March 23, 2008
Boycotting the Olympics
I suppose it was inevitable. Events in Tibet have sparked calls for a boycott of the Olympics. Hans-Gert Poettering, the president of the European Parliament is speculating aloud about the possibility - and the parliament is due to debate Tibet later in the week.
Personally, I think it was a mistake to give the Olympics to China. It was inevitable that they would be used for political purposes, to bolster the Chinese government’s legitimacy and to herald China’s arrival as an international player. And I think its always preferable to hold the games somewhere small, rich and sunny - and without aspirations to global leadership: Barcelona and Sydney were perfect.
But now that the Chinese have been awarded the games, I think it would be an even bigger mistake to boycott them. Much as the West would insist that the boycott was aimed only at the Chinese government, it would be both portrayed and percieved as an insult aimed at the entire Chinese people. The great task of international relations over the next generation is going to be managing the rise of China. Picking symbolic fights - and so whipping up Chinese nationalism - is the wrong way to go about things, I think.I was living in South-East Asia, when China made its first failed bid to get the 2000 Olympics. That rejection - in favour of Sydney - sparked fury even among many “Overseas Chinese”, who saw the snub as a deliberate effort to humiliate China. The Chinese chose not to bid for the 2004 Olympics - apparently it was an unlucky year. (Something to do with the Chinese word for “four” rhyming with death?) So there is a huge amount riding on 2008.
And a huge amount that could go wrong naturally, what with a marathon run in the Beijing smug, the situation in Tibet and the presence of the American president. President Bush has been foolish enough to accept an invitation to the Olympics - which means that if something does go awry, he will be on the spot and dragged into events.
On a personal note, I will be on holiday for the next week - so this blog will go a bit quiet. But readers seem to have no difficulty keeping the conversation going in my absence. So do please talk amongst yourselves until I’m back.
I’ll kick off the “talking amongst ourselves”, then.
On balance your conclusion is surely correct. But it’s a difficult one. A lot of people would now say that the 1936 Berlin Olympics were worth boycotting; and perhaps shunning Moscow in 1980 helped, just slightly, push the USSR towards the exit.
Of course China should be coaxed and encouraged, rather than just browbeaten. But the world owes it to itself not to ignore the ethical question. Perhaps a boycott of the opening ceremony would be a good compromise.
Posted by: Rollo | March 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm | Report this commentI think this is a tough call too. The reflex response is to boycott because the Chinese regime is doing a number of rather nasty things in the world and propping up some of our more unpleasant regimes worldwide - DPRK and Sudan come to mind as well as to a lesser extent Iran. It is also throwing about alot of “human-rights-free” cash in Africa, none of this democracy and anti-corruption “nonsense” - just give us your resources.
They are also expending alot of effort threatening Taiwan and ensuring that 23 million person democracy has absolutely no representation anywhere. I suggested to my Taiwanese friends they start flying planes into buildings and blowing up trains and then people in the West will start “understanding” their plight.
But in the end boycotts are never effective and will be a cause for Chinese “outrage” with no counter-balancing gain.
PS Death and four don’t exactly rhyme, they are both “si” but with different tones - you have to be careful when learning to say four…
PPS and enjoy your hols.
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 3:23 am | Report this commentBefore taking a large and public moral stand, one should look at one’s own motives rather deeply…and who actually wants to do that?
If I remember correctly, the reason the Moscow Olympics were boycotted was the Russian military presence in Afghanistan.
Since we have filled in for them as a military presence, the boycott seems to have been not only futile, but also tragically humourous and ironic.
Posted by: Montag | March 24th, 2008 at 9:32 am | Report this commentyeah because prior to the USSR invading Afghanistan , the Afghani government had flown planes into the Ministry of Defence in Moscow and killed 3000 people in Leningrad. It IS wierd how it is a complete analogy, as opposed to, say, the Russians invading another country to help a dictatorship oppress it’s people - and kill hundreds of thousands of them.
On the other hand, one can see how effective the boycott was. Why only 9 years - and billions of USD - later the Russians left.
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 10:20 am | Report this commentNow that people are beginning to acknowledge that it was a mistake to award the 2008 Olympics to China in the first place, why compound the error by pretending to overlook China’s gross violations of human rights, not just in Tibet, but, at least indirectly, in Sudan and Burma, not to mention North Korea, as well as directly by increased arrests and jailings (as well as, we can be quite sure, torture) of dissidents at home?
The comparison with the 1936 Berlin Olympics is apt - except that at that time, even the Nazis felt it necessary to make a few cosmetic concessions to world opinion. As I understand the history of those games, and I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, there was a temporary lull in some of the more visible types of violence against the Jews, and Jewish athletes were allowed to participate, at least on foreign teams. (I believe that there may have been at least one Jewish athlete on the German team as well, but I am not sure about this.)
In the case of China, however, there have not been even cosmetic gestures toward world opinion -only more savage repression and in your face speeches denouncing anyone, whether the Dalai Lama or anyone else, who in any way challenges the Communist Party’s iron fisted rule. If anyone believes that the Olympics are meant to stand for the negation and humiliation of the human spirit, let him or her go to Beijing this August. All others should stay away.
Posted by: algasema | March 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am | Report this commentAlgasema, I would like to take this opportunity to second what you wrote. I won’t be attending the Olympics nor will I be tuning in. I happen to believe formal boycotts are ineffective but that is no reason why I should actively participate.
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this commentMontag is right: the U.S. is already occupying two nations of more than 26 million people each, something that didn´t happen since Adolf Hitler…
Not to talk about the millions of Americans who fought for Independence against the Union in the 1861-1865 War of Confederate Independence. They were absolutely crushed and half a million Confederate Americans were murdered. That´s History.
The truth is the American Government will never allow any U.S. state to separate from the Union peacefully.
Posted by: Enrique | March 24th, 2008 at 12:01 pm | Report this commentI really cannot understand why you always link Olympic Games with politics? Have you ever been to China before or you guys just learn China from BBC & CNN?
Posted by: Kevin | March 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentIs it your democracy and obejectivity that just report the roit and crackdown(have you seen the crackdown or the still police?) instead of the inocent people who were killed?
Tibet is no doubt part of China so the police are just acting the law!
To be honest, the China government is not perfect such as bureaucracy.
Please do not always link these problems to other issues.
My advice is that if you really want to critise China or Chinese government, the best way is to resist “Made in China”.
My understanding about there issues is that all are for the profit, sometimes in the name of people’s profits.
So Enrique let me see if I can understand your outrage. You are horrified at the idea of a Confederacy not being allowed to enslave blacks and the Union forcibly emancipating them.
I am starting to see why you are so outraged at the overthrow of Saddam. Either that or you are doing some sort of satire on the anti-americans on this blog.
Kevin, I am not sure where you are from but I know plenty of Chinese, both mainland and Taiwanese. I also know people who cross paths with Chinese “businessmen” working in Africa. In terms of cold-hearted commercials the Chinese compete only with the French and Russians. If I thought for one minute that “resisting Made in china” was practical or would have any impact on the Chinese leadership I would.
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentIf the Ireland becomes independent on London holding the Olympic Games ,what is your viewpoint,my Englishman?! How ridiculous are you!
Posted by: Herbert | March 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm | Report this commentErm, Ireland became independent in 1922.
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 12:59 pm | Report this commentA simeple test for anyone talking about punishing China because of Tibet (be honest to yourself by not using Google or other references):
a) locate three most important cities or places of Tibet on a map;
b) list three well-known historic figures of Tibet such as religious or political leaders; and
c) explain briefly the religious history of Tibet.
If you fail the test, then you simply don’t know enough about Tibet, and the most appropriate thing you could do is to humbly look for more knowledge if you are genuinely concerned with human rights or otherwise shut up.
Many of Westerners are amazed by the mysterious Japanese culture and sensibly acknowledge their ignorance on its culture and history. To any Chinese or Korean the Japanese are not mysterious at all - we are close variants. Quite mysteriously, many same Westerners seem to have bigger-than-planet confidence in their knowledge about China and Tibet.
Anyone who cannot speak Chinese or has not lived in China for a significant period thinks he knows China and Tibet better than the millions of (allegedly brainwashed) overseas Chinese who speak English, watch BBC & CNN, have received higher education in the best Western universities and worked in the US and EU for long should has his brain checked.
