no crime, broke no law. His charter may be simplistic, but at least expresses very noble thoughts. His imprisonment is unjust. The Norwegian Committee has the right to give the prize to anybody. And evidence suggests Liu is a very good man. So one shouldn't complain.

But one has the freedom to ask some questions. How much advance in human rights can be obtained by Liu's action? He is an activist, but he is also supposed to be an intellectual, and what knowledge of history does he possess? No country on earth has been born with human rights or other good things outlined in the charter. It is a condition that has to be achieved and maintained, and history shows that it is not easy. If one really wants to achieve a reasonable level of such condition, one has to think what are the necessary things to do and try to do it. History should offer useful examples. Are they favorable to Liu?

The press release mention the country's economic advances, and contrasts it with lack of human rights. Does the committee believe these two are contradictory, supplementary but independent, or closely connected and indivisible? Do they think human rights condition has progressed a great deal over the past 30 years? If so, are there people who deserve credit for human rights more than Liu? If they don't understand about the situation in China, aren't they giving out money in the dark? Or do they really care to understand?