60 Minutes - Sunday, July 16, 2017

Episode Date: July 17, 2017

Steven Sotloff was the second American killed by ISIS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Grocer $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. I am Stephen Joel Sotloff. I'm sure you know exactly who I am by now and why I am appearing before you. Stephen Joel Sotloff was beheaded by ISIS in September of 2014.

His execution was seen around the world on video. Did you ever watch it? I have viewed Stephen's body with his head on his chest. I had to see that because I needed to be sure that that was him. Stephen's parents have been shattered by it and by their strong belief that the American government could have saved his life. One by one, the patches are peeled away

and the world comes back into focus. You're witnessing the moment when the people in this room realize they can see for the first time in years. Can you see my fingers? Their eyes and their faces begin to light up with a quiet sort of joy and wonder at the gift of sight. Doctors Jeff Tabin and Sanduk Ruit are eye surgeons, and now they are lifesavers. Ai Weiwei is China's most famous political dissident. He's also one of the most successful contemporary artists in the world. A designer, sculptor, photographer and blogger who's earned legions of followers by using his art as a weapon to ridicule the authorities.

Are you an artist or are you an activist? I think an artist and an activist is the same thing. I'm Steve Croft. I'm Leslie Stahl. I'm Bill Whitaker. I'm Anderson Cooper. I'm Holly Williams. I'm Scott Pellahl. I'm Bill Whitaker. I'm Anderson Cooper. I'm Holly Williams. I'm Scott Pelley.

Those stories tonight on 60 Minutes. Welcome to Play It, a new podcast network featuring radio and TV personalities talking business, sports, tech, entertainment, and more. Play it at play.it. In the long, bloody history of terrorism, few acts of violence have been more savage or shocking than those carried out by ISIS, including the beheadings of young American hostages in 2014.

The videos went viral and catapulted ISIS onto the world stage. For the parents of one of those Americans, Art and Shirley Saltloff, the murder of their 31-year-old son, Stephen, was shattering because of the brutality of his execution and because they think he could have been saved if not for what even the Obama administration admitted was its own ineffectiveness in dealing with the crisis. But as we reported in January, what really sealed their son's fate, the Sotloffs believe, was the government's policy against paying ransom. I am Stephen Joel Sotloff. I'm sure you know exactly who I am by now and why I am appearing before you. Stephen Joel Sotloff was beheaded by ISIS. His execution on September 2nd, 2014

was seen around the world on a video. Did you ever watch it? I have viewed Stephen's body with his head on his chest. I had to see that because I needed to be sure that that was him. Stephen was born and raised in Miami, attended college in Israel, and became a freelance journalist reporting from war zones where information was scarce, like Yemen, Benghazi, Libya, and Syria, where he went in the summer of 2013. Just before he crossed into Aleppo, he called his dad. He contacted me and told me not to worry, but I don't hear from him within four days that I should get in touch with one of his colleagues.

Whoa, that's ominous. He didn't hear from his son, not just for four days. It was four excruciating months. Then finally, they got a ransom letter with demands for the government to free all the Muslims in U.S. custody. Or... Then there's a last option. 100 million euros will secure Stephen's release.

Which is something like... 137 million dollars. What was your reaction? The reaction was, how the hell are we going to get this money together? They thought the U.S. government would help them, but they were bewildered and then infuriated when they say they met a stone wall, the U.S. policy forbidding the paying of ransom. It's some of the hardest work that I've done. Lisa Monaco was assistant to President Obama for counterterrorism. She oversaw the hostage crisis. These are horrible choices. On the one hand, if you don't pay a ransom, you are putting an innocent life at risk. On the other hand, if you do, you're fueling the very activity that's put them at risk in the first place.

Did you feel ever that the policy might be wrong? The policy, and it's been a decades-old policy of not paying ransom, I think is the right policy. So you didn't question that? We didn't. We believe that that was important to maintain. But with the exception of the U.K., most European countries do pay ransom without publicly admitting it. Stephen was held with 22 other hostages, including the three Americans, James Foley, Peter Kacik, and Kayla Mueller, who were all killed.

Once the European governments paid ransom, ISIS released their citizens, one of whom smuggled out this letter from Stephen. He was speaking how he can't stand seeing all the captives leave from all different countries. How could the United States just stand by and not do anything. As the European hostages came out and spoke of mock executions and water boardings, the Saltlofts decided they would try to raise at least some of the money themselves. But then they and the other U.S. families

attended a meeting in Washington with officials on the National Security Council. All of us were saying, well, why can't we try to save our kids? And they said, because it's against the law. We do not negotiate with terrorists. Did they say you would be prosecuted? They said you could be prosecuted, and also your donors could be prosecuted. So if I gave you money, I could be prosecuted? Correct. Did anybody say, are you kidding me? Yes.

So it was a little bit contentious. Oh, yes, we kind of verbally fought back. They were threatened that they could be prosecuted. Is that true? So what's true is that some families felt threatened, and that was unacceptable, and that should never have happened. Are you suggesting they may not have been threatened? No, what I'm suggesting is I wasn't present when any threats were made,

but what matters, Leslie, is that these families felt that way as they were going through the most horrific time they will ever encounter. But was that the policy? Was that true? Could they have actually been prosecuted? Could someone who contributed to pay ransom also be prosecuted? So what's true is that the Justice Department has never prosecuted a family or friends of a family that has paid a ransom. But was it the policy? Well, what's the policy is, the United States government will not pay ransoms or make concessions to terrorist hostage-takers.

JUDY WOODRUFF, That policy is based in part on a presumption that paying ransom invites more hostage-taking. But that is refuted by a new study that examined the case of every known Western hostage taken since 9-11. It was co-authored by Peter Bergen, a counterterrorism expert for the nonpartisan New America Foundation. They don't know necessarily you're American when they take you as sort of a target of opportunity. So some countries are known to pay ransom, the French, the Germans, the Spanish. Even though they don't admit it.

They don't admit it, but they do. Their citizens have much better outcomes than Americans. Americans are huge outliers here. You're twice as likely to have a negative outcome compared to every other Western hostage. When you say negative outcome, you mean murdered. Murdered, dying in captivity, or just remaining in captivity. Fourteen of the European hostages held with Stephen made it home. Those from countries that don't pay ransom didn't. Four Americans and two Brits died.

I keep playing in my own head this horrible situation where the American hostages watch the other ones be set free. And I wonder if it wouldn't have been better if our government did what the European governments did, which was pay ransom but then deny it in order to save their citizens. Why couldn't we have done that? We'd still be fueling their terror activity, whether it's hostage-taking or whether it's terrorist plots to kill Americans here in the homeland or elsewhere, is not activity that the United States government should be in the business of funding. What do you say to critics of the policy of not paying ransom,

that the beheadings of the Americans ended up having more value to ISIS than any money would have been. That's really what put them on the international map. These beheading videos were a goldmine for ISIS. Do you see it that way? I don't. And I think it's giving brutal, murderous thugs too much credit? What about the argument that if you pay ransom, you're just encouraging them to kidnap more? Also, that the money is going to go toward terrorism.

And so what's the comeback to that? It's a hard thing. Going back to what President Obama said to us in person, that he would do anything in his power to save his children if he was in the same situation. And I say that he should put himself in the same situation. And I think that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens in whatever way that they can. What do you say when you hear people argue that Stephen knew he was putting his life at risk

by going into Syria at that point, and, you know, kind of the burdens on him? Stephen was driven by truth, that he had to report the truth. He saw that there wasn't information coming out of these areas, and that's really what drove him. In the summer of 2014, nearly a year after Stephen was abducted, President Obama ordered a military operation to rescue the hostages. This involved a number of, a large number of military service members and special operators. Putting their lives on the line. Putting their lives on the line.