Posted by: FX | March 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Report this commentI tend to agree with Mr. Rachman that any boycott would probably do more to unite the Chinese people against the West than lead to a rapid democratization of China.
To be honest, I don’t what is really happening in Tibet. There’s certainly a police action. Is there genocide? I don’t think so.
Compared to the US actions in Iraq - millions of emigrants, tens of thousands dead - I think we might be focused on the wrong problem.
Posted by: Norbert | March 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm | Report this commentThe games should be a symbol of world unity. It bodes well for mankind if the games can be held peacefully and in good will irrespective of any turmoil amongst the nations. I think it is important that the sanctity of the games is preserved, so any boycott is probably the wrong move.
Political relations with China appear to be a great deal more difficult than with other nations due to 1) The intricacies of Chinese culture 2) China’s economic strength (it is almost as if the world is afraid to stand up to them). In my opinion, the world respects Chinese culture and respects China’s human rights etc. why can’t China then respect the world’s cultures and human rights? We’re quick to invade and sanction other nations when they step out of line, yet China continues to get away with Burma and Tibet, for example.
First prize is for the rest of the world to stand up to China, but leave the Olympics out of it.
Posted by: charles | March 24th, 2008 at 2:25 pm | Report this commentI see care in the community is still running strong. When exactly was Osama Bin Laden “trained” by the CIA? When was he a “religious leader”? Where did he get his “religious” training?
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Report this commentI agree with FX. How many of those ‘foreign correspondents’ really know anything about China’s history with Tibet? I have plenty of Chinese friends (don’t forget 95% of China is still Han and none of them have a a problem with peace), who claim that the West just don’t understand the situation.
For things that you don’t understand the best way is to stay out and shut up, until you know more. Tibet has never been acknowledged by any country as independent, so these violent attacks, looting on local Chinese businesses and killing of innocents that followed the uprisings have got to be stopped - if they were so peaceful the initial local police force would have been able to control the situation. As it is, no government would tolerate such actions escalating out of hand, especially with the Olympics, so can you be so outraged that China is trying to regain national control quickly?
When watching all news channels I distinctly find that whilst Mainland news stations may not report the whole scale of events, Western reports are no more accurate or reliable either. They’re often one-sided and also biased.
We should all consider personal motives before believing everything in the press.
Posted by: lucy | March 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Report this commentYes Norbert, absolutely the wrong problem. China represents no problem at all - it simply back the DPRK which when it is not starving it’s people to death is exporting nuclear and missile technology to seriously dodgy countries; Sudan who have killed HUNDREDS of thousands of people; Myanmar gets diplomatic cover to shoot protesters dead in the street; and ensures a democracy of 23 million people cannot get any representation anywhere in the world and all this whilst occupying and oppressing a country for the last 58 years.
We should all be focusing on the US for overthrowing the loving regime of Saddam who spent the 1978 to 2003 cuddling Iranians, Shia, Kurds and his opposition.
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm | Report this commentOf course Lucy we should consider that after all China - just like the US and the UK - has complete freedom of the press. No evidence whatsoever that there is any undue violence, just like there isn’t in the DPRK or Syria or like there was in Stalinst Russia or any other bastions of light and truth.
PS China isn’t 95% Han - what was that about “best way is to stay out and shut up, until you know more”?
Posted by: danny | March 24th, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Report this commentMr Rachman, you are dead right in one issue..if the Olypmic is boycotted by any western countries because of the Tibetan-Chinese disharmony, the Chinese people would be outraged, and substantial anti-Western could be engendered in the populace (as much as there are biased anti-Chinese feelings that have been stirred up in the past two decades by biased politicians, media and separatist movements). The world needs more cooperation, not another cold war. People should understand that China is a multiethnic state.
Posted by: TK | March 24th, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this commentChinese around the world have had more than enough of the likes of Rachman and other racist Westerners. China for all its faults have always been at the brunt of biased Western media perpetuated by its biased readership who have not the intellectual honesty to treat us with a bit of fairness.
Boycott the Olympics and Chinese goods all you wish. We in China won’t notice.
Posted by: PY | March 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm | Report this commentAs someone pointed out, the Chinese police actions were legal actions although incredibly violent. They were directed against political activists that are pursuing the “noble” target to establish a buddhocratic form of state.
Posted by: Federico Riggio | March 24th, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Report this commentWhy everybody is so scared of China, trying to find a way to oppose China somehow? Chinese are smart, well-trained and steady and they want to compete in a global market. Actually, they are competing and very well so. What is wrong with this? They should be an example, for some aspects, to look at. If a single athlete wants to demonstrate his disappointment, he must be encouraged to do so. Governments have proper political channels and hopefully won’t recognize a political asset to China in hosting the Olympic Games.
I do not think it was a mistake to give the Olympics to China. Due to the Olympics, China is being forced to make a real effort to clean up its air and in the long run this event will most likely leave a positive imprint on its human rights agenda. Nothing is static. China is in a significant era of transition. The West will get no where by humiliating China on the world stage with an Olympic boycott. It is at this point even irresponsible talk of one…in fact it could be a disaster, leading dissidents to more aggressive protests, as they may believe the West would interfere …which in turn would lead Chinese authorities to conduct more aggressive put downs of these protests… will the West step in to help protesters? …NO! Of course not.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this commentSo let’s move forward…successful games will be helpful to bringing China into a world community …personally, I would love to go to them…but I am budgeting so that I can go to Sochi Winter Olympics!
China is not a unique case in the annals of wilful violations of codes of peaceful conduct. I would like the high-minded readers of this blog to apply the exact same logic to the United States and the UK for their wanton acts of aggression in Iraq and continued “war without end” in Afghanistan that is taking so many civilian casualties from air attacks.
Those who live in glass houses (with cracks, may I add) should not only not throw stones at others; they should first seek to mend their own roofs. That is the mark of a truly independent mind.
Posted by: Sarang S | March 24th, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Report this commentI think firstly, it is a rather biased opinion to say awarding the Olympics to China was a mistake. It’s easy to hate China. It was Communist (now just authoritarian), has a reputation for gross human rights abuses, Sudan, disgusting culinary habits in some provinces and animal abuses. Indeed the Chinese are far from being a refined lot.
Still, the Olympics should be a celebration of human aspirations and it is only fair that the everyday Chinese people are given the equal opportunity to embrace that through a sporting event.
In any case, there are plenty of avenues for the Chinese government to further its global ambitions and even without the Olympics, there are plenty of other ways (which are probably cheaper) and just as effective to further its goals. It’s also an inevitable process for a growing country like China to spread its influence as the US and Western Europe have done in the past. So Why the double standards? Deep-rooted biased cynicism against China perhaps?
Anyway what China did in Tibet was just a matter of keeping order. Let’s face an alternative and hypothetical scenario, swathes of Scottish youths rioting in the streets of Edinburgh, tearing down Tescos, Sainsburys and Marks and Spencers stores, demanding for Scottish Independence, would the British government have done the same as the Chinese in Tibet. Quite likely.
Every country has the right to its territorial integrity and it’s sad that some think that China has a lesser right to this claim. Look at the US and Britain in Iraq and Afganistan, surely many of the locals believe, in as much cynicism accorded to a pro-Tibet, that the liberating forces are robbing away their own territorial right to their own country, even if it is in the spirit of the War against terrorism. Speak to the Arabs and Afgans and see what their sides of the story is.
Similarly, speak to the Chinese and hear their side as well, before jumping into absolute conclusions and put your Bjork record on scream ‘Tibet! Tibet!’
One advice people, think critically!
Posted by: Alan | March 24th, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this commentDid any nation boycott US 1996 Olympics after the US’s handling of the violent Los Angeles anti-discrimination protests in 1992 or the Waco, Texas Massacre in 1993? I didn’t recall any. Were there any western nations concerned about the human rights or religious rights in US back then?
Posted by: Dalailama | March 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Report this commentCompared to the recent U.S. History of agression and invasion of other nations, China has been a very good and pacific international actor (even if it is time for them to forget about Taiwan).
