activist shenanigans: a chinese perspective

Over the last week and a half, I watched the drama of Chen Guangcheng, the blind chinese activist, unfold through the NYT and other online media outlets. There were detailed accounts of the scramble by Chinese officials to locate the guy, then rumored to be hiding in the US embassy in Beijing, and also accounts later of how US diplomats scrambled to resolve the situation on the eve of a visit by secretary of state Clinton. As cross-ocean tensions mounted between the two nations, media opinions and official statements on both sides were each taking jabs, often calling each other words that would’ve made Gordon Ramsey blush.

While watching this whole fiasco develop, I had an eerily unsettling feeling. There are deep disappointments at both sides for their handling of this situation, and also a sense of sadness as I realize that diplomats on both sides have shared responsibility for the way this is (hopefully) resolved. For the record, I am a chinese who grew up in the US, and I have a perspective into both cultures.

From a chinese cultural perspective, chinese have always lived with a sort of authoritative rule; it’s almost built into the culture. The concept of human rights in china is fundamentally different that human rights in the western world. Back in the Qin dynasty, when an emperor died, servants of the emperor, the lucky ones, would be beheaded. The unlucky ones would be buried alive with their master. What we have today is progress. As the chinese culture advanced, so did human rights (i.e. these days people don’t get buried till they’re for sure dead). Human rights in china has developed in its own way, especially given the circumstances over the last 150 years, and are a direct result of the experiences of its history.

From an American cultural perspective (I think I can fairly make the assessment having lived here for the last 22 years), human rights has developed from european beliefs, with roots founded in ancient roman and greek societal values. Human rights in the western world has evolved as direct result of the experiences of its history. The western world has experimented with democratic values (more or less) for the past 700 years or so (beginning with the Swiss), and has developed a keen sense of what will work for its population and what won’t. Of course, because the western world feels that democracy works for their governments, that democracy (and to a greater extent, human rights) can better the lives of those in eastern cultures. This is why you see a big push for democracy in developing nations, as a way of stemming the tide of corruption and dictatorships. However, this doesn’t always work for the eastern cultures.

What we see here, with the US pushing for human rights in China, is the by-product of globalization. With technology the way it is now, these two cultures are encountering each other at all levels, and what you see as differences in the way people in these two countries are treated isn’t just a simple matter of one government being good and one being bad. It’s the evolution of their individual cultures that has led them to these very fundamental differences. Unfortunately, this activist got caught in the middle of this larger tension between two countries. It also didn’t help that this whole situation unfolded on the eve of a state visit.

Does the chinese government deserve blame for the way they handled this situation? Absolutely. The chinese government is pretty well known for not always following through on their word, not necessarily because they’re dishonest, but because there is inconsistency in the government. The person who made the deal may have honestly believe that they would be able to follow through on their promise, but the folks that are tasked with carrying it out may have a different agenda.

This doesn’t excuse the US government from any blame in this situation either. I can see why they would want this issue to be resolved as quickly as possible, but the handling was utterly sloppy. How naïve does the government official have to be to think that the activist can simply walk out of the embassy that he’s been hiding in, stay in china, and have everything be hunky-dory? I don’t exactly know what the activist point-of-view was in this whole episode (apparently he wanted to stay in china, then flipped and wanted to go to the US), but it must have not been a fun experience. I do hope that the guy will be able to make it out of China without much hassle. It wouldn’t look good for either governments if this falls through. As far as human rights go, this isn’t situation likely to change anything in china, and it won’t change the US stance on that either.

I close with a cautionary observation: In assessing standards of governing (democratic vs authoritative) and even humans rights, one shouldn’t immediately assume that the democratic choice (viewed by many as the best choice) will ultimately prevail, or that any deviation from that is the result of evildoing by certain people. There have been many examples in history when given a choice, people will pick the inferior choice, or the more restrictive human rights guidelines, as the decision is greatly influenced by social and historical factors. An example that stands out is 30+ year stretch where the population of Peru have repeatedly had the opportunity to democratically elect their leaders and time after time have elected dictators. Dictators, after all, provided the Peruvians with level of predictability that they may not get with a democratic leader.


**As a side note/disclaimer: I am chinese, and I love my country and my culture (I know…I often characterize myself as not very chinese, but I am). I don’t agree with the way a lot of chinese people think, and I often don’t agree with what my government does, but nevertheless, there is a loyalty there. Why? It’s what I was raised up to believe. I’m of the persuasion that regardless of what government currently rules your country, your heritage as someone of chinese descent is something that is permanent, and should transcend political lines. I have family who are third generation americans, but I still consider them chinese. For this reason, I roll my eyes at petty distinctions drawn by people who insist they’re hongkongese, or taiwanese, or mainlander, or Singaporean chinese. I never really understood it, but I’m not really here to argue that point.