A Night at the Symphony

Last night the New York Symphony Orchestra performed in Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. That event may well go down in history as a groundbreaking thaw in the relations between the rest of the world and one of the weirdest regimes the world has ever seen. So would a proposed visit by Eric Clapton later this year. Or it may, as hawks would imply, simply be seen as yet another propaganda tool by master propagandists who would make George Orwell proud.

The first group would applaud dialogue as the way forward and see cultural engagement as a boon to relations, notwithstanding the possibility of interpreting the move as a recognition of the regime.

It is funny, therefore, that the same group of people would be so critical of this fall’s Olympic Games in Beijing. Prince Charles has announced his absence from the event (for the record, he hasn’t been at the Olympics for decades). Certain people would also have Danish Prince Frederik stay home to protest human rights abuses and what not. Fortunately he has been wise not to meddle in politics and accept the fact that Denmark has good relations and many cultural and economic exchanges with the People’s Republic of China.

If engagement is the solution in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, than how much more is it so with China? This was understood by Nixon when he visited China in 1972. And by most accounts, China and North Korea are worlds apart. Both are communist by name, but China is a modern country with free markets and widely enjoyed personal freedoms. North Korea is more akin to 1984.

This is not to say that everything is perfect in China, but boycotting a country rarely produces good results on either part. The Olympic Games in Beijing will be a great leap forward for China. Whether that can also be said about last night’s concert in Pyongyang, only the future will tell.

Kosovo and Nationalism

The world’s newest country was born on Sunday, and world politics is in full gear. Most western countries, including the U.S., UK, Denmark and Australia, have recognised Kosovo. Russia and China are biting their lips, however, and will likely veto an official UN recognition. Their reaction is understandable, because they fear a trend of secession in other places, notably Chechnya and Tibet.

National pride and a quest for power is an understandable feeling, especially to an avid Civilization player like myself. But the world of today, supposedly long after the end of colonialism, ought not to harbour such attitudes. Nationalism only evolved in the 19^th century, and it should have no prominent position in the 21^st. As the world has grown smaller, and borders diminished, being part of a nation-state means less than being part of a global economy and culture. Hence the rise of regionalism which – in Europe, for instance – results in smaller countries, but greater integration.

We went to war in Kosovo to protect an ethnic group from genocide; mandated in no small part by the UN declaration of Human Rights. This document, celebrating its 60^th anniversary this year, states for instance that “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” (Article 13,1) and that “Everyone has the right to a nationality” (Article 15,1). But it still assumes the existence of countries.

The concepts of nationhood and borders are, like most societal structures, a human construction. Nothing mandates that people should have different rights just from being born on either side of a line on a map. Fundamental change is probably unlikely, but there should at least – as in the case of Kosovo – be an undeniable right for a group or region to leave a country and declare independence. This means recognising the free existence of entities such as Chechnya, Tibet, Taiwan, Greenland, Kashmir, Quebec, Scotland, and others that may so please.

Apologies Abound

An important trend in this decade is saying sorry – for nearly everything, it seems. Demanding apologies has become an important diplomatic tool, even for atrocities committed hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

Today, the new Australian government issued a formal apology for many years’ mistreatment of the indigenous population. Apartheid-like policies during much of the 20th century, including removing aboriginal children to raise them in proper white families, has been the one sore point in recent Australian history. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd represents the nation and dynasty that committed these crimes, and although generations have passed since then, the government is still heir to these decisions and their consequences. For this reason, the apology makes sense, and hopefully a new era of aboriginal relations can begin.

Apologising for the deeds of other people can be risky, though. In the Danish Mohammad controversy of 2005-2006, Muslim governments wanted Denmark to apologise for printing the cartoons. What they failed to grasp was the concept of freedom of speech and an independent press. Say sorry for what? Letting people think for themselves? Allowing independent media? Tolerating differences of opinion? Prime Minister Anders Fogh wisely avoided apologising for the cartoons themselves. He expressed his personal opinions. But had he intervened, he would be taking credit for the decision of Jyllands-Posten, and thus undermining free speech.

Comparing these two may be far-fetched. Almost everyone agrees that the treatment of aboriginals was shameful. The Mohammad cartoons, however, violated no Danish laws or international treaties. They may have indecently violated Sharia or Qu’ran rules; but these are hardly universal. Muslims may believe whatever they want; I reserve the right to believe they are wrong.

Yesterday morning, three men were arrested in Aarhus for plotting to murder the cartoonist behind one of the infamous drawing. Two, which are Tunisian, were immediately extradited. The intended victim is understandably shocked, and so are Danish politicians and media. There is fear the crisis may rise from the dead. Perhaps our response this time should be to demand public apologies from the government of Tunis (for allowing two of its citizens to consider such a crime) or the government of Syria (for not allowing free speech, which is very important in our ideology). Or perhaps everyone should just take a deep breath and mind their own business.

Previous posts on the Mohammad controversy:
Who Gets To Define Tolerance? (March 21, 2006)
Never Be Rude To An Arab (Feb 13, 2006)
The Culture Wars (Feb 8, 2006)
Da Vinci, Harry Potter, and Muhammad (Jan 7, 2006)