Going in to the heart of ISIL territory in Syria. And as we were monitoring the operation, word came back, some very devastating words. It's a dry hole, which meant that they weren't there. This is James Wright Foley. About seven weeks later, James Foley became the first of three American hostages beheaded. Stephen appears at the end of the video. The life of this American citizen, Obama, depends on your next decision. The Salt Lofts then received an audio message that sounds

like Stephen was forced to record, designed to pressure the U.S. government. It was given them by the FBI. This is always tough for me because it's actually his voice, and it just makes me feel like he's still in the room with us. To Mom, I do not have much time, and will probably not get this opportunity again, so I would like to get straight to the point. My life depends on Obama's next decision. Mom, please don't let Obama kill me. Mom, you can still save my life.

Just like the families of my previous cellmates, who I'm sure you've met, fight for me. I love you. Powerful. I get it. I'm sorry. I could excuse myself.

It's cool, Barry. I don't know what they wanted us to do. And always saying, Mom, like that. Mom. Mom. Mom. Yeah. They learned of Stephen's death a few days after that. And he's in a much better place.

We know he's in a better place. And, you know, he isn't suffering anymore. A couple of months later, they met with President Obama. I asked the president, I said, how did you feel when my son was being held up by his neck and they were saying that this message is for you, President Obama. Stephen's life depends on your next decision. How do you feel about that?

And he looked down and he really couldn't answer the question. I guess it's a question that shocked him. Or is it shocked me that I even asked him that? How do you feel now about what happened, maybe your role with the families whose kids were beheaded? I feel like, in many respects, we did not do right by these families, that we failed them. You feel you failed the families? We have Americans who were brutally killed.

After the beheadings, she put together a task force to review how the government handles hostage-taking that included a meeting with the families. It was a lot of raw emotion and a lot of frustration and grief. Anger at you? Anger at us. Anger at the loss of their loved ones, anger at the government. One of the task force's conclusions was that the various government agencies working on hostages were not coordinating with each other, which led to the creation of this new unit.

Have we seen any claims of responsibility? Not yet. Led by the FBI, it brings together all the key agencies that work on hostages, including the CIA, defense, and state departments in one place to work side by side 24-7. They share intelligence and keep the families informed. Any results? No, sir, not yet. However, the no-ransom policy was not changed. It wasn't even reviewed, though the Justice Department, in this public document, all but promised not to prosecute a family or their friends who do pay ransom to terrorists.

Is it a good policy now? Are you happy with the way it has turned out? It's a better policy than what it was. I mean, now it gives at least people the opportunity to try to save their family members. But I think it's far from really solving the problem because there's still money that has to be raised and paid, and the average family just can't do that. And you think our government should? Absolutely.

It's a human life. How do you let an American go like that, just let them be killed and murdered? Every human is valuable. Everybody has a family, and They want them to come home. The Salt Lofts have started a foundation in Stephen's memory called Two Lives that, among other things, funds safety training for freelance journalists traveling to war zones. On the political front, with dozens of Americans still being held hostage, President Trump has maintained the U.S. policy of not paying ransom.

Welcome to Play It, a new podcast network featuring radio and TV personalities talking business, sports, tech, entertainment, and more. Play it at play.it. Blindness and partial blindness are not epidemic here in the U.S., but they are in certain parts of the world. Our story is about two doctors who decided to do something about it. And incredibly, to date, they have restored sight to more than 150,000 people. Doctors they have trained have restored sight to 4 million more. As we first told you in April,

their partnership seems improbable. One is a hard-charging Ivy League American adrenaline junkie. The other, a serene Buddhist surgeon from the remote mountains of Nepal. We join them on one of their most challenging missions in the isolated country of Burma. Their goal? To lead Burma out of darkness, one patient at a time. One by one, the patches are peeled away and the world comes back into focus.

You're witnessing the moment when the people in this room realize they can see for the first time in years. Can you see my fingers? Their eyes and their faces begin to light up with a quiet sort of joy and wonder at the gift of sight. As they look around, they see who changed their world with an operation the day before that took just minutes. Doctors Jeff Tabin and Sanduk Ruit are eye surgeons, and now they are lifesavers. To hear Drs. Ruit and Tabin speak, they are the beneficiaries. What's it like when that bandage is taken off

and that person sees for the first time, sees you? I may have seen it thousands of times, but every time there's a new tickle there. And I feel like my battery's being recharged. I still get such a thrill when people don't expect or realize they're going to have their sight restored. And then the transformation when they see in this sort of moment of hesitation,

what are they seeing? And then a smile. Good? hesitation. What are they seeing? And then a smile. Good. U Mint U hadn't seen for two years until this moment. Thank you. You're welcome. Others here had been blind for decades. They all had cataracts, a milky white buildup of protein that clouds the lens of the eye. In the U.S., they mainly afflict the elderly, removing them, a routine operation. But here in Burma, also known as Myanmar, cataracts go untreated, and blindness is a way of life.

