DevPolitics

On Ai Weiwei’s “Beautiful life”

On Ai Weiwei’s “Beautiful life”

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jnaYl199o

The missing Chinese artist and human right activist Ai Weiwei made this documentary “beautiful life” about another human right activist—Feng Zhenghu, who has publicly denounced Chinese government’s wrongdoing in 1989 and was since denied to entering China –his home country – for 8 times. And at the 8th time, when he was forced (in his own words, kidnapped) to go back to Japan, he decided to fight. And so he stayed in Narita airport for 80 days, refusing to go into Japan custom and demand going back to China and finally suceeded. Ai documented the whole event and made the “beautiful life”.

What really interests me about this video is not the “fighting government” part, but rather how calm and reasonable Feng was in the whole event. His demand was simple: as a Chinese citizen, he has every right to go back to China. And his demand was also down to earth: government should be willing to communicate with the people rather than still in a mindset of “govern” the people.

Compared with many other activists calling for “democracy” “freedom of speech”, I find his approach more pragmatic and feasible. And I believe the ultimate change Chinese people want to see can only be achieved with accumulation of many smaller changes (I don’t want to see another bloodshed revolution that would reduce the country back 30 years). Therefore maybe instead of shouting for those sensitive words that has little effect and easily get themselves into trouble with the Chinese CIA agents, the activists should adopt a more pragmatic approach, target on a more substantive topic, like homeless people protection, migrant workers’ kids education, etc. and use their talents and energy on these real things to make small changes, and the final big change everyone anticipate would come. After all, as the last dictator of Taiwan Mr. Jiang Jingguo said, “There’s no party that can rule forever.”

 

 

 

Blue Gold: World Water Wars

 

        I recently had the chance to attend a public screening of the film Blue Gold: World Water Wars by Sam Bozzo, which is based upon the book of the same title written by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke. This film effectively opened my eyes to one of the future areas of global conflict, as countries battle over one of the most basic and shared natural resources in the global commons, water. As we are able to purchase bottled water on any block in Manhattan, drink tap water, and are fortunate to have indoor plumbing/proper sanitation we may forget how important the issue of water is in the world of development. If you disagree, just ask the 884 million people on earth who lack access to this precious resource or the family of the one child that dies every 20 seconds due to water related disease. Take a study break, watch this film, and learn for your self what the privatization of water, poor global water policy, and commodification of this vital resource is doing to our world. It could possibly save your life if the former vice president of the World Bank Ismail Serageldin's prediction that, “the next world war will be over water,” comes true or at least raise your awareness of a critical issue.

in light of recent cynicism...

I recently watched a documentary entitled "The Reckoning" regarding the ICC. It's available on PBS until October 21.

Ben Ferencz, a prosecutor from the Nuremberg Tribunals states the following:

"I cant accept the world the way it is. It's too horrible. So I have to try to change it. My choice is either take it or do something about it--or try to do something about it. I think we have an obligation to those who have died...to those who have survived...to try. Never to stop trying to make it a more humane world. And that's what I do, and I ask others to do the best they can. Try. And if we try hard enough and long enough, I'm confident it will come about."

While definitions of development can be technical and cynical, lofty and ideal, Mr. Ferencz says it all for me.

El Inmortal

MoMA recently had a film exhibition called Iberoamérica: That's the Way We Are. It showcased films produced by Ibermedia, an intergovernmental organization that facilitates and finances co-productions of documentary and fiction films between two or more of its 17 member Latin American and Iberian countries. On the recommendation of classmate Sergio, I went to check out El Inmortal (The Immortal), a documentary set in post-war Nicaragua.

Genocide, Live On The Big Screen

"Darfur Now" is a documentary of the ongoing genocide in Darfur playing at the Angelika theater.  There are several things that strike me as unique about this production.  1.  It is a real life depiction of a genocide on the big screen WHILE the genocide is actually taking place!  2   It showcases real Dafuris telling their own stories of suffering and their hope for help.  3  It depicts how a young woman goes from being a mother to a gun wielding rebel after losing her baby to the janjaweed.  For more on the documentary see http://movies.aol.com/movie/darfur-now/29563/synopsis

What I find particularly striking is the diversity of actors from the grassroots to the global level each fighting to bring an end to the genocide.  The list includes male and female Dafuris engaging in direct combat with the janjaweed, a couple of hollywood actors using their infuence in the media to maintain a spotlight on Darfur, a UCLA student with no political experience who manages to get a State bill passed on divestment in Sudan, the prosecutor of the international criminal court at the Hague who secures criminal charges against the Sudanese government and a key player in the UN's World food program and his struggles to get food supplies to stranded refugees. 

While an end to the genocide still seems elusive, this documentary gives a real face to the situation while demonstrating how everyone from civil society to the media, international organizations and government bodies each has a vital role to play in bringing hope for progress in Sudan. 

Documentaries

I saw two movies this past week that I want to comment on. The first was a documentary about Chernobyl. It was presented as part of the 20th anniversary commemoration. The film was made by Belarusians and focused on the rehabilitative efforts since the accident. From the film, it appears as there is an understanding of how to deal with the environmental and health problems and that they are being carried out in a scientific, objective manner. The more complex issue is responding to the social and economic consequences that result from the environmental and health damage to the communities. UNDP has recently been put in charge of the Chernobyl area and is working with the governments of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus on increasing investment and human development in the area. One interesting point which was not discussed in the movie, but which to a scientist in charge of a UN commission on Chernobyl commented on, was nuclear energy. Chernobyl may be the most dramatic example of the connection between environment, economy, and society. However, the accident was a result of gross negligence. While some environmental groups have been highly critical of recent reports on Chernobyl , this scientist (who spent a large amount of time around Chernobyl) had no problem advocating for nuclear energy as a clean and safe power source.

The second film I saw was a documentary, The One Percent, directed by the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune.  It featured interviews with Steve Forbes, heirs to various fortunes, Milton Friedman, Robert Reich, Ralph Nader, Hurricane Katrina victims, people from the Chicago projects, and a taxi driver. There were also personal moments with his family and family advisors who expressed their anxiety over the making of the movie. The movie was an attempt to open discussion about the wealth gap and the negative impacts it has in the United States. After the film someone asked the director why he did not include more actions the poor could take to mobilize themselves. He replied that he wanted to make a film about a topic he understood. The most explicit political reference was in advocating for the repeal of the estate tax (which caused Milton Friedman to call him a socialist). This echoes sentiments of Illich, when he writes, “Work for the coming elections: You will know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those to whom you speak.” Although, the movie shows that the gap in this country is so wide that communication about it is increasingly difficult.