Why Ai Matters - Why Not so Much
Written by Julen Madariaga on April 13th, 2011Interesting article by Evan Osnos, explaining Why Ai Weiwei Matters. He gives three good reasons why we should not dismiss the Ai WeiWei case as irrelevant. Despite the annoying tone (he seems to imply that foreigners ignoring Ai Weiwei are brainwashed readers of The Global Times), it is fair to say that he addresses the issue effectively.
The trouble is, I don’t think he chose the right issue to address. Many of us who (mildly) oppose all this Ai Weiwei fad don’t do so on the grounds of irrelevance, but for other more important reasons. In particular, we fear that the disproportionate focus of Western media on characters like Nobel Liu XB or Ai WW is counterproductive, and it can undermine the democratic dissidence in China.
Both Liu and Ai are quite extreme characters. Both have a few things in common: an aggressive style, an economic dependency on the West, and (coincidence?) a radically pro-Western stance. More crucially, both share a taste for expressing their views or creating “art” [1] by means of destroying the things that are dearest to all Chinese who love their country, communist or otherwise: their history, their culture, their wounds of the colonial period.
You could argue this is just a natural reaction because Liu and Ai both suffered the excesses of patriotism. You could argue that their pro-Western views are unrelated to their economic dependence. You may convince me of these points: but how are you going to convince the Chinese? If this is about promoting democracy, shouldn’t marketability to Chinese be a core consideration? Of all the remarkable dissidents that China has, how come we chose as our stars these two, a present on a silver tray for the editors of the Global Times?
Of course, Ai Wei Wei is just an artist, and it fine if he chooses to be bohemian and provocative. Liu is a writer, and good for him if he believes that Chinese culture is inferior to Western. Neither of them should be arrested for their ideas. But this doesn’t qualify them as political models either.
The point is, Liu and Ai do not stand for what most open-minded Chinese people want: pragmatic policy and progressive change. We choose to highlight these two characters not because they represent a Chinese ideal, but because they represent our ideal of what the average Chinese dissident should be. And I am afraid, by doing so we are pushing China even further apart from us.
Is there some aspect of Liu or Ai that I forgot in the equation? What do you think?
NOTES:
- I am just a simple engineer, you will excuse me for thinking that breaking historical vases or taking photos of your middle finger is not remotely art [↩]
Jordan Johnson said:
Etheneizino said:
César said:
土木坛子 said:
panda said:
13
AM
“…how come we chose as our stars these two…”
Who is “we”?
I’m pretty sure that choice was made by the CCP. “We” didn’t arrest LXB and AWW for voicing their opinions.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
@G.E. Anderson,
There are numerous examples of the “we” you are looking for if you are willing to look for them. Two examples for a starter: The German and French governments have made some sort of request/demand? for the release of the great Artist immediately after his arrest. What would happen if the Chinese government make a similar request, for example, to the French, asking them to immediately release the three Muslim women recently arrested simply because of how they dressed themselves?
This kind of political stunt is not helpful and counterproductive. If you are still not satisfied with these two examples, check the mainstream western media, you won’t be disappointed.
There are many people arrested in China everyday, I guess, many of them perhaps for wrong reasons. would they get the same treatment?
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
@G.E. Anderson: good question about “we”. By “we” I meant the Western opinion.
Definitely the first choice was made by the CCP. But we choose to give particular attention to these two names over many others. This is what this whole post is about, nothing else.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
I agree with GE Anderson in that we didn’t make the CCP consider LXB and AWW dangerous enough to arrest, but many of us HAVE chosen to lionize, exploit, and piggyback on them. That’s something “we” should reflect upon.
Julen’s great point, I think, is that many of us ARE guilty of fashioning them as the heroes and the methods of protest WE want to impress UPON the Chinese.
I also think Evan Osnos was largely responding to a straw man. Glad I’m not the only person who got that vibe.
[Reply to this comment]
FOARP Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 5:36 am
@Kai, apologists for the CCP like Shaun Rein who literally call people who criticise the Chinese government ‘idiots’ who ‘froth at the mouth’, and who apparently in his view deserve to be denied entry to the coutnry, are not straw men. They are, unfortunately, real.
@Julen - I’m going to say this straight. I don’t love Ai. I don’t love Liu. I don’t agree with everything they have to say . But I very strongly disagree with anyone who wants to make out that asking for their release, and recognising that both of them are currently suffering because took a stand for what they believed in, is wrong. Ai, in particular, reportedly was offered a CPPCC position which would have guaranteed virtual immunity to the kind of abduction which eventually happened. He was on his way out of the country for good when they arrested him. He was not asking to be arrested.
Moreover, it seems very likely that this is an indication of the direction which Xi Jinping wants to take China. This is not a small story.
As for this putting heat on reformists within the CCP. This would be a nice story if there were any effective reformists left at the high levels. Everything we have seen over the past year show that there aren’t. Instead what we see are a clique of princelings who are pushing asside the current grouping of technocrats. What we are seeing is the advent of unashamed totalitarianism.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
Seeing the move toward conservatism in the U.S., Is it so surprising that conservatives in the CCP (Chinese Communist party) are asserting themselves too?
The U.S. is a two party system, but what we are seeing in the U.S. is really a split system that pushes and pulls between liberals and conservatives. The CCP is a one party system that likewise pushes and pulls between liberals and conservatives.
And here is the real kicker. Both are Republics, and neither are democracies. Rule of law is established in both countries, except when it’s not. Could democracy work for the Chinese? It seems to be working after a fashion in Taiwan.
Perhaps Western activists should work toward achieving democracy in the U.S. first, before worrying about China.
yamabuki
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
good point GE Anderson. it’s also important to remember that “The West” is not attacking Chinese people or culture or trying to pour salt on the wounds of a colonial humiliation.
Many (read: most) Chinese people, IMHO, are persuaded by the government propaganda machine to believe that any criticism of China is a direct criticism of them and their culture.
It seems that “western countries,” again IMHO, have transcended this extreme notion that criticizing the government equates to a criticism of a whole people and is a negative judgment on their culture.
Chinese are indoctrinated to believe that this is the case, which gives the government virtual free reign to do as they please, condemning every criticism as an unfair judgment of all Chinese people “Hurt (their) feelings”.
“The government is an entity in and of itself, with its own interests, and in no way is synonymous with YOUR individual character. The Chinese people can’t help but develop. You are the ones who develop this land. No government is solely responsible for your improved living standards. China is developing so quickly because it is what the people want. It is what YOU want. Wouldn’t it be nice if you just had a say in what way your own country develops?”
Unfortunately, this extreme sense of nationalism reinforces the notion of past humiliations, while the people themselves have nothing, in that respect, to be ashamed of. It is damaging to the Chinese psyche, which is, in turn, damaging to the greater stability of global politics and individual, psychological development.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:04 am
@Ryan,
Important for whom to remember? The Chinese or the westerners? I guess you are talking about the Chinese, for they should always remember that …
However, what happens if they don’t remember or they are not convinced? Oh, here comes plan B, then most of them “IMHO, are persuaded by the government propaganda machine to believe that any criticism of China is a direct criticism of them and their culture.” So, you either believe the sainthood of the “west” (which they definitely have ample experience from not too long ago) or, in case they don’t, they are brainwashed. There is no way out. The rest of the story is no surprise and will be according to the template storyline by connecting the following key words: indoctrination and nationalism etc.
I can only thinks of two words to describe that attitude: ignorant and arrogant. (I seriously suggest that you remove the “H” in that acronym.)
[Reply to this comment]
sameandnot Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 10:20 am
@hehe,
yay! thanks for the response!
it’s important for everyone to remember, silly!
it’s really a primitive kind of social construct that ends up pitting in-groups and out-groups against one another, as i see it.
obviously, i “either believe in the sainthood of the ‘west’ or… they are brainwashed”…. I think that is more than apparent from my comment. surely it MUST be one or the other. hehe
but, in case my sarcasm goes undetected, i should say that i don’t see the relationship. surely they are not interdependent clauses. but, i used to make arguments like that too, so i know where you’re coming from, which is why i now identify my OPINION as an opinion and refrain from making claims of objective truth.
absolutism…… hmmm, i just don’t know about all that… hehe
actually, i think those kinds of statements downright reek of ignorance and arrogance.
but, man… i am from the US. It might be the case that we get more criticism than any other country in the world. we get it every time we tell someone where we’re from…. the snide remarks and instant judgement of our characters. but, US politics are in the news all day, everyday. virtually dominating the news…
although i left the US and am keenly aware of all the problems that face it, i am damn glad i was brought up there. it never made me subscribe to anything simply because i was born there. it gave me an awesome, free education, truly multi-cultural interactions, and kick ass water parks!! haha there is a tolerance and enlightenment that exists in the minds of some americans (for all the ignorance and arrogance that runs rampant…) that, from my experience and in my opinion, doesn’t happen elsewhere in the world, yet. i will criticize the US gov’t all day. protest against it. engage in debates about it. but, i feel that my education has made me aware enough to recognize what is me from what isn’t. and for this reason, i am sure that i will always be better off than someone who can’t.
as a result, i feel that my opinion and perspective is valuable. while i don’t mean to offend anyone (and, i think that is the point of my comment actually… not taking offense to generalizations… or at least something like that…), at the same time, i don’t mind if i do offend people. i can’t control your response, but i can hardly wait to read it!!! thanks, hehe! chat soon?
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
@sameandnot,
On a national level, I think that the reason for the US receiving lots of criticism, at least from China’s perspective, is bascially self-inflicted. If you constantly adopt a finger-pointing lecturing attitude (e.g. composing a country by country human-rights report annually while ignoring its own problems, the lastest example being the ongoing torturing of Mr Bradly Manning without due process for 7 months and counting.) towards other nations, what do you expect?
On an individual level, I suppose that it is really a matter of case-by-base issue. Generalisation would be inappropriate.
[Reply to this comment]
sameandnot Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
@hehe,
yeah, the US has stains on its record. it receives criticism from all over, and for good reason. many times self-inflicted, indeed. i think it’s good. i don’t mind the criticisms. it’s good for the american people and the american system. there is adaptation and growth through it.
i guess, i should really appreciate more that so many people from all around the world, from so many different countries, are so concerned with improving the US via critique… americans are certainly listening (most of them, anyway) and it has already done a world of good. so, thank you!
“it takes a village…” right?
[Reply to this comment]
sameandnot Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
@sameandnot,
it’s not just the US that it helps, though. helping each other helps everyone. US just happens to be the most influential.
13
AM
As a native Chinese, here is my comment:
Well, there’s certainly problem in the CCP, especially when the Middle East revolutions took place, the Hu Administration were anxious and spent all their efforts to crack down any sign of “jasmine revolution”.
