Lessons on How to Love China

17 Responses to Lessons on How to Love China

1. 

   Josh on March 14, 2009 at 22:28

   Concerning your update…I had the same irritation with the Telegraph using sensational (or as you say “sexy”) words in a recent article about the Beijing professor who was demoted to a position teaching in a small Xinjiang university. Instead of saying that he had been “unfairly moved” or “drastically demoted” they decided that he had been “exiled”.

   Whoever’s writing these titles needs to settle down.
2. 

   Phil on March 15, 2009 at 22:11

   I freaking hate bloggers who act all clever about Chinese human rights/anti-government activists. You’re not sure if he’s daring or reckless? I’m not sure if you’re just condescending or an absolute arsehole.
   Consider this: maybe he’s neither daring nor reckless. Maybe he’s just right. Correct. Absolutely 100% spot on. He’s committed to improving human rights in his country. He knows it can’t be done from inside the Party. He knows it is necessary to stand up in the courts and demand the respect that the law says his clients should get, over and over and over again. He also knows that this kind of campaign will involve great sacrifice, and he makes it.
   And the result? People like you, with your intimate knowledge of Party politics, label him “reckless”.
   Just consider - my rather confrontational style aside - the possibility that he knows more about his job than you do. Consider the possibility that he’s right. And now maybe locked up for being write. Then consider your tone the next time you choose to write about him.
3. 

   Chris Hearne on March 15, 2009 at 22:26

   Hey Phil,
   I hope you can go back and read the piece again. I thought my tone was pretty supportive of Gao: that’s the whole reason I wrote it. The title is “Lessons on How to Love China,” and I thought this (along with the last paragraph) implies that I think Gao can teach people a lot. I thought that was clear.

   I am not arguing that he is reckless or not reckless, only presenting the view of (one) other Chinese rights lawyer that thinks Gao’s approach is too wild. Click on the NYT link in that paragraph to read it. I am totally unqualified to say which methods are best and which are wrong, I just thought it was fair to note that there are other ideas (from people on the same side of the fence as Gao) out there. It doesn’t represent my personal feelings, nor does it detract from my admiration for people like Gao Zhisheng.
4. 

   Chris Hearne on March 15, 2009 at 22:30

   In retrospect I can see how this paragraph might be read in a way I didn’t intend:

   “Regardless of whether Gao’s career exhibited courageous daring or dangerously unsound judgment (which are certainly not mutually exclusive qualities), Gao Zhisheng’s experience is a lesson for any patriotic Chinese with an idealistic streak: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Progressive reform has consequences for individuals. Period.”

   My point wasn’t to blame Gao for what he did. I should say “lesson for any Western observers.”
5. 

   C. Custer on March 15, 2009 at 23:40

   So, Phil, what you’re looking for is a blogger who will, without “intimate knowledge” of Party politics or of Gao’s job, confirm that he is doing everything perfectly? Isn’t that somewhat ridiculous or, to put it another way, downright irresponsible?

   Chris’s piece makes it perfectly clear that 1) he’s not claiming to be some human-rights law expert and 2) he supports Gao. If you didn’t get that, it’s because you didn’t read it carefully, period.

   It really is amazing, merely suggesting that it might be within the realm of possibility that someone criticizing the CCP might have, at some point ever, made some mistake attracts personal attacks like this. Honestly, Phil, what are you contributing to the dialogue here, other than making people who support your position look belligerent?
6. 

   Kingsley on March 16, 2009 at 08:37

   Philip Pan, in his book Out of Mao’s Shadow, describes the debate within the weiquan movement as one between purists - like Gao - and pragmatists. When the government responds to legal challenges with intimidation, torture, extrajudicial imprisonment and other violence, the purists argue that it should be met with non-violent resistance. In other words, do not back down when the party’s violent nature reveals itself and instead continue to challenge an unjust system even when it results in personal sacrifice. The pragmatists argue that they should not challenge the party directly and instead pick their targets more effectively (i.e. local officials) and encourage the government to live up to its own standards and make incremental gains rather than challenge the whole system.

   It’s really a debate about tactics, and one that goes on within activist groups all over the world. What makes the debate more heated is the potential of the actions of those who challenge the party more directly to have a negative effect on everyone else working for change. However, the risk and potential reward of these actions is hard to know, so it’s impossible to know for sure where to draw the line between actions that are courageous and those that are irresponsible.

   As outside observers, I think it is important for us to both support those who have made sacrifices for their ideals and respect the choices of those who say that people like Gao are “reckless.” In the end it is up to the people involved to decide on what tactics should be used and what sacrifices they are willing to bear. I am someone who loves China but is not Chinese, so I would support all of those working to reform the system. But I would not presume to offer advice on the best way to go about doing that when I am not someone who has to face the real consequences of those choices.
7. 

   Chris Hearne on March 16, 2009 at 09:53

   @ Kingsley

   “But I would not presume to offer advice on the best way to go about doing that when I am not someone who has to face the real consequences of those choices.”

   Yup. Exactly my feelings.
8. 

   Michael on March 16, 2009 at 17:15

   It just goes to show you can’t be too careful.
9. 

   No Way Sis on March 17, 2009 at 09:24

   I would argue that opting for one approach over another would do more harm than good to the drive for liberty and rule of law. As foreigners, whatever we do or do not know about China, it is a fact that those with power do not give it up easily - wherever you are, whatever culture you’re in. Some aspects of human nature are universal. So Gao Zhisheng’s combative approach is needed as much as Zhang Sizhi’s gentle nudging. As the Party would probably put it, “all out efforts must be taken” to win this fight for freedom. Besides, Zhang’s approach of engagement has proven time and again to be a futile one - just look at Burma and Asean.
10. 

    Chris Hearne on March 17, 2009 at 09:38

    @ No Way Sis
    Interesting point. They say Ghandhi was able to do what he did in British India because the British were “civilized” colonizers (i.e., they generally wouldn’t resort to massacres, etc.). I am not trying to draw a comparison between the mainland today and British India because of course the differences are huge. But it’s interesting to question whether the CCP is a “civilized” government in the same way people say the British in India were supposedly “civilized.” I think the answer is obviously no. The potential might be there for a change in the medium-term future though, and how that evolves might have implications for whether Zhang or Gao’s approach is best.
11. 

    No Way Sis on March 17, 2009 at 09:59

    Yes, quite. But for me, it boils down to trust. And I do not trust the CCP. Of course it will accept gentle nudging, because it means it can kick reform into the long grass, buy people off, preserve its power. Thorns in the side are needed too.

    Re media words and terms that bug. I shouldn’t get too upset about them. They’re minor details in comparison to detentions and people having to flee an unreasonable regime. Those are the things that should make you angry! Besides, I’m sure such terms will disappear when dissidents stop getting jailed.

    I’m sure you didn’t overlook the Amritsar Massacre when you spoke of British civility in India.
12. 

    Chris Hearne on March 17, 2009 at 10:57

    Nope, didn’t overlook it; the British were monsters in India too. The reason people say they were “civilized” is (I guess?) because in historical context, in comparison to other colonizing powers, they were nicer.
13. 

    perspectivehere on March 19, 2009 at 00:51

    @Chris Hearne

    A good post overall - very thought provoking.

    I have a small nit with this statement about the British colonizers in India which is somewhat tangential to your post:

    “in historical context, in comparison to other colonizing powers, they were nicer.”

    Uh, not sure you’ve considered the sacking and razing of Delhi in revenge for what the British call the “Indian Mutiny of 1857″ (and some Indians refer to as the “First War of Indian Independence”). The British retaliation on Delhi is a not-so-widely-known atrocity graphically described in William Dalrymple’s 2006 work “The Last Mughal”.

    In Dalrymple’s words:
    “Finally, on the 14th September 1857, the British assaulted and took the city, sacking the Mughal capital and massacring great swathes of the population. In one muhalla alone, Kucha Chelan, some 1,400 citizens of
    Delhi were cut down. “The orders went out to shoot every soul,” recorded Edward Vibart, a 19 year old British officer. “It was literally murder … The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful… Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man’s heart I think who can look on with indifference…” Those city dwellers who survived the killing were driven out into the countryside to fend for themselves. Delhi was left an empty ruin.”

