This summer, a group of miners in Albania’s richest chrome mine in Bulqiza staged a spectacular strike. Ten miners barricaded themselves 1400 meters, nearly one mile, underground and refused to eat and drink. The workers’ drastic measure followed earlier protests both at their own mine in the north and in the capital Tirana. After 23 days of underground protest, ten miners replaced the first weakened crew, continuing the hunger strike to express opposition to low wages, unsafe working conditions, poor management, and the lack of investment in the mine in general. The hunger strike was part of a three month long work stoppage by some 700 Albanian miners. But Albania is no Tunisia, Egypt or Libya. While being one of Europe’s poorest and most corrupt countries, it has been dealing with slowing economic growth and weak political leadership beyond the attention of the global media. The miners don’t seem to be the vanguards of a civil rebellion, but rather the players in an act overshadowed by an ongoing fight between two political parties and their leaders. DeliberatelyConsidered asked Ermira Danaj, an Albanian participant in the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies’ Democracy and Diversity Institute, for a report. – Esther Kreider-Verhalle

DC: Were any of the miners’ demands met?

Ermira Danaj: This time, the miners have won, but it is one of the very few victories for workers  fighting for their rights. The owners of the mine promised to continue investments in the mine, in a transparent manner. They also agreed to improve working conditions, to pay a 13 month wage, to pay the workers for half the period they were on strike, and a wage increase of 20%. During the first hunger strike, miners from other regions and workers from other sectors, facing the same problems, had started showing their solidarity with the miners. This was very unusual. After a regional court had decided that the protesters had to leave the mine, the miners left voluntarily, but stubbornly started their hunger strike again in another location not far from the mine.

The history of Albanian mining after 1990 is not a happy story. During the communist regime, the export of chrome was very important for the country. But after 1990, along with the rest of the industrial sector, the mining branch collapsed. The new democratic government – democratic in the sense that it was the first government within a pluralistic political system – aimed to privatize state owned enterprises. The socialists who came to power in 1997 continued the free market reforms. Yet, critically, privatization never focused on the workers’ working conditions, their contracts or wages.

Privatization of the mining sector began in earnest in 1994, largely supported by foreign investors. While the mineral resource of chromium continued to be vital for Albania’s economy, the conditions in the mines deteriorated, with numerous serious injuries and yearly deaths. For a number of years, the US Department of State has lamented the poor working conditions in the Bulqiza mines in its annual Human Rights Reports.

In the past three years, many protests have been organized but with little effect. Conditions have not improved and the struggle for fundamental workers’ rights has not been publicly recognized. Neither had the miners received much support from workers in other sectors or from civil society. The only organization that supported the miners’ protest earlier this year was The Political Organization, a newly founded organization aiming at raising critical debate in the country, while supporting workers and vulnerable people. During earlier protests that lasted several days in front of the government’s building in Tirana, the group brought the miners food, clothes and blankets.

DC: The small city of Bulqiza, about 30 miles north of Tirana is dependent on the mining industry. Investment in the mining sector is crucial both to the economic vitality of the region and the country. Chromium is used to produce steel and aluminum alloys, and is exported to the biggest American steel producers and other foreign companies. The Bulqiza mine has been in foreign hands since 2007. It’s owned by the Austrian corporation Decometal DCM, whose Albanian subsidiary ACR runs it until 2013. Has there been any improvement at all?

Ermira Danaj: In several press conferences and other media appearances ACR representatives have reported their investments not only in the Bulqiza mine but also in other industrial sectors. The miners’ main demand has been an improvement of their working conditions, while their calls for wage increases always came second. The miners argue that their lives and their futures are dependent on the mines. The investments are needed to ensure that they and the city as a whole have a future. Because ACR will run the mine until 2013, the workers worry about what will happen after that, if sufficient investments are not made now. Just to give you an idea of the current working conditions: The miners’ third demand was to have showers in the mine and clothes!

DC: There is a history of tension between the new foreign owner, the Albanian government, and the miners’ union. There have been talks in January 2011 between the Union and the Austrian owners with the Ministry of Labor as mediator. Both sides signed an agreement that there would be no further increases in wages until 2013. Their average wages are more than double the Albanian minimum wage of about 140 Euro per month. Also, the Albanian authorities fined ACR in July 2011 because it was not living up to its investment contract. And, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Energy suspended part of ACR’s license after two weeks of strikes at the mine. The same Ministry has been said to be in favor of the demands of the miners but to be against the method of striking, and instead prefers a dialogue.

Ermira Danaj: The strike is a legitimate action when workers’ rights are not being respected and workers are exploited. And the word “dialogue” has been one of the most harmful words in Albania, at least during the last years, because any form of oppression and exploitation is depicted and covered up by the word “dialogue.” When the dialogue is not working, and the workers’ conditions remain unchanged, then there are other possible instruments such as protests and strikes. In Albania the hunger strike has been quite delegitimized. And usually, the motifs behind protests are party politics. The three month long miners’ protest has been one of the very rare cases of persistent action. And while it is true that miners in Albania earn about 300 Euro (406 US Dollars), mining is dangerous and most miners suffer from health problems.

DC: Where do Albania’s political leaders stand on the problems?

Ermira Danaj: The miners’ issues are not addressed in political debate. Discussions between the members of the two major parties focus on fights between the leaders, and on gossip. Programmatic and ideological differences are all but ignored. In addition, the workers’ unions are weak and of little help, split as they have been for years according to party affiliation.

DC: Opposition leader Edi Rama did write an opinion piece in a local newspaper supporting the miners, while PM Berisha accused Rama of using the miners for his own political gain.

Ermira Danaj: This is the main issue here, the fact that the miners’ strike is used just as another element to feed the political struggle between the main parties. And in this context, instead of an op-ed piece, one would prefer to hear from the opposition leader an alternative position on the problems in the privatized mining sector. What will the opposition do if they come to power? Or, they could organize any political action in support of the miners. Unfortunately, in Albania there are only meetings and protests before elections, or after them, to protest the results.

Interestingly, because they feel they have nowhere else to turn the protesters asked for support from the American Embassy in Albania. The head of one of the Unions that backed the Bulqiza miners made an appeal to the US Ambassador to support the miners and to visit them to personally observe the working conditions. The miners had no expectation whatsoever that any Albanian politicians would support them. They made their appeal to the US ambassador because he is considered a good friend of the Albanian people and he represents a country where democracy and human rights are respected. The past two years,  the U.S. has been very involved  in Albania’s political crisis and the US Ambassador has stepped in before. This appeal for support to the US Embassy indicates not only a fundamental crisis in the Albanian political system, but also in civil society and in society at large. During their underground strike, the workers saw no other hope than to make an appeal to a foreign embassy.

DC: The story of Albania’s desperate miners was not covered in American media. How was local coverage?

Ermira Danaj: In the absence of any sensational political fight and in the middle of the media’s silly season, the hunger strike received quite some media attention. Yet, by focusing on the wage issue, they were inaccurately reporting the story. The investment issue was not part of the story, while, oddly enough, they did bring up the retirement age of the miners. Under the communist regime, the retirement age was 50 and currently it is 60. But the issue of retirement is up to the government. It has been an election issue, but it wasn’t part of the strikers’ demands that were all directed to the private owners of the mine.

Currently, the workers are in a trap between the private mine operator, the state and the media. The company and the state are not engaging in serious discussions about investment. Political debate is only about personalities and not about pressing issues. During the last two decades, our society has been preaching individual success as the ultimate value; fighting for workers’ rights looks so old-fashioned. So, given that the workers were doing the state’s job and were pushing the issue of investment with the private owners, the miners of Bulqiza scored a great victory. They did it all by themselves, they persisted, and weren’t corrupted. With their sacrifice in the form of a hunger strike 1400 meters underground, they showed others that resistance can work.

Memory and development often seem to be in tension in Latin America. The left speaks of the need to remember the past, particularly the human rights abuses committed by dictatorships during the cold war; the right, on the other hand, is concerned that an obsession with memory will forestall economic growth.  A few weeks ago, Gerardo Bleier published, via Facebook, a piece that made the old-guard of the Uruguayan left quite uncomfortable.  In the post, he presented a strong and provocative argument concerning collective memory and economic development. A leftist in distinguished standing, Bleier argues that in order to achieve justice concerning human rights violations during the recent Uruguayan dictatorship, Uruguayans must focus on social and economic development. Development, he argues, ought to be seen as an instrument of justice.  He has thus rejected the common sense positions of the left and the right and maps out a significant alternative.

Bleier has been a noted Uruguayan journalist since the 1980s. During the first government of the Frente Amplio (Broad Front, the left of center coalition), led by socialist Tabaré Vázquez (2005-2010), Bleier served as a high level consultant; and currently, he publishes weekly reflections about the vicissitudes encountered by the present Frente Amplio.

