https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo

Thoughts and political views[edit]
Evolving from his aesthetic notion of "Individual Subjectivity" as opposed to Li Zehou's theory of aesthetic subjectivity which combined Marxist materialism and Kantian idealism, he upheld the notion of "aesthetic freedom" which was based on the individualistic conception of freedom and aesthetics. He also strongly criticized Chinese intellectuals' traditional attitude of searching for rationalism and harmony as a "slave mentality" just as it was criticized by radical left-wing literary critic Lu Xun during the New Cultural Movement. He also echoed the New Cultural Movement's call for wholesale westernization and the rejection of Chinese traditional culture. In an interview in 1988, he said "modernization means wholesale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing a Western way of life. The Difference between the Western and the Chinese governing system is humane vs in-humane, there's no middle ground... Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race."[30] In 2002, he reflected on his Mao-style radical aesthetic and his political views at the time:[31]
"I realized that my entire youth and early writings had all been nurtured in hatred, violence and arrogance, or lies, cynicism and sarcasm. I knew at the time that Mao-style thinking and Cultural Revolution-style language had become ingrained in me, and I had become my own gaol [...]. It may take me a lifetime to get rid of the poison."[31]
In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong's Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation. He replied:
"[It would take] 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough."[30][32]
Liu admitted in 2006 that the response was extemporaneous, although he did not intend to take it back, because it represented "an extreme expression of his longheld belief."[32] The quote was nonetheless used against him. He has commented, "Even today [in 2006], radical patriotic 'angry youth' still frequently use these words to paint me with 'treason'."[32]
He was also a strong critic of Chinese nationalism, believing that the "abnormal nationalism" which had existed in China over the last century had turned from a defensive style which contained "mixed feelings of inferiority, envy, complaint, and blame into an aggressive form of "patriotism" that was filled with "blind self-confidence, empty boasts, and pent-up hatred".[33] The "ultra-nationalism", being deployed by the Chinese Communist Party since the Tiananmen protests, has also become "a euphemism for worship of violence in service of autocratic goals."[34]
In his letter to his friend Liao Yiwu in 2000, he expressed his thoughts on the prospects of the democracy movement in China:
"Compared to others under the Communist black curtain, we cannot call ourselves real men. Through the great tragedies of all these years, we still don’t have a righteous giant like [Václav] Havel. In order for everyone to have the right to be selfish, there has to be a righteous giant who will sacrifice selflessly. In order to obtain "passive freedoms" (freedom from the arbitrary oppression by those in power), there has to be a will for active resistance. In history, nothing is fated. The appearance of a martyr will to completely change a nation’s soul and raise the spiritual quality of the people. But Gandhi was by chance, Havel was by chance; two thousand years ago, a peasant’s boy born in the manger was even more by chance. Human progress relies on the chance birth of these individuals. One cannot count on the collective conscience of the masses but only on the great individual conscience to consolidate the weak masses. In particular, our nation needs this righteous giant; the appeal of a role model is infinite; a symbol can rouse an abundance of moral resources. For example, Fang Lizhi’s ability to walk out of the U.S. Embassy, or Zhao Ziyang’s ability to actively resist after stepping down, or so-and-so refusing to go abroad. A very important reason for the silence and amnesia after June Fourth is that we did not have a righteous giant who stepped forward."[35]
In 2009 when he was trialled for "inciting subversion of state power" due to his participation in drafting the Charter 08 manifesto which demanded freedom of expression, human rights and democratic elections, he wrote an essay known as "I Have No Enemies", stating that "the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress towards freedom and democracy", and he declared that he had no enemies, and no hatred.[36]
In international affairs, he supported U.S. President George W. Bush's 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, his 2003 invasion of Iraq and his re-election.[37][38][39][40] However, he also criticized the Iraq prison abuse scandals.[41]