What would we say if China had attacked, invaded and were occupying two nations of more than 26 million people? The last one who did something similar before George W. Bush was Adolf Hitler…
It is really sad and ridiculous that at the same time that Americans have such a bad record against respect of other nation´s sovereignty (not to talk about the murdering of half a million of their own citizens when they tried to secede from the Union) they pretend to be the light of humanity.
It is not strange that the U.S. is considered by the overwhelming majority of the People of the World as the main Threat, and there is so much hate against America.
Just the fact that the U.S. spends more on Defense than the other nations of the World combined is a clear sign that they are a militaristic society, the main Threat to World Peace, the only nation that has used nuclear weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Posted by: Enrique | March 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Report this commentOlympic games - who cares?
The Olympic movement is so corrupted by politics and hidden agendas that it is hard to be a celebration of anything worth celebrating. I boycott the games every four years, its location notwithstanding.
Posted by: Otherwise busy in August | March 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pm | Report this commentTrying to post a comment on a Olympic related article at CCN, and here is what I got:
“Thank you for contributing. Comments are moderated by CNN and will not appear on this story until after they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Unfortunately, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments can be posted.”
Posted by: freedom of speech | March 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm | Report this commentAs a abroad Chinese here myself,I feel disgusted after read through all of the above and I hope I don’t take so much personally.But,to be honest, the communism does need to be applied on the country with biggest population in the world,it is because democracy sometimes has so much says from different people and that do hurdle the progress of prosperity of a country,that,It might result China cannot develop its nation smoothly .My point of view is,the one is suitable for you might not suit for others, why should we have so much hatreds on each other and blaming on different policies while the one you have got might not seem suitable to be adopted by others or just plainly not workable. I might see U.S after killing millions of Iraqis and gave his apology on his mistakes might see as an insult to democracy and a demolition to the human rights too.This world belongs to human with no racism behind,so do back off from judging people on skin color,proverbially it is a laughing source for the 21st century.Think,if there is an alien attack on earth,so to say,WE NEED TO UNITE TO COUNTER ATTACKS TOO…go figure!
Posted by: Bino | March 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm | Report this commentBino, I agree with you and before saying that you’re disgusted from “all of the above” read carefully.
Posted by: Federico Riggio | March 24th, 2008 at 9:21 pm | Report this commentChina’s position is one of an emergent player, that want to play the same game but with different rules. It’s not possible. I do personaly believe that you’re going to conform to global rules because the market will force you to do so: you want to expand in other countries? Fine, you must let in other countries in China; you want to keep your labour costs that low? Impossible, the increasing demand for basic needs like food in your Country is of the 18%, while in EU is around 1.5%! How you’re going to fix this? raising salaries. Simple as that; You want to have the lights on your Country by organizing the OG? Excellent, you might want to deal, finally, with different people thinking and acting differently from what the Goverment says. Killing them is a way, but do not expect a standing ovation from the rest of the world.
You are right when you say we all belong to this planet and that people tend to forget it, but this is for all of us.
The nature of the Chinese regime was well known when the games were awarded to China and it has not changed for better or worse since. Winning the games is a political goal for many regimes from Blair’s Britain to China and back. Boycott or not the present debate highlights, as I think Mr. Rachmann intended, the foolishness of the politicians and the (other?) decision makers involved. However, we are talking about a major sporting event which entertains and fascinates vast swathes of humanity. Keeping it away from politicians so that ordinary citizens, who love to watch it, and many, many athletes can build their careers around it without being turned into pawns in some political game seems an excellent idea. Give it to Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and a handful of others in rotation and certainly to no one who has or wants a seat on the UN Security Council. Ditto the World Cup! In the meantime boycotting the Beijing games would simply serve to show the folly of the decision makers who awarded them in the first place and would not influence one iota the behaviour of the Chinese regime.
Posted by: Peter | March 24th, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Report this commentTo those who point out that violence has been perpetrated against innocent Han Chinese civilians in Tibet, I don’t doubt that this is the case, and deplore violence against any innocent victims. But looking at these violent protests in context, they are relatively limited in extent and have been fuelled by decades of resentment.
To those who say that others who have limited knowledge and understanding of China and Tibet should shut up and but out of the argument, I have some sympathy with this view. We in the West should certainly be careful to inform ourselves appropriately when forming our views, something that all too few do in relation to Tibet. That said, this argument doesn’t take away from the fact that the background to these latest developments is two generations of Tibetans who’ve been subject to programmatic restrictions on their ability to exercise religious and cultural freedoms. They have called for political dialogue and accountability, without any reciprocation.
Regarding Danny’s comments on China’s involvement in Darfur, Burma etc., I share his deep concern and unease about these situations, and China’s involvement in them. However, in the interests of parity, I think we should be careful in determining how wide we cast the net of grievances against China when considering an Olympic boycott. Chinese citizens could be forgiven for perceiving double standards against the lack of such (calls for) boycotts in the US, UK and other western Olympic host countries that have also had highly questionable aspects to their foreign policies, including support for dictators and interfering with the democratic processes of other countries.
So, focusing in more narrowly on the events in Tibet, I’m inclined to agree with GR and some others that a broad, public boycott would probably do more harm than good, and could foment a heightened intensity of Chinese nationalism that could prove highly problematic down the line.
Does that mean simply forgetting the issue? Not in my view. The best solution to this issue that I can see is for us in the West to ensure that the focus on Tibet, and human rights in China more broadly, remains on the public - media and political - agenda. The more the media can do to portray the issues in a balanced and well-informed manner the better. And the more we as observers can do to learn more about the issues (and history) at hand - as implicitly recommended by Kevin, FX and Lucy - the better.
This would hopefully coax the Chinese government to eventually enter into meaningful dialogue with the ethnic Tibetans to find a way to find a viable basis for harmonious coexistence within a single Chinese state.
Sorry for the long post.
Posted by: DKM | March 24th, 2008 at 9:47 pm | Report this commentFederico Riggio,
Posted by: freedom of speech | March 24th, 2008 at 9:50 pm | Report this commentYou probably didn’t notice or chose to ignore the fact that it is the tibetian “protestors” are killing the minority Han and Islam people in Tibet.
Federico,here what we are saying is to give peace a chance! The inflation confronted by Chinese is surely an important issue for them.I agree with you by the understanding of global climate may give some impacts on Chinese internal affairs,the inflation in china is pain but this is a world trend and will be perpetual due to scarcity of natural resources,this therefore does affect whole world and Europe cannot be excepted too(soon in the near future or perhaps it’s now).Here’s my chance to emphasize that communism does not mean to kill or oppress people freely,it is a different philosophy that you need to be considerate if you were in a big population country like China.After all it is about an overview towards a progress of a country in which they are the best to subscribe to and that could result positively. No ones born to be evil!They have their reasons to do things differently just like how U.K has had done it in the past!
Posted by: Bino | March 24th, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Report this commentI believe that old saying of peace activists: what if they declared war and nobody came–is applicable here. Let governments stay quiet and people speak through protests that ask tourists to stay home during the time the Olympics are being played. I would equally suggest that people stop visiting the Vatican, because surely the Pope meant to stick his fingers in the eyes of muslims when he baptized that Italian journalist who formerly had been a muslim. Not that the man did not have the right to change his religion, but for the Pope to participate in the ceremony, well, it is not exactly like killing 130 Tibetans, but surely enough to make many of us think him stupid.
Posted by: bon religion | March 24th, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this commentTo be frank, it is pathetic to see so many pro-tebit supports who know nothing about Tibet history and China histry but making noises in Financial Times.
Posted by: George | March 24th, 2008 at 10:46 pm | Report this commentThese rioters are terrorists who are killing innocent Chinese people. Sooner or later, they will grow up as horrible as Ben Ladin who will also kill you guys some day.
Given the fact that American Keynesianism is basically Military, an American Depression means American War and American War means the U.S. economy is on the verge of Depression.
In fact, the U.S. advantage is based on the military field (even Arpanet was a public military project) and Defense is the base of American Socialism, where Government intervention is overwhelming and Americans are bureaucrats with weapons.
Out of Defense the U.S. Trade Deficit is enormous resulting in a Third World kind of nation with a surplus just in the Agricultural Sector and an impressive defict in the Manufacturing Sector.