The government choose these two because they are the most prominent dissents they’ve ever apprehended. When Liu was awarded the Nobel Prize, only the official media of China was silent. Ai is very active on twitter, he uploaded the videos online to show the lack of due process in Chinese legal system and corruption within the government. I think compared to most dissents in China, both Ai and Liu are in a relatively better position since their stories are largely covered by the media. Ai’s father was a CCP official and he is a prominent artist; while Liu is a Nobel Prize laureate whose Charter 08, is often viewed as Chinese citizen’s declaration of human rights.
I’m impressed about most of the efforts Ai has spent and I view them as the Chinese version of social activism, a value usually promoted by NGOs in developing countries. The Chinese government imposed harsh restrictions on NGOs, therefore, I think what Ai and his team did are significant because he is exploring a path of grassroot democracy which is a rebel of the official propaganda.
[Reply to this comment]
FOARP Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 5:38 am
@Valerie, The crackdown preceded the events in the middle east, and has continued after the “Jasmine revolution” fizzled. This has been coming from a while.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
Re: Ryan
Even though you are not pushing western viewpoint, it is not hard to see why it sould seem you are……………
The west is not persuaded by Chinese government propaganda and thus sees that AWW and LXB are genuinely working towards the good of China, but the Chinese people, being brainwashed and unable to think by themselves, do not. But the west shall continue to align ourselves to AWW and LXB at the risk of seeming like former colonial enemies from without buying out collaborators from within. Because the truth is that we are not their enemies, and the Chinese people ought to transcend their brainwashing and see this truth as well.
The west has transcended viewing the criticism of the government as criticism of the entire nation, but the Chinese hasn’t, so the west shall continue to demonize their government while ignoring the risk of alienating the people. Because the people ought to transcend their primitive perspective that government equals nation and view our intent as the altruism they are.
The west, being inpartial observers, has correctly identified that the Chinese people suffer from a collective damaged psyche that damages global political stability and possess an extreme sense of nationalism that reinforces the false notion of past humiliations. However, the west should continue to hurt their feeling regardless of this ailment because the Chinese ought to know better. If their collective psyche is not damaged, they wouldn’t take any offense.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
However, Liu’s case is different. Of course, I personally admire Mr. Liu’s courage, but I think Charter 08 is not gonna work in present China. To me, Charter 08 seems like a hybrid of western human rights values and Chinese history, while the author didn’t get the essence of both.
Liu has spent an overwhelming part of the Charter focusing on political rights, while I doubt the citizenry of China, most of whom are rural population can understand the significance of democracy, election and environment protection. He failed to address economic rights in the charter, except mentioning the concept of “privatization”, which is way too broad and abstract for most of the population.
Another noticeable factor is he wrote extensively about the Chinese history. He also mentioned China’s obligation as a permanent member of the U.N and signatory of the ICCPR in the preface. I doubt if it is helpful in addressing his proposition later on.
It is interesting to compare Liu’s Charter 08 to the U.S declaration of independence. In the declaration of independence, the founding fathers of the U.S are addressing the real and urgent danger to the nation, while the 08 charter didn’t offer specific examples of real problems and provide possible solutions for the problems. I only see a collection of slogans and ideals flowing on the paper, nothing more.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
What you said would apply to Liu, I’m not sure about Ai. Ai seems like your run of the mill activist protesting for the sake of protesting. It’s just more pronounced in China because there aren’t a lot of people like him in China.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
It is the same argument of why it is a futile attempt to mock China on its human rights record.
http://www.chinahearsay.com/china-strikes-back-at-us-rights-record-and-why-its-not-funny/
Ai Weiwei’s and Liu Xiaobo intentions are noble on trying to sell Western Democracy to China is like Sanlu selling its milk formula in China. The problem is not the Sanlu brand, but questionable quality of its milk formula. You can hype how great Western democracy is, but in the eyes of China Western Democracy is a damaged brand. As long as Ai Weiwei and Liu Xiaobo is associated with Western Democracy, their ideas will never sell.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
“but in the eyes of China Western Democracy is a damaged brand.”… I do not know whom are you talking for, I know many Chinese would prefer the damaged brand to what they have now -the real sanlu. Of course, they belong to the “have-nots” of China, those you probably you do not have in mind, and those who can not go abroad to study, bear sons and daughters abroad and obtain foreign citizenships… or buy foreign milk.
Reading Julen’s work, he seems to side with the 1990′s current of elite intellectualism. The market of ideas in China is quite monopolistic (on the available ideas), I am not sure how are you going to market democracy here. May be through “Global Times”… like Wen Tao, oh, yeah, fired. Oh! he is missing…
You say that both guys do not deserve to be considered political models. So who does qualify for that? Is theer any standard we should abide for? It sounds to me quite a harmonius-harmonized perspective. You may not like his style or whatever, but who are we to decide who are the models? They were hyped simply because they were known to western audiences, who, what coincidence- are the destinataries of these media. They may also run an article on Mr. Momo, but it will not attract any one. It doesn’t matter; whoever gets the attention of the west will have a hard time, even the Prime Minister Wen; Ooops CNN interview -censored in China…
Oh, we (high nosed foreigners, low nosed foreigners, elite Chinese, Princes and Mandarines), from the heights are the ones to decide who is a political model! I hope that’s not what your writing is implying.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
Honestly, I do think that there is something in the equation you have forgotten. It can be said that almost all historical victories for what we have come to call today “human rights” are actuated by the average Joe but nevertheless championed by “extreme characters.” Abolition? Civil rights movement? Heck, even the gradual unseating of religious authorities as the primary political forces in Europe. You’ll have to forgive me for the primarily Western/US centric examples here, but I believe my point stands. These victories were spearheaded by people who were considered “extreme” by establishment forces at the time. MLK was accused of being Communist; Sun Yatsen was a detestable revolutionary in the eyes of the Qing establishment. One’s “extremism” is a poor criterion for dismissing the importance of social figures if history is anything to go by.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
@Porfiriy: good point. I think there is a slight misunderstanding -my fault- created by the provocative title I used for the article. Guys, don’t trust titles, they are written by the editor and unrelated to the main meaning.
Seriously though, the post is not about the Importance of Ai and Liu. Both are extremely important, if only because they are innocent persons unjustly deprived of their freedom for expressing their political views. And yes, you are complete right that extreme characters are the ones who drive change.
My point was more about the practical aspects of all this. I am not saying our approach is unfair, I am just saying it doesn’t work. From the Nobel prize to war-hawk Liu (not to mention to Obama) to the present sanctification of Ai, it looks like the West is doing its best efforts to present the case in a silver tray for the Global Times.
Most Chinese are already understandably wary of the West’s intentions, as history old and recent shows them that in foreign policy the West will always serve its own interests first. You can call them “brainwashed”, and partly you might be right. But people, please realize our record is not precisely crystal clear to demand trust, the Chinese do have some sound reasons to doubt of our intention.
So now, in this situation where our arguments already stand on shaky grounds, we decide to give all our support (including financially) to two of the most radical dissenters with the most pro-Western stance, strident to the point of offending many Chinese people. Aggressive and declared enemies of progressive reform, which is what most Chinese people clearly want.
Do you seriously think these 2 dissidents have any chance in China, even without censorship?? Those of you who live in China, ask yourself honestly: do you think any significant number of Chinese people are likely to trust these 2 dissidents today, even without the Global Times?
I think absolutely not.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:47 am
@Julen Madariaga,
The problem of the current apporach adopted by the “west” is that it fails to connect to the average Chinese Joe on the street. The success of the Chinese government “propoganda” approach, relatively speaking, is that they can connect to the daily life of the average Joe. I don’t think this is hard to understand. Even the common Chinese people may not be able to articulate the difference but they can feel it themselves.
The west protest against the arrest of AWW and LYB, etc. Who are they? Are they representative of the common Chinese? Not by a long shot. So if I were a migrant worker working on a construction site in Beijing, why do I give a damn to the arrest of these two guys, two extremists by comparison. What benefit can I get? Don’t tell me freedom of speech and human rights. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I like wage increases and better working conditions. I like better jobs and better education for my kids, etc. Can LXB and LXB alike deliver on that with his Chapter08? Can the nake artistic shows of AWW bring food on my table? Oh, the “west” says yes, if you follow their ideas, you will have better life eventually. However, how come are they so sure about that? What happens if my life doesn’t improve? (Most likely, the west and AWW and LXB will tell you that it is your fault because you haven’t implemented their ideas properly.) I will have bear the full consequences, right?
As an example, if the west protest against the illegal, sometimes brutal, demolition of commom people’s homes whenever there are such cases, instead of AWW’s “art” house, what would be the reaction? There are so many such cases. How many of them have been picked up by the German/French/British/American… governments, and more importantly in the same forcefully manner as in the case of AWW alike? We know the answer. So, it is no wonder for the common Chinese to cast some doubt on the real intention of the west given their evident selective approach(and their past record), i.e. you have to be: famous, especially in the west, political, better extremely political, pro perceived western norms, ideas and ideals, most importantly, proactive, confrontational and anti-the communist evil “regime”.
[Reply to this comment]
sameandnot Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 10:25 am
@hehe,
it would be nice and infinitely more helpful if non-chinese could speak chinese…. or, at least speak better chinese. i, for one, am more responsive to people when they speak to me in a language that i understand… hehe! it’s just easier to talk about things then. hahahaha
so get studying, guys! =)
[Reply to this comment]
Donald Rilea Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 8:14 am
@hehe, Read this piece, to which I was brought via an article on Hyperallergic, and the comments below, including this one. For my money, and yeah, am a Yank, so make of that what you shall, it seems to me that a good part of your argument above, especially about the average Chinese day labourer not giving a good God-Damn about either Ai Weiwei or Liu Xiaobo is more than likely true, ‘cos when one’s primary worry’s about making a living and putting food on one’s table, and one’s family’s, that’s going to shut out, or at least greatly diminish, one’s ability to care over-much about the fate of anyone, especially of higher social status than oneself, and whom one doesn’t personally know. Since you mentioned Bradley Manning, there are many Americans, many of whom are worried about making a living, putting food on the table, etc, who aren’t overly concerned about his fate, either. There are many who also are, however. It all depends on what and whom one values and considers to be important enough to warrant concern. Also, does either excuse the ways in which the Chinese, US, or other governments treat their dissidents? No is my answer. Mind you, Manning, as a US Army Specialist, violated US Army, US Federal government regulations and laws on the dissemination of classified information, and a Chinese equivalent of him, while perhaps lauded as a hero in the US and the West, would be seen, at the very least, as a criminal or a traitor, if not both, in the eyes of both the PRC government and much of the Mainland Chinese public, I’d reckon. Am willing to bet that, at the very least, both Ai and Liu are seen by many in the PRC as, if not traitors or criminals, then at least as irritants whom many would wish would simply shut the Hell up. But, there are also those to whom such people, and far more unjustly obscure figures in the West, are heroes and inspirations. It all depends on one’s viewpoint, really. Many of us in the West, especially, but not exclusively, the USA, can be just as blindly nationalistic as anyone else in any other society around the world. The historical circumstances, and the reasoning behind it, differs from society to society, and historical period to historical period. To-day’s Chinese and US nationalisms, for instance, while part of a longer historical continuity, have been shaped by events that have occurred over the past 22 years, in particular, though the Chinese memory of Western interference in Chinese internal affairs goes back to the 1840′s, and US nationalist animus toward China goes back to not only the Chinese government’s crushing of the Chinese democracy movement in 1989, but, in some portions of the US political spectrum, mainly the Right and far Right wings of it, to the Chinese Communists’ victory over the Guomingdang in 1949. There are also elements of racialised xenophobia in that that date well back into the 19th Century, and specifically to the late 1840′s, when European-American prospectors and others in California began to resent the economic competition posed by Chinese gold miners, labourers and others, just as there’s often, so it seems to me, a sort of xenophobia that can be often found in some strains of Chinese thought, too. Westerners were often described in 19th and early 20th Century Chinese accounts as “red-haired, long-nosed barbarians” who “stank of milk”, rather like the Mongols, Xiong Nu and other northern frontier peoples with whom the Chinese had traditionally had contact. I don’t want to push the comparison too far, however, as the Chinese, until the 20th Century at least, also had no problem using the services of foreigners whom they found useful, and didn’t have the same sort of racist loathing of Westerners and others that the latter did. That would come, at least to a degree, only after considerable time and Western aggression and interference in Chinese affairs took place. So, and this leads me to another point you made above, about much of the international criticism of the US, both of those developments are at least partially self-made by the US and the West. However, the validity of that criticism depends on the person or group making it, too. For instance, there were propaganda posters made and distributed in the Netherlands under the German occupation during World War Two that depicted the US as a highly Jewish-African American, “cultureless” melange that would swamp European culture and values, and this was a common propaganda theme in German propaganda directed at Western European populations during that war. Considering that this was coming from people whose own policies, had they won World War Two, would have been to Germanise the whole of Europe in every way possible says something about the validity of their criticism, and the lack thereof. The Japanese, in their World War Two-era propaganda for the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, made use of similar criticism and themes to justify their policies and actions, and to rally support in Asia for its cause, while pursuing policies and actions that would have effectively turned much of Asia and the Pacific into a giant Japanese colony. The Chinese government has every right to resent what it sees as interference in its internal affairs, but, like the US government, or any other government of the various major, medium-sized and small powers world-wide, it has its own sets of interests, ambitions, goals and policies and actions it would rather were never publicly discussed, whether at home or abroad. So, some of its criticisms of US foreign and domestic policy, like the conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention and the Afghan and Iraq Wars, are perhaps spot-on, and others, like with many of the US government’s criticisms of China’s policies and actions, are attempts to distract international and domestic criticism from its own. This, unfortunately, is often how the game of international and domestic politics is played around the world, and it’s not just one particular player nor set of ‘em that does it this way. It’s stupid, shabby and it gets in the way of actually going about the business of feeding hungry people, housing the homeless, and creating and maintaining social and other orders that the vast bulk of people in their respective societies find satisfactory. Finally, I would say that another point you made above, about the West often not knowing how to reach the average Chinese national is correct. I would also add on to that that the same could be said of the Chinese government and many of its spokespeople and defenders abroad, whether Chinese, Western or of other origins. In a way, this is rather like the contention between the US, Al-Qaida, and other such groups in the Muslim world, which is, to me at least, very much a dialogue of the willingly ignorant. As long as the US doesn’t, at least publicly, acknowledge that many of its past and present policies and actions helped create many of the problems plaguing the Arab and Muslim worlds, and, in turn, as long as the latter side doesn’t acknowledge, again, at least publicly, that its rhetoric about Islamic caliphates world-wide, and their policies and actions, while they may strongly appeal to those similarly-inclined in the Arab and Muslim worlds, make no sense to, and are seen as threats, by non-Muslims, especially in the West and particularly in the USA. There are more than enough people in various parts of the world who’ve had contact, or have lived in different parts of the world and in different cultures, by now to actually make a considerable difference in the way in which governments, corporations, and other organisations conduct themselves. But, they aren’t often listened to that much, especially by those in power, alas. I think they need to be.
With that, I conclude this, save for apologies for this reply’s length, and any possible offence that I may have given in stating some of my points here.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
@Donald Rilea,
Thanks for your reply. One suggestion, I don’t have any problem with the length of your writing but it would be much easier to read if you could divide the reply into paragraphs.
Nevertheless, I agree with you on most of the points you have raised above.
On Mr Manning, I think that most of people who have a problem with US government’s handling of the case are not really picky about the fact that he has been arrested. The problem lies in the fact that he has been arrested and charged for 7 months without a trial (he is still innocent according to the US law I guess) and the way in which he has been treated (cotinuous solitary confinement for 7 month where pillows and bed sheets are taken away.) More importantly, the problem also lies in the fact that the US government claims to be a champion of freedom, human rights and rule of law, but it actually follows a do-what-I-say, not-what-I-do approach.
[Reply to this comment]
Donald Rilea Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
@hehe, Thank you for your gracious reply to mine. Much appreciated.
You made good points about Manning’s treatment while in detention and about the US government’s often hypocritical stance on human rights.
My response to that is that I doubt, very highly so, in fact, that the Chinese government would be any better or more humane in its treatment of an individual like Manning, either, alas.
Incidentally, having noted some of your remarks about Ai Weiwei’s prior behaviour below this comment before I left, it made me think of what had read about Manning and Julian Assange and their personal lives and habits, and I offer you the following notion based on thoughts I’ve had about ‘em, which is that even the best-intentioned people can often be deeply flawed or even downright unpleasant(am referring to Assange on the latter point, and probably, since I know practically nothing about Ai Weiwei’s personal life, perhaps him, too). Certainly, Martin Luther King, for all of his many gifts and contributions to humanity as a whole, had extra-marital affairs, and Mao Ze-Dong was married several times, among many other faults, flaws and foibles the man had.
These are human beings, after all, not marble statues nor gods, no matter how much some of their supporters may think otherwise, as are we all. Indeed, I will say that I think that some of those faults and foibles help drive such people to do what they do. At least, that’s my guess.
Do I think that those should be criminal offences? Hardly. Of course, this depends on the society and culture one’s raised in, and one’s own personal tastes, and I do think that they should be seen and evaluated in the greater context of their lives and deeds.
So, for me, what the US government’s doing to Manning, and whatever the Chinese government’s doing to Ai, whatever one’s opinion of them as human beings, is wrong.
Both governments, and their various media establishments and allies, use such incidents as a means of bashing each other, while rallying their supporters, domestically and internationally, and it turns into the usual rotten little rat circus, I think.
But, and this is just my opinion here, there’s probably more than enough hypocrisy on various issues to choke a horse, so to speak, from both the US and Chinese standpoints, and from the Russian, UK, French, Iranian, and many others’ beside. Governments, like political groups, corporations and individual human beings have this in common with our feline friends and companions, and that’s they like to bury their waste, good and deeply, if possible. They also like to put up big, tough-looking fronts for their opponents, if they feel threatened enough, and can get away with it.
But, again, this gets in the way of doing business, and especially that of actually helping people to make and maintain lives for themselves that they find satisfactory, among other issues.
China has its interests, as does the USA, and every other nation, and, no matter how much our respective countries’ most fervent supporters at home and abroad would like, Hell, love, to see the other, or others I’ve not mentioned, dead and gone, that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon, I think.
Not all of these interests are going to match up every time and on every issue. Of course not. Rather like in a family, where the parents’ and children’s interests, let alone those of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc, don’t always closely align nor co-incide. People differ, and they bicker, fuss and fight, sometimes verbally, and sometimes physically, over those differences.
Given the differences, culturally and historically, between China and the USA, and between any other nation state or set of peoples, a certain amount of bickering over differences is to be expected. It’s when that bickering turns into active hatred, and this happens in families as much as between nations and other groups, feelings between them harden to the point that there’s no possibility of any sort of dialogue between the participants, save screaming and threatening each other, that anything but either sullen unarmed conflict, or armed conflict, can take place.
If that happens between our two states, it would be a disaster for them, and for much of the world, I think, because both peoples, whatever their vices, have had, and have much to offer to the world.
It doesn’t mean papering over our differences and saying everything’s fine, fine, thank you very much. But, it does mean that both parties, and many others world-wide, had best realise that there are generally better ways to settle our differences and get what we want, other than unarmed, as in economic or other forms of unarmed conflict, or armed conflict.
It also means realising that not everyone is going to get everything they want on a particular issue or set of them.
It’s unfortunate that the United Nations and other international bodies, and the international legal system, aren’t as developed, nor as powerful, as they could potentially be. But, such a development would be something that many, whether in the USA, China or elsewhere internationally, wouldn’t like, because it would mean considerable restrictions on national sovereignty, and the ability of nation-states and their governments to do as they like.
But, part of being a functioning adult in any society, I think, means being able to give and take, and to compromise, in order to live with others around them, while also being able to live as one likes. But, it seems to me that this is something that many children in adult bodies, including those in politics, often don’t seem to understand at all. For them, it’s often an all or nothing game, and the worst part of that is, I think, is that if taken far enough, people who’ve no connection with them, other than being of the same nationality, or that of the nationality with whom they’re in conflict, end up suffering and dying because of that mentality.
There’s been, and still is, far too much of that, I think.
Anyway, am going to shut up here. But thank you very kindly for reading my above comment, thinking about it, and replying to it.
hehe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:45 am
@Donald Rilea,
I am repying to your latest piece of writing, particularly the point you raise about Ai, Assange, Manning, MLK and Mao’s personal life vis-a-vis that “even the best-intentioned people can often be deeply flawed or even downright unpleasant”. I agree. The problem is that intention is difficulty to decipher sometimes.
So the safest approach is: there is no saint in the world. There has never been. So, my antena goes up immediately whenever I hear the word “holy”(holy means always good intentioned if I may say so). To me, that word is the equivalent of “hidden agenda”. The word “holy” I mean here is in its broader sense, something similar to the status of “unquestionable”, “complete”, “perfect” and “above all others”, etc.
To a degree, I think that both Assange and Ai are kind of extremists. Their cases bear a certain amount of similarity too. Both are irritants to some authorities and have been targeted (I believe so). However, there is one big difference between these two case as far as I can see. In simple words, Assange bursted a ballon which has been bloated and filled up with myth — freedom of information/speech. Ai attempted to reinforce a well established notion/belief among certain people — the oppressive nature of an authoritarian regime. To me, Assange is anti-establishement whereas Ai is, in fact in a weird way, pro-”establishment”. Do they both have good intentions, maybe, but I don’t really know. Could they possibly harbour bad intentions, again maybe. Am I too cynical? Maybe.
Now, let’s look their particular alleged crimes. Assange, rape. Very dodgy in my opinion. As far as I know, that alleged crime won’t even lead to a prosecution in many jurisdictions because it is essentially an alleaged sexual intercouse without protection. Ai, alleged tax fraud so far. Is he totally innocent (as many people in the west instinctively believe) in this case? I don’t know, but I doubt it for two reasons.
First, considering his super star status (evident in his fame both domestically and more so international in the west) as well as his personal character (evident in his “art”, his words and his personal background) I won’t surprised if he indeed committed tax fraud or some other misconduct (alleagedly he has been involved in unlawful, extra marital de-facto marriage). I admit that I am being subjective. However, there is no sainthood in this world. I believe that it is very difficult for people having super star/powerful status (let alone some additional “unique” character) to behave in a self-reflective and diciplinary manner. Assange couldn’t, MLK couldn’t, Mao couldn’t. This is just human nature. Is Ai an exception? People can have their opinions, but I know where my money is on.
The other reason is just a rational retrospective dedcution, which is based on two premises: the Chinese government is fully aware of Ai’s status, the Chinese government is rational. If so, it is unlikely that they would have committed themselve to a either-win-or-lose position (i.e. arresting Ai) without having discovered the skeleton in Mr Ai’s closet. My speculation anyway.
Next, let’s look at outside responses. What irrates me (perhaps many others) most is the knee-jerk reaction from the western governments and mainstream media and the clear constast between their reation to Ai’s case and to Assange’s case. For example, the western governments (I know at least the German and the French) asked for the release of Ai. To me, they are effectively elevating Ai to an altar of sainthood. In other words, no matter what Ai has possibly done, there is no way that could have justify an arrest, let alone prosecuation of him. There is no string attached to their request such as any evidence against him. No, nothing, just a simple request(it would have been a demand a hundred years ago I guess), release our boy (it sounds like that). Have we heard anything as such in Assange’s case? Even the Aussie PM wasn’t as adamant.
The western media’s reaction is, as expected, hyper-active. For example, I found on Guardain’s website, on a single day, there were seven articles about Ai’s case. I don’t think that it is necessary for me to restate the contents and the tones of those articles, again, as expected.
Some people may argue that people should be treated equally. Even some of these “good intent” people indeed misbhaved or committed crimes, they should be treated as other ordinary citizens. In other words, the government shouldn’t just pick one particular individual’s fault and at the same time ignore others’ simply because this guy is poking in their eyes. Assuming that Ai’s tax fraud turns out to be true, so long as some other people have been let off the hook, it is wrong to pick on Ai.
I disagree. Here comes another cliche I always beleive: there is no free meal in this world. Super star status may be nice and good for self-esteem, but there is a price for you will be judged differetly too. By the same token, it is not enough to only have “good intentions”, it is not good enough to take whatever approach you like to realise your “good intentions” either. You happily receive the reputation of “good intent” individual, “standing up for the common people” but you also have to take responsibilty for what you have done. MLK’s adultery does not diminish what he has done for social equity for which he receives his fame. On the other hand, his great deed does not diminish his misconduct either. This is a just another evidence of that there is no saint. No more, no less.
I suppose that my ranting may have reached an irritating level for some people, so I rest my case.
[Reply to this comment]
Donald Rilea Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:18 am
@hehe, That’s OK, as am gonna rest mine after saying this, which is, as much as we agree on many of the issues presented here, there are going to be those on which we disagree, and aspects of the ones on which we agree, on which we’re not going to.
Thing is, while you, and am going to guess that there are many other Chinese, both in the PRC and among some segments of the various Overseas Chinese communities, who would agree with your stances about Ai and Assange, I can’t agree with it, though I like to think I understand why and how you and others may take it, just as many in the West, including myself,side with Ai for our various reasons, none of which you nor anyone else have to agree. But, I speak for myself, and myself alone, as I always do, in saying this.
I definitely agree with you, however, about your getting sceptical whenever the word “holy” is used, and I get equally sceptical whenever such words and rhetoric are used myself, whether in a Western, Chinese or other context, and especially outside of defined religious usage in the many faiths world-wide.
Am secularist myself, but I don’t agree with the militant atheists who make just as big a deal of their atheism as the more militantly religious of various faiths do.
Anyway, my point is that, like you, I don’t like and don’t trust whenever any political or other figure sets him- or herself up for worship, or is set up for it by his or her supporters, either, ‘cos it creates a false, over-idealised image to which no one can really live up. MLK couldn’t, though he did a far better job of trying it than many others, Mao certainly couldn’t, and I have to say that I admire Peng Dehuai for telling Mao that the Great Leap Forward wasn’t working to the latter’s face, which unfortunately signed the former’s death warrant during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
As for Assange, well, to my mind, for whatever good he’s done, I think that it has to be remembered that he comes from the hacker community, which often, at least in the West, tends to be rebellious for its own sake, and which, in some segments at least, there’s not a great deal of real thought given to politics, save to stick it to whatever establishment there is.
Assange himself has said that if he’s any political leanings at all, it would be toward American libertarian conservatism, which is essentially, to use a derisive phrase for its believers, is composed of “pot-smoking Republicans”, or essentially people who are right-wing, but enjoy a good toke(sorry for the idiom here),love having their guns, and want the unrestricted freedom to make and keep as much money as possible. In the Marxist-Leninist idiom with which you may or mayn’t be familiar, I don’t know, they would be described as “petit-bourgeois individualists”.
Now, from a Chinese perspective, that might seem like such a bad thing, especially given that portion of the US Right’s tendency toward isolationism, which is a very old theme on the US Right historically speaking, and is represented by people like Ron Paul, for instance. But, on domestic economic issues, such people tend to be very, very reactionary and heavily anti-union, etc.
I don’t think that Assange’s even taken it that far, but is going, from whatever he knows of US libertarian conservatism, and I don’t think, from the small bits I’ve heard about the man, that he cares to know any more than that.
Am going to say, for argument’s sake here, that Ai may be similar in this, but I don’t know the man, so I can’t say for sure.
Certainly, it’s always easier to like a particular individual, group or social and economic system from afar, especially if one doesn’t know very much about it. But, that’s where one’s responsibility to oneself, especially to oneself, and others to do some actual research on them, especially in politics, becomes important, I think.
There’s an old saying in the West, mainly Britain, that “No man is a hero to his valet”, and I would imagine that there’s at least one Chinese equivalent for it, because one’s valet, butler, or other personal servant sees, hears and knows about aspects of their masters’ and mistresses’(am using the old English feminine form of masters for the latter here)lives and behaviour that most others don’t know, and they aren’t always pleasant ones.
But, getting back to Assange for a second here, that, and various accounts that have read, from a variety of sources, both pro-and anti-Assange, and yes, all Western media ones, seem to indicate to me that this guy, while motivated to a degree by a certain form of idealism, is also very much in it for the attention, and to poke a finger in the eye of the Americans, and whomever else he doesn’t like. Not uncommon, and I see such tendencies in myself, too. He also tends to be, rightly or wrongly, quite paranoid, and, whether he’s guilty or innocent of the Swedish rape allegations, certainly doesn’t seem to have much regard for women or anyone else but himself much of the time. This makes him what he is, and I don’t think it’s particularly pleasant. There are also questions about his and the Wikileaks staff’s editing of the 2006 video, in which US troops shot a Reuters reporter and cameraman, among others, to make it look even worse. Now, that incident, on its own, was horrible enough, and the fact that those US military personnel involved weren’t at least investigated, let alone charged and prosecuted, is also appalling. But, and Wikileaks wouldn’t be the first media organisation or individual to manipulate news footage through editing to make a particular case, and it won’t be the last. But, to my mind, at least, it belies some of the more extravagant claims that Assange and his supporters make about Wikileaks and its integrity.
Incidentally, have read, and even reproduced on my Facebook account at times, various US State Department cables reproduced on Wikileaks, and I have to say that, from my perspective, there are times where the State Department officials come off as being rather silly. But, have seen ones where, as in the case of the 2009 Honduras coup, the officials there, who refused to acknowledge the specious legal arguments made by the Honduran officials responsible for it as being valid and recommended that the US government not support the coup, as coming off rather well, too. It also puts the lie to some allegations made by people like Hugo Chavez and his supporters that the coup was a US government-sponsored plot.
Manning and Assange, among others, have done a great service here in that regard, and especially in that the US government, like the Chinese and many other governments, often use secrecy and classified information as a means of hiding mis-deeds and worse, as do corporations and other groups the world over.
But, Assange has revealed his own hypocrisy on the matter when it comes to his deeds, and the way in which he runs Wikileaks, too. The argument he makes in defending that is that he’s not a government nor corporate official, and it works to a degree. But, because of his media involvement, the areas of the media in which he’s involved, and the fact that he’s become a public figure, rather than remaining a private citizen, mean that he and Wikileaks are now also open to public inquiry and scrutiny, whether he and his supporters like it or not.
Hackers and others like them often live by a great deal of secrecy and anomynity, and Assange comes from that community, so that’s to be expected. But, especially in the worlds of media and politics, those only go so far. The more well-known a person becomes, the greater the levels of analysis, discussion, guessing and debate about the person and his or her personal motives becomes, I think, and rightly so. Much of it’s often factually wrong, and just plain mean-spirited, too, but that’s also the way it goes.
If one desires privacy, best to keep an extremely low profile, especially in politics, media and other such affairs, or not get into them at all.
As for governments, whether the US, Chinese, Russian, British, and many others, all the way down to such countries as Bhutan and Monaco, well, best not to engage in nasty, brutal policies toward one’s own people or others, if one can’t stand being found out, I think. Such information has often a way of leaking out, whether through drunken conversations in bars or at parties, through media outlets, or, much later on, through historians’ research in various government and other archives.
It can be suppressed, at least for a while, but, eventually, it comes out in one form or the other, I think. So, better to have as reasonably open and honest a form of government and way of doing business as possible, I think, ‘cos the costs, in various ways, of keeping information secret, tend to be much higher than those who try that often think.
On that, I leave you, and, in closing, thanks for the conversation.
FOARP Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 5:47 am
@Julen,
Here, I’m afraid, is where we very much part ways. These men are not guilty of aggression. They are not enemies of reform. Had any real political reform actually taken place during the last ten years, it might be that they would not have done what they did. It is the fact that no reform, neither “progressive” (which seems to be a euphemism for “non-existent”) nor of any other kind, has taken place which is the cause of their discontent, and that of many other Chinese citizens.
I am curious on what grounds you judge them in this fashion, and what standing you have to judge them so.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
Re:Porfiriy
The difference between Ai with people that bring about actual change is that the ideas of the likes of Sun Yatsen actually resonate with the people, while Julen is arguing that Ai not only do not resonate with the Chinese, but irritate them. Accuse the average Chinese who care enough about this of being brainwashed or indoctrinated or what not, they do not like Ai Weiwei. Which is why Sun succeeded, while Ai will just cycle between prison, house arrest, and western media. In either case, I doubt Ai is competent enough to bring about an actual revolution if he was placed in Sun’s place anyways.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 12:49 am
@Bob,
Well said.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
What a terrible post.
Ai sought justice, and he was arrested for it. His quest was moral, and his punishment was reprehensible. Whether or not his ideas “resonate” with the masses is irrelevant. And even if it was releveant, the argument that no one agrees with him is totally unsubstantiated. Even within China, Ai is perhaps the most famous modern artist, and one of the country’s highest profile public intellectuals — this in a nation where being a public intellectual is essentially illegal. It should not surprise us that people aren’t tripping over each other to express their agreement with someone who was just disappeared by the Gestapo. Absent the tools of repression, public opinion towards Ai would look very diferent.
More to the point, Ai was not seeking to impose Western values, but rather to force the Chinese state to live up to its own self-professed values. Chinese leaders talk about the rule of law, and that is why Ai cited the Chinese legal code to object to his earlier illegal treatment at the hands of the police.
Julen and others like him constantly feel like they must explain what China is really like to Westerners who “don’t get it.” There is, of course, much misunderstanding of China in the West, but in contorting themselves so awkwardly to explain away the crimes of the Chinese state, Julen ends up arguing that hypocrisy and cruelty are natural and immutable qualities of the Chinese people. That is the biggest disservice to China of all.
[Reply to this comment]
pug_ster Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
@xiaopangzi,
If you think that so many Chinese people are just itching to overthrow the government, why not form yet another ‘jasmine’ revolution instead of complaining here? Meanwhile, there are plenty of people, including myself, who won’t follow your cause. If you look at the current revolutions at the middle east, not much has changed. Maybe you think the grass is always greener on the other side, but I don’t share your enthusiasm.
[Reply to this comment]
xiaopangzi Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
@pug_ster,
No one said that the Chinese people want to overthrow the government. As anyone with any experience in China knows, they do not. That is obvious.
But if you look at the issues that Ai was actually advocating with his activities — most often the rule of law — you would find that support for such ideas is quite widespread.
For instance, land seizures often get a lot of attention online, and public sympathy is always behind the peasants being evicted. A common protest tactic for those peasants has been to post or pass out copies of the PRC constitution, which guarantees the very private property rights that are being violated in front of everyone’s eyes.
Conceptually, Ai’s actions and those of the these many Chinese peasants are the same. They simply want a society of law.
[Reply to this comment]
pug_ster Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
@xiaopangzi,
No one said that the Chinese people want to overthrow the government. As anyone with any experience in China knows, they do not. That is obvious.
I’m sorry, but doesn’t that counter your argument you said earlier? Maybe I’m just getting old, and don’t see that idealism about the faith of government whether it is Western or Chinese. People like Liu Xiaobo and Ai Weiwei are idealists and they have the typical “my way or the highway attitude”, shouts down from the mountaintop in order to fight for their “cause.” At some point, this kind of attitude becomes counterproductive, especially the way they do it.
For instance, land seizures often get a lot of attention online, and public sympathy is always behind the peasants being evicted. A common protest tactic for those peasants has been to post or pass out copies of the PRC constitution, which guarantees the very private property rights that are being violated in front of everyone’s eyes.
I would agree to a certain point, every government has some kind of eminent domain laws including China. However, many China blogs never refer eminent domain but refer them as land seizures. Passing out copies of the PRC constitution which guarantees private property rights is counterproductive.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
@xiaopangzi,
Does the value Ai is forcing the Chinese government to accept includes posing with four naked women and fuck the motherland?
[Reply to this comment]
xiaopangzi Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
@hehe,
Awesome point Hehe! Bad art really should be punished with beatings and prison! Ugh…
Let me say this with short words so you understand: jailing an artist for making art is immoral.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:05 am
@xiaopangzi,
You live in ideals.
By the way, I don’t think that posing with naked women in public is art (in fact, I think it perhaps is illegal), I am with the majority in this case I am afraid, at least in China. Remember democracy also means majority opinion is taken seriously.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
@xiaopangzi, The only one who “don’t get it” is you, as you clearly didn’t read the post. You are arguing in the same direction as Evan Osnos, that Ai WeiWei’s case is not irrelevant. I actually agree with that, I am just making a completely different point. See previous comment I just left for clarification on this.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
@Julen: While your “open-minded” Chinese want “pragmatic policy and progressive change” and are willing to shut up when other people’s rights are stepped on, Ai is a true artist. He lives what he preaches and vice versa.
Ai has been collecting the names of those killed due to shoddy corrupt building practices in the Sichuan earthquake — names that should be remembered, not forgotten. For this he deserves respect, not beatings.
For all the simple engineers out there: When they finally come to take the engineers, there will be nobody left to defend them.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
@Dapangzi: Fair enough, I was also young and idealistic once.
Note however a couple of things:
- My own personal position as an engineer is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is the position of the vast majority of Chinese, and I suspect it is closer to the view of the practical engineer than to a journalist or artist.
- I quite dislike what I have seen of Ai’s art up to now, but this has nothing to do with my clear position that he should be released immediately. I agree with much of what he wants, I just don’t believe in his methods to achieve it.
- As per my previous comment: All you say is great, but my question is: do you really think it has a chance to work?
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:20 am
@Dapangzi,
Fair enough for Ai to collect names of the dead children. However, given his confrontational approach, I am suspicous that he would have been capable (assuming that he had good intention in the first place) of conducting that in a manner that brings real benefits to the families (instead of making himselves more famous) and the country.
To be honest, given his way of dealing with the Olympic stadium issue (which earned him instant fame in the west in a very sneaky fashion, i.e. getting the title of the designer of the Olympic statdium while at the same time claiming perceived (by the west) moral “superiority”.), I doubt that an average Chinese person (who very likely supported the hosting of the Olympic games as a whole) would have too much turst in this guy. I wouldn’t.
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
Why Chinese people don’t like Ai? For he’s been a dictator of Chinese art world by embezzling funds and monopolizing opportunities, plagiarizing, being an onlooker at studio-demolition protest initiated by himself… Picking him as any type of role model is quite stupid as it easily arouse disgust among Chinese those who know of him.
- a Chinese artist
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
The Chinese Focus on the Western Focus:
How about removing all of the politically charged words and boiling recent events down.
An artist disappeared for no stated reason.
A writer disappeared for expressing his opinion.
A lawyer disappeared because he accepted a case.
etc… (see china geeks for a longer list)
The recent articles on the artist are not an example of a singular focus by the western media, they are an example of a more widely recognized figure being used to draw attention to a recent string of disappearances in China.
Why the fuss about focus?
It seems like the standard approach in China is to ask why people are so interested in this ONE person? <>. The next step is to question the merits of the individual that the government says others falsely idolize.
Is the artist the most prominent person to disappear? According to some, maybe, according to others, maybe not. Who cares. He didn’t break any laws and nobody knows where he is, isn’t that the point?
My earlier characterizations of the people who disappeared may seem simplistic, but I think people forget why attention is paid to them in the first place. A government took them away for no stated reason.
I was at lunch with a fried yesterday who is apparently a bit out of the loop on certain current events. She checked the news, saw an article about the artist, and said “[He] disappeared? Where have I been? Well that’s just stupid!” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Perhaps someone can explain why the artist should be detained. Rather than attacking another’s focus, how about explaining why the system works this way.
[Reply to this comment]
wwww Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
@Sophie,
Your beloved Great Artist has been detained, he did not “disappeared” as you wishfully imagined. see
http://chinayouren-free.com/2011/04/13/3769
even though propagating information at view without any verifying effort is common in your free media, it cannot be upheld as a good practice, could it?
[Reply to this comment]
13
AM
Sophie is right. This is not about Ai and about personal envy or antipathies. This is about a regime that silences dissent and about people who have chosen to accept this.
The question becomes: What happens to a place in which there is perfect “harmony”? I for one would rather live in a place where a hundred schools of thought contend.
[Reply to this comment]
13
PM
Yes, the terrible price of “harmony”
About Ai and probably more so Liu, the relevant departments in the CCP seem to find their purpose in setting off human rights flares for the international audience. Liu I’ve probably never noticed before the report of his sentencing (I’m never much for names anyway, especially in chinese) and besides the thing with the Sichuan kids and subsequent police encounter (small flare, probably why I remembered the name).
Perhaps someday they’ll finally figure out how to deal with loud mouthed inharmonious degenerates: ignore them. If that ever happens, it’ll probably be about the same time they figure out how to right past wrongs those inharmonious characters are voicing.
There was also a comment I loved from another site about how they did such a sad job trumping up an excuse (after the fact) to detain Ai Weiwei. It’s almost like the high ups made a last minute decision and the underlings have to clean up after them, completely unprepared.
[Reply to this comment]
13
PM
Have to say I think you’ve missed the point entirely here. The reason they’re famous is because they have immediate connections to the two things most foreigners know about China: it hosted the Olympics (Ai’s Bird’s Nest) and Tiananmen Square (Liu Xiaobo).
It also helps that both of them are (were?) willing to speak with foreigners. Ai Weiwei had a foreigner making a documentary about him! How many of the lesser-known dissidents would grant a foreigner that kind of access. Let me tell you, as someone who has spent a lot of time on the phone with people like that over the past couple months: very few.
When you have progressive reformers like Yu Jianrong stating publicly that they don’t speak to foreigners or the foreign media, ever, is it really much of a surprise that the more “extreme” guys with Western connections get more attention? Of course, I understand the reasons these guys shy away from foreign attention; it can indeed be dangerous. But Ai and Liu are foreign darlings precisely because they didn’t do that, not because we only like our dissidents to be wildly pro-Western or whatever.
Moreover, I think this whole argument is kind of ridiculous and irrelevant right now. Whatever you think, whatever anyone thinks of Ai or Liu or any of the other folks imprisoned right now, do you think they deserve to be in prison? If not, how can you be upset about the attention Ai’s case is getting in the Western media. Sure, lesser-known dissidents who have been locked up for longer get less play than Ai, but at least they (and the overall issue) are getting mentioned at all. When Teng Biao gets locked up, it’s a one-day story. Ai gets locked up, that’s a media event, and it allows the media numerous opportunities to remind us that Teng is ALSO still locked up.
Also, can anyone really say what “most open-minded Chinese people want”? Does it matter if Ai and Liu don’t stand for that? In Ai’s case, certainly, he’s an artist making a point in a frequently artistic way. His style involves a lot of hyperbole, sure, but that doesn’t mean progressive and pragmatic people can’t identify with it at all. As El-P once said, “In art, you have to take the extreme position; otherwise, motherfuckers aren’t going to listen.”
That’s exactly what Ai has done, and now that he’s locked up, the proverbial motherfuckers are listening. Is that really a bad thing?
[Reply to this comment]
xiaopangzi Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
@C. Custer,
Very well said.
[Reply to this comment]
pug_ster Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
@C. Custer,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDcEZOPcXCg
Teng Biao is a one day story, huh?
