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

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
July 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
“Inclusive Capitalism,” Nancy Pelosi, and the Dying Planet
Jeffrey St. Clair
Red State, Blue State; Green State, Deep State
Anthony DiMaggio
Higher Education Fallacies: What’s Behind Rising Conservative Distrust of Learning?
Andrew Levine
Why Republicans Won’t Dump Trump Anytime Soon
Bruce Dixon
White Liberal Guilt, Black Opportunism and the Green Party
Kevin Zeese
Green Party Growing Pains; Our Own Crisis of Democracy
Michael Colby
Ben & Jerry’s Has No Clothes
Mark Harris
The Revolutionary Imagination: Rosa for Our Times
David Rosen
America’s Five Sex Panics
Jack Heyman
Class War on the Waterfront: Longshore Workers Under Attack
Kim C. Domenico
Marginalize This:  Turning the Tables on Neoliberal Triumphalism
Brian Cloughley
Trying to Negotiate With the United States
Edward Hunt
Killing Civilians in Iraq and Syria
Jonathan Latham
The Biotech Industry is Taking Over the Regulation of GMOs From the Inside
Russell Mokhiber
DC Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton Fox Won’t Let Whistleblower Lawyer Lynne Bernabei Go
Ramzy Baroud
The Story behind the Jerusalem Attack: How Trump and Netanyahu Pushed Palestinians to A Corner
Farzana Versey
The Murder of Muslims
Kathy Kelly
At Every Door
David W. Pear
Venezuela Under Siege by U.S. Empire
Maria Paez Victor
Venezuelan Opposition Now Opposes the People
Joseph Natoli
The Mythos Meme of Choice
Clark T. Scott
High Confidence and Low Methods
Missy Comley Beattie
Glioblastoma As Metaphor
Ann Garrison
Organizing Pennsylvania’s 197: Cheri Honkala on Frontline Communities
Colin Todhunter
Codex Alumentarius and Monsanto’s Toxic Relations
Graham Peebles
Europe’s Shameful Refugee Policy
Louis Proyect
Reversals of Imperial Fortune: From the Comanche to Vietnam
Jeffrey Wilson
Demolish! The Story of One Detroit Resident’s Home
REZA FIYOUZAT
Billionaire In Panic Over Dems’ Self-Destruct
David Penner
The Barbarism of Privatized Health Care
Yves Engler
Canada in Zambia
Cesar Chelala
Dr. Schweitzer’s Lost Message
Masturah Alatas
Becoming Italian
Charles R. Larson
Review: James Q. Whitman’s “Hitler’s American Model”
July 20, 2017
Sebastian Friedrich – Gabriel Kuhn
A New Class Politics
Patrick Cockburn
The Massacre of Mosul: More Than 40,000 Civilians Feared Dead
Paul Street
The Abandonment: Reflections on James Foreman’s “Locking Up Our Own”
Kim Codella
A Practical Education
Frank Scott
America’s Trump, Not Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Clancy Sigal Goes Away
Don Monkerud
The Real Treason in DC: Turning Our Lives Over to Corporations
Brian Dew – Dean Baker
Are Amazon’s Shareholders Suckers?
Ralph Nader
Detecting What Unravels Our Society – Bottom-up and Top-down
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Covering Islam, Post-Jack Shaheen
Binoy Kampmark
Uhlmann’s Trump Problem
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail