You have to marvel at
the bizarre media circus triggered by the zany tale of “human
rights activist” Chen Guangcheng. Chen’s saga began
fantastically, evolved strangely, and continues as a hypocritical
argument between Republicans and Democrats over who is the real
friend of human rights.
Media accounts are vague on what earned Chen the mantle of “human rights advocate.” Some point to his opposition many years ago to the campaign in the Peoples’ Republic of China to limit population growth by urging families to birth only one child. There is also agreement that Chen was convicted and served four years in prison and was under home detention until the night of April 22.
On that night,
according to Chen’s friends and repeated by the US officials, Chen
escaped from his detention, scaled at least eight walls, and wandered
around for 20 hours until he hooked up with a fellow dissident who
drove him a considerable distance to an ultimate rendezvous with
officials from the US embassy in Beijing. This feat is all the more
remarkable because the media reports that Chen is blind. US news
outlets hailed this accomplishment without any incredulity. Nor did
they suggest that there was any connection between the “escape,”
the resulting furor, and the beginning of high-level US-PRC talks
scheduled to begin 10 days later. For the happily gullible US media
these steps were mere happenstance.
After his arrival,
confusion reigned. No one could quite figure out what Chen wanted,
including US embassy officials. According to The
Wall Street Journal,
US officials found him “self absorbed.” They remarked how it
“feels like the guy is unfairly attacking the US.” What began as
another opportunity to show the PRC’s insensitivity to human rights
was quickly dissolving into a fiasco.
At different times
Chen insisted on talking by phone with PRC Premier Wen, Secretary of
State Hilary Clinton, and Representatives Chris Smith and Nancy
Pelosi in the US. For days, US embassy personnel chatted with Chen
about his wishes. At the same time, he called friends in the PRC and
the US to discuss his options. PRC officials calmly dialogued with
the embassy—no doubt bemused by the increasing impatience of the US
officials.
After six days, US officials believed they had determined Chen’s intention. He wanted to stay in the PRC, but with the caveat that he be admitted to law school in his native province. Despite his lack of a formal education, PRC officials quickly granted his wish. But wait: first, he wanted to be reunited with his family. Again, officials granted his wish, whisking his family to Beijing on a fast train.
Thinking the
“incident” had been resolved, embassy officials drove Chen to a
Beijing hospital to be treated for minor injuries. Overnight, he
changed his mind again and demanded he be sent to the US to take
advantage of a visiting scholar offer tendered by Jerome Cohen of
NYU. He alluded to vague threats by PRC authorities that were denied
by embassy officials. Finally, the Chen “human rights” struggle
was capped off by a remote open mike dialogue with the US House of
Representatives where he surprised House members with the revelation
of his forthcoming journey to the US. By the way, Chen has since
announced that he reserves the right to return to China when his US
R&R is completed. Human rights indeed!
One obvious lesson of
the Chen episode is that there is an avenue for convicted criminals
to extort a law degree or a trip overseas if he or she plays the
cards right, though I would not recommend that anyone try this in the
US.
But the more serious
lesson is for the myriad human rights groups in the US and Europe.
Their ready acquiescence to “causes” that coincide with the
interests of their respective ruling classes casts a shadow on their
body of work. The critical observer cannot help but notice the
coalescing of many human rights campaigns with the foreign policy
objectives of the US and its NATO allies.
It’s an old story,
beginning in the Cold War with a noticeable tendency for the most
prominent rights groups to find human rights violations in the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe, but curiously overlooking the ravages of
anti-Communism in the US. But after the Helsinki Accords of 1975, the
human rights provision (though no other element) became an anchor for
US and European foreign policy. Millions of dollars were directed
towards Western human rights organizations and NGOs that compromised
any objectivity for the routine payoff. Human rights pressure
intensified on the Socialist countries while waning in the West. Of
course some groups and activists were merely gullible; they inherited
blindness to repression and oppression in their beloved backyard
while bearing a nativist distrust of things foreign or different;
cultural ignorance and disrespect of differences always exacerbated
the blunders of human rights campaigners. And imperialists were quick
to exploit these weaknesses.
In recent history, the
irresponsibility of human rights activists has contributed to the
dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the demonization of countries seeking
an independent path from that chosen by the US and its allies,
countries such as Cuba, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea,
the PRC, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, and Syria. Some groups seem to have
forgotten the other nine points of the Helsinki Accord.
This institutionalization of human rights organizations, along with their penetration by governmental agencies, has challenged their credibility. The obscene campaign against Libya has resulted in civilian deaths and the brutal rule of bandits and racists. And the current campaign against the Syrian government brings frequent bombings by opponents and a great loss of civilian lives. Surely some human rights advocates owe us an accounting.
As The
Colombia Journalism Review reports,
the recent Mike Daisey account of workplace abuses in the PRC went
viral after paradoxically appearing on This
American Life (They
show little interest in American
workplace abuse). Eight hundred and eighty-eight thousand downloads
followed. Consequently, Change.org,
the ubiquitous on-line petition campaigner, solicited 256,425
signatures opposing this alleged abuse.
But Daisey’s account
was a fraud, laden with inaccuracies and spurious charges.
Consequently, This
American Life
retracted the Daisey episode. Yet only 486 people signed a petition
urging the withdrawal of the Change.org
petition. The damage was done. The stain remains.
We deserve better
human rights advocates: less obsequiousness and gullibility, more
responsibility and seriousness.
Zoltan
Zigedy
No comments:
Post a Comment