III.
Interpretation and Censorship
A. Interpretation and the Difficulty of Finding an
Appropriate Venue
a. Susan Sontag’s production of Waiting for Godot - for the citizen in Sarajevo?
Susan Sontag stayed in Sarajevo from mid-July 1993 for more than a month to stage the production of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. In April 1993, Sontag had visited Sarajevo, and started to think about doing something for the city, which was surrounded by the Serbian military. One day, Haris Pasovic, a Sarajevo-born theater director, asked Sontag if she was interested in coming back in a few months to direct the play. She accepted this offer.
About the play itself, she recalled, “Before I could add, ‘But let me think for a while about what I might want to do,’ he went on, ’What play?’ And bravado suggested to me in an instant what I might not have seen had I taken longer to reflect: there was one obvious play for me to direct. Beckett’s play, written over forty years ago, seems written for, and about, Sarajevo.”[1]
Announcement of Press Conference about Waiting for Godot, directed by Susan Sontag
Because of this conversation, Sontag started to direct Waiting for Godot while Sarajevo was under Serbian siege, a situation that subjected her project to daily bombardment and sniper fire. Sontag’s stage-set included 30 candles, sandbags, polyethylene sheeting and humanitarian aid supplies. Both actors and the spectators of the show were in danger being killed, since public gatherings had become targets (See Appendix S-1,S-2,S-3,S-4 for more details.)
In her casting (see Appendix S-1,S-2,) Sontag chose to triple the parts of Vladimir and Estragon – casting a male pair, a female pair, and a mixed pair. At the beginning of the performance, the three pairs said their dialogue in turns, in isolation from each other. The actors became exhausted very easily, since they did not have enough food. Because of it, almost all the actors had a hard time learning the lines.
Sontag decided to show only Act I, because Act II seemed too depressing for Sarajevo; Lucky no longer can speak, Pozzo is now pathetic and blind, and Vladimir has given in to despair. Also, Sontag wanted to spare the audience from hearing that Godot does not arrive twice.[2]
Nihad Kresevljakovic (photo by Shinya Watanabe)
Nihad Kresevljakovic, the program manager of the International Theater Festival, who invited Sontag, said that some soldiers were very excited to see the show, and came to the show directly from the active military duty. Some of them wore military uniforms, but some of them did not, because they were poor and simply even didn't have them.[3]
Sontag’s production of Waiting for Godot premiered on July 17, 1993. This show was shown 17 times, each time in front of an almost full audience. They asked for the donation of 200 candles for a humanitarian aid organization, during the time of Sontag’s stay in Sarajevo for two weeks. The show itself was sponsored by George Soros’s Open Society Fund. (See Appendix S-3,S-4)
b. Her sympathy toward
Bosnian Muslims
In her book Where the Stress Falls, Sontag shows sympathy toward Bosnian Muslims. “People had told me again and again on my earlier visit in April: We are part of Europe. We are the people in the former Yugoslavia who stand for European values – secularism, religious tolerance, and multi-ethnicity.”[4] However, there is a question as to whether or not this is theoretically correct.
Again, James Harff of the Ruder Finn public-relations company had emplyed a trick to justify the independence of Bosnia by using the phrase “multiethnic state.” For Harff, General Divac, the general of the Bosnian army, was the most appropriate person to bolster the appeal that Bosnia is a multiethnic state. Divac, a Serb, was born in Sarajevo but he didn’t like the Serbian army surrounding the city. Their presence and actions made him anti-Serbs, and he joined the Bosnian army. However, he was removed from the Bosnian military because of his background as Serb. Harff set up a meeting of General Divac and Izetbegovic, a Muslim nationalist and the president of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Through this meeting, Harff tried to advertise that Bosnia is trying to create a multiethnic nation, which would seem apparent by the fact that a Serbian general was the leader of the Bosnian army.