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
@C. Custer,
OK. You got a point here. It is not Western media who deliberately chooses radically pro-Western activists funded by the West. It is a selection that happens naturally, or even forced by the Chinese government. Thanks for pointing this out because my OP might have given the (wrong)impression that people writing about Liu/Ai are somehow consciously undermining the dissent movement for their own interests. This is not so.
But Charles, I am NOT upset at all, it is you who sounds upset now. I wrote “mildly oppose” which is a very different idea. And no, of course I don’t think they deserve to be in prison, I never wrote anything remotely like that. Please relax, you know we DO have the right and the duty to analyze things calmly even while injustice is ongoing. Otherwise we wouldn’t even have been able to start writing our blogs!
No, it is not a bad thing, and I am not against Ai or Liu in the essence of their demands — even if I am not a fan of their style. But my point is: I think this will just not work. Again, I think you may have read my post too fast, or perhaps the silly title has confused you (my bad). I recopy here the answer I just gave above to clarify my OP:
[Reply to this comment]
xiaopangzi Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 8:53 am
@Julen Madariaga,
This focus on whether or not the West’s attention to Ai can “work” is a distraction. What measure are you using to determine whether or not it “works?” Does something “work” only if it results in immediate revolution? Does something fail to “work” if it causes those who want to preserve the status quo to fight back?
The Chinese government and their various authoritarian shills in the media love playing up the Western connections of dissidents, as if these connections somehow taint them. But a lack of such connections didn’t help Teng Biao or Zhao Lianhai or Qian Yunhui or the many more unknown commoners who are currently locked up. Clearly, this Western taint is just another flimsy excuse cooked up to explain away repression, and those interested in progress would be unwise to let it influence their actions.
I agree that China has many good reasons to distrust the West, but that is all the more reason for the West to eschew these pointless debates about tactics and focus on doing what’s right. One lesson of the civil rights movement is that one doesn’t fight against injustice simply because you think it is an effective way to bring about policy change. Your fight may be effective, or it may fail, and at the time it is often impossible to tell. But that’s not important. One fights against injustice because it is the right thing to do.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 10:23 am
@xiaopangzi,
Well, distraction or not, this was the main idea in the OP. As for the measure I use: of course there is no way to measure this, surveys about this kind of questions in China are impossible to do, and anyway they wouldn’t give reliable results due to fear of government repression.
So I am working based on “feeling” from what I speak with colleagues and friends here: they reject the idea of radical change. Even more they reject the idea of letting the West lead China’s change. Of course you might have perceived something different when/if you were in China, which is why I left the question open in the end.
To tell you the truth, this post is not really meant to be about Ai himself — that’s why I regret the title. I do “get” Ai, he is a controversial artist like we have in all countries, and he dares to speak against injustice. Nothing wrong in supporting him.
What I think IS wrong is that lately, from the Nobel award to Liu, to the absurd Jasmine revolutions cum ambassador, to the adoration of Ai — I fear we are sending the wrong signals to the common Chinese. We are making life easier for the Global Times radicals, helping them further to conflate “CCP” with “China”, and undermining the cause for democracy among the people.
[Reply to this comment]
C. Custer Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
@Julen Madariaga,
Reading your clarification, I see your point. But I also think that’s bound to be sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whoever “the West” supports, even if it’s just moral support, is going to get painted as a tool and a traitor by the Global Times and other domestic media. Sure, NED giving money to Liu Xiaobo added some fuel to the fire of a few people (Charles Liu, for example…), but in my discussions with Chinese friends and coworkers — yes, not at all representative necessarily, but what can I do — their issues with Ai and Liu, those that have them, tend to have more to do with their personal styles (Ai is too vulgar and blustery, Liu too holier-than-thou) than with their associations with the West (or their specific political beliefs).
Certainly, “we” could have “picked” more progressive figures, to stand our argument on firmer ground, but I don’t think it would really matter. This again is highly subjective, but I don’t think Ai or Liu are really as extreme as you suggest, although they certainly aren’t afraid of using hyperbole as a rhetorical device.
The problem as I see it is that everyone says hyperbolic things every now and then. My guess is that if “we” had “chosen” a hero other than Liu, for example, anyone above 40 would have at least a couple quotes in their history that could be dug up, twisted, and held out by domestic media as proof that they are traitors. Some take more twisting than others — Liu was an idiot to make than 300 years comment, for example — but my feeling is that in the end, the domestic media machine could turn ANYONE into a Western pawn and traitor. If tomorrow the Western media abandoned Ai and started pushing someone totally mild, I have no doubt that within a couple years we’d see the same screeching editorials we’re seeing now.
[Reply to this comment]
FOARP Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:01 am
@Julen Madariaga,
Is it any wonder that journalists write “straw-man” arguments against foreigners who apparently get their opinions from the Global Times, when some people adopt the very line which GT advocates? On what grounds, according to what evidence, do you accuse these men of being “radically pro western” and “funded by the west”. This is very close to accusing them of treachery.
I also do not know if “this” (whatever “this” is) will not “work” (whatever “work” means). What I know is that since I can do nothing, I should not idly dismiss the efforts of those who do try to do something.
As a law student, I learned that according to the rule of law in England & Wales, there is no law which can make you save the life of someone who is drowning, even if they are a small child drowning in a pool of water an inch deep. My question is, do you really want to be the person who does nothing? Do you really want to be the person who says that those who argue for the release of innocent men are wrong? Even for the bizarre reason that this will award a propaganda boon to their imprisoners?
[Reply to this comment]
14
PM
@Sophie,
Your beloved Great Artist has been detained, he did not “disappeared” as you wishfully imagined. see
http://chinayouren-free.com/2011/04/13/3769
even though propagating information at view without any verifying effort is common in your free media, it cannot be upheld as a good practice, could it?
[Reply to this comment]
14
PM
Over-self-reighteous wishful thinking can magically turn into virtual reality. This well regarded Japanese reporter is probably making it all up.
http://en.m4.cn/archives/7391.html
[Reply to this comment]
xian Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:38 am
Shimazu is pretty much a pariah, not really well regarded. In fact that’s probably why anti-cnn keeps featuring him…
[Reply to this comment]
14
PM
@Sophie,
Your beloved Great Artist has been detained, he did not “disappeared” as you wishfully imagined. see
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-04/642315.html
even though propagating information at view without any verifying effort is common in your free media, it cannot be upheld as a good practice, could it?
[Reply to this comment]
14
PM
@ Julen: To respond to your question: If we don’t try, we’ll never know. (I don’t think engineers are the only ones who change the political status quo — actually they’re generally treated too well to bother trying.)
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
Any artist with the international stature of Ai Weiwei will by default, be surrounded in controversies, wether with regard to the legitimacy of the work, where it stands with respect to an ever shifting definition of plagiarism, or whether or not they are grandstanding. Fame brings scrutiny, recognition breeds ego, and artists challenge the staus quo.
But the validity of the outcry over Ai Weiwei’s disappearance should not rest on how we regard his output. At this very moment, we are watching as 10s of 1000s of people speak out to claim their freedom and we are watching them in conflict with their respective governments. We watch as they are killed, imprisoned and tortured for speaking their minds, for being human. Ai Weiwei’s is no more or less important than any one of these individuals, but he is an iconic figure on which we can focus our outrage to these collective injustices.
There was a speech made after 9/11 (I believe by a rabbi and here I am paraphrasing wildly) where it was said that we can not understand 3000 deaths in one instance, that is just too unfathomable, but what we can begin to comprehend is one person dying, over and over, 3000 times. For us, in the art world, perhaps Ai Weiwei becomes this one person.
When Eman al-Obaidi (the lawyer in Libya who came public about being raped by Qaddafi’s forces) was seized again as she was making her allegations of abuse, I watched, horrified but unable to comprehend either her courage or her fate. I did not make anything in response, it was too removed from anything I could imagine myself doing and so there was nothing internal for me to draw on. But I CAN imagine defying authority for the right to do my work and when Ai Weiwei was seized it was almost automatic for me to respond by making something, after all, this could be my voice that was being silenced and then what would I be left with? Nothing!
IMHO I believe this is what is behind much of the art world’s reaction, it is not so much about saving an individual as it is about there being a person to whom we can point and say “this could be me, this is my voice you are stifling and I won’t be silenced”
[Reply to this comment]
xian Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:20 am
@bread crumb,
AWW only has “international” stature because Western media made him out to be some kind of anti-CCP poster boy. From a moral view you can argue that his art and activism doesn’t warrant arrest, but China is operating under pragmatism to maintain stability and suppress dissent. Overreaction, maybe. But the intent is justified.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
@bread crumb,
You may have a point in relation to the so-called art world’ reaction, but at the same time, your point may also explain why there is much less enthusiastic response from the lay people’s world at least in China.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
@bread crumb, you and many others showed your support for Ai when he was arrested, and that is a generous and noble thing to do for a person so unjustly treated. I have written a lot myself in support of Liu, even though I don’t share his ideas.
Yes, the Chinese could do with an icon, I can see that. But perhaps we should let them choose their own icon, rather than crowning one ourselves…
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
@bread crumb - A related question: since when has art become mainly a form of dissent or disruption meant to change society? As far as I know, art is and has always been mainly about beauty, not about politics. A deranged criminal with Nazi political views could be a refined artist in the same time, it is not incompatible.
In fact, when I look at the great revolutions of the World, from the French to the American to the Russian, I see relatively few artists and a lot of philosophers, writers, inventors… even some engineers
Not that I oppose political art like Ai’s. What I oppose is that politics becomes the norm in art, and some people get so confused that they end up evaluating every artist based on “political merit”. See the idiotic critics that Bob Dylan received last week because he didn’t sing Blowing in the Wind in Beijing (!)
[Reply to this comment]
17
AM
@Julen,
Look, you’re an intelligent man, so let me ask you: Imagine that the Franco regime had somehow imprisoned Picasso during the 50′s, and someone had written a piece condemning those who argued for his release as supporting an “aggressive enemy of progressive reform” which would only drive the Spanish people closer to the fascist regime, which was anyway better suited to the historical and cultural situation of Spain. Imagine also that you read this piece in this day and age. Surely you would see this piece for the delusional rubbish that it was.
I hope I have misinterpreted you view on this, but this is how it seems to me - you are condemning people for calling for Ai’s release because you believe that it undermines the work of a reformist faction for which there is no evidence, and which according to insiders does not exist. It also seems that you are arguing that the Chinese people are suited to a totalitarian dictatorship - it matters not that their Taiwanese cousins threw off a very similar dictatorship.
As for the political acceptability or otherwise of Ai Weiwei, it seems that has he accepted the deal apparently offered by the CCP, he would have been given a low-level role in the Chinese government. Instead he refused and was essentially kidnapped, along with some of his Quixotic followers.
I’m sorry if my responses on this page have come off as rather intemperate, but to be honest this is how I feel on this matter.
[Reply to this comment]
17
PM
agree with the post 100%. As a Chinese, while I admire what Liu and Ai have been doing, there definitely seems to be something fishy, given their financial connections with Western governments (the US primarily). Sometimes I am confused of whether they are against CCP, or against China (as a culture and civilization), esp when Liu said he hoped China would have been colonized for another 300 years and Ai taped “fuck you my motherland”. They may be meant for good, but as a Chinese, it simply gets on my nerves. It is OK to be liberal and to work against corruption or repression, but it is not OK to deny your legacy. There are hundreds of more people-friendly activities in China who don’t get enough attention they deserve, and those are the ones who do good that ACTUALLY benefits the people one way or another, not the ones whose only achievement is to hit Western media headlines. And don’t call every one, Chinese or not, who ever supports the Chinese government or doesn’t agree with you “brainwashed”. I live in the US for over 10 years, the Americans, as far as I can see, are no less brainwashed, if not more.
[Reply to this comment]
Jordan Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
@wordlock, “it is not OK to deny your legacy”
Does the Party reckon its legacy? Still no word about its role during the tian an men events in 1989, only a few lines about Cultural Revolution at the Beijing National Museum, and so one.
It might not be smart to say “fuck to your motherland”, but as an artist, an intellectual you have to provoke, to question this legacy. Why would you have to be patriotic and admire a civilization? There are millions of citizens who can do that.
Yours
Jordan
[Reply to this comment]
17
PM
there are always people, east and west, ahead of their times, or in higher states of consciousness.
and east and west, they often pay a price for that. historically speaking.
[Reply to this comment]
17
PM
What a refreshing view of China - delighted to have found your blog. I guess you can’t use Twitter? I think many people in Europe (not so much US) respect China’s management of social problems. This week’s ‘Economist’ is very critical and suggesting that China is returning to a closed, police state.
I doubt that can ever happen. Maybe there is now a growing tinge of envy among Western leaders and influencers about the rebirth of extravert China.
[Reply to this comment]
FOARP Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
@Hazel, The Economist is a European publication. And no, people in Europe do not by and large “respect” CCP oppression.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
@FOARP,
“people in Europe do not by and large “respect” CCP oppression.”, an argumentative strawman statement.
Did Hazel say that people in Europe “respect” CCP oppression?
[Reply to this comment]
17
PM
I had no idea that this extremist, Liu, who’s practically bathing in cash bestowed upon him by troublesome Western governments, believes that Chinese culture is inferior to *ahem* western culture.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
@Nick, I didn’t say he was an “extremist”.
For the rest of your comment, yeah, you got it. By any chance, do you have any arguments to the contrary, or your faith is sufficient to prove it all?
BTW, I use the word “western” because that is what Liu uses himself. I know it is not very precise, but we will have to ascribe this to your genius Nobel guy.
[Reply to this comment]
18
PM
@FOARP - Thanks for your comments. I liked your comparison with Spain, many things in common between the 2 histories and a lot to learn. However your comparison is flawed:
1- Picasso was a real artist, that made many Spanish proud by actually doing ART. He was just what Ai is not.
2- Picasso, like Dylan and many other artists, was unjustly criticized by people who, then as now, mistake art for politics.
3- Unlike CCP, Franco was on the right side of history (ie. against communism) This means that he could do anything he wanted without significant pressure from the US. Please don’t make me laugh with your American-led Democratization.
4- The Spanish transition process is a good example of how a dictatorship can land softly into democracy. It shows the process works best when it is left to grow internally at its own pace… I shiver at the thought of someone giving the Nobel prize to Santiago Carrillo in the 70s…
OK, I leave it here, I will write a new post to clarify the rest of the points. Let me just say again that I am not against brave men like Ai or Liu, much less I want them locked up. China is a great country and it needs many different voices, even those of poor thinkers and artists.
All I am saying in this post is that the US led pro-democracy circus is choosing the wrong strategy if it REALLY wants China to become a democracy — then again, why would the power in the US want that… Rather, to sell newspapers and win elections.
[Reply to this comment]
FOARP Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:21 am
@Julen,
I had written a long comment, but I managed to lose it, so I’ll try and write what I can:
I’m sorry to have been so harsh. My knowledge of Spanish history, at least that following the Civil War, is not great. I have read Antony Beavor’s history of the Spanish Civil war, which opens with the failed 1981 coup, which is how I know of Carrillo, but only a few other books besides this.
It is true that in the past dissident artists have been lionised when in fact, perhaps, their works were less than splendid. Solzhenitsyn is one author whose books I found incredibly turgid in places. Cancer Ward and A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich are his only works worth reading. Pasternak’s Nobel (which MI6, without his or the Nobel Committee’s knowledge, helped enter him for, and which he saw as a mixed blessing) for Doctor Zhivago is probably deserved, but that it is remembered is more the work of Omar Sharif and Alec Guinness than it is of Pasternak. Quiet Flows The Don no longer appears in the shops.
However, good art is usually controversial. The riots that were sparked by the premiere of The Rite Of Spring are a classic example. That the controversy in art is often political in nature should also not surprise. In fact, I cannot, now, think of any British artist of any kind who did not include political commentary in their works. From Mary Shelley to Shakespeare, from Elgar to Pink Floyd, from Wilfred Owen to Damien Hirst, political commentary has been part of all of their works. This has also been true of Chinese art, at least in the modern era, especially the works of 20s and 30s authors like Bing Xin and Lu Xun.
Asking art, which is supposed to reflect life, not to reference the important matters of the day, is to ask it to become irrelevant and insubstantial.
As for Ai Weiwei’s work in particular. I saw his work at the Tate last year as I was showing a Taiwanese friend of mine around London. I was not massively impressed. You got the ffeling that he simply woke up one morning and thought that it would be cool to make millions of sun-flower seeds, and that that was as much thought as had gone into the work. The coolest thing about it was the realisation of what it was - I saw it before it was covered by the newspapers, so I did not have the surprise spoiled for me.
I think you are wrong to describe Ai Weiwei as US-oriented, though. Instead to me he seem rather like Eduard Limonov- someone who would be a rebel wherever he was. All countries at all times have such people - life would be very boring otherwise.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:14 pm
@FOARP, no problem at all. I don’t mind if art has a message. What I worry is that we judge the art by the message. So that the same piece of work, if it wears a Mao label it is bad art, but if it wears an Obama label then it is good.
I refer to the famous Wilde: there is not such a thing as a moral book…
I was thinking of examples in the Spanish transition that would be similar to Liu. I thought of Arrabal, with his “letter to Franco”, but the guy was much more nuanced… and he definitely had a literary talent that was recognized before and long after his “dissident” phase (though I haven’t read any more than the famous letter).
Either way, due to the cultural gap between Chinese and Western mainstream opinon, policies that might have worked in Russia/Spain are unlikely to work in China. Of course the CCP is greatly responsible for this gap, but I don’t see the West is making a great effort to overcome it either…
One major problem with my OP is that I am lumping together two different personalities, who do have some things in common but also many differences. As you say, Ai doesn’t fit in the pro-American profile of Liu. The main point remains, thought, that for various reasons both are a tough sell to the Chinese.
[Reply to this comment]
19
PM
Bravo, Julen!
[Reply to this comment]
21
AM
It’s not just the West. There’s been an outcry over the Liu and Ai cases even in Hong Kong (which is technically part of China) and other parts of Asia. So it can’t just be boiled down to a U.S.-China thing.
Plus, neither Liu’s nor Ai’s works are particularly extreme when seen from an international viewpoint. They are both respected in their fields, and are only “dissidents” because China has made them so.
They’re getting additional attention simply because they’re famous — a Nobel laureate and a top artist who helped design the Bird’s Nest are considered newsworthy. And the fact that their cases of harassment / detention keep dragging on and on keeps their stories fresh in the press.
Your column misses the bigger point. These two figures are covered because they symbolize much greater problems — jailed thinkers and a seriously flawed judicial system.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:24 am
@Joyce Lau: The whole point is Liu and Ai are famous and respected in their fields mostly because we made them famous, clearly more for political reasons than anything else. Please DO have a look at the works of Ai and Liu and tell me with a straight face that these are the top thinkers and artists China produces today.
Both cases represent a radical current of thought that has a long history in China: that of the self-abasement and contempt of their own culture, which proposes wholesale replacement by “Western” culture (in fact they mean “American”) as the only solution. This kind of thought mirrors the opposite exclusive ultra-nationalist current, and they both feed each other, at the expense of more moderate, balanced positions.
Of course nobody should be jailed for these theories, and we are right to ask the CCP to release them now. What I worry is that the West has artificially inflated this kind of figures who correspond to a Western ideal of political hero, while disregarding the real consequences that this attitude brings — in particular for the credibility of a moderate reform movement in China.
[Reply to this comment]
FOARP Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:27 am
@Julen,
The problem is that those with more moderate positions are also likely to end up in jail. Just see the example of Guo Quan, who never had anything to do with western organisations, was a nationalist, but is now in jail for attempting to form a pro-democracy party.
Look at the present crackdown. You may not think it likely, but would you really be surprised now if, say, Han Han was arrested tomorrow? I agreed with you characterisation of people criticising Han Han for not taking more risks as ghoulish, but has he not already gone quite far, even if he is still a moderate?
And, once again, the CCP was willing to offer Ai a political roll in order to shut him up. It was not just foreigners who thought Ai influential.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:28 pm
@FOARP, I think one reason why Han Han is not touched is precisely because of his super high profile. He is way more influential than Liu or Ai, especially among the critical post-80s sector. He is also much more difficult to vilify as a traitor, because he has always cultivated an aura of independence…
I know if it comes to that, they will eventually take him in. But I bet the party will give it plenty of slack before they take that drastic step. It can seriously destroy the reputation of the CCP among a whole generation of Chinese.
[Reply to this comment]
21
PM
@ Julen. I’ve been writing about art for a living about 10 years. Not that that should matter.
Ai is a top artist. He’s shown at top museums in the world and the Bird’s Nest isn’t too shabby either. Most of his work is highly conceptual — I’d say much of it is actually LESS overtly political than the generation before of “cyncial realists” with their giant Mao heads. His upcoming opining in New York will feature ancient bronze Chinese animal heads that were up for auction not too long ago — whether you see that as a statement of patriotism or irony is up to you. (Anyway, I don’t think he’s making the opening party)
Art criticism isn’t the point here — it doesn’t matter whether you like his works or not.
Until 2008, Ai was not considered controversial. Beijing was parading him around like a proud parent with their little prodigy. The government LOVED that he was a “link to the West” and loved having an international artist to show off. Then he dug a little too deeply into whether some children died needlessly in Sichuan and the tide turned, and now he’s a dissident.
I’m not sure what your point is. You don’t seem to be strongly against Ai or Liu, just vaguely dismissive. You don’t seem to be supporting Beijing’s actions. Your argument just seems to be that “the West” shouldn’t report this stuff because China might take it badly. Well, China takes everything badly.