So War is just an American necessity in the same way it was for Germany after 1938. The People of the World is right to be so much afraid of America because their Threat to World Peace will increase during the next years…
Posted by: Enrique | March 25th, 2008 at 1:35 am | Report this commentyou are absolutely right in your assumption that boycotting olympic games because of the current tibet issue would only serve to unite the entire 1.3 billion chinese people against westerners who are disgusting meddlers or biased hypocritic polititians
the very issue of pro-independence of tibet versus the protection of china’s territory soverignty is issue of millions of people versus billions of people
democracy or not, isn’t the people’s will the most important one???
Posted by: tracyhong | March 25th, 2008 at 2:29 am | Report this commentYou are right Tracyhong: the U.S. Government is hyprocrat.
In 1861 eleven American states proclaimed Secession from the Union to build a new nation: the CSA, the Confederate States of America…and they were crushed by the U.S. Government.
The C.S.A. today would have a population of about 110 million people and an economy similar to Japan´s…
Posted by: Enrique | March 25th, 2008 at 3:04 am | Report this commentAmazing to see how many people the Chinese government employs to spread its propaganda. Good luck to all of you trying to have a rational discussion and debate with paid spokespeople of an authoritarian regime.
Posted by: Haim | March 25th, 2008 at 3:06 am | Report this commentWe see in Enrique the apotheosis of anti-Americanism. I have to say not even Chomsky or Galloway or even Bin Ladin has come up with the defence that the Confederacy was right to want to carry on slavery and the US government was wrong to try and stop the enslavement of an entire race on it’s own soil.
As for the Hitler comment, let’s see since 1945 - Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, Chinese assault on India in early 60s, British and French occupation of large portions of Africa and Asia. Vietnamese occupation and overthrow of the Khemer Rouge regime - to show not all “illegal” wars are bad or US-led. Oh and the US was occupying Japan and West Germany for 5 years after 1945.
Yes, US leadership is based on the military, just look at how it has no leading banks - Goldman Sachs, Citigroup etc simply cannot compete with SocGen - no leading Technology firms - Cisco, Google and Microsoft cannot compete with erm… ok can’t think of any leading european technology firms - Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - ok there is a leading European Pharm firm GSK - Retail - Walmart - etc etc etc
But hey who cares about facts.
Bino, explain that communism doesn’t need to kill people to the 17 civilian million dead under Lenin/Trotsky, 40 million civilian dead under Stalin, 70-90 million civilian dead under Mao and the 1.5-2.5 million civilian dead under Pol Pot and the starving of DPRK. Sure it is just a crazy coincidence that the Dictatorships of the Proletariat end up just being (genocidal) dictatorships.
Again for the record, I don’t support a boycott.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 3:29 am | Report this commentAmazing to see how many people the Chinese government employs to spread its propaganda. Good luck to all of you trying to have a rational discussion and debate with paid spokespeople of an authoritarian regime.
Posted by: Haim | March 25th, 2008 at 3:06 am | Report this comment
lol..
it’s more amazing to me at such misperception. go ahead and continue to live in your fantasy world where ordianry chinese people don’t care the least about their national identity and just a propaganda of CCP.
i am not an CCP ..i care more about China than CCP.period!
Posted by: tracyhong | March 25th, 2008 at 4:38 am | Report this commentDo I detect a whiff of European two-facedness in decrying Chinese ‘aggression’?
The Beijing Games are the world’s chance to embrace China as an equal and responsible partner, after several centuries of doing her much awful wrong. We should rejoice that China has offered to rejoin the world. The current trendy eagerness to bash China and ruin its party grows from the same smug, racist dark place in the human heart that justified the addling opium trade, the unequal treaties, the destruction of the Summer Palace, the rape of Nanjing and other horrendous crime committed against China.
China is not the sinner here. Nostalgia for the backward, feudal theocracy that was Tibet prior to China’s good work there is entirely misplaced. The current Dalai Lama may or may not be a good man. That is beside the point. The medieval system he headed belongs on the trash heap of history however.
May China prosper in the Games as it welcomes us all in an historically important reconciliation after centuries of mistrust. Only a nincompoop would want to see it fail or ‘never to be awarded in the first place.’
Posted by: Logan | March 25th, 2008 at 5:35 am | Report this commentLogan, AGAIN, Tibet is the least of it. Look at China’s aggression to Taiwan - a democracy of 23 million people denied ANY representation in ANY international institutions. Or it’s unstinting support of some of the most genocidal and repressive regimes around - thinking here DPRK, Myanmar and Sudan. Look at their undermining of anti-corruption practices and democratic reforms in Africa. Look at their support for an Iran that is destabilising the Middle East. If the US was doing just one of these things, people would jumping up and down. As it is, we have people here posting about Iraq - and bizarely the Confederacy - as if there was some sort of equivalence to what is happening in Sudan or that Britain would crack down under similar circumstances - newsflash, Britain had a number of “anti-globalisation” riots which trashed large portions of the Westend and the City but didn’t lead to the police opening fire on the protesters(much as some of us might have wanted them to).
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 6:35 am | Report this commentThe only intelligent reason for boycotting the Beijing Olympics would be to avoid the air pollution killing all the athletes.
Posted by: David Seaton | March 25th, 2008 at 7:35 am | Report this commentRemember, 2,500 years ago the only requirement necessary for participation in the games was a cessation of all warfare for the duration of the games.
Posted by: Charles Hazell | March 25th, 2008 at 9:20 am | Report this commentWell, is China occupying Tibet against the will of its original inhabitants, sure. Taiwan is a different matter since it is Chinese, the people are Chinese, and the conflict is just the remnant of a civil war that was never settled. As for North Korea, China supports it mostly because it is dead afraid of seeing a nuclear power collapse on its doorstep (refugee tsunami, possible civil war…)
Is any of this “right”, nope. Are any of the major Western nations in a position to criticize? please… iraq, falklands, vietnam, panama, cuba, suez canal, blablabla. the list goes on and on. I doubt any of the so-called democratic governments would act differently, when push comes to shove and national territory integrity is at stake.
The way I see things, Tibet is just like a child acting up because they know guests are coming and they feel they have (temporary) immunity. My solution to this is that you need to slap some sense in that child the hard way, in front of the guests. It will buy discipline and peace in the long term, teach it that you will not let tantrums stand. So what if the guests are shocked and leave…
Posted by: panda | March 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am | Report this commentI don’t why you guys always mix sports with politics.
Posted by: Leila | March 25th, 2008 at 10:07 am | Report this commentI also don’t see why people don’t bycott the US as Americans have military bases all over the world -yesterday, thoudsands of Japanese protested against ’sexual terrorists’ and asked those American soldiers to go home…
Anyway, if any of you has tickets for Olympics and would like to boycott, please let me know because I am dying to go there:-)
Panda, firstly Taiwan isn’t “Chinese” and a large portion of it’s population aren’t “Chinese” and virtually zero want to be under the PRC - I assume some exist but none I have met do and all have been quite vocal on the fact. If anyone thinks I am slagging off China, I suggest they discuss it with a Taiwanese or ex-Hong Kong Chinese and see what they have to say.
China has been supporting the DPRK since 1950, the ONLY reason the DPRK is - apparently - a nuclear “power” is BECAUSE of chinese support.
as for the analogies lets see China supports DPRK - under a brutal dictatorship starving it’s people, US ATTACKS Iraq - under a brutal dictatorship starving it’s people. China supports Myanmar - a brutal police state ruthlessly suppressing any opposition, UK ATTACKS [part of] Argentine forces [who incidentally attacked the UK] - then a brutal police state ruthlessly suppressing any opposition. China militarily, politically, economically and diplomatically supports Sudan and supported Pol Pot - both genocidal regimes.
If you think somehow our democracy is “fake” or you can do better, here’s a challenge to you. Set up and opposition party to the CCP and see how many “votes” you get. I be the first to congratulate you on becoming Premier.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 10:18 am | Report this commentThe whole debate is spiralling worryingly out of control. China does indeed have a shocking human rights record - this should never be ignored. Arguements, however, that denounce a boycott by highlighting the hypocrisy of the west (the occupation of Iraq, Vietnam etc) sorely miss the point. The olympics and a country’s domestic/foreign policy strategies should never be uttered in the same sentence. The olympics is a celebration of sport and we should not be asking our athletes to sacrifice the most significant event in their careers for cheap political point scoring. Likewise, an Iraqi or Afghan athlete (not that I could name one!) should not be made to choose between his or hers country’s attitude towards Britain and his/her desire to compete in the London 2012 games. End of rant.