Importantly, he is the son of Eduardo Bleier, who was a high ranking cadre in the Communist Party. Without ever having held a gun, Eduardo was one of the many activists who disappeared, was tortured, and murdered during Uruguay’s “dirty war” of the 1960s and 1970s.  He probably died the first week of July, 1976, though no one knows for sure. After being tortured in the most savage way, he was thrown into a small wooden box and buried alive. The family never saw his remains. It is rumored that he was buried in a clandestine cemetery located within an army compound assigned to Battalion 13 of the Infantry Division. At some point between October 1984 and March 1985, as democracy was being reestablished, Bleier’s body was unearthed and transferred to a different military compound. Later, his body was unearthed yet again, together with the bodies of several military officers. This time his remains were incinerated and thrown into the Río de la Plata, according to some versions, or into a nearby creek, according to others.

The son’s political judgment is of course shaped and informed by his father’s fate. In his recent post, Eduardo Bleier provided a personal and poignant reflection about the meaning of memory and justice in Uruguay. He writes:

It is obvious that this [growth] should not prevent us from weaving and reconstructing the collective memories pertaining to the civil war and to the terrorism that was perpetrated by the state. We cannot stop reminding ourselves of the scale of this state-sponsored terrorism, which many have tried to hide, and the systematic violation of human rights, which occurred during the dictatorship. We can’t stop trying to find avenues that would lead us to the missing truths. We can’t stop debunking the politics of silence and protection of criminals. Yet, these themes cannot occupy the central stage in Uruguayan politics, as Uruguayans essentially understand.

I agree with Bleier’s most provocative point: addressing the problems of the past should not distract us from the need for development. Uruguay has to address its problematic past, but it cannot be careless about issues of poverty and institutional life in the future. We have to remember, but we also have to develop. After all, Uruguay was, for 70 years, on the forefront of education, and yet today it experiences a grotesque decline of its educational system; a decline that coincides with a previous collapse of the economy and the subsequent process of polarization which led to 12 years of dictatorship.

Bleier also wrote this in his Facebook account:

[I]t is also true that the overwhelming majority of Uruguayans, particularly the youth, need a collective memory that is not marked by the traumas of the past, but by the challenges of the future.

His post generated strong responses, in favor and against, among readers who are mostly intellectuals and activists with bright futures. The debate took place just as the Administration of President José Mujica –a former militant of the guerrilla group Tupamaros— lost a battle, failing to pass legislation that would allow the judiciary to prosecute members of the military who, during the civil war, committed crimes against humanity. The legislation was designed to reverse the amnesty law that was approved in 1985, shortly after democracy was reestablished in Uruguay. This amnesty law had allowed for a peaceful transition from 12 years of military rule to a democratic form of governance.  In essence, this law was a form of extortion, whereby the dictatorship protected its members from being judged for crimes against humanity.

Mujica’s predecesor, Tabaré Vázquez, had begun the legislative process intended to reopen cases of human rights violations that involved members of the dictatorship. As a result of Vázquez’ initiative, 28 police officers and members of the military who worked for the dictatorship have been jailed in a military detention center. Among them are lower-level functionaries, intelligence service operators, some police officers, a former Chancellor, Juan Carlos Blanco, and two former presidents, Juan Maria Bordaberry (under house arrest), and Lieutenant General Gregorio Alvarez.

Yet, of course, these people were not the only ones who were responsible for disappearances, torture and murders. According to the Freedom and Concord Forum (Foro Libertad y Concordia), an association that allegedly represents retired military, more than 400 military officers and soldiers are needed to serve as witnesses, in case Mujica’s government prosecutes the 88 members of the military whose cases have been pending. The spokesman of the association, retired Colonel Juan Perez de Azziz expects that dozens of these witnesses have a chance of ending up in jail themselves.

Today Uruguayans are confronted precisely with the question of whether or not to proceed with this amnesty law, of whether to focus on their past or to focus on their future.

After all these years, Gerardo Bleier knows that those responsible for his father’s torture and death are not just the politically alienated and the ultra-nationalist members of the military; the small cadre that operated during the cold war. He knows that political groups and people with economic interests also added fuel to the terror, people whose names can fill countless pages, even tomes that may never be part of our history. The government of the United States, to begin with, was the main facilitator of this crisis, having financed, since 1968, our Homeland Security Program, under which Uruguayan officers were trained by CIA operatives.

Ever since, many historical events have met their expiration date. And Bleier, the survivor, knows well that each passing day truth flees yet again. But he also knows that there will be no truth and no justice if Uruguay doesn’t consolidate its future. And he knows that this future and these truths will not be possible if we don’t take care today of our current, important, urgent demands: educate the young, address the problems of gross inequality, develop the economy.  These are not tasks that turn away from remembering the past. They are preconditions for it.

President Barack Obama gave a powerful speech today, one of his best. The president was again eloquent, but there is concern here in the U.S. and also abroad in the Arab world, that eloquence is not enough, that it may in fact be more of the problem than the solution. The fine words don’t seem to have substance in Egypt, according to a report in The Washington Post. There appears to be a global concern that Obama’s talk is cheap. Obama’s “Cairo Speech” all over again, one Egyptian declared. Now is the time for decisive action. Now is the time for the President of the United States to put up or shut up. (Of course, what exactly is to be put up is another matter.)

This reminds me of another powerful writer-speaker, President Vaclav Havel. Havel is the other president in my lifetime that I have deeply admired. Both he and Obama are wonderful writers and principled politicians, both have been criticized for the distance between their rhetorical talents and their effectiveness in realizing their principles.

Agreeing with the criticisms of Havel, I sometimes joke about my developing assessment of him. I first knew about Vaclav Havel as a bohemian, as a very interesting absurdist playwright. I wrote my dissertation about Polish theater when this was still his primary occupation, and I avidly read his work then as I tried to understand why theater played such an important role in the opposition to Communism in Central Europe.

I then came to know him as one of the greatest political essayists and dissidents of the twentieth century. At the theoretical core of two of my books, Beyond Glasnost: The Post Totalitarian Mind and The Politics of Small Things: The Power of the Powerless in Dark Times are the ideas to be found in Havel’s greatest essay, “The Power of the Powerless.”

However, as president, Havel was not so accomplished. He presided over the breakup of Czechoslovakia, a development he opposed passionately, but ineffectually. He sometimes seemed to think that he could right a political problem by writing a telling essay, often translated and published in The New York Review of Books. He expressed a moral high ground in these essays, but he did not address the tough and messy side of politics. This is a real weakness of the intellectual as politician, the temptation to think if one can put a solution into words, one has solved a problem.

Does this problem apply to Obama, specifically to his speech today? Many on both the left and the right have heard enough of his speeches. They want action.

I watched a PBS News Hour discussion last night in anticipation of the speech today, and this was the consensus of the expert observers. Therefore, I think it is significant how much of this speech pointed in the direction of specific policy developments. Yet, they were placed in a broader historical and moral context. And the words were important. They did politics. They acted. They were speech acts in Austin’s sense.

I was particularly moved by the way the president told the story of the Arab Spring. He gave it great significance. He alluded to the killing of bin Laden, but didn’t dwell on it. He started with the politics of small things and pointed to civilizational transformation.

“On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It’s the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week — until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -– no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.”

The president maintained that this power as it spread throughout the Arab world can no longer be easily repressed, and he expressed a conviction that given the media world we now live in the protestors’ “voices tell us that change cannot be denied.”

But that was it for the moving rhetoric. Obama then turned sober and practical. “The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.” And he described what might very well become known as the Obama Doctrine.

“The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. (Applause.)

The U.S. supports a set of universal rights. These rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.”

This all sounds quite good, but perhaps empty, as some have maintained. However, the substance of the matter is in the details. It is noteworthy that when the president referred to the importance of universal rights he mentioned not only easy targets, but also Sanaa, increasing the pressure on Ali Abdullah Saleh, our ally in “the war on terrorism” to resign. And later when he criticized regimes that violently repress their citizenry for engaging in peaceful protests, he included not only Libya, Syria and Iran, but also the important American ally Bahrain.

“Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.

Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and we will – and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.”

He spoke to the people and not only to the rulers of the region. He understood that the problem was not only political, but also economic, offering assistance and engagement in economic development as it addresses the needs of ordinary people. Moreover, he promised to listen to diverse voices coming from the region.

“We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.”

He gave a forceful commitment to support religious minorities and strong support to the centrality of women’s rights.

“History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. And that’s why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama was careful but took a strong position. There was a little to warm the heart of those on both sides, but also much that would concern both.

Obama made news and earned the wrath of his domestic opposition by declaring, “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” This earned him an immediate protest by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But he also expressed concerns about the recent Hamas – Fatah agreement and about “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” Thus, the Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri denounced the speech completely.

To my mind, Obama was not tough enough on Netanyahu, but he did move forward. Clearly, something other than complete support for the Israeli right’s position is necessary, contrary to Obama’s hysterical Republican critics. Obama advanced the U.S. position a bit. He said the obvious. The future border between Palestine and Israel will be based on the ’67 borders with negotiated adjustments. That has been the implicit assumption of the peace process for decades. Saying it bluntly, as President Obama did, provides some grounds for progress, suggesting a real response to the Arab Spring.

