Why is it that when Ai Weiwei is detained, the west assumes that he is a victim of trumped-up charges by the government, but when Bo Xilai is dismissed as the Chongqing party chief having angered the central party leaders, London and Washington follow every step of Beijing?
Of course, my own position is that neither Ai Weiwei nor Bo Xilai ought to have been imprisoned or charged with the crimes they have been charged with, on such flimsy evidence, particularly when a political motive is strongly implicated. Naturally, Dr Lin continues, allowing what few facts we have access to to speak for themselves:
So far, the most astonishing thing is that nothing has been established beyond the fact that Neil Heywood, a British businessman who worked for a firm with M16 links, died in a Chongqing hotel. The UK foreign secretary confirmed in April that the British consulate in Chongqing was notified of Heywood's death by "overconsumption of alcohol", and in November, the family informed consular staff of their decision to have his body cremated. It was also reported that his relatives mentioned a heart attack and dismissed suggestions of foul play.
According to several versions of an increasingly colourful story, Gu asked Heywood to help her transfer a large sum of money abroad, the two disputed the commission, and he threatened to expose her assets and their transaction. Remarkably, once again, "there was no paper trail" (the Washington Post).
Similarly, Wang Lijun, Chongqing's former police chief who entered the US consulate in Chengdu on 6 February, is said to have documents implicating Bo and Gu. However, US officials say Wang did not hand over any papers.
But what happened to Bo Xilai on account of poor Mr Heywood is not nearly so distressing as what has happened to a few of Mr Bo’s more, shall we say, ardent defenders:
This is not to downplay the seriousness of corruption. Official corruption has ranked number one of China's social ills in several popular surveys. Indeed, it is such an entrenched problem that it is used as a political weapon, to bring down one's enemies or to rally unity: not many people dare disobey the leadership because so few are clean enough not to fear corruption charges themselves. Often the charge of corruption is only activated politically, aided by a tightly controlled media.
The crackdown has not stopped with Gu and Bo. Party leaders have demanded that cadres take a stand by denouncing Bo while declaring loyalty to President Hu Jintao's central government. By mid-April, more than 210,000 online "rumours" had been removed, and many leftist websites shut down. Thus a crackdown on rumour is used to legitimate political suppression. The officials vowed that any "violation of the constitution, malicious attack on state leaders or unfounded comments on the 18th party congress" must be crushed. People by such pressure are reminded of the cultural revolution purges.
The entire article is well worth the reading. But her final admonition is all the more haunting, that the seeming agreement of the Communist Party leadership, the Western press and right-wing groups like the Falun Dafa is not necessarily something to welcome, and is something to view with extreme scepticism.
I thought the same thing myself - just because something has been said by both dissidents and the CCP doesn't make it true. Bo might be innocent, although that is highly unlikely. It is also highly unlikely that Bo's politburo enemies are corruption-free, and for all I know they may even have some bodies buried somewhere. The problem is that the Chinese legal system has no credibility in cases involving criminal charges against prominent persons.
ReplyDeleteTurning to the Ai Weiwei case, the punishment he received was both extra-judicial and disproportionate to the crime of which he was accused. The resolution was also extra-judicial. In this, whether or not Ai Weiwei did defraud the Chinese taxpayer becomes an irrelevant factor. The charges brought against him were treated as bogus even by the authorities.
So, yes, it is possible to condemn both the process being unleashed against Bo Xilai and that directed against Ai Weiwei. However, since one is equivalent to the settling of a score in a mafia gang, and the other was essentially a man being persecuted regardless of what he had actually done, it should not surprise you at all that people are not going to waste any effort arguing Bo's case.
Thanks much for the comment, FOARP, and welcome back!
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what you write here, actually. I even agree that the case for the Bo and Ai cases being comparable on their faces is rather a stretch for Dr Lin, for the reasons you describe; however, there are two points of contention - or rather, one point of clearer emphasis and one point of making sure we're on the same page.
1.) Dr Lin is on much firmer ground when she is speaking about Bo's supporters than about Bo himself. Yes, this is a very high profile case and it will be handled (is being handled) by the Chinese judiciary in a way that the Ai Weiwei 'case' was not. However, I believe that the people who are speaking out for Bo are now in exactly the same state that Ai was in when he was arrested. The seizures of neoleftist URLs and the arbitrary detention / silencing of vocal nationalists and neoleftists should be cause for as much concern as the seizure of a pro-reform public artist; in both cases, the protection of valid political expression is at issue.
2.) What we are talking about - or at least, what the CCP is attempting to get us to 'talk about' - is the fair application of the rule of law. And, at least in the civil tradition of the Western nations where rule of law is present, due process and the right to a fair trial are to be given every bit as much to a man with 'a score' to settle in a mafia gang as it is to an artist with no prior criminal record.