Furthermore, Harff wrote the speech of Izetbegovic given at the United Nations about the expulsion of Yugoslavia Federation (Serbia-Montenegro), on September 21, 1992. To explain the multiethnic situation of Bosnia, Harff used the word “multiethnic nation” many times in his speech. Through his research, Harff knew that Izetbegovic was an amateur painter and knew the name of Jackson Pollock. In Izetbegovic’s speech, there is a sentence that says that we should not accept the conspiracy to dye one ethnic group in one particular color, since Bosnia-Herzegovina is a country that resembles metaphorically a painting of Jackson Pollock, and has the beauty of colors from all different ethnic groups.[5]
These small tricks of the PR company might have influenced the Sontag’s pro-Bosnian attitude.
c. Sontag’s Theory about NATO’s
Intervention
In her book, Sontag writes, “Many excellent foreign journalists (most of them in favor of intervention, as I am) have been reporting the lies and the slaughter since the beginning of the siege, while the decision of the western European powers and the United States not to intervene remains firm, thereby giving the victory to Serb fascism.“[6] Also she names Roy Gutman, the Newsday journalist who wrote about the concentration camp at Omarska without visiting it, as the best reporter. Sontag says:
This is the first European genocide in our century to be tracked by the world press and documented nightly on TV. There were no reporters in 1915 sending daily stories to the world press from Armenia, and no foreign camera crews in Dachau and Auschwitz. Until the Bosnian genocide, one might have thought - this was indeed the conviction of many of the best reporters there, like Roy Gutman of Newsday, and John Burns of The New York Times - that if the story could be gotten out, the world would do something. The coverage of the genocide in Bosnia has ended that illusion.[7]
From this passage, it is easy to conclude that Sontag did not have enough information to comprehend the war in Bosnia. Sontag was in Sarajevo, but not in the other parts of Yugoslavia. Because of this, she put her own position into the trap of the participant. This trap of the participant informs her opinion that the Serbs are the fascists and the Bosnians are the victims.
d. Position of Sontag
after the Kosovo War
When the Kosovo War broke out, Sontag more clearly supported the bombing against the Serbian army and Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, to stop genocide by Serbs. In public correspondence with Kenzaburo Oe in the Asahi newspaper, Sontag said that violence itself cannot always equally be denied. Sometimes there is no way to stop war without violence, and Sontag supports this kind of violence.[8] In the case of Kosovo, Sontag supported NATO bombing to stop genocide by Serbs. To support her theory, she quotes the case of Cambodia, in which Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, halting the genocide by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.[9] However, her quotation of the case of Cambodia is villainous, since the case of Cambodia and the case of Yugoslavia are extremely different. Edward Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance at University of Pennsylvania, has a critical opinion toward Pol Pot and the foreign policy of the United States.
The Times, along with everybody else in the mainstream media, also fails to mention that before Pol Pot came to power in 1975, the United States had devastated Cambodia for the first half of what a Finnish government’s study referred to as a "decade" of genocide (not just the four years of Pol Pot’s rule, 1975-78). The "secret bombing" of Cambodia by the Nixon-Kissinger gang may have killed as many Cambodians as were executed by the Khmer Rouge and surely contributed to the ferocity of Khmer Rouge behavior toward the urban elite and citizenry whose leaders had allied themselves with the foreign terrorists.
The U.S.-imposed holocaust was a "sideshow" to the Vietnam War, the United States bombing Cambodia heavily by 1969, helping organize the overthrow of Sihanouk in 1970, and in collaboration with its puppet Saigon government making period incursions into Cambodia in the 1960s and later. "U.S. B-52s pounded Cambodia for 160 consecutive days [in 1973], dropping more than 240,000 short tons of bombs on rice fields, water buffalo, villages (particularly along the Mekong River) and on such troop positions as the guerrillas might maintain," a tonnage that "represents 50 percent more than the conventional explosives dropped on Japan during World War II". This "constant indiscriminate bombing" was of course carried out against a peasant society with no airforce or ground defenses. The Finnish government study estimates that 600,000 people died in this first phase, with 2 million refugees produced.[10]
In her writings, Sontag tries to simplify the situation of Yugoslavia, but it is exceptionally perilous to debate the ethnic war.
