Chinese billionaire Xiao Jinhua [肖健华] is missing.
Despite numerous news reports to the contrary, that’s pretty
much all anyone outside the State authorities here really knows.
Xiao Jinhua is a high-profile executive, reclusive in one
sense (at least where
he lives and how
he’s protected) and, like so many people of means here in China, the
holder of multiple passports. Some early accounts in Hong Kong even indicated
that he was simply overseas, possibly undergoing a medical procedure of some
sort.
Today the New York
Times presents an
account of how they think Xiao left his residence: in a wheelchair, under a
blanket or covering of some sort, escorted by individuals who may well have
been security agents from the mainland. That story reinforces the growing sense
that Xiao was rendered back to the Chinese mainland for investigation
(including interrogation), much
like a number of Hong Kong booksellers whose publications apparently riled
political authorities in Beijing.
All of that is both fascinating and disturbing. But what it
means in terms of political import isn’t at all evident. Some
have speculated that Xiao’s abduction is a sign of a deepening power
struggle in the run-up to this year’s 19th Party Congress; that
Chinese president Xi Jinping is attempting to cement total authority, possibly
extend his tenure past the usual and legally-proscribed two terms; and that
Xiao is “a pawn” in what it either an effort to discredit Xi’s rivals, or
possibly an attempt to embarrass Xi himself, given
alleged financial ties between his family and Xiao. Maybe, but then again perhaps
nothing of the sort.
There’s a lot of fine investigative reporting that’s already
been done on Xiao and his disappearance. No one really knows why Xiao was taken
back to the mainland; the fact that it mirrors the snatching of Hong Kong
booksellers might indicate—might indicate—that
Xiao managed to anger some powerful people in Beijing about what he knew and
with whom he might share it with. There may well be more to follow in the
coming days about the kidnapping or disappearance (whichever it is, and there’s
a difference), which could be helpful in determining just what’s going on with
Xiao and what it all might mean. At this point—nothing about any political
motive is clear, and everything connected to that is conjecture, guesswork, and
gossip.
What’s also less than helpful—indeed, debilitating--is the assumption
that there’s enough information available now to label the incident a move by
Xi and his allies to work some sort of political magic for themselves. The
Establishment Narrative when it comes to elite politics is that Chinese leaders
struggle for power; that apparently they don't have enough of it already (even
though conceptions of “power” slip-slide between status, authority, influence,
domination, and everything in-between); and that pretty much everything that
happens in China’s upper echelons is about one faction trying to subvert
another to preserve positions.
Yet at the same time, the same Narrative intones that the
process of political succession in China is more institutionalized, more predictable,
less violent than before—that really what goes on beyond closed doors in
Beijing isn’t all that unlike which happens in the great wide and often white
open of Washington.
But Chinese politics cannot possibly be both—on the one
hand, a vicious political cage-match; and on the other, negotiated by consensus
in a conference room.
Indeed, it’s unfortunate, unfair and unhelpful to describe
Chinese elites are motivated by just more of what they really have, and that
every move they make is done to protect their political flanks and their families.
That’s an inane caricature, one that’s very nearly colonial in character: It
renders Chinese politics as so different, so Other to be less serious than
politics elsewhere--to use “renders” in pretty much the same way as it’s
traditionally presented, as “abducted”. What’s often missing is an attempt to
cast Chinese politics, when it is a struggle, as a struggle for power over policy, over the direction of the
political system, China’s economy, military doctrine, and the like, replete
with debates and arguments about the same that demand attention, not dismissal
every time a high-profile event intrudes. Anyone conversant with the Party
media here should know that and be cautious about concluding what’s going on
with Xiao, but perhaps it’s easier for some to just plug in the microphone jack
and pontificate, rather than pause and ponder for a bit.
There’s almost certainly a larger story here, but at this
moment, it’s opaque at best, and should be labeled as such. The only thing that's truly clear is that
no one saw Xiao Jianhua’s disappearance coming, which says as much about the
way Chinese politics is presented by far too many observers as the purported
abduction itself. Each is disturbing in its own unhappy way.
No comments:
Post a Comment