On a Monstrous Scale

THE search for truth entails A certain responsibility to reveal it, and the revelation of truth is no mean task. The seeker invariably, in the process, engages in a battle against the forces that try to contain him, smothering him in all directions. The price one pays to speak the truth is often costly and dear, but truth has never been attained without sacrifice. Yet truth cannot fail, and in the end the delight in seeing it understood by others is ineffable. It is like watching a ray of sunshine piercing through clouds of bigotry and chicanery, rendering blind the pagans of reason and the sycophants of falsehood.

Several phenomena evolving in academia in the last few years regarding China have so far escaped publicity. It is shocking to observe in most discussions on China that few people ever mention the obvious reality that China is a totalitarian country; many even refuse to believe that such is the case. Others who have spoken out bravely on human rights in the world stop silent as soon as they come to speak on China, as if mucus has suddenly gathered in their esophagi and the problem does not exist.

Let us examine the reasons behind such behavior, which is both consistent and uniform. For sinologists, the denial of an application to visit China often means disaster in securing promotion or a loss of prestige. The prestige attached to a visit to China is rather artificially created, affected more by the lack of tourist facilities in China than anything else. Thus, an individual — be he news reporter, professor, or businessman — upon return from a Chinese visit has to go through the standard ritual of publishing an article or giving a public lecture extolling the progress he has seen and enunciating the happiness he has'experienced. Any future visit may be granted or denied on' the basis of the enthusiasm he displays. Such individuals are pilgrims of commerce, hugging their profits to the extent of contradicting themselves repeatedly, drifting wherever the political tides in China may take them.

There are some who seem genuinely disposed toward contemporary China, not because of its traditional culture, but as a demonstration of socialism applied on a monstrous scale. The idea of having a billion human beings subjected to one form of thought and participating in a single action excites them. They admire the system that has such perfect control over its population. They would love, for example, to see a million people barehandly removing a mountain, or masses of men throwing themselves into a lake to drain it of water. This group appears to suffer from grave inferiority, seeking compensation by identifying itself with a sadistic power and indulging in a puritan mode of thought, such as the type that existed during the "Cultural Revolution." Absolute equality — in all things and forms, large and small, significant or trivial, and in all human dealings, including trifles — to them is a prerogative; the slightest inequality perceived anywhere is intolerable. Naturally, these people would not speak of totalitarianism, for it is doubtful that such a term could mean anything to them.

In countries that have adopted socialism and proclaimed Marxism as their political and economic guideline, the press is a property of the state and is therefore controlled and censored. It can only publish what the state regards as correct, according to the doctrine the party deems important. This situation is, of course, lamentable. In the West, however, an invisible form of censorship of a quite different nature exists. This is evident when the Western press reports on China, especially with regard to the question of human rights. The news media all seem to speak with one voice; they appear interested only in certain topics. Typically, one reads about the poor conditions of human rights in a small country, its lack of genuinely free elections, or repression on the part of its government. All these may be taken as true and accurate. However, no newspaper ever questions whether in China there is an opposition party, whether elections are regularly held, whether there is widespread repression, or whether there is recognition of human rights! Lack of evidence is usually cited as the reason for the strange silence. If it is indeed due to a scarcity of information, has anyone wondered at all why that is so, or is anyone alarmed about the possibility that a more nightmarish scheme is at work?

If human rights had genuinely universal meaning, which applies everywhere and to all humanity, one would not hesitate to question the condition of human rights in China. A totalitarian system is by nature perfidious with regard to human rights and dignity. Yet there are people who have been briefly to China and, seeing no violations of rights, have therefore concluded that there were none. They are either absolutely naive or intellectually dis- honest. In all the -countries I have visited, even in places I have stayed for extensive periods, I have not seen any direct violations of personal rights. Do I conclude therefore that reports of such violations are fictitious? Such a line of reasoning is often ludicrous. Because one rarely sees men and women copulating on sidewalks, does one conclude that their children are immaculately conceived? The existence of certain things or the recurrence of certain events does not depend on their direct visibility. Such should be borne in mind by people who defend the status of human rights.

Among intellectuals, the ideas of Marxism have become very fashionable. Yet intellectual leftism cannot hide its hypocrisy when it comes to discussing China,, for "Marxist scholars" — who themselves live far from any socialist state — frequently advocate Marxism as the best prescription for China. Such a view not only contradicts the supposedly universal character of socialism, but also reflects the lingering colonial mentality these people have. One should remember the industrial and cultural roots of Marxism, which are not the same as those of the Chinese society. Perhaps some, who know very well that Marxism has never worked and are perfectly aware of its destruction, have in- tentions which are more deceitful. Is not recommending political hemlock to others Nazism of a different sort?

I may sound like a polemicist and a cynic, one who is unfriendly toward China. But one must distinguish between love for a culture and love for a regime that has yet to show progress toward democracy, legality, and human rights. It is the duty of every individual who professes concern for China to speak out against its inhumanity and for its truth.

Yuan Ha, a Senior Fellow and president of the Chinese StudentsAssociation when he was at Dartmouth, is now a theoreticalphysicist at Yale. He expressed sentiments similar to these at aceremony on March 29, Chinese Youth Day, at which he receivedthe Distinguished Overseas Chinese Youth Award.