The international press is very different from the mainland one — it’s not controlled by the government. Oznos is writing what he personally thinks. His not the word from on high from the White House. He’s not responsible for how Beijing reacts or doesn’t react.
In a roundabout way, you’re asking for self-censorship. It’s a terrible thing for any writing to have to constantly look over his or her shoulder to think about government ramifications before speaking.
Why are you so hung up on celebrity? Some people get famous and others don’t. The media focuses on well-known people, and also writes with humor, color, opinion and controversy. That’s how the world works outside China.
[Reply to this comment]
21
PM
Sometimes, it takes famous people to make a bigger point.
For every celebrity artist and Nobel Laureate, there are many less-known Chinese who have been swept up in the recent crackdown, from church-goers to students to minor activists. If Ai and Liu can be used to make a broader point, so be it.
God knows how many other people disappear into police custody without trial that we will never know about, because, unlike Ai, they don’t have a publicist to call the overseas press.
[Reply to this comment]
21
PM
I repeat my main point, since you chose to ignore it:
So Yes, I am opposed to the thought of Ai and Liu. But Yes, I think they should be released immediately and allowed to speak freely. If you see a contradiction here, then you have not grasped the basic concept of democracy.
[Reply to this comment]
21
PM
Ah, the problem is that I personally don’t grasp democracy. Never mind that I was born and raised in one (Canada), and lobby for it here in Hong Kong.
You know you’ve lost your argument when you have to resort to personal insult instead of keeping to the issues.
I don’t see Ai or Liu’s work as being particularly pro-American. But with any large and complex body or art or writing, it’s hard to tag whether it’s really Western or Easter, pro-China or not.
And, at the end of the day, does it matter? Why does everyone have to be a moderate anyway? One of the first Liu pieces I read was against bribery among Chinese journalists — a domestic issue if there ever was one. And Ai’s work on the Sichuan earthquake was not radical at all — if China had a more critical press, they would have done what he did.
You’re right — I don’t get the point of this rambling post. If you say you think these men should be freed, and if you’re against Chinese censorship (as if would seem from your past writing) then this column really just boils down to the fact that you’re kinda annoyed at Evan Oznos and some other columnists. It’s not not a strong argument.
[Reply to this comment]
21
PM
@Joyce
Right, so you have “won” the argument. Congratulations and thanks for playing.
Yes, it matters very much. The lives of billions people may depend on how things play out here in the coming years. I believe the best for the Chinese today is progressive opening and normal exchange with the West — free of weird complexes. I think initiatives like the WTO, the Olympics and many other are conductive to this, whereas extreme positions like those of Ai and Liu only distance us more and more.
But of course, not everyone needs to be a moderate. This just happens to be my opinion, which is why I write it on my blog.
[Reply to this comment]
21
PM
Julen,
I think that you are wasting time on this Joyce fellow who allegedly has made a living on writing about “art” for 10 years (God knows what kind of “art”). He/she is clearly not interested in discussing the point you raised. Bascially, this person has got some free time to kill perhaps after writing another piece of “critic” of a top “artistic work”(the key to a top artistic work is that it must be “conceputal” which nobody except “art critics” can connect with). This kind of people will never bother coming down to the ground and communicate with the “commoners”.
[Reply to this comment]
21
PM
Best not to dis artists (or anyone else) like they’re not important lest other commenters say [bloggers] will never bother coming down to the ground and communicate with the “[real world]”. There’s already too much of that from shorted sighted science and engineering types who thinks the arts are a waste of time.
Julen,
Not sure why you would bring up “basic concept of democracy”. Free speech would have made more sense but not really either since opposing opinions are being aired and disagreed upon already.
As for “radical” hurting moderate reformers, Ai seems to be simply a button pusher (does he even appear to have a coherent agenda?) and Liu does seem to be a moderate (the later years before incarceration) but what do I know (names not on radar until they got arrested).
First, I question the effect of “moderate” interaction but there’s probably no point going into that. Second, could the “radical” label get attached to people upon contact with the “west”?
Now to the good question, care to drop some names you consider to be worth supporting (moral support, cheer on, etc)? Perhaps a compare and contrast to these 2 “radicals” to illustrate what helps and what doesn’t?
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:54 am
@cephaloless,
Well, the “basic princpile of democracy” was referring to the mythical Voltaire quote: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it” etc. No big deal, I guess I didn’t write it clearly enough. But with the “winning” and “losing” thing the guy totally lost me.
As for alternatives: there are many. The West systematically ignores or even despises artists/thinkers who don’t conform with strictly Western standards of “dissidence”.
One obvious example I think of right now is Han Han, who has immensely more weight in China than Liu or Ai. Another is Xu ZhiYong, who did a comprehensive study of the Tibetan problem, not to mention the cases of the black cells in Beijing, studies that were incomparably more elaborate and risky than the lists of Ai.
I am not suggesting the Western media is “evil” or anything. Just that some stories sell better than others, that’s all.
[Reply to this comment]
cephaloless Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:51 am
@Julen Madariaga,
Forgot about Han Han. I’m actually surprised he doesn’t get more attention from the security apparatus. He also seem more of a button pusher than having a coherent goal although definitely not so “shock” like Ai.
And I still say freedom of speech makes more sense.
btw, any way to number these posts? I suppose the date/time stamp is the better way to track them but then I see the comment count go up and wander when I left off.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
@cephaloless, I never installed a numbering/reference system because we don’t usually have so long discussions here. I will look into this, as soon as I get some time to tinker in the back end.
[Reply to this comment]
22
AM
@ hehe. I’m a woman. Not sure why the fact that I write about art bothers you, but if I didn’t want to chat with other bloggers, I wouldn’t be here! If you want to check out my writing, as well as my personal ramblings, my blog is http://www.joyceyland.com.
[Reply to this comment]
hehe Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
@Joyce Lau,
I suppose that it was you who brought your backgroud into the discussion at the very beggining?
[Reply to this comment]
22
AM
@ Julen. I think we agree on this. Voltaire speaks for both of us — the hardest thing is to allow freedom to someone you don’t like or agree with.
I don’t see how the West despises people like Han Han. I’ve not seen much negative press on him. He just gets less attention because he hasn’t been snatched into police custody and he does less work in English / overseas.
I realize you’re not some crazed nationalist calling for dissidents to be jailed. If you were, I wouldn’t spend so much time here.
But this post isn’t being written in a bubble. By being dismissive of efforts to keep the Ai / Liu stories in the media, you’re feeding into a larger effort to marginalize these cases or keep them swept under the carpet.
I’m glad Western journalists keep beating the drum on Ai and Liu — because, God knows, Chinese journalists can’t. Plus, the public’s attention span is short and everyone will forget about jailed dissidents otherwise.
As for “The lives of billions people may depend on how things play out here.” Well, isn’t that how the CCP thinks?
They’re convinced that any little thing — any writer, artist, activist, thinker — can tip the balance of the whole country.
I don’t think that’s true. China’s resilient and its people are smarter than Beijing thinks they are. Even if Ai and Liu were allowed to continue their work, they would just be two more voices among many — and I think China can handle that.
Actually, if Beijing just left people like Ai and Liu alone to begin with, they could have avoided much of this media attention.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:37 pm
@Joyce Lau - No offense meant with the “guy” thing, you can call that a Freudian slip… I think we agree in the main principles, and indeed it is the CCP’s brazen repression of FOS that is at the root of the problem.
I think we mostly disagree on the practical aspect as to how to effectively solve this problem. Your points are well noted though, and it’s a pleasure to have you around.
[Reply to this comment]
Joyce Lau Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:06 pm
@Julen. Likewise! It’s nice being here. I’ve added you to my blogroll.
[Reply to this comment]
22
PM
@Joyce Lau: when you cite the article by LXB about bribery among Chinese journalists, what form of `bribery’ is he on about?
The fact that journalists attending press conferences receive red packets with $$? I believe this practice is not just in China.
I remember reading an article years ago - by a Western journalist - about the practice in South Korea.
[Reply to this comment]
22
PM
@Cep: The American John Kamm of Dui Hua is critical of the Chinese government, but still gets his work done with them. I am sure not if he would fit into your “reformer” bill.
Such people,imo, work within the Chinese narrative - however distasteful it is to many Westerners - to help the reform process, but they are not loudmouthed high-profile loose cannons.
When Gala looks at the sea and becomes Abraham Lincoln, it is to say that Chinese people have aspirations to democracy.
But it is their own view of democracy: one that suits their conditions and cultural history - not an American or Canadian democracy, or one imposed via proxies with an `economic dependency’ on employers whose agenda is to dominate China, not democratize her.
China’s true intellectuals - not faux ones - have been debating the way forward into the modern world for more than a century.
As the great Indian prime minister Jawarhalal Nehru noted in his 1920s book Glimpses of World History:“China entered the true spirit of democracy, while Japan merely took on its cloak”. (with industrialization and copied institutions).
The process of debate was crushed during the the Mao era but has moved steadily - sometimes in fits and starts - forwards.
The pace may suit Chinese people - as Mr Madriga notes - for whom there have been too many upheavals within living memory.
But obviously not fast enough for agitators such as LXB and Ai Weiwei, who advocate anarchy.
Chinese people have all sorts of issues with the govt - corruption, wastage, soaring cost of living, wealth gap, etc.
But between the promise of gradual transformation by the incumbent and the abyss of sudden change, the choices are clear, for a long while.
Mr Madriga’s point is well-made: in lionizing “dissidents” such as Ai and Liu, the Western MSM is preaching to Chinese people what is best for them.
Ironically, as Joyce Lau,Chinese people are too smart for that.
[Reply to this comment]
21
AM
but the Chinese people, being brainwashed and unable to think by themselves, do not.
_____________________________________
Bob,
That is stupid, cuz state-run media doesnt have enough credibility to brainwash people.
On the other hand, western media was never questioned by westerners. Right ?
[Reply to this comment]
21
AM
The biggest and serious problem for an authoritarian system is that people dont have peaceful way to replace the government when it doesnt work for people.
But do any of you, EVER, seriously think of the flaws in democratic system ? If you didnt, please stop talking about democracy, because you have no clue what you are talking about.
[Reply to this comment]
23
AM
Thanks for the diverse tips discussed on this blog. I have observed that many insurance companies offer shoppers generous discounts if they elect to insure many cars together. A significant amount of households own several cars or trucks these days, particularly those with elderly teenage youngsters still dwelling at home, as well as the savings in policies can soon begin. So it is a good idea to look for a good deal.
[Reply to this comment]
7
AM
Oi galera, gostaria de uma ajuda, eu adquirir um pacote de TV HD no PC no site http://www.tvhd.com.br tenho acesso a vários canais através de um painel de controle que eu visualizo no próprio navegador, como eu faço para gravar os programas e série de TV no meu PC, lembrando que não tem nem um programa instalado no meu PC é todo pelo próprio navegador 100% online.
Quem tiver uma ideia, por favor, me ajude meu e-mail: riclife@ig.com.br
[Reply to this comment]