Common Right of the Universe

This week, the Lady Secretary of State appeals the Internet Freedom. In her speech, she cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was worked by Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 – 1962) during her days in the United Nations.

I do admire the women’s role in social progresses. To be against the censorship by the French royal authority, Marie-Therese Rodet Geoffin (1699 – 1777) used her salon, somehow like today’s Internet, to socially assist the encyclopedists and to financially support the work of Encyclopedia. Denis Diderot (1713 – 1784, the chief editor of Encyclopedia) said,

People ask if freedom of the press is advantageous or prejudicial to a state. The answer is not difficult. It is of the greatest importance to conserve this practice in all states founded on liberty. I would even say that the disadvantages of this liberty are so inconsiderable compared to its advantages that this ought to be the common right of the universe, and it is certainly advisable to authorize its practice in all government.

Diderot’s calling for “the common right of the universe” was the prototype of today’s Universal Rights we are still fighting for.

Contrasted to Geoffin’s behind-scene contribution to the Enlightenment, Mary Astell (1666 – 1731) raised the “Woman’s Question” in the Enlightenment. She questioned, “If absolute sovereignty be not necessary in a state, how comes it to be so in a family…? … If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?” I doubt that the Confucianist could answer her questions, except for calling her a “heretic”; and I doubt that the Chinese Communist could answer her questions, except for calling her a “subversive”.

Several days ago, some Chinese websites posted the statements of one Chinese dissident who was sentenced for 11 years prison on the Christmas Day, 2009. One of those statements, the Chinese Communist court did not allow him to finish it in the court, includes his appreciation to his wife for the mutual love between both of them. His simple words are with profound affection. Who says that a rational person cannot fall in love? Isn’t because the claimers [probably including the Chinese Communist] cannot understand this kind of sublimed love?

Mercedes Sosa (1935 – 2009), “the voice for the voiceless”, was an Argentine singer who died in October. Sosa was arrested and exiled by a military regime in Argentina, but she proved “how much truth is stronger than error” (Henry Thoreau 1817 – 1862). Now, the liberty in Hong Kong is getting disturbed; a young lady, who led many legitimate protests, was reportedly detained by a felony division of Hong Kong law enforcement recently. It is not clear what kind grave crime she committed, or just the authority went too far. Someone might see her sort of controversial, like some suffragettes before. But, “who else is perfect?” is not my question, the real question here is: “Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.” (Henry Thoreau 1817 – 1862)

The Chinese Communist decries the Lady Secretary of State’s speech. It even does not want to try, or dare to try, to ascertain why the liberty is so invaluable to human beings. All the Chinese Communist wants is to grip its “absolute sovereignty”, like all other dynasties in the Chinese history. It wants an oppressed tranquility, in the name of harmony; but not a heated debate, in the name of liberty. In this fighting for the common right of the universe, are we to expect more and more the Chinese women to take part in?

An Unjust Law is No Law at All

I heartily praise the Google’s new approach in China announced in this week, because it is a noble cause for Google to defend the Human Rights activists in China, to defy the censorship in China, and to denounce the organized hacking crimes in China. Google shows the world its “Don’t Be Evil” credo by confronting the Chinese Communist’s imperiousness: my way or the high way. Here, I give Google my Thank-You note; and this Muscovite of Google might already win back the due respect from Charles de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), for he not only keeps his own liberty but also fights for others’. My regret is: this first heroic action of against the censorship in China was not taken by some major Chinese enterprises.

The Chinese Communist regime responded, “The Chinese government administers the Internet according to law and we have explicit stipulations over what information and content can be spread over the Internet.” But, this regime is a de facto, not a de jure. Should this People’s Republic be a de jure, then, according to Montesquieu, “the people are in some respects the sovereign,” thus, “[t]here can be no exercise of sovereignty but by their suffrages, which are their own will; now the sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws therefore which establish the right of suffrage are fundamental to this [republic] government.” In today’s world, China is one of a few nations that do not allow their own people to have suffrages. How come China is a People’s Republic? How come the laws in China are the just laws? Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 – 1968, a prominent Civil Rights Movement leader) said, “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.” My regret is: I cannot recall one name of the Chinese Americans who heavily joined the Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. King.

