By Liu Xiaobo

Editor’s Note: The writer, a Chinese dissident recently sentenced to an 11-year prison term for “inciting subversion of state power”, played a leading role to issue Charter 08, a manifesto for political reform. He prepared the following speech in his defence, but was prevented from delivering it in court. Yet contents of the speech have become known. Notably, Hong Kong broadcaster Harvey Stockwin used a radio show to deliver the speech on Lui’s behalf.

IN A PRISON, CHINA -- Considering facts in the indictment against me, I have no disagreement, except with an inaccurate one saying that I collected more than 300 signatures for Charter 08. I wrote the six articles (cited in the indictment) and participated in Charter 08, but I collected only about 70 signatures, not 300. The other signatories were not gathered by me. 
 
As to the crimes of which I am accused, I cannot accept them. During the past year when I lost my freedom, I have maintained my innocence when questioned by police officers, investigators and judges. I argue my innocence on the basis of China’s constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, the political reforms I have advocated and the trend of history. 
 
One important result of the reform-and-open-door policy has been the awakening of Chinese people to their human rights and the rise of civil protection of rights.  This has pushed the Chinese government to progress in its thinking on human rights. In 2004, the National People’s Congress revised the constitution to “protect and respect human rights”. It must do so according to powers given to the people in Article 35 of the constitution. 
 
My freedom to express different opinions is the right of free speech given to me as a Chinese citizen under the constitution. Not only should it not be limited or removed by the government, but it should be respected and protected by law. So the accusations against me infringe my basic rights as a Chinese citizen and violate the basic law of China. They form a typical case of “the crime of speaking’, of how the ancient deed of sending a writer to prison persists, and should be criticized as unreasonable and against the constitution. 
 
The indictment quotes statements as proof of my “spreading rumors, slandering and in other ways inciting the subversion of the government and overturning the socialist system”. Spreading rumors means fabricating or creating false information and harming people, whle slandering means harming the good names and characters of others. My opinion is an expression of a point of view, a value judgment and an assessment of what is true or false. It isn’t meant to harm anyone. So my opinion has nothing to do with spreading rumors or slander. Criticizing isn’t the same as spreading rumors. Even less is opposition the same as slander. 

The indictment uses statements from Charter 08 to accuse me of slandering the government and the Party and “plotting subversion and overthrow of the government”. This accusation takes quotations out of context and ignores the overall tone of Charter 08 and the opinions I’ve consistently expressed. 
 
Charter 08 describes the “human-rights disasters” in modern China. The anti-rightist campaign led to the unjust designation of 500,000 rightists, the Great Leap Forward caused unnatural deaths for 100,000 people and the Cultural Revolution created a great catastrophe. On June 4, 1989, there was a bloodbath when many people died and many were thrown into prison.  These events are universally recognized as “human-rights disasters” and created dangers for China, “holding back the natural development of the Chinese race and the progress of human civilization”. Ending the monopoly of power and special privileges of a single party only demands the ruling party to hand the government back to the people and finally establish a free country. 
 
The values expressed by Charter 08 and the political reforms it proposes have a long-term objective of a federal state that is free and democratic. There are 19 gradual, peaceful reform measures. Given that the current reforms have all kinds of shortcomings, we demand that the ruling party walk with two feet, not one, implementing political as well as economic reforms. This is a way for civil society to push the government to give back power, with pressure from below for changes from the top down. So government and the public can work together in good co-operation and quickly implement the dream of a constitutional government.
 
Since 1989, the opinions I expressed were consistently gradual, peaceful, orderly and controllable. Always, I opposed sudden reform taken in one step and, even more, opposed violent revolution. 
 
In reality, China’s 30-year reform experience proves that the basic force for creative change has been reforms started by civil society. As the awareness of civil reform and influence expands, so the government must accept new ideas and try them. This has changed the pattern of reform policies coming from the top. 

My key ideas for China’s political reforms are that they should be gradual, peaceful, orderly, controllable, interactive, from above to below and from below to above. This minimizes cost and leads to the most effective results. I know the basic principles of political change, that orderly and controllable social changes are better than chaotic and out-of-control ones. The order of a bad government is better than the chaos of anarchy. So I oppose systems of government that are dictatorships or monopolies. This is not “inciting subversion of state power”.  Opposition is not equivalent to subversion. 

One reason I’m not guilty is that the accusations against me contravene internationally recognized human-rights standards. In 1948, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China participated in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1998, China made a solemn pledge by signing two UN human-rights conventions. One, the International Treaty on Citizens Rights and Political Rights, recognizes freedom of speech as a basic, universal right and demands that governments respect and protect it. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of the UN Human Rights Board, China must respect treaties and fulfill its obligations. It should set an example by implementing these treaties that protect human rights. Only that way can the Chinese government fully safeguard its own people’s human rights. It should contribute to promote international human rights and so show the civilized demeanor of a great country. 

Entering the modern era, the Chinese Communist Party went from weakness to strength and triumphed over the Kuomintang. It drew strength from a promise “to oppose dictatorship in the name of freedom”.  Before 1949, the Communist Party’s Xinhua Daily and Liberation Daily attacked restrictions on free expression, raising a hue and cry about intellectuals punished for what they said. Mao Zedong and other party leaders spoke of freedom of expression as a basic right. 
 
But after 1949, from the anti-rightist campaign to the Cultural Revolution, from the execution of Lin Zhao to the cutting of the throat of Zhang Zhixin, the freedom of expression was lost in the Maoist Era, and the country fell into a deathly silence, like ten thousand horses standing mute. With the start of reform, the ruling party corrected injustices and greatly increased liberty for different opinions. Space for free speech widened continuously, and the number of writers thrown into prison has greatly decreased. But the crime of speaking has not disappeared. From the April 5th Movement to June 4th, from the Democracy Wall to Charter 08, there have been examples. My indictment is only a recent one. 
 
In the 21st century, freedom of expression has become a common right of people in most countries. Sending writers to prison happens when a thousand people point fingers at someone. Objectively, blocking people’s expression is like blocking a river. High prison walls can’t block the expression of freedom. In the long term, a government can’t suppress the legitimate expression of different opinions, nor throw writers into prison as a way to retain power. 
 
Problems of the pen can be solved only using the pen. Using guns to solve problems of the pen will create human-rights disasters. Only ending the practice of throwing writers into prison will guarantee that free speech promised in the constitution is given to each citizen. 

“The crime of speech” defies human-rights principles in China’s constitution and laws and in the UN Declaration on International Human Rights. It resists universal justice and the flow of history. I plead innocent and hope to earn this court’s acceptance. Such a judgment would set a significant precedent in China’s legal history, pass the test of human-rights clauses, show the pursuit of justice and pass the test of history.

ARCHIVES