It's a Buddhist population. They're very fatalistic. They're very accepting. And there's almost an acceptance that you get old, your hair turns white, your eye turns white, and there's almost an acceptance that you get old, your hair turns white, your eye turns white, and then you die. And the idea that you can actually have your sight restored has not really permeated all levels of Myanmar society.

What does that tell you about the state of eye care here? Well, it's a place we can make a difference. Burma is one of the poorest countries in Asia, slowly emerging from the darkness of decades of dictatorship. After years of trying, Tabin and Ruit finally were permitted to bring their treatment here. We met them in Tangi in central Burma, where the lack of care has led to some of the highest rates of cataracts in the world. Through radio and pamphlets and conversation, word of the doctor's visit spread.

Hundreds of Burmese who'd lost their sight found their way to Tangi's hospital with the help of caregivers, many trekking for days. Here, cataracts are not just a malady of old age. They take the sight of the very young, too, caused by infections and malnutrition. I think it's better to redo it. By the time the doctors scrubbed in, the corridors were choked with people hoping to have their sight restored. Is it ever daunting? I mean, you look out there and you see that line of people, all who need this surgery. It's daunting on a worldwide basis.

There may be a long line, but this individual person, I'm going to give the very best care I can. Dr. Ruiz set a rapid pace. He repaired an eye, the patient got up, the next patient was ready on an adjoining table. Just minutes an eye, then on to the next. Hey, Kim, are they both blocked? Dr. Tabin performed the delicate surgery just feet away. Want to take a look? See how nice and clear that is?

I don't know what that was, maybe four or five minutes. And it's going from total blindness to great vision. Wow. They kept up this pace until seven in the evening. It's almost like an assembly line. Yeah. But assembly line sounds too mechanical. I mean, this is people's eyes.

People's lives. Once someone goes blind in the developing world, their life expectancy is about one-third that of age and health match peers. And for a blind child, the life expectancy is five years. And also in the developing world, it takes often a person out of the workforce or a child out of school to care for the blind person. So when we restore sight to a blind person, we're freeing up their family and restoring their life. Among the throng waiting to have their lives restored, we found Kanchi. Her son, a farmer, had been her eyes and devoted caretaker since cataracts took her sight. 15-year-old Yanu had been blind since age seven. He was overwhelmed but grateful. Thank you, he said. Doctors Ruit

and Tabin heard that a lot. In four days in Tanji, with the help of local doctors they were training, they performed 503 cataract surgeries. Her eyes now bandaged, Kanchi waited with her son. We were going to be performing as many cataract surgeries as the hospital does normally in a year. We are basically here to ignite fire. Ignite fire of the possibility of doing high quality, high volume cataract surgery. It is still possible. You want to ignite a fire here. Ignite a fire here. As long as he can remember,

Sanduk Ruit has been burning to change the world around him. He grew up desperately poor in this village with no electricity or running water high in the Himalayas of Nepal. The nearest school was a 15-day walk away. Ruit's illiterate parents saw education as the way out for their children, but the grip of poverty and poor health was too strong to escape.

His younger sister, with whom he was very close, died of tuberculosis. I saw her pass away in front of me and then there's a very strong determination from inside that maybe this is the profession that I should take and make health care available for my countrymen. That determination took him to medical school in India. He came back to Nepal, an eye doctor, committed to bringing modern care to remote mountain villages. The documentary, Out of the Darkness, showed them carrying equipment on their backs.

