little differences

A good ten days ago I described a day hot on the metaphorical heels of the detained Chinese artactivist Ai Weiwei. Without my knowing it at the time, the story had already become bigger news in London than a few posters printed by a gallery and letters high up on a museum. Dai Qingli from the Chinese embassy had written a long letter to the Economist to complain about the unfair treatment China was receiving once again in an ignorant and arrogant West, about unacceptable interference with internal affairs and blatant disrespect for China's "judicial sovereignty". The usual, in other words.

I was curious nevertheless about what his complaints were in details, especially after the recent privacy/secrecy fiasco in the UK, in the light of which you wouldn't exactly be surprised if outside commentators saw it fit to ridicule judicial handling of the situation and generalize to a corrupt legal system – basically what Western commentators have done vis-à-vis China.

Before anything else, Dai Qingli makes efforts to dispel the idea that China is unfree and dissenting opinions are not tolerated. Ai Weiwei, she notes, was allowed to exhibit, to be interviewed and to express his opinion on Twitter. But does that prove anything? Twitter is banned in China, the interviews were given to Western journalists and the exhibitions held abroad. The average Chinese citizen was zealously protected from Mr Ai's opinion. His blog, which was widely read in China, was shut down two years ago – when it became too daring, one can assume.

Now, as I've mentioned above and in a previous post, the free expression of opinion is not total even in exemplary Western democracies. But what about the way the arrest was handled? Ms Dai – who could be anyone, from embassy cleaner to ambassador; it is never mentioned – goes on to say that "China is ruled by law, not by man" and that "the rights and freedoms of Chinese citizens are protected by law". From when it happened, the official line was that Mr Ai's arrest was not a political matter. Dai Qingli elaborates that "Mr Ai is now under investigation for suspected economic crimes".

At this point I thought for a moment that Ms Dai had made a telling mistake and revealed how rotten China really is. Surely any suspected crimes should be investigated before arrests are made or immediately thereafter. Surely no one should be locked up without charges for weeks, even months. Then I thought again and realized that in Guantánamo, hundreds have lost years of their lives, locked away without trial, without charges, on the pretext of suspected terrorist activities, inclinations or sympathies. What is the difference?

I'm not going to defend China's actions. Western activists, commentators and politicians are right in criticizing China for what happened. They are morally obliged, as human beings, to press China to release Ai Weiwei or, if he has broken the law, charge him. But their case would be so much stronger if they made similar efforts towards stopping corresponding abuses in the West. Being a famous artist doesn't make Ai Weiwei any more deserving of fair treatment than anyone else.