Sontag also praised the position of Joschka Fischer, Vice-Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, as a politician who professed the voice of conscience. Yet within months of his Green Party entering government for the first time, in coalition with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats, Fischer started to justify NATO's attack. His slogan became "Never again Auschwitz," which is different from the old credo "Never again war." He portrayed war in Kosovo as a war against genocide. Fischer states, "We have to show people that wealthy Germany is not indifferent to this planet's crises," in Die Zeit on Thursday, March 23, 2000.[11] Fischer also mentioned that the barbaric attitude of Serbs in Kosovo is a challenge toward the security of Western Europe, since until the year 1999, Germany was the chair of the European Union.
At this point, Sontag became the person who embodies the attitude that world peace can be ensured by NATO, an organization which is mainly led by the U.S. military.
e. The Changing Role of KLA: from Terrorist Group to
Freedom Fighters
To talk about the issues in Kosovo, we need to know about
the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
The KLA, known to Albanians as Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves (UCK), is
such a mysterious group. Chris
Hedges, the New York Times Balkan
Bureau Chief from 1995 to 1998, talks about the background of KLA and their
goals in Foreign Affairs.
"The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) splits down a bizarre ideological divide, with hints of fascism on one side and whiffs of communism on the other. The former faction is led by the sons and grandsons of rightist Albanian fighters --either the heirs of those who fought in the World Word II fascist militias and the Skandeberg volunteer SS division raised by the Nazis, or the descendants of the rightist Albanian kacak rebels who rose up against the Serbs 80 years ago.
Although never much of a fighting force, the Skandeberg division took part in the shameful roundup and deportation of the province's few hundred Jews during the Holocaust.
The division remnants fought Tito's Partizans at the end of the war, leaving thousand of ethnic Albanians dead. The decision by KLA commanders to dress their police in black fatigues and order their fighters to salute with a clenched fist to the forehead has led many to worry about these fascist antecedents. Following such criticism, the salute has been changed to the traditional open-palm salute common in the U.S. Army.
The second KLA faction, comprising most of the KLA leaders in exile, are old Stalinists who were once bankrolled by the xenophobic Enver Hoxha, the dictator of Albania. Most of these leaders were students at Pristina University after 1974, when Belgrade granted the province autonomy. Freed from Yugoslav oversight, the university imported thousands of textbooks from Albania, all carefully edited by Hoxha's Stalinist regime, along with at least a dozen militant Albanian professors. Along with its degree programs, Pristina University began to quietly school young Kosovar leaders in the art of revolution. Not only did a huge percentage of the KLA leadership come out of the university, but so, ominously, did the Albanian leadership to the neighboring [Former Yugoslav Republic of] Macedonia.
The two KLA factions have little sympathy with or understanding of democratic institutions. Split bitterly between radical left and radical right, they are now arguing over whether to carry the fighting to the pockets of ethnic Albanians who live in western [FYRO]Macedonia and neighboring Montenegro. The only thing they agree on is the need to liberate Kosovo from Serbian rule. All else, menacingly, will be decided later. It is not said how."[12]
Hedges also talks about the map of Great Albania which included Kosovo, parts of Serbia, much of [FYRO]Macedonia, and parts of the present-day Greece and Montenegro. The map was drawn up on July 1, 1878, when the Turkish realms of the southwest Balkans founded the League for the Defense of the Albanian Nation.[13]
Many KLA commanders flaunt themselves as "a liberation army for all Albanians." However, between 1966 and 1989, around 130,000 Serbs left the province because of frequent harassment and discrimination against them by the Kosovar Albanian majority.[14]
In 1996, the KLA stepped up its violent campaign for Kosovar independence and launched a series of assassinations of policemen and civilians in Kosovo, targeting not only Serbs, but also Albanians who did not support the KLA. The Yugoslav (Serbia Montenegro) government branded the KLA a terrorist organization. In March 1998, Robert Gelbard, the US special envoy to Bosnia, declared: "The UCK (KLA) is without any question a terrorist group."[15] When Gelbard made this remark, Milosevic interpreted it as supporting the Serbian effort to exclude the KLA from Kosovo, and started to pressure them by military power.
However, in June, Richard Holbrooke, Special Envoy
of the United States, contacted the KLA, and started to support them as a group of “Freedom Fighters.” Before this meeting,
CIA operatives had supplied weapons and training to the KLA.[17]
In contrast to its earlier position, the US
administration threatened bombing Yugoslavia unless the government withdrew its
forces from certain areas, as would be verified by the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The U.S. was now clearly determined to remove Milosevic, who was
obstructing Yugoslavia's integration into the western institutional and
economic framework.
An agreement was reached in October 1998, and
1,000 OSCE observers went to Kosovo to oversee the withdrawal of government
troops. However, the KLA used the
pullback to resume armed attacks.
In January 1999, an alleged massacre of 45 Kosovar Albanians by Yugoslav
government forces took place at Racak.
Both at the time and today, evidence has been contradictory and fiercely
contested as to whether the Racak victims were civilians or KLA fighters, and
whether they died in a firefight or close-range shootings.[18]
Nevertheless, the Racak incident was seized upon by the United States as
a justification of the acceleration towards war. In early 1999, the OSCE reported that
"the current security environment in Kosovo is characterized by the
disproportionate use of force by the Yugoslav authorities in response to
persistent attacks and provocations by the Kosovan Albanian
paramilitaries." [19]
If the United States wanted to uphold a standard of democracy and stop human rights violations, then supporting Ibrahim Rugova, the anti-violence president of Kosovo, would have seemed a reasonable policy. However, in the Rambouillet Treaty, the United States did not treat Rugova as a representative of Kosovo, but rather of the KLA.
f. The Rambouillet Peace
Treaty – Corruption of European Politics
There is a problem with the Rambouillet Peace Treaty, a peace plan proposed by the US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This peace plan was refused by Milosevic, and triggered NATO’s aerial bombing against Serbia on March 24, 1999. This is the whole quotation of the Rambouillet treaty's Annex B clause Eight:
8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, manoeuvre, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.[20]
This is the extreme demand that authorizes nothing short of the occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia by NATO. This Annex B was unveiled on April 6, six weeks after the breakdown of the Rambouillet Peace Treaty. When this content was revealed, Angelica Beer, the deputy of the Green Party in Germany, remonstrated against the decision of Fischer, and said that she would have protest Fischer’s decision in the congress if she had known the content of this accord.[21] Even the former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, described it as "a provocation, an excuse to start bombing."[22] This capricious changing attitude of the United States created the raison d'être to intervene, and to initiate aerial bombing. At the same time, Albright fired pacifist UN representatives such as General Louis McKenzie, a UN Commander from Canada, and Yasushi Akashi, a UN Special Envoy from Japan. Albright in particular put pressure on Boutros Boutros-Gali, the UN Secretary General, to fire Akashi, since Akashi had opposed bombing. As a result, these pacifists in the UN became scapegoats.
In Yugoslavia, as later in Iraq, the ultimate goal of the aggressor nations was regime change. In Iraq, the justification to cause war was the accusation that the regime possessed weapons of mass destruction; in Yugoslavia, it was the prevention of a humanitarian crisis and genocide in Kosovo. In both cases, the evidence to support such accusations has been lacking. Furthermore, the case of KLA is pretty similar to those of Taliban or Al Qaeda; the terrorist group can be freedom fighters, and freedom fighters can be part of a terrorist group according to the changing definition and shifting of U.S. foreign policy.
g. Intellectuals against
the Intervention of NATO
Pierre Bourdieu, Daniel Bensaïd, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and other leftist French intellectuals wrote a manifesto opposing the NATO bombing in Le Monde, March 31, 1999. Other world-renowned intellectuals such as Edward Said and Noam Chomsky signed this manifesto. This is the introduction of the manifesto:
We reject these false dilemmas:
- Support NATO intervention or support the reactionary policy of the Serbian regime in Kosovo? The NATO air-strikes, forcing the withdrawal of the OSCE forces from Kosovo, have facilitated and not prevented a ground offensive by Serb paramilitary forces; they encourage retaliation against the Kosovar population by the worst Serb ultra-nationalists; they consolidate the dictatorial power of Slobodan Milosevic, who has crushed the independent media and rallied around him a national consensus which it is necessary on the contrary to break in order to open the way to peaceful political negotiations over Kosovo.[23]
In addition to these French intellectuals, there were more intellectuals who spoke out against the bombing of Serbia by NATO, such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass, Umberto Eco and John Irving. Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney-general, said that NATO’s aggression was a crime punishable under all norms of international law. Clark also said, “When the war ended, much time and energy was wasted to establish whether NATO had destroyed 3 or 7 Yugoslav army tanks, but no thought was spared for the 328 demolished schools and 33 demolished hospitals.”[24]
Regarding the intervention of NATO, there are also many complicated hidden agendas and interests pertaining to European countries such as oil pipelines, and the cruise missiles that faced a Y2K problem. Because of the Y2K problem, the United States sought to use these missiles before year 2000. Furthermore, NATO used Depleted Uranium Weapons, which is at odds with the reason for intervention, humanitarian intervention.
Sontag’s theory on this subject is extremely simple. She concludes that Milosevic and the Serbs are fascists, and their fascism caused the Bosnian war and genocide. She ignore facts such as German imperialism and the independence of Croatia, the coercion to move toward a free-market economy by Western Europe in the 1980s, the political intentions of NATO, and the double standard of Western European countries and the United States. It is a question whether she knew the full contents of the Rambouillet peace accord when she praised Fischer.
Furthermore, Sontag did not question her belief that there were two definite sides and one had to be right, and she was on the right side. She posed the problem like this: Choose one, Milosevic or NATO. For her, the problem of Yugoslavia became the problem of Sontag.
h. The Reputation of
Sontag – Inside and Outside of the Nation –
The Sontag’s reputation is incredibly high, especially inside the United States. In a survey by the National Arts Journalism Program by Columbia University made in 2002, Susan Sontag was at the top in the category of “Recognition.” In this survey, 200 American art critics were asked to rank the most influential art critics in the world of art history from among 58 nominees. In the category of “General Evaluation,” Sontag was No. 2 next to Clement Greenberg. In the category of “Informed Evaluation,” she was No.3, which following Peter Schjeldahl and Clement Greenberg.[25] This survey was taken after Sontag’s announcement to support the NATO bombing of Belgrade, so this survey shows that inside the United States, Sontag’s position was generally supported by art critics.
This ranking shows the problem of nation-states. In the United States, the argument about Yugoslavia was less constructive and less academic than the one in Europe. Since U.S. citizens had a difficulty understanding the complicated ethnic situation in the former Yugoslavia, Sontag’s position seemed reasonable. However, because the United States is the most influential nation in the world, its evaluation became the most influential in the world.
Marina Abramovic, the artist from Belgrade who is also Sontag’s friend, was proud of Sontag’s courage to go to Sarajevo and produce Waiting for Godot.[26] However, Sanja Ivekovic, the artist from Zagreb, was critical, and said that Sontag did not understand the situation in the former Yugoslavia, and made it worse, much as she had done in Vietnam in the 1970s.[27]
In Sarajevo, Sontag and her activity was well respected by local people, since the citizens in Sarajevo were helped by the intervention of NATO.
Nermina Kurspahic (photo by Shinya Watanabe)
Nermina Kurspahic, who translated Waiting for Godot for Sontag’s production, said that in Sarajevo, lots of people in the cultural professions respect Sontag, since she brings culture to Sarajevo.[28] Dunja Blazevic, the director of Soros Center for Contemporary Art in Sarajevo, and Nihad Kresevljakovic, the person who invited Sontag, and many art students in Sarajevo said the same thing.[29]
Sontaga says,
“The condescending, philistine question makes me realize that those who ask it
don’t understand at all what it’s like in Sarajevo now, any more than they
really care about literature and theater.
It’s not true that what everyone wants is entertainment that offers them
an escape from their own reality.
In Sarajevo, as anywhere else, there are more than a few people who feel
strengthened and consoled by having their sense of reality affirmed and
transfigured by art.”[30] Her opinion that the people in Sarajevo
needed some culture and art that reflected the reality of their lives was
accurate.