His team hiked for days. His goal, as revolutionary as it was simple, to cure blindness in the third world with a quick, cheap technique to remove cataracts. Soon, the medical world took notice, and so did a young Jeff Taven. I imposed myself on Sandek and came to work in Nepal. What did you think of him when he first showed up? You know, I was a bit scared in the beginning, you know. He had tremendous energy. He would never get tired. Energy in working, energy in eating, energy in drinking, energy in talking, you know. It was like being hit by a human avalanche, fitting since Jeff Tabin's passion was mountaineering

more than medicine. He'd raced through Yale, Oxford, and Harvard Medical School, but he had made his name as one of the first people to climb the highest peak on every continent. He met Dr. Ruit and thought he'd found his next challenge. Ruit was skeptical. This frenetic young man had the same dedication to ophthalmology he had to adventure. I sent him to a hospital in eastern part of Nepal in the middle of summer, and I said he's not going to survive there. During the summer in the monsoon, it's quite oppressive. It's sort of 100 degrees, 105, with 99% humidity and lots of mosquitoes. Wait a minute, you sent him to a difficult place on purpose? Difficult, definitely, yeah. Did you know that he was testing you? No, I thought he sent me there

because there was so much need. I scratched my mosquito bites and was excited to go to work, that there were all of these blind people that, you know, I could make a difference in their life. He won you over. Yes, yes, definitely. Their relationship has grown from teacher-student to collaborators and friends. Like Yin and Yang, these opposites complement each other.

They created the Himalayan Cataract Project, started here at Tilganga, Ruit's hospital in Kathmandu. They perfected the procedure called small incision cataract surgery. Just one small splice, the cataract comes out, a new man-made lens goes in, no stitches required. It's quick and costs about $20. How does the quality of care you're providing here compare to the quality of care you'd be able to provide in the U.S.? For these advanced cataracts, I'm performing the same quality of surgery that I would be doing in America.

Dr. Tabin spent most of this year at the University of Utah, where cataract surgery costs a couple thousand dollars an eye. He might do four or five a day. Here, he does that many in a half hour, removing cataracts he'd never see in the U.S. because they'd never go untreated so long. Their project is funded by donations and grants. They're able to keep costs down because they don't use expensive equipment, and they make their own lenses at their factory in Nepal. The lenses are crucial to the process. They're a permanent implant. Each costs about $4. In the U.S., because of strict safety requirements, they can cost 50 times more. Comparable quality?

Very comparable. I put that in my mother's eyes. So far, they've operated in two dozen countries, including North Korea, Ethiopia, and now Burma. So tell me what you think of this, okay? They've brought hundreds of doctors, including the Burmese doctors working with them, to Tilganga for training. And everywhere they go, they train other doctors to carry on their work once they've moved on. How many fingers?

We saw the immediate benefit the morning after surgery. How many? One. The patients gathered in a Buddhist monastery. We saw the immediate benefit the morning after surgery. The patients gathered in a Buddhist monastery. As the bandages came off, first wonder, then smiles and celebration. Remember U Mint U, blind for two years? His family sent us this picture. He can read again his favorite pastime. Fifteen-year-old Yan U, blind half his life, seemed somewhat bewildered by this new world of sight. For Kanshi, the wait was over.

Her son was overcome when she saw his face for the first time in years. Then there was this woman. This is the first time she's been able to see in months? Yes, sir. She called Drs. Ruid and Tabin gods. They assured her they are not. But in this room, it certainly seemed they had performed miracles. Hallelujah. Hallelujah.

Hallelujah. The doctors recently got more good news. The Himalayan Cataract Project is one of eight semifinalists for a $100 million grant from the MacArthur Foundation. Welcome to Play It, a new podcast network featuring radio and TV personalities talking business, sports, tech, entertainment and more. Play it at play.it. Ai Weiwei is China's most famous political dissident, a provocateur and a troublemaker whose clashes with the Chinese government have gotten him harassed by police, thrown in jail and driven out of the country. He's also one of the most successful contemporary artists in the world, a designer, sculptor, photographer and blogger who, as we first told you earlier this year,

has earned legions of followers by using his art as a weapon to ridicule the authorities. And we should warn you, some of his work can be offensive. But when you meet Ai Weiwei, he's soft-spoken, self-deprecating and shy, the last person you'd expect to be an enemy of the state. They thought your intention was to subvert state power. Which is true. Which is true. You want to bring down the Chinese government. They thought your intention was to subvert state power. Which is true.