Posted by: Linford's Lunchbox | March 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am | Report this commentA common mistake Western people make about Chinese is they assume Chinese means Han Chinese. Chinese means Han and other ethnic groups in China.There are 56 of them and called Han Chinese, Hui Chinese, Tibetan Chinese, Manchu Chinese…etc. Modern Chinese culture is a melting pot of different ethnic groups’ culture.
Posted by: History student | March 25th, 2008 at 10:34 am | Report this commentIn order to encourage diversity, Chinese government actually doesn’t apply one-child policy to ethnic minorities, and set up schools and universities to maintain their culture heritage.
Personally, I hope people outside China( who don’t even understand China’s long unified history) will not continue provoke hatred among different ethnic groups in China. It is better to let people live their peaceful life and deal with their own affairs.
Panda: Most Taiwanese and HKers are Han Chinese…Chinese doesn’t mean citizens of PRC.
Posted by: History student | March 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am | Report this commentHistory student, what complete and utter cobblers. The PRC invented and enforced a new character set that means that Chinese today cannot read any literature pre-Mao. And in case they could the communists went around destroying large portions of Chinese culture and history.
The only “equality” in the PRC has been the ten of millions of people who have died under CCP policies.
As for “It is better to let people live their peaceful life and deal with their own affairs”, I dare you to go to China and publically say that about Taiwan.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am | Report this commentThe FT’s timeline of Tibet-China relations: (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b8fd84a-f422-11dc-aaad-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html).
It starts in 1911 when Tibet allegedly declared independence (not recognised by China ever). But this is just an exception during hundreds of years when Tibet was part of China. Using 1911 as the starting point of the timeline is as misleading as using the height of tech bubble as the starting point to analyse the merit of equity investment.
Posted by: FX | March 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this commentReally when was this “hundreds of years” when Tibet was “part of China”? There is a portion of time between 1720 and 1904 when the Chinese conquered Tibet, prior to that you have to go back to the Mongols. If 184 years of occupation means a country “belongs” to another then as a European, I’d like to claim most of Asia - including HK and Shanghai - and large sections of Africa, the Middle East and of course all of the US.
In return I’ll agree that Tibet is really chinese. Sound fair?
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 11:02 am | Report this commentThe only reason I can see to boycott the Games in China would be if they rigged the games - some more drugged up athletes, eastern German style.
Also, to those who accuses China to support awful regimes across the world, like Sudan - China’s attitude is in fact not to meddle, and purely focus on the commercial aspects. This seems heartless to many, but in these times where “democracy spreading” neocon style is far from a frank success, it’s rather reassuring. And let’s not forget the countless awful regimes (or factions) the West in general propped up. (others have mentioned Bin Laden as a CIA operative, but Saddam, Nicaragua, please many across Africa)
It’s worth remembering than people earn their own freedom - foreigners can never hand it to them. Also, it’s worth questioning some of the West’s “aid”. A famous example is Brazil’s refusal for US aid money to fight AIDS because it came with strings attached regarding the use of the money. (can’t use it to buy or promote condoms etc..) Brazil is wealthy enough, developed enough and had sufficient expertise to turn the US aid money down but many other countries dont have that choice. This amounts to idealogical imperialism. China on the other hand doesn’t try to “convert” the countries it invests in. It’s building roads in Congo in exchange for the license to extra a certain amount of copper. It’s not trying to coerce Congo. If one mention the Taiwan issue, and the pressure on countries from China not to recognise Taiwan, one needs also to look at the millions Taiwan showered on island countries in the Pacific for that very sole purpose.
Posted by: fxtrader | March 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am | Report this commentI have no problem with a boycott of the beijing Olympics so long as it is a boycott of all future Olympics including especially the 2012 in London. The olympics have degenerated into the most viole, commercialised and nationalistic exercise imaginable. They do little ot nothing for international goodwill and understanding but are a huge diversion of funds, often public, to the cronies of politicians who benfit from the contruction and other bonanzas.
Posted by: oldasiahand | March 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am | Report this commentDanny, calm down. I don’t think you read Chinese history. In Han dynasty( more than 2000 years ago), Tibet was connected with central China through royal marriage. Tibet always paid tax to Chinese government.
About Tiwan, historically, it was part of China.It was seperated after the civil war in 1940s. The situaton is similar to the problem faced by Germany decades ago…in the end, German people unified. It is a good thing because they share the same culture heritage, and obviously good for economy in a long term.
China has changed a lot during the past 30 years, but your opinion about China still remains in the 1960s…maybe it is a time for an update…
Posted by: History student | March 25th, 2008 at 11:16 am | Report this commentMr FXtrader, when exactly was Bin Laden a “CIA operative”? When did the West, in general, back Saddam? I know the French did - they have a foreign policy second only to China in it’s cynicism - but the West in general? Was it “the west” who sold Saddam, his Migs? His AK-47s? His Mil helicopters? Scuds? T-72s? SA-6s and SA-2s? His ZU-23s?
As for Taiwan, has Taiwan told these “Pacific Islands” that they cannot have any formal relations with PRC? Has Taiwan conducted several live missile tests against the PRC is the last decade?
“Ideological imperialism”? Oh, give it a rest. The last person I heard using that phrase was a white western male telling a Jordanian woman that it was wrong to stop Arab men hitting their wives because - and I quote - “that’s their culture”. Needless to say, he didn’t find much support amongst the Arabs present.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am | Report this commentTo Danny,I would like to know how many civilians were killed in Iraq war,come along the Palestine conflicts and if you like,you could quote the fact of japanese killed millions in WW2,are they all communisms? all we know here is they perpetrated crimes even they are not communism.Even the “8 nations’ invasion”in last century in China were led by the democratic countries too,all were with facts and evidences that could be seen in the London National Museum if you do not believe.I wonder how shallow you are while you try to cite a lop-sided fact.Just plain and bare!
Posted by: Bino | March 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am | Report this commentHmm, well to date under 6,000 dead in the recent conflict in “Palestine” - that’s Israel to the rest of us and credible figures for Iraq put the total death toll at around 100,000. For those of you [cough, Bino] who can’t count, that a bit less than “millions”.
Even the figures for the Japanese, the Nazis, the Ottomans and the various genocides in Africa post-colonialism added up come to less than Stalin managed. In fact is closer to the death toll in 8 years under Lenin and Trotsky.
Never heard of the London National Museum. Must be how shallow I am compared to your depth.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am | Report this commentBritish Museum…
Posted by: History student | March 25th, 2008 at 11:33 am | Report this commentbtw, do you know British invaded Tibet in early 20th centry?
History student - yes I did - that’s why I said until 1904.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this commentOK my previous comment is waiting for moderation so I’m now posting a more moderate version.
Danny: “The PRC invented and enforced a new character set that means that Chinese today cannot read any literature pre-Mao”. I’m deeply amazed by your fancy imagination. Are you Dan Brown indeed?
As to your line on the legitimacy of occupation, that’s why we accept your current occupation of North America, Australia, and New Zealand. As to Hong Kong and Shanghai, I’m afraid you have to use your Royal Navy again to claim them. Good luck.
Posted by: FX | March 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am | Report this commentPunishment for the sake of punishment appeals only to petty and self-righteous moralists. To the rest of us, it is a tool to influence bad behaviour (up to each individual to decide what is bad, of course) into a more appropriate mode.
So the question becomes whether a boycott of the Olympics is likely to influence China into being more respectful of human rights. Personally, I do not see how - there is an incentive to alter behaviour when the punishment can be stopped to reward improvement. This cannot be done with an Olympic boycott - what can one say - “If you start respecting human rights we will…” - what? come to your next Olympic Games???
A boycott now will do nothing but deteriorate relations, and deteriorating relations will lead to nothing but harsher crackdowns on the opposition - which is directly opposite to the desired goal.
Posted by: Andrei Timoshenko | March 25th, 2008 at 11:41 am | Report this comment8 nations were “democratic”??? Well in 1901 Britain was barely a democracy, Germany ruled by the Kaiser, The United States democracy with large portion of the population disenfranchised, France democracy, Tsarist Russia well Tsarist, Japan monarchy, Italy ditto and Austria an imperial state.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 11:47 am | Report this commentPRC pushes Simplified Chinese which is different from Traditional Chinese. ALL of the PRC Chinese I know have difficulty with Traditional Chinese Character sets.
How does Britain occupy the USA? Hmm, there was this little thing called the War of Independence. Of course it is a relatively minor event and only happened 223 years ago and the Americans don’t make a big deal of it so it is easy to see how you’d miss it. I’ll have to tell the immigration officer at JFK that the USA is really part of Britain and so I don’t need a visa. Wonder how far that will get me.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 11:53 am | Report this commentAndrei I agree with you. I don’t believe in boycotts and I have never seen one that was either a) enforced or b) effective
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 11:58 am | Report this commentDanny you just get it right to prove your shallowness if you never heard of London museum(should we mourn over this,very likely!)All the facts and figures that had been cited correctly by you after my meddled on your capability has seen improvements(claps,haha). Well,Look at the overviews,the citations just proved you wrong the genocides and massacres are not necessary to only happen in communism country,I would like to sharpen your criticizing ability by urging you to look at facts with sources not only from a particular country ,there is always hidden agenda behind the scene!
Posted by: Bino | March 25th, 2008 at 11:59 am | Report this commentDanny, I’m from PRC, but neither me nor any of my friends have difficulties in reading Traditional Chinese. Plus most (if not all) pre-PRC literature now have simplied version for a long time. Pre-PRC literature is a significant part of compulsory Chinese Literature education for any student in China. Simplified Chinese is used to make it easier for mass education (incidently, an often claimed advantage of alphalbetic languages). See, another example of unjustified bigger-than-planet confidence (ignorance).
No I’m talking about British occupation of North America, apparently you flatter yourself too much. I’m talking about European occupation of North America, which belonged to Natives two hundred years ago. It was called “independent war” because few Natives could survive long enough to make their voice heard by the history books.
Posted by: FX | March 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm | Report this commentBino - By the “London National Museum”[sic] - do you mean this? http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/? Because , whilst it has been a while since I visited it, I don’t remember anything about China in it. I was going to be generous and assume you meant the British Museum but you seem to be very insistent that presumably the Fire of London exhibit has the “hidden agenda” of the oppression of the Chinese and shows how the communist regimes wof Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were mass-murders when really they were warm kind and cuddly. I really MUST “sharpen” my “critizing[sic]” not to get that.
I can only assume English isnt your first language, but 6,000 in a conflict of seven and half years is not a “massacre” nor is it a “genocide”.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm | Report this commentFX, if you can read Traditional Chinese then good for you. I can’t.. I only learnt “simplified” characters - which I find hard enough - and my Taiwanese friends complain about it. However, it does mean you can’t read pre-Mao literature in it’s native form - assuming that simplified is all you know and for most of the younger PRC people I know this is true. It is like claiming I can read Roman literature because it has been translated into english(like not identical because I know the words are the same just the character set is different). Maybe closer to Turks not being able to read easily Ottoman texts.
Well, I did kind of assume you weren’t claiming the UK occupies the USA - although given some of the posts here [cough, Enrique, cough, Bino], one cannot be sure. I note the Europeans took over the USA around the same time Tibet was independent…
Why would alphabetic languages be easier? Maybe phonetic ones like Arabic for literacy.
Posted by: danny | March 25th, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Report this commentDan,yea i m writing in my fourth language with my unwillingness to do so and I too assume English is not your first language,I wish you do read mandarin. Here I would like to have your point of view on The Eight-Power Allied Forces incident.What are the countries so-called tagged with the ‘civilised’ mark had done on China based on this incident?Have a look at it before you speak up, or you may choose to shut up http://www.china.org.cn/e-8guo/index.htm ( I’m off
Posted by: Bino | March 25th, 2008 at 12:28 pm | Report this commentto have my breakfast,see you soon)
Gideon is right: just as the Berlin Olympics were a big ‘thank you’ to Hitler for getting the German economy back on the right track, so the Chinese Olympics are a big ’shia shia’ for the same.
Keep in mind: human life is worth trading for good trading figures: that’s capitalism! Gideon knows this because he was at the World Economic Forum and made sure he got ‘on the same page.’
Posted by: Bob Macdonald | March 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm | Report this commentPotentially I do agree that a boycott will generate a wave and anger in China because I am Chinese I could definitely understand. To be frank, it is humiliation to us because you don’t know how much China has done to make this game work.
I don’t see any reasons not to relate the games with politics. Ok, tell me about big events in your countries. Whatever events, whether fashion, culture, sports, if they are escalated to the level of “seriously international”, your governments wont’ care?
But the games relationship with politics should just stay there to the politicians. They use the games to show the world what china is like. What’s wrong with that? The causes are derived from so much misunderstanding and ignorance of chinese current economic and political situation all over the world. But we, should consider the games as a pure game, supporting it to make a great event to promote international rapport. Using it to evoke feud or anything like that would be irrational and will do no good to anybody.
Posted by: Chloe | March 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm | Report this commentThe Tibet events in the final anlysis, even thru the usually distorted lens of the Economist were a riot:
http://www.economist.co.uk/world/asia/displaystory.c
fm?story_id=10875823&CFID=35632&CFTOKEN=38148570
The gouv basically put down a riot.
The badkward regions of china are not getting their share of the wealth created in the coastal regions. There have have been a number of riots, mainly by peasants who do not see any social benefits accruing to them from the wealth ceated.
The authorities are slowly coming around to the realization that they have to do something about it. Some months back they floated the idea of a minimum wage for industrial workers and more taxes so that the hinterland could finance social development.
Several events, including an epidemic that decimated a huge number of pigs (a staple of their diet), the global icrease in the price of food and other factors are changing the program of the authorities vis a vis the country side.
The most vocal complainers about the minimum wage plank were the western corporations.
So, I listen to these stories about human rights
Posted by: MP | March 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm | Report this commentwith a huge amount of doubt.
GR:”The great task of international relations over the next generation is going to be managing the rise of China”
I was hoping that Mr. Rachman would develop this thought a bit more before running off on vacation…although, it is quite understandable he needs a break from all of us! I must admit I giggled at the idea of the present bunch of Western leaders sitting around trying “to manage” the rise of China! Of course managment styles are different and more than one management style may be employed from time to time….For instance, making India a major competitor of China and an ally of the WEST, appears to be part of the present US policy of China containment …However, here is a link to yet another writer’s idea of at least one management style employed by the US…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC26Ad02.html
Now I have no idea of the author’s credentials or if he has an agenda …but it is not all that far fetched to consider:
“Once again it would appear that the Tibetan people will find themselves trapped between an oppressive Beijing and a manipulative Washington…..The fear that the United States, Britain and other Western states may try to portray Tibet as another Kosovo may be part of the reason why the Chinese authorities reacted as if faced with a genuine mass revolt rather than their official portrayal of a short-lived outbreak of unrest by malcontents supporting the Dalai Lama. “
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm | Report this commentEnrique…
Posted by: Jack | March 25th, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Report this commentIsn’t it about time for you to beat your dead horse about the US Civil War? You’ve gone a few minutes without bringing it up, and I was beginning to worry.
It’s good to know that in order to make your “point” about American imperialism you choose to side with the pro-slavery camp… in a civil war… fought nearly a century and a half ago.
Well played. I can clearly see how this is applicable to the Chinese government trying to quell the protests in Tibet.
Danny, quote: “However, it does mean you can’t read pre-Mao literature in it’s native form - assuming that simplified is all you know and for most of the younger PRC people I know this is true.”
To be fair, that’s not a sufficient argument to pick on the Chinese government. China has after all one of the world’s oldest civilizations and as with any society its language evolves over time, simplified Chinese is introduced for ease-of-use for the general public and it doesn’t imply any propaganda of depriving the public from knowing its historical literatures, as someone else has pointed out these literatures are part of compulsory education in China’s schools and there are countless number of professors at Chinese universities studying ancient Chinese literatures, arts, cultures etc. I am not speaking up for the Chinese government but your comments somewhat suggest the CCP leaders are keen to savage China’s historical culture, which I beg to differ, the fact is they are first and foremost Chinese themselves and are proud of the Chinese culture (at least when compared to many “westerners” let’s say), abundance of them are well educated from top Chinese universities in history related majors, this may not mean much and it certainly doesn’t mean they are better leaders, but it does imply the CCP doesn’t (at least deliberately) despise and destroy China’s own historical treasures and cultures.
About the issue on Taiwan — people live in Taiwan are Chinese and many of them have relatives in main land China, Taiwan went under control of the Nationalist party after it lost the civil war to the CCP and broke up its connection with main land China for that reason, but it doesn’t mean its people are not Chinese at least by ethnic. Whether Taiwan becomes independent or not is a different matter, in my opinion they can become independent at any time and I couldn’t careless — it doesn’t affect my life in any way, in fact some may even argue that Taiwan has more to tap from China than the other way round when it comes down to long term developments. But let’s better leave this topic alone here, it’ll start another whole round of debates and everyone probably thinks they have something to say about it.
Posted by: Kevin | March 26th, 2008 at 1:59 am | Report this commentDanny’ self-righteousness makes me Laugh. Millions of Chinese who studied simplified Chinese would show you they have no problem with traditional Chinese( traditional Chinese is everywhere in a Chinese society)…it is not a communist party thing…i.e. simplfied Chinese is also used in Singapore and they are not even communists! Language needs to be mordenised, just like a society. You can’t say the older the language is, the better. In that way, maybe you could awritan with those fabulous old English words here.
Posted by: History student | March 26th, 2008 at 2:41 am | Report this commentOne common rationale in China’s defence is that the police acted within the confines of the law. Just because it is law does not mean it is correct. Several laws through history were not only un-just but a disgrace to basic human rights.
Posted by: chalz | March 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this commentJack, according to the Chinese Government 60 years ago they ended with the Feudal System in Tibet establishing a modern state.
Well, the War of Secession was a War of Secession and the U.S. Government didn´t allow 14 states to secede, and they did it by force murdering half a million Confederate Americans.
Anyway, today the U.S. would have about 180 million people, similar to Brazil, and a GDP three times larger than Germany´s.
Meanwhile, the Confederation wold have about 110 millionpeople, similar to Mexico, and a GDP similar to Japan´s.
Alaska probably would have been integrated in Canada and Hawaii probably wouldn´t be an American state.
Sooner or later that will happen again and one? 14? perhaps 24 states? will try to SECEDE from the Union…will the U.S. Government act like Lincoln guaranteeing the UNION or will the U.S. Government allow happily those American states to leave peacfully? Last time the rest of the World (Britain was sympathetic to the Confederation) was quiet as the U.S. didn´t have international interests. Next time probably it will not be the same.
Anyway, we don´t have to go so far: today the U.S. is occupying two nations of more than 26 million people each, the same population Poland had when was occupied by the Nazis.
The truth is the U.S. doesn´t have any respect for international borders; the U.S. doesn´t have any respect for International Law; the U.S. doesn´t have any respect for other nation´s Sovereignty…and it is no woder for most of the People of the World, the U.S., a militaristic state, is the main Threat to Peace.
Posted by: Enrique | March 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentI don’t think any rational person would consider the Civil War to be “force murdering”, Enrique. Men who took up arms against their federal government weren’t murdered; they committed acts of secession and acts of war. Their attempts to secede including firing the first shots of the war at Ft. Sumter.
Posted by: Jack | March 26th, 2008 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentActs of belligerence and battlefield casualties aren’t remotely equivalent to the picture you’re trying to paint.
Find a better parallel, and soon. Your message is being obscured behind ridiculous comparisons that only hurt your argument.
As Sammuel Huntington said, China has been over there for over 3,000 years through different political regimes, through difficult times…but the US, a multicultural salad-bowl according to liberal Americans like Jack, almost didn´t passed the first century.
Posted by: Enrique | March 26th, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this commentEnrique, what about New Jersey during the secession war? Some exit of the highway were against and others pro secession. Now there are ruomors about exit 12-31 protesting and willing to secede. It would be a mess and the beginning of the collapse of the US.
Posted by: Federico Riggio | March 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentBack in topic, confronting the US external affairs policies and chinese police actions is quite difficult.
As I already wrote, I would rather prefer the atlethes that want to show their political disappointment if they want to do it. And the Government to use the established channels and mid-long term policies WITH China. No matter what the US recent governments did, war is not the only solution.
Kevin:”I am not speaking up for the Chinese government but your comments somewhat suggest the CCP leaders are keen to savage China’s historical culture, which I beg to differ, the fact is they are first and foremost Chinese themselves and are proud of the Chinese culture (at least when compared to many “westerners” let’s say), abundance of them are well educated from top Chinese universities in history related majors, this may not mean much and it certainly doesn’t mean they are better leaders, but it does imply the CCP doesn’t (at least deliberately) despise and destroy China’s own historical treasures and cultures”
Exactly…the boycott is foolish and will play to the advantage of the Chinese government creating nationaistic fervor…the West appears to opt for a “them vs. us” foreign policy for so much of the world…and then we trott off to world forums and advocate and demand “global” solutions, and wonder why so much of the world fails to cooperate or respond to our satisfaction on global warming, poverty, and peace, economic policy …I also think Sarkozy gets more irresponsible sounding every day…on the boycott issue he is going for headlines…what a pity he gets to speak for the EU beginning in July…big problems ahead.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Report this commentWell, that what was expected from a clown like Sarkozy.
Posted by: Enrique | March 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Report this commentOn Sarkozy: The problem is, aside from the fact that he will not do it, this is all bluster…but this sort of talk is not helpful …least of all to Tibet.
I think there is a good argument to make to the Chinese that now is the time to negotiate with the Dalai Lama …for their benefit and interests. Afterall, he is seeking autonomy ,not succession. By failing to negotiate some acceptable arrangement now, the Chinese risk more militant voices taking over the cause at some point and the Chinese could be eventually facing another “Kosovo”….However, to threatened the Chinese now about the Olympics with the whole world watching is just so foolish and will bring out the worse elements…for the reasons I referenced earlier …such talk could encourage more bold aggressive protests (as they may think the West will come to their rescue) with more brutal counter attacks from the Chinese ….I once heard a very interesting lecture. A rabbi stated that God’s punishment in “the world to come” for embarrasing/humiliation is the same as for murder….the reason being, that to destroy (murder) an individual’s soul/spirit and/or reputation is the same as destroying the body as a whole. It is the same for countries and nations …nothing good comes from humilation…The Chinese more than most cultures could relate to that….perhaps Merkel should take the lead in some sort of quietly crafted dilplomacy, aside from being sensible, she has credibility on human rights issue. I do like what Sarkozy said about the dollar today…I wish GB and France could do something to strengthen it…it is becomming quite a financial drag for a nomadic heart like mine!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this commentApart from a few people i see a huge amount of ignorance concerning China.
Mark Leonard has written a book (pulished 2/2008):
Title “What does China Want”. You can get it for about 6 pounds. It makes for a useful reading.
Lisa-Helene: Both the Russian and the Chinese FOs
Posted by: MP | March 26th, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Report this commentlink Tibet to the Kossovo game.
Even George W. Bush has reportedly intervened to protest China’s repression in Tibet, even though he is still planning to attend the opening ceremony. Are the rest of us so ignorant or afraid to speak out that we are letting even President Bush, of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, redition and secret prisons get out ahead of most of the world on human rights?
