UN Top Leadership Position at Stake versus US Pressure on Ban’s Challenge of China

A most recently-renewed US-led anti-China campaign, in behalf of Liu Xiaobo who was awarded 2010 Nobel Peace Prize last month, seems to have now even gone to the internal politics of UN top leadership position in 2011. UN Secretary General was like bombarded by so-called human rights activists and organizations, specifically headed by Human Rights Watch (HRW), for him “not to press China in public” on its human rights issues. In other words, UN top leadership’s fault was not to make China further embarrassed in front of the whole world, as a seemingly now “globally-united anti-China force” had hoped for. To put it a little bit more bluntly or honestly, the main reason why the UN top leadership was like scolded by a mere human rights guy was he did not listen to the kind of “behind-the-door” orders from, most likely, the US and its allies, meaning all sorts of hate-mongering China-bashers or anti-China groups and organizations around the world.

Dalai Lama

According to AFP Nov 1, 2010,

“Rights groups criticized UN chief Ban Ki-moon for not raising the case of jailed Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo with China’s leaders this week and some linked the silence to his personal ambition. Diplomats and observers said though that the UN secretary general faced enormous pressure in his encounter with President Hu Jintao, who will have a key say on Ban’s reelection next year. Ban’s problem is one now faced by all international leaders when they go to Beijing. (AFP Nov. 1, 2010)

Mikhail Gorbachev

From its origin till this very day, HRW is another, essentially in its nature, anti-communist organization which has grown out of Helsinki Watch in 1978. Due to its consistent nature of being anti-communist in general, “anti-Soviet” in particular throughout those waning days of the Cold War, it’s been therefore hardly avoidable from not being charged naturally as a pro-capitalist, pro-US, pro-West, or even CIA’s front organization in regard to the issue of so-called “human rights.” It seems now the Liu Xiaobo case has been thrown into another dimension where US and the West seem to have begun to argue who should be considered for the next UN Secretary General in 2011. It can be read as warning signs or pre-calculated pressures from the US and the West as well, if Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, is interested in his reelection bid for his second term, he should better behave now, otherwise he would not get any support from the United States of America who originally played the most crucial and decisive role to bring him into where he is now, as HRW UN specialist Phillip Bolopion warned in the following:

“’If this is to win China’s favour for his reelection, the secretary general risks losing the support of those who want a secretary general who is courageous and firm on human rights questions,’ said Bolopion.” (Ibid)

It appears now the US-led ongoing anti-China campaign, using Liu Xiaobo as its convenient weapon, seems to have taken the 2011 UN top leadership position issue into the whirlwind of “G-2” power struggles, as many in the world now call it, the process of global power restructuring between the continuously declining world’s superpower and the rapidly rising power from the East. At any rate, it seems the HRW, one of the most prestigious human rights groups in the world, has taken a front role to whip Ban for him to “cave in” to the Chinese Authority. It seems indeed the US now, together mainly with its Western allies, particularly with the Nobel Peace Committee up in front, is determined to push further the Liu case in an apparent effort to make China continuously pressured or cornered. They seem already, all together in uniformity, have organized another seemingly very much inflammable, provocative and, most likely, unproductive event in Hiroshima, Japan next month, apparently facilitated by Japanese government who is not in any good terms with China at the moment, and organized by the Nobel Peace Committee.

Ban Ki-moon

The so-called “three-day World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates” (from Nov 12 to 14) secretariat announced in October 27 its November meeting. The announcement, according to the news from Hiroshima in Kyoto, Japan, is read as follows:

“Wuer Kaixi, a Chinese democracy activist, plans to attend a meeting of Nobel Peace Prize laureates in Hiroshima next month on behalf of imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, the winner of the 2010 prize. Wuer, 42, who led the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing and once studied with Liu, is set to read a message on his behalf during the three-day World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates from Nov. 12, the summit secretariat said Wednesday. The summit is expected to be attended by eight laureates, including former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama. Sources said Thursday that Wuer is arranging a face-to-face meeting with the Dalai Lama.” (Hiroshima, Japan)

Why, how and on what ground could one challengingly characterize this whole parade of very much focused, pre-calculated, and well-organized events as another “US-led newly-renewed anti-China campaign”? How could one charge this whole thing, apparently a globally-coordinated political showcase which specifically targets China, as a politically-motivated and pre-calculated anti-China demonization campaign? The answer seems very much self-evident as in the above-quoted Japanese news article from Hiroshima in terms of core contents of the so-called “World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates,” particularly the fact that the summit organizers apparently fixed those three dates when the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum is also going to be held in Yokohama, Japan from Nov 13 to 14 where Chinese President Hu Jintao is scheduled to attend. The summit secretariat also said they have “already called on US President Barack Obama, the winner of 2009 [Nobel Peace] prize, to attend the meeting.”

Barack Obama

What on earth can anyone sanely claim this whole thing is an event of purely coincidental, impartial, not politically-motivated but solely-devoted onto the human rights issues? I seriously doubt that sort of claim credible, genuine, and trusted, if there is any such claim ever existing! Therefore, I morally and politically argue those notoriously ill-willed demonization tactics US, with its allies, has often employed against its rivals or any countries who dare to challenge its hegemonic and imperial policies wouldn’t ever produce, as it has not done in the past as well, any positive and symbiotic (win-win) results for anybody else at all. As many in the world have argued, it’s a sick tactic! It’s unjust, unfair and, most importantly, hypocritical!

Endnotes

————————————————

ⅰ Notably, billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros announced in 2010 his intention to donate US$100 million to HRW over a period of ten years. (Wikipedia)

ⅱ “Human Rights Watch was founded under the name Helsinki Watch in 1978 to monitor the former Soviet Union’s compliance with the Helsinki Accords. Helsinki Watch adopted a methodology of publicly “naming and shaming” abusive governments through media coverage and through direct exchanges with policymakers. By shining the international spotlight on human rights violations in the Soviet Union and its vassal states in Eastern Europe, Helsinki Watch contributed to the democratic transformations of the region in the late 1980s.” (Widipedia)

ⅲ Ibid.

ⅳ Most well-known, well-funded, and globally-prestigious human rights groups whose origins are mainly from either US or one of the Western countries. Those groups have been also mostly run by Western and American governments, their NGOs, and (white) personnel.


Leave a Reply