In his speech this morning, the president gave an account of a rapidly changing political landscape, showing an appreciation of the dynamics driving it and presenting a role for the U.S. to play. It was a broad and impressive depiction of our changing political world. He revealed an understanding of the role of the U.S. in this changing world, and he started playing the role when he turned to the all-important details. He staked out a position.

We will get a sense of how full or empty his rhetoric was today, when he meets Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow.

As China revealed its repressive nature in its response to the prize, the dignity and critical insight of the dissident was revealed in Liu’s own words, as Liv Ullmann read his “I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement to the Court.”

The same pattern occurred in awarding Michnik’s doctorate, though in his case it was a two part story.

Part One: Michnik was scheduled to receive his degree in a university ceremony in New York on April 25, 1984, commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the University in Exile (what would become the New School’s social science graduate school in which I am a professor) by honoring human rights activists from around the world.  Because Michnik was imprisoned as part of a martial law crackdown on independent thinkers and political and labor activists, Czeslaw Milosz accepted the honorary degree on his behalf and read from his “Letter for General Kiszczak”, in which Michnik declined an offer of exile as the condition for release from prison.

The Polish Nobel Laureate for Literature read the democratic activist’s passionate denunciation of his interior minister jailer and Michnik’s justification of his commitment to human rights: “the value of our struggle lies not in its chances for victory but rather in the values of its cause.”  He explained in the letter how his refusal of a comfortable exile was an affirmation of these values, keeping them alive in Poland.

Part Two of the story actually occurred on International Human Rights Day of 1984.  It suggested and led to much more.

I was in Warsaw for the unofficial ceremony presenting Adam Michnik his honorary degree from The New School after he was released from prison as part of a general amnesty.  I met him the day before the event agreeing upon the logistics.

The ceremony, itself, was moving, not a major international event, but still reported by the New York Times.

“In an apartment across the street from Mokotow Prison where he spent two and a half years, Adam Michnik, the Solidarity adviser and activist, received an honorary doctorate Monday from the New School for Social Reseach.

Mr. Michnik accepted the green and white academic hood presented to him by Jonathan F. Fanton, president of the New School, in the living room of Edward Lipinski, the 98- year-old Polish social activist.

It was in this same apartment that Mr. Michnik and his colleagues formed the now banned Committee to Defend Workers, which was known by its Polish initials KOR and which acted as an intellectual support group for the Solidarity movement.”

The week following the ceremony Adam introduced me to his world.  We spoke around his living room table and the kitchen tables of scholars, intellectuals and artists of Warsaw, and also in a room of a patient, Jan Józef Lipski, at the cardiac hospital on the outskirts of the city.

We went to the hospital the day after the ceremony.  Michnik wanted to share with the respected opposition historian his excitement over the honorary degree (an excitement that really surprised me).  They spoke about Lipski’s recent research on inter war Fascism in Poland.  We spoke about the significance of the Pope for independent minded Poles, workers and intellectuals.  This was one of the many conversations Michnik and I had about contemporary history, politics and political theory.  We shared our fascination in the philosophy and political theory of Hannah Arendt.  We also spoke about common friends in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Upon leaving the hospital, Michnik turned to me and proposed, a seminar idea, “now that we are New School colleagues.”  Vaclav Havel, in Prague, György Bence, in Budapest, he in Warsaw and I in New York would organize parallel seminars on the topics we had been discussing during my visit.  The starting point of the discussions would be Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism. Each group would read a common assignment, exchange summaries of the proceedings and propose further study.

From 1985 through 1989, the seminar functioned in Budapest, New York and Warsaw.  Political conditions made the seminar impossible in Prague.  The Polish sociologist Jerzy Szacki chaired the Warsaw seminar, because three months after our agreement Michnik was again imprisoned, charged with treason.  There were many twists and turns in the seminar, many interesting discussions and some significant exchanges.  It continued to function into the 90s across the former Soviet bloc.  One of many alternative spaces for free intellectual exchange was established and functioned, a zone of free intellectual life.

Noteworthy from the point of view in December 2010, is that the ceremony on Human Rights Day in 1984, which marked the importance of a human rights commitment as an end in itself, did empower activities that pointed in the direction of 1989, when the repressive regime in Poland and beyond, collapsed.

We know how the Chinese government and other governments have disgraced and distinguished themselves as they responded to Liu’s Prize.  What we don’t know about are the hidden activities, such as my visit with Michnik to the Cardiac Hospital in Warsaw.  Michnik may have been right about the primary value of his actions, but we should note that his actions, along with his colleagues, also led to further quite practical and significant consequences.  In China also?