Posted by: algasema | March 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm | Report this commentThe West did not think through the repercussions of setting Kosovo as precedent….now, I was just reading about McCain’s Foreign Affairs speech today in LA at Bloomberg:
““We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests,” McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
Such democracies include the European Union as well as India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey and Israel, McCain said.” (Bloomberg 3/26)
“A League of Democracies” no doubt some concept cooked up in one of Bill Kristol’s many funded think tanks…(maybe Bruce Kovner’s hedge fund will suffer a severe setback in this crisis..that will be the only way to dampen the impact of the neo-cons, i.e., a loss of funding!) …in any event, here is yet another idea to divide up the world some more!…in a West -East (Secular/Christian v Muslim & Eastern religion) fashion! I note that MCCain’s conceptual approach to the world not only pits Western values against most of the Muslim world and Eastern religious traditions…but leaves much of the vital natural resources that keeps Western civilization especially our economy going on the other side of his imposed divide of his…by his own admission MCcain said he does not understand the economy …well he might just understand foreign affairs for the 21st Century far less…if that is possible.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pm | Report this commentMP and the other happy fews: here we are not supposed to be China experts. I presume that all of us writing their comments here have read some specialized magazines, some/many books, travelled and worked all around the world. On the contrary, I found childish all the “technical” comments; as if data and some notions of history/economy could hide the poverty of some arrogant and stupid comments.
Posted by: Federico Riggio | March 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm | Report this commentAgain, Diplomacy, multilateral tables, economic help, industrial development, ecc. (the americans call all of this “european trash”) have been excellent tools before the barbarians decided to show up and mess up everything. They were highly advices by “techincians”…
I’ll be in Beijing in the summer. Hopefully I can catch an Olympic event or two.
Reading the various posts, I am slightly concerned about the comments made by Mainland Chinese folks. Why do you have to take it so personally and get so offended if a country debates about boycotting the Olympics?
If a country wants to boycott, let them be.
And can’t someone from Mainland China please post a view that differs from the official stance? So we know you exist..
History is never likely to be objective but it is interesting to hear many Mainland Chinese giving just one version of its history. Nowadays, I understand Genghis Khan is celebrated in China as Chinese?
I remember my Chinese language teacher in China talking proudly about China having controlled land including Russia (or what was then Russia). I’m sure that was a reference to the Golden Horde.
Just to be clear, I understand comments by a few Mainland Chinese does not represent 1.3bn people’s view.
And having a tributary relationship with Chinese dynasties doesn’t mean they were “part” of China. A lot of the records in Chinese texts are coloured by the Confucian worldview.
Posted by: bobby | March 27th, 2008 at 1:08 am | Report this commentFederigo Riggio: Please be more specific.
Boby: The Chinese Identity has been formimg for the last 5000 years. You are quite correct about the influence of Confucianism. In fact this world
view is quite modern in its tenets as it postulates the rationality of the workings of nature. This is the attitude of modern science.
Fernand Braudel observes that this was the prodect
of the mandarinate (the scolars) who gave structure
and control to the central authority. Inteestingly the clerks of ancient pharaonic egypt did the thing: Invention of Hieroglyphics,
accounting, tax collection, geometry etc….
China always had a problem of control with its population. It more or less coalesced into it’s
modern form around the time of the Manchu Dynasty
(1583-1628):
By 1750 the empire comprised Tibet (1724),Formosa (1683), Korea (1637) etc. Some of these pieces
became detached and became independent countries.
The various ‘tribes’ of china have been mixing and alternating in the running of the state.
(Similar things were going on in Byzantium)
In the case of the province of Tibet for reasons of difficulty of access the integration process did not proceed as it proceeded elsewhere.
China lost pieces of its land only in times of extreme weakness . (From the 1850’s on).
But they always reacted as they did during the Boxer Rebellion. Tibet was invaded by the Brits from India in 1900’s and subsequently was not in the realm. With the advent of Mao it became again
a part of china (1950’s)
The current situation in Tibet is a result of a
class/cultural revolt as the locals have been abandoned in favour of the coastal areas. Same situation obtains for about 800 million peasants
who are rebelling now and then. This is the central political/social problem of today’s china.
It will have to solve it if it wants to keep its social cohesion and keep progressing.
The export model of development will be modified.
We, as westerners, in this issue of Tibet, are irrelevant and presumptious.
Posted by: MP | March 27th, 2008 at 2:20 am | Report this commentMP: but we, as westerners, have been asked by our own identity to interrogate ourselves on the others to understand ourselves: γνοτι σε αυτον or, as written in golden letter on the temple of Apollo in Delphi: nosce te ipsum is were our ethical tradition begin. Which doesn’t mean that we are obliged to intervene but surely we are more than free to think and to say our own on general aspect of human being such as freedom, dignity, choice and many other things.
Posted by: Federico Riggio | March 27th, 2008 at 4:37 am | Report this commentClaiming that only an in-depht knowledge of something could allow us to think and speak lead to dogmatism. And it’s the contrary of what brought us, the westerners, here and now.
Autonomous decision on protesting or not made by the athletes participating at the Olympic Games, their own choices to protest or not, is the only thing I’m asking. Not a governmental boycott nor any other forms of sanctions.
How convinient danny cites 6000 (more often) or 100,000 death toll in Iraqi war. Wikipedia paints a different picture, ranging from 151,000 to over 1,000,000, yes with 6 zeros trailing the ONE. Of coures, to danny Iraqi may not count as much as American, that’s why the 6000 sticks with him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
As for the civil war, it’s the economy stupid! The north wanted the slave to be free for low cost labor (I do support the cause as a liberal economist), but the south intended to secure the cheap labor in the form of slavery. The claim for liberating the slave is simply a convinient way to gain the moral high ground, as always in a fight for economic interest. Why not, CCP used the same line in LIBERATING Tibetan out of feudal serfdom. By this logic, Chinese have the same right to rule Tibet as the Yankees to rule confederate state.
Posted by: gameplay | March 27th, 2008 at 6:17 am | Report this commentIn reply to tracyhong, I personally find the violently nationalistic views of so many mainland Chinese far more disturbing than the (in my view fanciful) notion that the Chinese government is spurring nationalistic comments in the Western media. Given the experiences of 1914-18 and 1939-45, many Westerners understand all too well what such views can lead to in industrial societies, if allowed to spiral out of control.
In general, the tactic of those supporting the Chinese state seems invariably to be to draw parallels between alleged misdeeds of the Chinese state and various historical (or contemporary) Western misdeeds. The apparent mindset is that, given that Western states commit, or have in the past committed, misdeeds, any Western criticism of misdeeds by the Chinese state is therefore illegitimate. This is of course a fallacy, but nevertheless a device widely used by opponents of liberalism, who also imagine it invalidates criticism of despots such as Mugabe or Castro.
What supporters of the Chinese state perhaps don’t realise is that: (a) Western societies are very pluralistic, and the views of specific individuals and media do not necessarily reflect the views of Western governments; (b) there is hardly anyone in the West today who would defend the past colonial practices (which is not necessarily to say there were no benefits for colonies — this topic is a matter of debate amongst economists and historians); (c) the Westerners who speak most strongly in support of the right of Tibetans to self determination, and against abuses of human rights by the Chinese state, are very often the same ones who are most critical of Western imperialism and abuses of human rights (including the US-led invasion of Iraq).
Any official (i.e. state) actions against the Beijing Olympics, in reaction to the recent events in Tibet, would in my view probably be counter-productive. In all likelihood, they would reduce the ability of such governments to influence the Chinese leadership, and further inflame the already shockingly high level of nationalist sentiment in mainland Chinese society. Governments must be responsible and diplomatic. On a private level, however, the fear of violent reactions cannot be allowed to suppress freedom of speech (e.g. the Mohammed cartoons), and those who object to the actions of the Chinese state must not be silenced.
Posted by: Thomas S. | March 27th, 2008 at 6:56 am | Report this commentTo Thomas S.: I share your concern about the views Chinese hold on western countries. The interesting question is why? When Tibetan was rioting in the city of Lhasa, killing, looting, instead of condeming the act, western media was quick to ask that question and implicitly blaming the Chinese government for not tolerating enough. Is it that difficult to condem violence? For someone like me, I know how I changed from a staunch US supporter upto Afghan war to a supporter of Chinese government on no-internal-affair-interference. The hypocracy of neo-cons makes sick. Contrary to what Thomas said, danny is a point sample of condeming everything China did while glamouring everything America did, imperialism or not.
Posted by: gameplay | March 27th, 2008 at 7:28 am | Report this commentbobby:objectively speaking,i can assure you one thing that the “comments by a few Mainland Chinese” are the voices u could possibly heard by most Chinese here now,as i’m a local Beijinger and have been living here for more t