The New York Philharmonic just played a historic concert in the
totalitarian state of North Korea. Under the baton of Lorin Maazel, the
NYP played a variety of tunes of a distinctly American flavor,
including Dvorak's "New World" symphony, Gershwin's "An American in
Paris," and, amazingly, "The Star-Spangled Banner." The crazed dictator
Kim Jong Il was not in attendance. Perhaps was busy sentencing someone
to a slave labor camp, hosting a party with kidnapped foreign starlets,
or was drunk on rare cognac.
I was initially very much against this trip, fearing it would
merely add to the corrupt North Korean regime's legitimacy. However,
and article in National Review by Jay Nordlinger made me at least
reconsider my opposition, though not actually abandon it. Nordlinger's
piece basically summarizes the opinions of some very respectable
experts concerning the concert...
Richard Pipes, the historian, says, "I'm not for [the visit], but I'm not against it." It may not be a bad thing, he says, to show North Koreans--whatever the audience--that "there are values above power politics." He puts himself in the position of a North Korean listening to the orchestra: At last here is something uninfected by ideology.
Paul Hollander, the sociologist, thinks similarly. As long as orchestra members are not required to pay obeisance to Kim, he says, the visit may do some good. It will not be a propaganda coup for the regime. Indeed, "one could make the argument that the very presence of an American orchestra, playing good music--the best of what Western civilization has to offer--in some way diminishes the regime." Also, North Koreans will see Americans of various races playing harmoniously together.
Arthur Waldron, the East Asia specialist, is for the visit, because he is for bilateral contacts between North Korea and the United States, cutting out the Chinese, who have served as middleman. Furthermore, he has a memory of 1973: In that year, China was visited by the Philadelphia Orchestra. Government propaganda had always said that Americans despised Chinese, and were constantly plotting nuclear war against them. And here was an American orchestra, playing for them, and lifting them up.
Vladimir Feltsman makes a point that all should bear in mind. He is a Russian-born pianist, long resident in America, who was treated badly by the Soviet government. He reminds us that, in any totalitarian society--North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Russia--everything is political. Nothing is divorced from politics or ideology. There is no "art for art's sake." So, of course, the Kim regime is planning to use the Philharmonic's visit to its advantage.
John Bolton, the former State Department official and ambassador to the U.N., is adamantly against the visit. He regards it as a pure gift to the regime. It would be one thing, he says, if the Philharmonic's visit were part of some general opening--one in a series of happenings. But it seems to be an isolated event. And that is exactly the position of Jian-li Yang, the Tiananmen Square hero who was released from a Chinese prison last year. He contends that, if the visit is merely an isolated event--without a general infusion of Free World ideas--the North Korean government will use it to show North Koreans that the American people are sympathetic to the government's cause. He has seen this happen in China many times.
Nordlinger concludes with a paragraph that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter:
I myself would not accept an invitation from the regime of Kim Jong Il--certainly not to give a concert. I would be queasy about going to any country whose own people are not free to leave--unless I had some necessary official task, or unless I could do some good. For example, why go to Cuba, if not to meet with political prisoners, or oppositionists, and try to help? There are other beaches to sun on. I fear that the Philharmonic's concert will be a boon to Kim. But I hope it backfires on him, which it may. And I wish the New York Philharmonic well.
Comments