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Mughal-Fall-Dynasty-Delhi/dp/product-description/074758639X

    Interview with William Dalrymple:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/destinations/india/article739273.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

    Review of Dalrymple’s book:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/nov/11/featuresreviews.guardianreview6

    Also the wikipedia entry has some interesting bits:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rebellion_of_1857#Retaliation_.E2.80.94_.22The_Devil.27s_Wind.22

    “The December 1857 issue of Charles Dickens’ Household Words contained an essay by Dickens and Wilkie Collins in which Dickens says,…. “I wish I were a commander in chief in India. The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental Race with amazement….should be to proclaim to them that my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested; and that I was there for that purpose and no other, …now proceeding, with all convenient dispatch and merciful swiftness of execution, to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the Earth.”

    Amaresh Misra, Indian historian and author, goes further to claim that this was a holocaust where British reprisals involved the killing of 10 million Indians spread out over 10 years.

    “”It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret,” Misra told the Guardian.”
    See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh

    Not so nice and civilized. It’s kind of hard to say which colonizers were “nicer” when much of this history has been obscured by colonial historians and we don’t have a clear idea of what things they did. Doubtful that Gandhi would have survived the British massacre of Delhi in 1857.

    I think the “reason for Gandhi’s success” sounds like face-saving rationalization: “we British gave up India because we were too civilized” - when the more likely reason is that post-WWII Britain was in ruins and too exhausted to fight to hold on in the face of Gandhi’s independence movement. Also I find that the Gandhi story is often trotted out to justify violence against a demonized enemy by diminishing Gandhi’s achievement, so I suspect its just one of these unprovable assertions that don’t mean anything.

    On the other hand, I admit that I’ve no great knowledge on India other than reading Dalrymple. And I’m not saying all British were bad either - Dalrymple makes it clear there were genocidal fanatics among the British leadership and a bloodthirsty frenzy whipped up by the jingoistic British press in India and back home that led to the massacres. Not a shining example of a responsible free press.
14. 

    Chris Hearne on March 19, 2009 at 11:24

    @ perspectivehere:
    I’ve gotta say I was totally ignorant about that incident, thanks for the heads up. Also I agree with you about the “face-saving rationalization” you talked about, though I would still argue that they compare favorably to a place like France (for example) that desperately clung to its colonies as long as possible, wasting lives and treasure in the process. The British as least knew when the game was over.
15. 

    FranklinT on March 26, 2009 at 13:39

    To me, the British and Gandhi example is not a good framework. This rights issue, whether people want to acknowledge this or not- is an “internal” matter, meaning the activist is of Cn origins (and even having a CN citizenship) VERY hard to make a case this is like Gandhi vs. colonial Brits. [Plus, the Brits have a track record and-- well, in the words of "The Wire" --it was time to for them to fall.]

    I think there’s an American reference that can help to echo and reframe this debate: “If you didn’t have Malcolm, ain’t nobody would know Martin.”

    In terms of arguing the historical point- even in an open democracy (let’s just assume pre-1960′s USA was one), you must have opposite sides of the spectrum to frame “public” discourse. White People’s fear of Malcolm X, drove them to embrance Martin Luther King Jr. and helped to support his rise and having a voice. You have to give people choices and show them the consequences of supporting either side. If supporting X leads to going to jail vs. supporting Y leads to less employment opportunities- you’ll get a much different make up of supporters.

    Samething in Cn, you have to have your extremists that are willing to go to jail, attack the fundamentals of society in order to have a contrasting group which is at first marginal, then get a place at the table and work towards compromise with the Gov.

    In Cn’s case, I would wager this group of “Martin’s” will come from within the Party or be affiliated with them. It’s unforseeable that you can simply rip the rug out of the Gov. This is not a tribal dispute, e.g. Congo.

    Unless you are talking succession or some kind of far-off situation, there is no power that can remove or restructure a gov’t that 1.) has relative legitimacy with its people (e.g. 300 million out of poverty, entering the WTO, lots of nice places to eat and house to buy) and 2.) has full and immediate control of its army.

    So, we should look and identify the Martin’s of Cn.
    That’s my 2-fen.

    Best,
    FT
16. Gao Zhisheng Resurfaces, Acts Strangely | ChinaGeeks - translation and analysis of modern chinese society, politics, and internet on March 28, 2010 at 19:03

    [...] ZhishengHuman rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng suddenly called his friends and family yesterday, saying he had been released. This has come as [...]
17. Gao Zhisheng resurfaces, acts strangely | China Elections and Governance on March 29, 2010 at 09:16

    [...] rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng suddenly called his friends and family yesterday, saying he had been released. This has come as [...]