The Nobel Committee awarded a jailed Chinese liberal dissident Liu Xiaobo the 2010 peace prize for his non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. The Committee justified its decision by saying real peace can not be created without human rights and democracy. The Chinese government responded in a very critical manner saying this violated the Nobel Award principle. They ridiculed the prize ceremony as a “farce”.

 

In October 2010, the news of Liu Nobel Award was shared extensively through Microblog in China. Posts were swiftly removed, however, and many Chinese microblog users who had posted information found their accounts disabled. “Liu Xiaobo” and the “Peace Prize” were prohibited keywords when searching at that time. Then Xinhua News agency came out with an official news release reflecting the Chinese Government’s opposition. The Chinese news website also posted this official position.

 

The Media-Government relationship is complicated in the West where they are two separate elements. To the contrary, the relationship between Media and the government is relatively simple in China. Media in China is like a window. The government can control what they want the public know by closing and opening this window. That is the reason why there are Weibo and RenRen instead of Facebook and Twitter in China because the government controls these China’s home social platforms easily.

 

The award ceremony highlighted the different approaches to media freedom, in China and in the West. The speech made in the award ceremony was a comprehensive criticism of China’s lack of human rights using Liu as an example. This award put China’s human rights in the global spotlight as the Nobel peace prize is a global award with a strong reputation. Awarding Liu was using an external and reputable award as a force against China’s attitude to political freedom. As a Chinese citizen, I had not been aware of Liu Xiaobo and what he did before reading of the Nobel award news on Microblog in 2010. Most people in China were in the same situation. The reality was that the Nobel ceremony, through the internet, brought this issue to the public in China.

 

Liu Xiaobo was accused of subversion and was sentenced to 11 years because he attacked the Chinese political system. News of his honor in being awarded of the Nobel Prize was surprisingly censored. The government used a variety ways to do this, such as closing users’ accounts, setting firewall and making official response, to block news flow. However, because of technology, Information still spread across the country.

 

Some would argue China was put in an embarrassing situation by the Nobel committee. It drew attention to its human rights violations at a time when the government was seeking to play a key role in the global community and the economy. In the formal speech in The Nobel ceremony, China was strongly warned that people should enjoy freedom of speech under its own constitution.

 

It the era of global communication and West dominance, the significance of the award and the empty chair was profound. The powerful message that globalization and technology was opening societies to global scrutiny and in China this meant that its human rights record was been noticed by the rest of the world. However, was this speech fair to China and was its political and social context ignored?

 

The political systems of communism and democracy could not be more different. Yet the Nobel Prize reflects the dominance of Western interpretation of world affairs with no mention of the complex nature of communism where individual rights are second to the state and in the population of 1.3 billion, social order is important. As far as Asian values are concerned state interest wins always over individual interest. Asian journalistic values ensure the media should work with the government, as a partner rather than watchdog to aid in the great tasks of nation building. So the media often provides a positive picture of the society to encourage people through reporting good things and achievements. That is the reason why dissident opinions or open criticism of government has no place as this may cause social chaos. The government employs many people to make comments on the website (so-called Five cents party) to lead public opinions and views.

 

China is slowing changing in terms of the role of media and the public participation in open discussion. The Chinese government sees its future as being open and outward looking. To appreciate how much it has changed, one only has to look at North Korea. In North Korea, people believe what the government announces because they have no/few ways to get information from the outside. Compared with North Korea, China has opened its media since 1978, although both of two nations share the same political system. For the Chinese government, this open market has come at the cost of a loss of power. Changes in China are occurring but will take a long time. The 2010 Nobel speech was critical of the Chinese government and its record however perhaps there was a lack of appreciation of the complex relationship between press freedom, social stability and social economic conditions.

 

The most important feature of news in today’s China is diversity and aggression never seen before in the press, which comes from a strong connection with the West. However, the fact that nearly all mediums reported the Nobel issue in one voice, no matter the newspaper (Xinhua news agency) or TV program was surprising proof of the strong links still remaining between the government and the media. They all parroted words of the Chinese official spokesman, claiming Liu Xiaobo was a criminal who organized activities aiming at damaging social stability and harmony.

 

Internal factors and social economic needs will be drivers of change in China. The Nobel award can help the world realize human rights problem in China, but can not change it because all real reforms (not revolution) needs to push from the inside to outside, and this will take time.