Montesquieu said, “In despotic states, the nature of government requires the most passive obedience;” and “man is a creature that blindly submits to the absolute will of the sovereign.” This is the exact obedience what the Chinese Communist has forced the Chinese people to be. Now, it demands Google to obey the [censorship] laws in China. Many Chinese, they just like the slaves in the Allegory of the Cave, never question whether a law imposed upon them is a just law or not, and they want others, such as, Google, like themselves to be “a creature that blindly submits to the absolute will of the sovereign”. “Man’s portion here [despotism], like that of beasts, is instinct, compliance, and punishment.” said Montesquieu. My regret is: so many Chinese people who act as the slaves in the Allegory of the Cave for laughing at the returned freedman [such as, Google] and saying that he had gone up only to come back with his sight ruined.

The people in China are nowhere about their suffrages; the people in Hong Kong are fighting for their suffrages; the people in Taiwan have their suffrages. However, in this week, the Chinese PLA tested its missile interception. Its intention is clear: to bluff the world, especially Taiwan related. We saw the Chinese PLA cracked down the peaceful students’ assembly on the June Fourth Massacre in 1989; we saw the Chinese PLA invaded Vietnam, a nation has more than 2,000 years history within China, in 1979. The Chinese Communist always claims such actions for its sovereignty: China has its sovereignty to defend itself from “Vietnam’s provoking”; China has its sovereignty to bloodbath its “internal affairs”, such as, the June Fourth Massacre, etc.; China has its sovereignty upon Taiwan, humming “ready or not here I come; can’t hide from love [missile]”; and so on so forth. Montesquieu said, “A person that aspires to the sovereignty concerns himself less about what is serviceable to the state than what is likely to promote his own interest.” Now, don’t you ascertain why the Chinese Communist is so obsessing over its sovereignty talk? My regret is: so many Chinese people who tolerate the exercise of sovereignty by the Chinese Communist, but no exercise of their own suffrages at all.

Slavery in China

Charles de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), who was a widely accepted anti-slavery enlightenment thinker, had satiric comments on slavery of the colors and pungent criticism on the slavery laws. In his The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu wrote, “Slavery, properly so called, is the establishment of a right which gives to one man such a power over another, as renders him absolute master of his life and fortune. The state of slavery is bad of its own nature: it is neither useful to the master nor to the slaves; not to the slave, because he can do nothing thro’ a motive of virtue; not to the master, because he contracts all manner of bad habits with his slaves; he accustoms himself insensibly to the want of all moral virtues; he grows fierce, hasty, severe, choleric, voluptuous, and cruel.”

Frederick Douglass (1818? – 1895, a former slave and a prominent abolitionist) wrote Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself. In Chapter 3 of this book, Douglass told us a story which was regarded a chat between his master Colonel Lloyd and a telling-the-truth slave. Colonel Lloyd was so rich and he had some around of a thousand slaves and several plantations, so that, before the chat, both of them did not know of each other. In their seemingly casual chat, the slave told Colonel Lloyd that he was not treated fairly by his master. But, weeks later, this poor slave was traded away. “He was immediately chained and handcuffed; and thus, without a moment's warning, he was snatched away, and forever sundered, from his family and friends, by a hand more unrelenting than death. This is the penalty of telling the truth, of telling the simple truth, in answer to a series of plain questions.” Douglass wrote; and he continued, “The frequency of this has had the effect to establish among the slaves the maxim, that a still tongue makes a wise head. They suppress the truth rather than take the consequences of telling it”. Douglass observed that “slaves are like other people, and imbibe prejudices quite common to others. They think their own [master] better than that of others.” And how the slaves bragged, quarreled and even fought for their masters. “They [slaves] seemed to think that the greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves. It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave; but to be a poor man's slave was deemed a disgrace indeed!”

When I take Colonel Lloyd as the Chinese Communist, take that telling-the-truth slave as the Chinese dissidents, and take those ordinary slaves as those ordinary Chinese people, I see its similarity: the Chinese Communist has taken those conscientious dissidents as its properties and has done nasty things to them at its will, just for imposing its maxim that “a still tongue makes a wise head”; those unenlightened ordinary Chinese “people” are actually more like the slaves in the Allegory of the Cave; they brag, quarrel and even fight for their masters – the Chinese Communist, for “They seemed to think that the greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves.”

Montesquieu said, “In despotic countries, where they are already in a state of political slavery, … In democracies, slavery is contrary to the spirit of the constitution”, and “In all despotic governments people make no difficulty in selling themselves; the political slavery in some measure annihilates the civil liberty.” The civil liberty is indeed deprived of from those political slaves, haven’t you read the report on “[a] Chinese dissident living in legal limbo in Japanese airport” in internet? The Chinese Communist denied his right to back to China without any merits, domestic or international. Many ordinary Chinese “people” blame him bringing humiliation upon China, for they already sell themselves to the tyranny. Montesquieu said that “the Muscovites sell themselves very readily: their reason for it is evident; their liberty is not worth keeping.” My question is: Aren’t the Chinese the same notorious?

Henry Thoreau (1817 – 1862) said, “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also. All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. … When the subject had refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the [peaceable] revolution is accomplished.” The slavery in China goes on already and it continues. In the Haven, on the Earth, even down to the Hell, why don’t abolish this political slavery in China?

Don’t Postpone the Question of Freedom to the Question of Free-trade

On the December 27, 2009 the Chinese Premier (the same one in my essay “Shoe, Prostitute and Dictator”) had a rare interview with the state-run Xinhua news agency. In this more propaganda razzle-dazzle interview show, which, according to Xinhua, had nearly two months of preparation and more than 300 participants, the Premier of this People’s Republic did everything he could: defend China’s role in Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, 2009; resist the calling on Chinese Yuan appreciation; blame protectionism in trade; but no topics on freedom. The message is clear: the world is wrong, only the Chinese Communist is right; if anything goes wrong in China, blame it to the world. Many Chinese buy it for they are so eager to restore their ancient exalted position that they would rather be blind loyalists and sacrifice their freedom.

Yes, there is a voice of protectionism in America, but the free trade policies have been America’s trade policies for a long history. The Treaty of Kanagawa in 1854 played an important role in Japan’s modernization; but not the Open Door Policy in 1899, until the neoliberalism, China becomes a modernizing country except for democracy. Despite when Japan was booming, America had the Great Depression, and despite when China is booming, America has the Great Recession, the policies of free trade in America will continue. Sure, the Americans love free trade; but don’t forget that the Americans love freedom more. Protectionism is a new way referring mercantilism and China is practicing mercantilism all the time.

The Chinese Communist does not talk about freedom because it lacks conscience. The Chinese people don’t dare to talk about freedom, not because they lack conscience (although it usually needs to arouse), but the Chinese Communist doesn’t allow them to. In America, when the people’s consciences are aroused, people defend their freedom, like the Boston Massacre in 1770. That is why Henry Thoreau (1817 – 1862) focused on conscience for his appeal to anti-slavery and anti-war. He questioned, “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?” But, in China, just having conscience to fight for freedom is not enough; don’t you see those Chinese conscientious dissidents living in dungeon for their “subversive” convicts? To add courage on this cause is not enough, too; don’t you see that bloodbath on the June Fourth Massacre in 1989? An international society coalition is necessary; but it constantly pains me when an American “Yoda” was swiftly sent for these Chinese Communist butchers after the June Fourth Massacre. Consistency is essential, not only because it is a virtue, it is a duty; but also because we know that government come and government gone, it is people who are still there. With “Conscience”, “Courage”, “Coalition” and “Consistency”, the Chinese people definitely can let the Chinese Communist learn: one “subversive” convicted by the Chinese Communist is too many; one drop of blood shed by the Chinese Communist is too much; don’t “postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade,” (Henry Thoreau, 1817 – 1862) now.

Silence from the Chinese people and the international society only emboldens the Chinese Communist. The world saw the Chinese Communist behaved badly: It acted like a demagogue in Copenhagen 2009 with those poorer countries, even played a walkout; one of the Chinese delegates said that China came to Copenhagen was to declare, not to negotiate. This reminds me Yosuke Matsuoka (1880 – 1946) of Japan, who walked out of the League of Nations in 1933. It acted like a paranoid on the calling on the Chinese Yuan appreciation; it accused that such callings are a conspiracy to keep China under-developing, ignoring the world economy is suffering by this China’s stand. It acted like a sophist for blaming other countries playing protectionism while it itself is practicing mercantilism, and wanted free trade by postponing the question of freedom. It “plainly did not know how to treat me [a Chinese dissident], but behaved like persons who are underbred” (Henry Thoreau, 1817 – 1862): it committed the Christmas Day sentence to him in 2009. This type of done nasty things on Holiday reminds me that Huang ShiRen in the Chinese play “White-Haired Girl”, who committed horrendous things at a Chinese New Year.

Yes, the Chinese Communist is a leviathan, yet, “we do not believe that a tide rises and falls behind every man which can float the British [now the Chinese Communist] Empire like a chip, if he should ever harbor it in his mind.” (Henry Thoreau, 1817 – 1862)