Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, has written several articles for The New York Times and two Norwegian newspapers, Aftenposten and Dagbladet, about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo. And Geir Lundestad, secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, delivered a speech on the subject at the University of Oxford last month.

Jagland and Lundestad called Liu a "fighter", but to most Chinese people Liu is simply a criminal plotting to overthrow the State. Sponsored by foreign countries, he declared that China should be colonized by the West for 300 years and split into 18 parts.

Jagland said that China had overreacted to Liu winning the prize. But why shouldn't China express its dissatisfaction?

If China's freedom to express its opinion is a "threat" as Jagland described China's response to the award, how should the Nobel Committee's behavior be interpreted?

"The basic values of Norway or Scandinavian countries determine whom the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to," Lundestad said after his speech at the University of Oxford.

I cannot help asking how the human rights values of the West, including Norway, came to serve as the international standard, since they haven't a leg to stand on. According to research by Richard Gowan and Franziska Bratner for the European Council on Foreign Relations, 127 of the 192 countries that comprise the General Assembly of the United Nations voted against the stance of the West on human rights issues this year.

Lundestad admitted in his speech that "most of the members of Noble Committee have never been to China", and "they don't know what most Chinese people are thinking". But he said the Nobel Committee "has some top experts, who have lived in China for many years and dedicated all their lives to studying China".

Do the views of these so-called experts reflect the views of the Chinese people? No, they do not.

Jagland and Lundestad have cited the 35th and 41st articles of Chinese Constitution, which are about citizens' freedom of speech, criticism and suggestions, to justify the award to Liu.

But the Chinese Constitution is not only made up of Article 35 and Article 41, but also Article 51, Article 52 and Article 54. These articles clearly stipulate that the exercise of individual freedom and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the State, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedom and rights of other citizens.

It is the duty of citizens to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities. It is also the duty of citizens to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland.

A harmonious and stable society is the fundamental requirement to protect Chinese people's human rights.

I think it is necessary to remind the Nobel Committee's experts studying the Chinese Constitution that the People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic leadership, led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and farmers.

If the experts really care about the rights of workers, I suggest Jagland press the UN to pass a resolution criticizing all states in the West, including Norway, which haven't realized equal pay for equal work yet.

Putting one's own house in order is the basic prerequisite before commenting on the houses of others.

It is not strange that the Norwegian people, whose average GDP per capita amounts to nearly $80,000, express their sympathy with their counterparts' working and living conditions in China, as the average GDP per capita in China just climbed to $3,000.

The biggest human rights in China are the rights to live and to develop.

Chinese people have enough reason to be proud of the road they have chosen. China's development has not been dependent on wars, colonization or exploitation. Unlike the developed countries of the West, China's development is based on the right policies and hard labor.

The author is a Chinese student studying in the United Kingdom.

(China Daily 12/08/2010 page9)