WPJ Subscription Page


World Policy Institute World Policy Journal Blog Home

Fletcher ad

Belinda Cooper: November in Berlin

November 11th, 2009 josh Posted in Berlin, Democracy, Europe, Free Speech, Germany, Russia, Uncategorized Comments

For most of the world, the fall of the Berlin Wall seemed an amazing, unexpected new beginning. It was that, of course. But it was also an ending—the end of an unprecedented period of awakening and hope in East Germany.

At the time, I was living in West Berlin and working with members of a dissident East German environmental group. They were welcoming, curious, funny, and unabashedly nonconformist. Because they questioned official taboos and published “secret” information like the extent of pollution in East Germany, their telephones and homes were bugged, they couldn’t travel to the West, they were tailed and harassed and kept out of universities or fired from their jobs. Occasionally they went to jail. I admired the quiet courage that allowed them to place their security on the line for their beliefs—to risk the safe, if stifling, cocoon of socialism for a self-determined life.

Yet brave as they were, East Germany’s dissidents were a lonely handful with little influence. They couldn’t mobilize a whole country, like Poland’s Solidarity (a Polish trade union). East Germany’s government was rigidly ideological, and its people were traditionally obedient to authority. Plus, East Germany bordered on West Germany, which regularly siphoned off dissidents: East Germany could always banish uncomfortable critics to the West, which was more than happy to take them in. A few among the dissatisfied and frustrated were even permitted to emigrate. The small number of dissidents who preferred to stay and encourage change from within seemed like hopeless dreamers.

By the spring of 1989, Russian prime minister Mikhail Gorbachev’s influence was being felt across Eastern Europe. In Poland, Solidarity took part in a round table with the government. Hungarians commemorated the anti-communist uprising of 1956. East Germans, too, were getting restless, but the ossified regime refused to budge. Local elections were rigged. Demonstrations in Leipzig, in the south, were broken up violently by the secret police. The government praised China’s handling of Tiananmen Square, suggesting it might do the same. Change seemed further away than ever; leaving the country, hard as it was for average East Germans, seemed the only option. In summer, East Germans looking for a way out began streaming toward Hungary. There and in Poland, freedom was in the air. An East German dissident friend and I watched a demonstration in Warsaw that was escorted by one small police car. He couldn’t imagine that happening in East Germany. Like many of his compatriots, he didn’t believe East Germans would ever rise up in protest.

The Hungarians opened their border with Austria in September, and East German refugees inundated West Germany. But the East German government just clamped down harder.

And then came October. East Germany prepared to celebrate the 40th anniversary of its founding on October 7, with Gorbachev expected as a guest. The regime went all out: a military parade, flags everywhere, a carnival atmosphere—a celebration of communism.

But that night it all changed. Spontaneous demonstrations broke out in the center of town and surged outward, catalyzed by Gorbachev’s presence. I had come over to East Berlin to observe events and was sitting in a café with the same friend I’d been with in Warsaw. We watched in disbelief, tears in our eyes, as protesters passed us yelling “Join us!” and “We’re staying here!” It was a defiant cry: rather than going to the West, they would stay and change things. Suddenly that didn’t seem so hopeless. We heard reports of demonstrations in other cities as well. East Germans had risen up after all.

That night, we soon found out, many protesters were detained and beaten. But two days later, a demonstration by 70,000 people in Leipzig became the turning point. The government could have used force. Truckloads of police lined the side streets, and rumor had it that hospitals had been prepared for casualties. People were frightened. But they went out anyway in nonviolent protest, and the regime backed down. Instead of fighting that evening, the police and soldiers found themselves arguing politics with knots of demonstrators. Words had trumped guns.

After that, everything was different; now the East German air felt free, too, and a surge of hope gripped the country. No one spoke of leaving anymore. Everyone wanted to be part of the changes that were so obviously beginning. A public conversation emerged for the first time in decades. People found their voices, and everywhere they talked and talked. Taboos vanished. Discussions and events were too numerous to follow. Political groups sprang up like mushrooms, and government newspapers began hesitantly reporting on them. Non-government newspapers and magazines appeared. East Germans engaged in impassioned debates with government officials. They insisted that police officers who had beaten demonstrators be punished. They demanded the right to leave their country, and soon everyone knew it was just a matter of time before that would happen, too. The prime minister, Eric Honecker, and various Politburo members resigned.

And on November 4, the first-ever officially sanctioned demonstration, for freedom of speech, attracted nearly a million people to downtown East Berlin. Amid a sea of creative, funny, passionate signs and banners, East German artists, writers, and politicians spoke of their hope for a new beginning. No one talked about unifying with the West; perhaps naively, even many dissidents advocated building something new and indigenously East German, just as the Poles and Hungarians were doing in their countries. Hope, energy, enthusiasm, passion, the sense that anything was possible—that was October 1989, and a bit of November, in East Germany.

And then, around midnight on November 9, returning home from East Berlin after a day of translating for a foreign journalist, I found a line of East Germans waiting to cross to the West. The Wall had opened, more suddenly than anyone expected. The next day, hundreds of thousands of East Germans went shopping and sightseeing in West Germany and discovered that what they really wanted was to be able to afford normal things and live like normal people. For a time, euphoria was the predominant mood, but it didn’t take long before it waned. West Germans got annoyed at the influx from the East, and East Germans’ recently acquired confidence gave way to uncertainty. Anxiety and tension replaced relief and joy. No one knew what to expect. The assertive East German cry “We are the people!” changed to “We are one people!”; the dissidents’ hope of creating something new was overtaken by a more widespread wish for the security of tried and true West German prosperity. Unification a year later was the ultimate result. It wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. But the fact remains: when the wall came down, it spelled the end of a very special chapter in East German history, in which East Germans felt in control of their own destiny. October was over. A new period, dominated by West Germany, had begun.

Belinda Cooper, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute and co-founder of its Citizenship and Security Program, is an adjunct professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs. Cooper, the editor of War Crimes: The Legacy of Nuremberg, teaches and lectures on human rights, international law, and the “war on terror.”

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

GCLS UPDATE: Who Isn’t a Journalist?

September 28th, 2009 josh Posted in China, Free Speech, Global Creative Leadership Summit, Iran, Media Comments

PANEL: Global Media

Keynote: Li Xiguang, president of Tsinghua University’s International Center for Communication Studies

Master of Ceremonies: Kenneth Li, Technology Correspondent, Financial Times

Panelists:

Jared Kushner, publisher and owner of The Observer Media Group
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia
Jonathan Shen, senior producer for China Central Television
Riz Khan, host of “Riz Khan” on Al Jazeera International

Panel summary by Josh Sanburn, World Policy Journal

We live in a “brave new media world,” said Li Xiguang, the keynote speaker on global media, and challenged journalists to become smarter with new ways of informing the public. LI promoted what he called “dialogue journalism” and while he didn’t address China’s suppression of media outlets, he did chastise writers and editors for producing “bad journalism.”

The myriad ways media have changed within the last few decades and the pervasiveness of poorly reported stories were the starting points for a discussion on the traditional role of the journalist and the rise of the citizen journalist within the blogosphere. Kenneth Li proposed that today “everyone is a journalist,” but Jimmy Wales wasn’t so sure. “Everyone can write what they want,” he said. “Far more people today are ‘opinion columnists.’ But that’s a very different thing from journalism.”

Wales said journalists should still strive for neutrality, and he weighed the pros and cons of Twitter, which has helped organize protests in countries like Iran but has also been shown to cause widespread hysteria. “The medium is potentially dangerous,” he said.

It’s true that everyone has become a commentator, said Riz Khan, but that it’s more difficult today than ever before for governments to hide and control the media. “I’m happy to adjust to a new world where the old media is disappearing,” he said.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Shaun Randol: And the Ox it Rode in On — China’s Charter 08

February 13th, 2009 HollyFletcher Posted in China, Democracy, Free Speech Comments

This year is shaping up to be a remarkable one for the Middle Kingdom. Protests and civil unrest are on the rise, and chatter surrounding the pro-democracy petition called “Charter 08” is making waves across the country. What began with 303 signatories, many of whom are the usual suspects (i.e. human rights lawyers, professors, etc.), and who promptly received complementary state surveillance for participating—has grown into a percolating movement bringing more and more “everyday” citizens into the fold.

At just over 8,100 signatures (and counting), Charter 08 appears to be the first promising movement in support of democratic reform since the tragic Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4, 1989. Released on the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December 2008, Charter 08 calls for rewriting the Chinese constitution to allow for more democratic freedoms and an end to one-party rule. The document extols the value of freedom, announcing:

“Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.”

Charter 08 warns that if fundamental changes are not installed system-wide, violent and militant unrest cannot be stopped.

Since China opened its doors to the wider world, Beijing has maintained a shaky agreement with its citizens, exchanging economic freedom for political liberty: feel free to rise as high and as far as you want economically—but if you complain about a lack of political rights, consider the deal kaput.

Lately, however, Beijing has been unable to promise the stable economic environment that allows for unfettered economic freedom. Whereas recent U.S. jobless claims are reported in tens of thousands, in China they come in millions.

Chinese economic growth shrank to 6.8 percent in the last quarter of 2008, the slowest pace in seven years and far below the estimated 8 percent needed to sustain new entries into the employment ranks and stave off mass unrest. Some economists predict China’s growth rate will contract even further, down to somewhere between 3 percent and 5 percent, in 2009. According Beijing, exports plummeted 17.5 percent in January, compared to the same time last year (imports fell off a precipice, dropping by a whopping 43 percent over the same time).

The official urban unemployment rate stands at 4.2 percent, up from 4 percent last year (Beijing does not keep official statistics of the rural jobless). But currently, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates the nationwide unemployment rate to be around 9.5 percent—a number expected to rise through the year. Upwards of 15 million workers may join the ranks of the unemployed this year.

In just the past few months, we have witnessed a widespread reverse internal migration—poor urban workers are now returning, by the millions, back to the rural lands from whence they came. Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Shaun Randol: China Cracks the Door

August 4th, 2008 Rory Donnelly Posted in China, Free Speech, Media Comments

MacBain

On August 8, China will fling open its doors to the world’s finest athletes and welcome, for the first time, a global Olympic audience. Yet, while the world’s attention is distracted by the glint of gold medals in Beijing, Chinese officials are doing whatever it takes to ensure that only the high polish of the Olympic spectacle makes it out through tightly controlled (i.e. censored) television, print, and online media.

In light of the recent protests in Tibet, a catastrophic earthquake in Sichuan Province, bus bombings in Kunming and Shanghai, and terrorist attacks in Xinjiang Province, Chinese officials are determined to build a façade of control—and cohesive national pride—lest unsightly and embarrassing political demonstrations be broadcast around the world. From banning select foreign entertainers to jailing Beijing dissidents, liberties are systematically being curtailed in what was once hoped to be China’s great coming out party.

To their credit, in expectation of public protests of one kind or another, officials have set aside three city parks in Beijing where demonstrators can air their grievances—a highly unusual gesture from the authoritarian government. There is a catch, of course. “The police will safeguard the right to demonstrate as long as protesters have obtained prior approval and are in accordance with the law,” said Liu Shaowu, director of Olympics security, during a news conference.

According to the law, citizens (it is unclear how internationals figure into this mix) must apply for a permit, in person, five days in advance of the scheduled protest. The application requires detailed information, including the topic of dissent, slogans to be used, and the expected number of demonstrators. Moreover, protests that are disruptive of “national unity,” “social stability,” security, or that advocate for ethnic minority separatism (read: Tibet, Xinjiang) will not be approved.

Despite the obstacles, could we see some action in the parks? Quoted in the New York Times, human rights lawyer and advocate Xu Zhiyong said, “As a first step toward opening up space for dissent, it is appropriate…. There should be many people who are willing to use this space, petitioners and people who have experienced injustice.” It will take a clever protest application, however, or outright subversive action, to hold a demonstration that does not violate the government’s tightly scripted rules. Protesting on issues such as pollution, political prisoners, religious freedom (Falun Gong), Tibet, Xingjian, shoddy construction of schools in Sichuan’s earthquake zone, democracy, freedom of speech in general, corruption, land rights, and other issues will, in all likelihood, be denied their moment in Beijing.

Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Belinda Cooper: In Turkey, History as Gov’t Property

June 26th, 2008 Ben Pauker Posted in Free Speech, Justice, Turkey Comments

Belinda CooperLast week, Turkish publisher Ragip Zarakolu was convicted by a Turkish court of “insulting the state,” a crime under Article 301 of the Turkish criminal code. Zarakolu was sentenced to five months in prison, which was then commuted to a fine. His crime: publishing a Turkish translation of a British book on Armenian-Turkish reconciliation that included discussion of the Armenian genocide.

Turkey not only officially denies that the early-twentieth century killings of Armenians was genocide, something most serious scholars have long acknowledged; since 2005 the government has attempted to punish those who assert that it was, including a long list of journalists, authors and publishers.

Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk, now a Columbia University professor, was perhaps the most famous name to be charged under this law (the charges were ultimately dropped); Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish journalist who was later murdered by a Turkish nationalist, had been convicted under the article, though his conviction was overturned. For Zarakolu, this was not the first time he had been prosecuted on similar charges, including “insulting or belittling” Turkish state institutions.

Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button