The news that Ai Weiwei (艾未未) was to be released spread like wildfire on Chinese Twitter on Wednesday night. About 10pm that evening, I received an e-mail from a friend which included a Xinhua news agency press release, in Chinese and English, about Ai’s imminent release on bail. At 11:30pm, a much slimmer Ai was finally released and traveled by car to his workshop in the Caochangdi art district of Beijing. I, and many others who care about Ai, breathed a deep sigh of relief.
It is easy to imagine that his first night after being released was a sleepless one, with his mind in turmoil. His elder sister and his mother have already found ways to break through the shield of the Chinese government that blocks foreign media. What Ai needs most now is to get online to see how the international community and Chinese and international media reacted to his detention and release and to discover what else has happened in the world during the 80 days he was detained. All this is crucial to determine how he will continue to deal with the full might of the state apparatus.
From the moment I heard in Berlin on April 3 that Ai had been detained by police, throughout Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria and Slovakia, I could feel the growing concern of European authors like Herta Muller, Vaclav Havel, Ivan Klima and Elfriede Jelinek, and indeed of all of those who were worried about his freedom and who called on the Chinese government to release him.
We were overjoyed by the news of his release, but the joy was short-lived, for another doubt quickly followed: Was Ai truly free?
He has already told friends that one of the conditions of his release was that he would not communicate with the outside world for at least a year — either through the press or through social networking sites like Twitter.
According to Article 56 of China’s Criminal Procedure Act, individuals released on bail, as Ai has been, have to observe four restrictions for a period of a year: They should not leave their city or county of residence without the permission of the competent authorities; they need to report any communications they make as soon as they do so; they should not seek to interfere with witnesses in any way, form or manner; and they cannot destroy or forge evidence, nor collude with others to do so. Consequently, Ai cannot expect to enjoy the same freedom he had before his arrest.
The next questions we have to ask is whether Ai will have freedom of movement within Beijing. Will his lawyer be able to represent him and publicly refute the charges of tax evasion Chinese officials have leveled against him? And will this lawyer be able to secure the release of the four associates that went missing along with Ai — the artist’s friend and assistant Wen Tao (文濤), his driver Zhang Jingsong (張勁松), his accountant Hu Mingfen (胡明芬) and designer Liu Zhenggang (劉正剛)?
How long can Ai bear not being able to talk to the media, give interviews and express his political views? How long can he tolerate the Twitter ban and the lack of online activity? How long can he take not being able to travel abroad or participate in international events? These are all freedoms that Ai, in the past, used to the full.
Is exile going to be the price he has to pay for true freedom? Will he be obliged, at some point in time, to go overseas on the pretext of holding an exhibition and become an artist in exile?
We will have to wait and see what the future holds for Ai Weiwei.
Bei Ling is a poet and essayist who divides his time between Germany and Taiwan. He was imprisoned in 2000 in Beijing for trying to publish Tendency, a literary magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON AND PAUL COOPER
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS