alfred and his cakes are to Britons, or George Washington and the cherry tree are to Americans. In the early 20th century he became a symbol of resistance against the treaty ports, foreign concessions and the years of colonial humiliation.1)

The second reading would be Paul Cohen‘s, who is quoted as saying that

students are told that if they want to succeed they must be like King Goujian, sleeping on brushwood and tasintg gall – that great accomplishments come only with sacrifice and unyielding purpose. This Goujian represents self-improvement and dedication, not revenge.1)

Currently, China’s leaders are operating both these interpretations. The question isn’t which one is in effect – it is which one is used to serve the accomplishment aimed at by the other.

That wouldn’t need to be China’s way. Watchfulness always makes sense. Paranoia doesn’t. When an overseas award to a citizen of an established nuclear power with a lot of economic success is deemed a threat there, something fundamental must be wrong with the nerves of that citizen’s country.  Archer Wang, apparently an ethnic Chinese student outside China, wrote some time ago:

I still remember a question on one of the numerous physics tests I took in a middle school in China. “How many people of Chinese descent have been awarded a Nobel Prize?”
I guessed four. The correct answer was six, all science prizes. Not one was still a Chinese citizen when the prize was awarded.
“Our nation’s future depends on you,” the teacher said. “No Chinese person has received the Nobel Prize while they were still Chinese.”
After years of hearing their government demonize the West and human rights, the vast majority of Chinese see these awards as the hostile gestures of foreign forces aimed at interfering in China’s internal affairs. Yet, like me, many Chinese regard the Nobel as the highest honor presented to an individual.
That is why the Chinese authorities have made such astounding efforts to conceal from the public news of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Liu Xiaobo, the first “Chinese” Chinese to receive a Nobel.

Liu Xiaobo was a member of the first group of students after restoration of the college entrance examination after the Cultural Revolution. Maybe he tasted gall, too. But then again, maybe he was a weird pervert who actually enjoyed his studies.

What’s for sure is that Beijing and those who subscribe to its condemnation of Liu Xiaobo deem this year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate one of  Fuchai’s willing vassals.



1) The Economist, December 4th, 2010, “A Special Report on China’s Place in the World”, page 3

2) 臥薪嚐膽


China’s Answer to Nobel Mystifies Its Winner, NY Times, Dec 8, 2010
Liu Xiaobo’s 300 colonies,Third Tone Devil, November 5, 2010
Impious Sons: Eminent and Treasonous, October 13, 2010

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Soft Power: The Confucius Peace Prize

Lien Chan’s office told Singapore’s Morning News that Lien hadn’t heard of his latest award, the Confucius Peace Prize (孔子和平奖), beforehand. Lien, honarary chairman of Taiwan’s governing KMT, has been awarded the prize for his contributions to bridging the Taiwan Strait (奖是表扬连战为海峡两岸搭桥做出贡献).

The Confucius Peace Prize comes with 100,000 RMB prize money, Tan Changliu (谭长流), the Confucius Peace Prize Commission‘s chairman, is quoted as saying. He declined to give further information about when the committee had been established, how its five members had been chosen, but  added that such information would be given later. He said that the committee was not a government agency, but that it did indeed cooperate closely with the ministry of culture, and was meant to set forth Chinese peoples’ concept of peace.

According to the Taipei Times,

Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) told lawmakers in Taipei that the government found the prize “amusing.”
“As far as we know it is an unofficial prize. We don’t plan to make any comment on it,” she said. “But we do find it amusing.”

Neither Hermit, nor Good Ganbu, nor Net Nanny, could have produced a concept that would, in whatever way,have been able to rival the Confucius Peace Prize. Not even close.

This is a humble day for
JR’s Beautiful Blog


Confucius Prize could be weapon in battle of ideas, Global Times, Nov 17, 2010

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Net Nanny: the Fastest Route

Net Nanny: a harmonious internet, for the benefit of all

Net Nanny: a harmonious internet, for the benefit of all

The so-called “U. S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission”, created in 2000, claims that it monitors the security implication of trade with China. A certain Adam Segal on the so-called Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) blog is making a fuss of its latest report and reminds his readers that the internet isn’t “safe”. Of course not. That’s what I’ve always said.

Anyway, the information from a report by the so-called commission, issued on November 17, that struck the author most was that

in April 2010, for approximately 18 minutes, traffic to 15 percent of the world’s Internet destinations was diverted to China. China Telecom’s routers sent out messages saying that their networks would be the fastest route between any two points.

But “no one knows why it happened”.

The answer is simple.

We are committed to pursuing a win-win strategy of opening-up. China will continue to push forward regional and global development through its own development. We will work to broaden converging interests with other countries and, while pursuing our own development, we will accommodate the legitimate concerns of others, especially those of developing countries. We will continue to engage in international economic cooperation and trade in accordance with the international trading rules. We support the international community in channeling more assistance to developing countries and helping them improve peo ple’s well-being and enhance capacity for self-development. We support efforts to improve the international trade and financial systems and resolve frictions and differences through consultation and collaboration. China will never seek to advance its interests at the expense of others.

In other words: there were free capacities on our networks, and we offered it to the world to benefit from these capacities – for free.

The Chinese internet is open and active.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

You are Quite Probably a Fenqing, …

rainy weekend

... if your weekend sucks, just "because the weather is so bad"


Yes you can (stop farting), August 20, 2009

%d bloggers like this: