Centralregeringen har da også prøvet at arbejde bag de diplomatiske kulisser, for at overbevise det europæiske parlament om, at AIDS- og miljøaktivisten ikke fortjener prisen, som der står i denne artikel fra NYT:
“If the European Parliament should award this prize to Hu Jia, that would inevitably hurt the Chinese people once again and bring serious damage to China-E.U. relations,” Mr. Song wrote, according to The Associated Press.
Den fornærmede kinesiske stat forsøgte at argumentere for, at det ikke var noget som udlandet skulle blande sig, for sagen om Hu Jia er et rent internt anliggende. Men den går ikke, argumenterer Los Angeles Times for i denne op-ed:
The European Union’s decision to award its Sakharov Prize to activist Hu Jia, despite an intense pressure campaign from Beijing, “violates universally recognized rules in the world, which is countries should treat each other as equals and respect each other,” complained Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.
Apparently we missed that page of the international rule book. We do recall Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though. That’s the portion of the United Nations’ seminal 1948 document that states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Heller ikke den danske statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Han var ifølge Berlingske Tidende mest af alt interesseret i klimaspørgsmålet:
Også på klimaområdet var statsministeren tilfreds. Han fik landenes tilsagn om, at de i alle tilfælde kommer til København til næste år med tasken fuld af vilje til at nå en aftale om det besværlige klimaspørgsmål.
Men blot fordi der så sidder en enkelt kinesisk miljøkritiker fængslet, betyder det jo ikke, at der er nogen grund til at diskutere det med de kinesiske værter, siger han til Ritzau (via Kristeligt Dagblad):
Fogh Rasmussen siger, at han ikke vil tage emnet op på et kinesisk-europæisk topmøde fredag inden for det såkaldte Asem-samarbejde.
– Nej, det er der ingen grund til. Det her er en sag mellem Europa-Parlamentet og Kina inden for den kritiske dialog, forklarer han.
Men hvem er så Hu Jia?
Mange kinesere kender ham ikke. Men, ret paradoksalt, takket være den kinesiske centralregering og deres højlydte protester, har han fået en del omtale her i Kina i de seneste dage.
Selvom der dog langt fra er for eksempel nogen åben diskussion om ham og prisen på internettet.
He is more than thirty and unemployed. He doesn’t have any proper income and need support from parent. The most ridiculous thing is, he couldn’t support himself but claim to be a devoted activist on “environmental protection” and “AIDS”. And his activities were supported by foreign “democratic foundations”. His wife met with Dalai Lama, supported Tibet independent and against Beijing Olympics. We can see that Hu Jia is not innocent at all in his crime. Now he suffers from liver diseases, probably will be trafficked out of the country to the U.S. Once he arrives there, he had to pay back by devoting to the separation of China.
Han er også blevet forsvaret. Blandt andet i denne kommentar fra Global Voices:
There are many different types of criminal in this world. For example those who produced the melamine milk powder, they are also criminals. For Hu, he just concerns about environmental problem and expresses his opinions, he then becomes a criminal. The difference is, in China, for the former type of criminals, they stay out of jail, while for Hu and his kinds, they have to stay in jail or under house arrest.
I de udenlandske medier har han fået en mængde rosende omtale. Se selv på Google News.
Men det er måske ikke helt retfærdig, skriver Peking Duck
Da Nobel prisen skulle uddeles argumenterede han for, at Hu Jia ville være det bedste valg.
Det mener han ikke længere:
It’s intriguing to see how devoid of actual content the articles that praise him are: planted a few (very few) trees, brought roses to Tiananmen Square and criticized the CCP there, did some good blogging, got arrested and tried to use the Olympics as a soapbox to taunt and condemn the Party. And all those things are great. However, the difference between Hu and the other heroes cited above is simple: the others actually made huge strides for their causes. Arrest and publicity are not what they’re best known for, although they’ve been there and done that. They are known for advancing very specific causes and their being jailed or harassed was a sidebar to their activism – it wasn’t the headline. As Inside-Out says, “They were not purists, but they aimed for actual change instead of simply provoking.”
There’s an entire article cited in the earlier thread going on about Hu’s purity, for whatever that’s worth. I started off two weeks ago under the Hu spell, and I said he would be the best choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. A friend of mine then made a healthy argument about why I was wrong, which led me to track down people I know who actually know Hu Jia, or who’ve worked with his wife (who gets universal praise from all). I was really surprised. Not like he’s bad or undeserving of praise for bravery, but he is so down the list in terms of inspiring those around him and bringing meaningful change to China. He became everybody’s sacred cow because the foreign media created a halo around him that’s far bigger and brighter than his actual achievements.
Insideoutchina stiller det samme spørgsmål og skriver:
While mentioning Hu Jia in passing during summarization, Pan devotes several full chapters to a number of other people whose stories are familiar to me, and to many Chinese. Among those, there are the Southern Metropolis Daily journalists, whose tactful but effective true journalism resulted in the government’s abolishing the unjust and cruel “shourong” system; there are the two authors who wrote the book An Investigation of China’s Peasantry that pushed for the eventually realized relaxation of the peasants’ unbearable tax burden; there is the retired army doctor who first exposed the severe reality of Beijing’s SARS disaster to the outside world, helping to avoid an even bigger calamity… All of those people also suffered punishment from the government. They were not purists, but they aimed for actual change instead of simply provoking.
I don’t know what the criteria are for the “prize for freedom of thought,” but why not give it to those people?
Jeg mener, at Hu Jia ligger på linje med de andre modtagere af Sakharov prisen. Men for mig at se, så ville det have været for meget at give Nobelprisen til ham.
Hu Jia er simpelthen ikke helt oppe i den liga som de andre prismodtagere er i.
Hvad består hans arbejde så i?
Han er en fysisk syg mand, som hans hustru skriver i sin seneste blogpost (her på engelsk og her på kinesisk). Der sidder i fængsel fordi han talte og skrev om for eksempel miljøproblemer i Kina. Mens hans hustru og deres barn sidder i husarrest, omgivet af politibetjente.
Det er et godt billede, der træder skarpt igennem i mediebilledet og har gjort ham til et symbol på kampen for ytringsfrihed og rettigheder i Kina.
Som Xiao Qiang skriver i Guardian:
Hu Jia has chosen to stand with those who suffer, and to lend his voice to those who are voiceless in Chinese society. He has also confronted his persecutors, and brilliantly tapped into the power of digital advocacy. By doing so, he has become a living symbol of defiance and resistance to the world’s most powerful authoritarian state.