FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Liu Xiaobo: the West’s Model Chinese

by

Let the hagiographies begin. As soon as the late Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo fell gravely ill, his legions of admirers in the West and elsewhere started going into overdrive, piling on the praise. As a corollary, they are condemning the Chinese “regime” that has treated him so “monstrously.”

Representative are the outpourings of the New York Times, chief foreign-policy mouthpiece of the Democracy Empire. “Liu Xiaobo Has Suffered So That Others May Be Free,” headlined the paper in a column. Calling Liu “the Mandela of our age,” writer Nicholas Kristof effused: “You may be the man I most admire. For decades you’ve struggled and suffered to advance human liberty, at the cost of your own.”

What makes the West and ideological liberals worldwide so fulsome in their praise for a man his own government jailed the past eight years for subversion? In a word, democracy. Of all the often-conflicting ideas Liu Xiaobo advocated, one was central and steadfast: China’s salvation lies in wholesale Westernization and the adoption of liberal democracy.

That idée fixe of Liu’s, of course, explains the bitter and seemingly unbridgeable divide between his Western, liberal fans on one side, and the Chinese Communist Party and those who like what it has done for China and the world, on the other. From its laggard, backward position during the decades Liu was in his prime, China has caught up with or surpassed the West that he so esteems in many areas of human achievement. They include the economy, political clout, science & technology, innovation.

Today, the West’s long-held sense of superiority is crumbling. One remaining pillar is the democracy ideology — an unassailable conviction that democracy is the best, ultimate governance system for all humankind, regardless of national, cultural or historical differences. The assumed superiority of the democracy religion is what gives the Empire “moral” cover to proselytize it among less privileged peoples, and even impose it at gunpoint, as is often the case.

If China’s system of centralized meritocracy is perceived to be superior — which it in many respects clearly is, to judge by the record of the past four decades — the Empire’s morale and self-confidence would suffer a grievous, perhaps even fatal, blow. Certainly, the West would have one very big pretext less to intervene in the affairs of other nations.

On the other hand, if China could be converted to democracy, that threat would disappear. Moreover, China would ipso facto come under the orbit of the Empire and become subject to its rules and machinations. Such a conversion — which the Chinese call “peaceful evolution” — has been the preferred Western strategy toward China since Deng Xiaoping opened up his country and began historic reforms.

Critical to the success of such a conversion strategy were Chinese advocates of democracy, especially those active within their own country. Liu Xiaobo fit the bill almost perfectly. Of course, his position would be further buttressed by the awarding of something like the Nobel Peace Prize. That he duly received, almost immediately after Beijing jailed him for subversion.

Liu’s admirers seldom discuss at length their hero’s other major views. Among other things, he supported the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. He backed the Vietnam and Korean wars even long after they ended, in a 2001 essay. Despite the immeasurable human-rights abuses of those conflicts, Liu stated in his “Lessons from the Cold War” that “the free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights.” He insisted: “The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.” Liu Xiaobo also admired Israel’s positions in the Middle East’s, saying the Palestinians were “often the provocateurs.”

Worse, to Chinese sensibilities, was perhaps his advocacy of all-out Westernization for China. He told an interviewer in 1988 that “to choose Westernization is to choose to be human.” Reported Britain’s Guardian newspaper: “He also faulted a television documentary, He Shang, or River Elegy, for not thoroughly criticizing Chinese culture and not advocating Westernization enthusiastically enough: ‘If I were to make this I would show just how wimpy, spineless and fucked-up [weisuo, ruanruo, caodan] the Chinese really are’. Liu considered it most unfortunate that his monolingualism bound him in a dialogue with something ‘very benighted [yumei] and philistine [yongsu],’ the Chinese cultural sphere … In a well-known statement of 1988, Liu said: ‘It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonization for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough’.”

Liu Xiaobo and the Western imperium are indeed a match made in political heaven.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine


bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

September 25, 2017
Frank Serpico
Kap, Cops and Confederate Statues: a Better World Without Double Standards
Vicent Partal
Proud to be an Agent of Catalonian Sedition
Robert Hunziker
Climate Armageddon Revisited
David Rosen
Populists vs. Progressives: Are They Still Relevant?
S. Brian Willson
Obfuscating the Truths of Vietnam
Patrick Cockburn
Why the Kurds Are Seeking Independence From Iraq
Victor Grossman
Merkel Clobbered, German Far Right Rising
Belén Fernández
Letter From Iran
Binoy Kampmark
Benjamin Netanyahu, Penguins and the United Nations
John Grant
The Vietnam War as Public Spectacle
Ron Jacobs
Colonialism Never Gives Anything Away for Nothing
Andre Vltchek
Western Propaganda in Southeast Asia
Jane Constantineau
Our Man in Panama: When Diplomacy Matters
Mike Garrity
Wildfires Don’t Destroy Forests, Logging Does
Barbara Nimri Aziz
A Risky Referendum for Kurdistan Underway in Iraq
Thomas Knapp
JPMorgan Chase is Right to Fear Cryptocurrency
Tom H. Hastings
Tween Boys and the Fate of the World?
Weekend Edition
September 22, 2017
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
The Killing of History
Anthony DiMaggio
Who Are the “Alt-Right”? On the Rise of Reactionary Hatred and How to Fight it
Paul Street
Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s “Vietnam War”: Some Predictions
Douglas Valentine – Lars Schall
The CIA: 70 Years of Organized Crime
Paul Atwood
Korea? It’s Always Really Been About China!
Jeffrey St. Clair
Imperial Ruins: Frank Lloyd Wright in Hollywood
Mike Whitney
Uncle Sam vs. Russia in Eastern Syria: the Nightmare Scenario   
Andrew Levine
Trump Flux
Paul Michael Johnson
Lessons on Colonial Monuments From an Unlikely Place
Benjamin Dangl
Masters of War: Senate Defense Budget Set to Exceed One Third of Global Military Spending
Brian Cloughley
NATO’s Decomposing Corpse
Linda Pentz Gunter
Stanislav Petrov: the Ignominious End of the Man Who Saved the World
Margaret Kimberley
Is Trump a White Supremacist? Yes, But So is America
Stephen Cooper
When Racism Lurks in the Heart of a Death Penalty Juror
Robert Fantina
Bombast Unchained: Trump at the United Nations
Ralph Nader
The Censorious Vortex of the “Flash News” Barons
Sheldon Richman
Trump’s Americanized Fascism
Don Fitz
Any White Cop Can Kill a Black Man at Any Time
Louis Proyect
The Cancer in Blue: Cop Documentaries
Mike Miller
A Small “d” Democratic Reflection on Hurricane Irma
John Feffer
It’s Time to Make a Deal With North Korea
John Eskow
MSNBC Goes Full Dr. Strangelove
Pepe Escobar
Unmasked: Trump Doctrine Vows Carnage for New Axis of Evil
Kenneth Surin
London Taxi Driver Chat
Georgina Downs
Poison in the Fields: Agriculture as Chemical Warfare
Basav Sen
The Brutal Racial Politics of Climate Change and Pollution
Jill Richardson
Finding a Common Language on Climate
Foday Darboe
Climate Change and Conflict