Notice of the show In the Country of Last Things by Paul Auster
At that time, the most popular show in Sarajevo was In the Country of Last Things, based on a novel by Paul Auster, which is also the first book translated from English to Bosnian during the Bosnian war. The setting of this novel is a country filled with street dwellers, squatters in ruined buildings, and scavengers for subsistence. Suicide clubs offer interesting ways to die for money, but the rich have fled with their jewels, and those who are left survive on what little cash trade-in centers will give them for the day's pickings. This novel focuses on the plight of a young woman, Anna Blume, who tries to find her brother. She first finds shelter with a madman and his wife and later experiences a brief idyll with a writer, Samuel Farr. This novel was written before the war in Yugoslavia, but the situation of this novel is similar to the one of Bosnia, as is Waiting for Godot.
However, in the former Yugoslavia which is outside of Sarajevo or Bosnia, generally people have a negative opinion toward Sontag. In former Yugoslavia, to support one certain ethnic group is hazardous, and because of it, her reputation in other areas is not respectable.
Graffiti
at the “Cells” in
The reputation of Sontag in the lesbian community of Ljubljana, Slovenia, was also low. Sontag is a feminist and a lesbian, and in her Sarajevo production of Waiting for Godot roles of men and women are mixed (See Appendix S-1.) So, the pro-feminist liberal community might praise her action, even outside of Bosnia. There is an avant-garde art community called “Cells” which has the only lesbian club in Slovenia, located in Ljubljana. This is a group of lesbian actresses, journalists and musicians, but it was difficult to find anyone who liked Sontag. There is one person who did not support Sontag’s advocacy of intervention in Kosovo, but she supported the view of intervention stated by Zizek, which believes that the new world order itself nursed the monsters whom we are fighting now, such as Milocevic, Bin Ladin and Hussein, and we need to create a “third way” to fight against global capitalism.[31] [32]
Philippe Sollers wrote in Le Monde that an American female author staged Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo, but the show that should be performed is Triumph of Love by Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de Marivaux.[33] This word also appears in the film Forever Mozart by Jean Luc-Godard. Once Sontag phrased Godard’s films in the book Styles of Radical Will, but later, she was somehow criticized by Godard.
i. Prize for Sontag and
the Relationship of the Nation-States
In October 2003, Sontag received the German Bookseller Association's Peace Prize, one of the German-speaking world's most prestigious literary prizes.[34] Accepting 15,000 Euro ($17,700,) Sontag chastised U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq. However, she did not realize that her support of NATO bombing sanctioned American unilateralism, which was responsible for the war on Iraq. Also, for Germany, Sontag is a convenient intellectual to show the pacifistic attitude of Germany by giving a peace prize to someone who is against the war on Iraq, hiding the fact that the independence of Croatia supported by Germany caused the war in Yugoslavia.
After Germany recognized the independence of Croatia and Slovenia, foreign minister Hans Dietrich Genscher felt responsibility for the confusion in Yugoslavia, and resigned his post as foreign minister. However, Germany itself has not officially admitted that recognition of Croatia was a mistake.
A similar case is the awarding of the Jerusalem Prize in May 2001. By this prize, the Israeli government tried to use Sontag’s fame as a peace activist to attract support for Israel by the world’s intellectual community. Before Sontag accepted the Jerusalem Prize, she got many letters from human rights organizations and leftist intellectuals, since if she got the prize, it would be obvious that Sontag was someone who supported Israel. On the day the prize was given, Ehud Olmert, Mayor of Jerusalem, made a resentful comment about international journalism, and insisted that the Palestinians started the violence between Israel and Palestine, and claimed this fact was ignored.[35] However, when Sontag got this prize, she criticized foreign policy of Israel, as stated here:
I am grateful to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I accept it as an honor to all those committed to the enterprise of literature. I accept it in homage to all the writers and readers in Israel and in Palestine struggling to create literature made of singular voices and the multiplicity of truths. I accept the prize in the name of peace and the reconciliation of injured and fearful communities. Necessary peace. Necessary concessions and new arrangements. Necessary abatement of stereotypes. Necessary persistence of dialogue. I accept the prize—this international prize, sponsored by an international book fair—as an event that honors, above all, the international republic of letters.[36]
Because of these situations, it is extremely difficulty to evaluate artists who make political work especially when it concerns matters outside of their own nations, and evaluate him or her inside the nations, with common illusion. In this complex world, we should evaluate the value of art through a complex system.