Which is true. You want to bring down the Chinese government. Not bring down, but I don't think I have the power to bring it down. But you want it to change. Yes, of course. Those are dangerous words in China, where even after decades of modernization, the government has little tolerance for dissent. But that's never bothered Ai Weiwei. This is the work he's perhaps most famous for.

What you're seeing in the background is a portrait of China's revered former dictator Mao Zedong, part of a series in which Weiwei gives the finger to other symbols of power around the world. Just like this, yeah? Are we creating a new Ai Weiwei as we stand here? Oh, okay. It's so easy. Everybody can do it. Easy, certainly not subtle, and maybe a little silly. But the Chinese authorities took them very seriously. They thought it was subversive. Why was the regime frightened of art? Because they are afraid of freedom and art is about freedom. They're afraid of freedom? Yes. Are you an artist or are you an activist? I think an artist and activist is the same thing.

As artists you always have to be an activist. You have to be political to be a good artist. I think every art, if it's relevant, is political. That's the purpose of his life. Evan Osnos is a writer for The New Yorker, who spent years in Beijing and chronicled Ai Weiwei's confrontations with the authorities. He calls him an entrepreneur of provocation. What does that mean? Beijing and chronicled Ai Weiwei's confrontations with the authorities. He calls him an entrepreneur of provocation.

What does that mean? It means that no matter what he's doing, he's figuring out a way not to cooperate with the prevailing wisdom or the people in charge. And this can make a lot of people very angry. What's wrong with how things are, to Ai Weiwei's mind? In China, you are being constantly told that the world today is so much better than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago when Chinese people were literally starving, that you should be satisfied. And what Ai Weiwei is saying is, absolutely not. You should demand more.

It's not good enough to be rich. Exactly. It's not good enough to be rich. Exactly. It's not good enough to be rich. You need to be free as well. In 2008, Ai Weiwei's one-man rebellion turned into a war with the Chinese government after a massive earthquake shook Sichuan province. It killed almost 90,000 people, including several thousand children, many of whom were crushed in poorly built government schools.

It was a national trauma, and the authorities tried to put a lid on the public's anger by covering up the number of children who died. It was a state secret how many children had died in these schools. Yeah, they always used that as some kind of, you know, excuse not to tell him, not giving him the correct numbers. Weiwei assembled a team of activists to interview the parents, many of whom had lost their only child. He called it a citizen's investigation. China had never seen anything like it.

So you were trying to get to the truth. Why did that make the Chinese government so angry? To control the information, to limit the truth, is the most efficient tactics for totalitarian society, for the rulers. He gathered the names of more than 5,000 dead children and published a list on the internet, shaming his government. And across China, people took notice. It was a challenge to the government's authority. And they couldn't accept it. It was an act of radical transparency.

Nobody had ever done that before. And they didn't immediately know how to respond. They had never really encountered a person like Ai Weiwei. What were they worried that he might do? Inspire people. Inspire people to do and live the way that he did. The Chinese authorities responded brutally. Ai Weiwei says police beat him up and he later had to be hospitalized.

Doctors discovered bleeding in his brain, which he says could have killed him. He documented it all on social media for his followers around the world, infuriating the government and escalating the confrontation. He weaponized social media. He figured out that in a country that controls information so carefully, that seizing the tools of information distribution is a very powerful thing to do. What did the Chinese government think about that? They began to think he was a very dangerous person. Ai Weiwei was groomed to be a dissident since childhood. His father, Ai Qing, was a celebrated poet who was denounced as a traitor and exiled with his family to the edge

of China's Gobi Desert, where Weiwei watched his father's humiliation as he was forced to clean public toilets. You were an outsider from the beginning. Yes, I'm a natural outsider. I've always been pushed out. But that also gave me a very special angle to look at things. It made you an independent thinker. It made me an individual, and I always have to make my judgment independently because the mainstream will never accept somebody like me.

Weiwei got out of China at the first opportunity, moving to New York in the early 1980s. He was intoxicated by the city, chronicling everything in pictures, drawing inspiration from American masters like Andy Warhol, and stringing together a living doing odd jobs and street art. So you were drawing portraits of people and selling them for how much? $15. Some of his work now sells for millions, but in America he discovered something you can't put a price on. You once said that once you've experienced freedom, it stays in your heart. Is that true?

Yeah, I think it's true. You taste the most important thing in life. And you will never forget it. After a decade in the US, he moved back to China and set up a studio in Beijing, breaking new ground and challenging old sensibilities with mischievous, provocative art. Like this piece, in which Weiwei photographed himself

destroying a 2,000-year-old Chinese urn. He wants to shatter the Communist Party's official version of history. You smashed a priceless urn. It's not priceless. For a lot of Chinese people, it's a priceless part of their history. For me to smash it is a valuable act. If you buy that, and the art world certainly did, look at what he did to these urns doused in bright paint

or emblazoned with the Coca-Cola logo, paying tribute to his idol, Andy Warhol. By 2010, new commissions were rolling in and Weiwei's work grew more ambitious. Not all of it was political. He cast giant animal heads in bronze and sent them on tour around the world. He hired 1,600 artisans to handcraft porcelain sunflower seeds.

Then carpeted the floor of a giant atrium in London with 100 million of them. It captivated the public... And helped turn Ai Weiwei into an art scene superstar. You're the darling of the art world. I'm the darling of the art world. I don't really care. You don't care? No, I don't really care. They can't care? No, I don't really care. They can't just forget about me. I don't care. But they're not forgetting about you. Well,

that's their problem. They should. They should learn how to forget about me. The Chinese government wanted everyone to forget about Ai Weiwei, blocking his name on the internet in China and making it impossible to search for him. But that didn't stop Weiwei from needling the authorities relentlessly. When they put his studio under surveillance, Weiwei decorated the cameras with lanterns, then fashioned replicas out of marble for his exhibitions. When officers were ordered to follow his every move, he got his own cameraman to film them filming him, ridiculing the state in a way no one else in China had ever dared.

I mean, in a way, people have learned to be keep your head down. And Ai Weiwei doesn't. He's, no, I'm not going to keep my head down. I'm going to wave my big head with my beard and my crazy haircut all over the place, and you'll have to deal with it. He was making the Chinese government look ridiculous. Yeah, he was mocking it. He was mocking it. And the Chinese government is many things, but it is not possessed of an abundant sense of humor. And I think, you know, at a certain point, they said, we're not going to take it anymore. And they didn't. Early one morning in 2011, as he was about to board a plane,

they put a hood over his head and took him away. It was the beginning of 81 harrowing days in solitary confinement under 24-hour surveillance. They watched you shower. They watched you use the toilet. They watched you when you were asleep at night. They were trying to humiliate you. I think that's the very routine way when they detain somebody they think is very important. They're trying to break your spirit. I think they don't have to try. Did they break you? Somehow, I think. When he was released from detention, his passport was confiscated

and he was forbidden from speaking publicly. I cannot talk, I'm so sorry. But Ai Weiwei couldn't help himself. He recreated his prison cell with these three-dimensional models, which were exhibited around the world. It helped pile pressure on the Chinese government. And two years ago, he was finally given his passport back. Within days, he was on a plane out of China, setting up a new studio in Berlin.

When we visited him, he'd shifted his attention to the plight of refugees struggling to reach Europe, turning these clothes they discarded into a new work. He told us he's staying in Europe for the time being out of concern for the safety of his young son, but he hasn't ruled out moving back. Ai Weiwei has now left China. Doesn't that mean that the Chinese government has won? I don't think so. I think, I'm not sure how far we are into the game here, but the game is not over. He might start the fight again with the Chinese regime. I would not be surprised. Anytime people have sort of counted him out,

they've been proven wrong. I'm Leslie Stahl. We'll be back next week with another edition of 60 Minutes.