The Chen Guangcheng story, a drama (like the Bo Xilai one) fit for the movies, I have tended to keep silent on for the simple reason that it is not (regardless of how it is portrayed in either the New York Times or in the People’s Daily) a black-and-white issue. It involves numerous layers of policy, ideology and logistical considerations, and does not simply devolve on the status and rights of one man (or on the status and rights of one nation, for that matter). Speaking out on it immediately after the fact, before all facts are known and verified, tends to generate more heat than light; this is a problem just as much in the blogosphere (I am looking at you, both ChinaGeeks and Hidden Harmonies - though some definite kudos to DeWang for posting a reasonably fair-minded summary of the case, with some commentary) as it is on American cable television.
I have three distinct impressions of the case.
- Chen Guangcheng is not necessarily an activist. Or rather, if he is, he is a very softspoken one. He is a lawyer. He is a good lawyer, self-taught. He takes on cases which are challenging and politically inconvenient, and he generally takes cases that elicit his sympathy - which is a good thing, because he knows what it is like to live in poverty in China. Forced sterilisations and forced abortions are wrong (particularly when done along class lines) no matter who does them - the heirs of Andrew Carnegie or the Chinese government - and Chen Guangcheng was right to challenge that policy (and it should be noted that he did so under existing Chinese law, even if he did have contacts with the NED). But either demonising him as a tool of American foreign policy instruments or hailing him as some kind of hero and visionary trying to effect systemic change in China would be misguided at best.
- The United States can and should do only so much. I take this stance as a citizen of that country and one who cares very deeply about it, and as a Christian. As a citizen, we have no business being the world’s policemen, judges, juries and executioners before we can fix our own society and make it the best it can be. It is patriotic for Americans to be aware of, and to oppose, the activities of the neocon-dominated NED and its sockpuppets in China, who assume that our resources are unlimited and that we should make all of our decisions based on (their) ideological purity. This position got us into massive amounts of trouble and needless debt under the Bush Administration, and it will do so again unless we get a dousing of cold, realistic water. As a Christian, I believe that he who is without sin should be casting the first stone, and that applies just as much to us as to the Chinese government.
- China must take responsibility for its own moral growth as a country. This means that, if China is so insistent about not being told what to do by the likes of me (or any other such ‘full-bellied idle foreigners’ [吃飽了沒事幹的外國人], as Xi Jinping once charmingly put it), then they will have to provide some sort of moral direction for their own people which does not leave it beholden to... well, us. Capitalism was a foreign import. So was nationalism. So was Marxism. Though the dichotomy between foreign and domestic may turn out to be unsustainable if we consider even nationalism to be an inappropriate framework for building a moral consciousness amongst the powers that be, it is not the case that China does not have its own philosophical and ideological resources to draw upon in cases like Chen Guangcheng’s. The question must be asked, what would Confucius do? I do not think it is necessarily clear what he would do in such a case, but at least that might get us thinking about the right kinds of questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment