Olympic Protests
Evidently, a lot of people are not happy with China these days, and they are not happy that the 2008 Olympics are being held in Beijing. It seems that China has been trying to toe the line to keep exactly this kind of international outcry from happening before it hosts the Olympics, but it just couldn’t restrain itself from cracking down in Tibet. Now many from average protesting citizens to world leaders is talking about boycotting some of the Olympics.
The torch relay has been interrupted several times. John Stewart on the Daily Show had an amusing bit about the French authorities surrendering and retreating when faced with protesters in Paris. Everywhere the Olympic flame goes, intense protests flare up, and these receive a huge amount of media attention. The picture with this post, the handcuff version of the Olympic flag, was hung from the Notre Dame Cathedral and the Eiffel Tower by Reporters Without Borders.
First, this is definitely a good thing. As many of the protesters claim, the Olympic games are about international peace and harmony, and are incompatible with China’s actions in Tibet. These protests draw much-needed media attention to the human rights situation in Tibet.
That being said, I do not actually think that we should boycott the games or even the opening ceremonies. It seems contradictory for me to support the protesters because of the awareness they are raising, but not support what they are actually calling for. But I am okay with that. Boycotting the Olympic games is like what we and the Soviet Union childishly did to each other during the Cold War, and it never solved anything. We also don’t need to be pushing China away from the international order right now; we need to be bringing them in. Now it is okay to chide them as we integrate them, and we should actively work toward real improvement with human rights; however, boycotting will not actually help the situation at all. A boycott would just be an immature and unhelpful move that would serve to humiliate and isolate China.
The torch is coming through San Frasisco later today, so be prepared for more protests and more media attention.
China really, really, really doesn’t care. They’re not nearly as impressed with the moral authority of the West as the West is.
One fascinating tidbit is how surprised Chinese citizens are by the protests, in large part because their media hasn’t had negative coverage about Tibet. I know the analogy breaks down at some point, but it does remind me of how some Americans are shocked or feel betrayed by people who protest US actions.
I doubt that China really, really, really doesn’t care about their international image. Because it’s more than moral authority, it’s international legitimacy, which has further ramifications beyond morality — there’s the economic and social aspect to consider.
Perhaps when you say China, you mean the Politburo and the Communist authorities. With the exception of the masses of rural workers, who are relatively disconnected from modern reality, I doubt that the Chinese people are proud of their violent subjection of Tibet — if they even know about it — and they would not likely stand idle as their country is marginalized.
Trust me, they don’t care. If they are caring, they’re getting pissed off about being held to a higher standard than many Western countries, or getting pissed off at Tibetans for making trouble.
A country the size of China can’t be marginalized. Once you’re that big, you can pretty much do what you want, within reason.
For sharp, on-the-ground commentary on China, I highly recommend James Fallow’s blog on The Atlantic. One of his posts from a few weeks back on this subject is a good read.
JH, I love your comments and you are hilarious, but your approach to understanding China is too simplistic for me.
Your logic goes something like this: China is large, China can do whatever it wants without being worried about direct ramifications (invasion, blockade, etc.). Therefore, China will not respond to any exertion of soft power from the rest of the world.
I agree with the first two elements, but not the ultimate concusion. Soft power, image, moral authority, international influence, legitimacy… all these things matter to countries no matter how big and powerful they are. Occasionally, a nation will have a leader who completely ignores the rest of the international community and leads the nation with cowboy diplomacy because that leader knows that the nation is too large to be directly threatened. That type of thinking is the exception, not the rule. And even Bush cares about what other nations think about us.
China cares what the rest of the world thinks about it, but even more so, it cares about how these types of protests and potential boycotts are going to affect its ability to assert itself in future matters.
It is just too politically naive to think that only hard power matters and that China is not concerned about having soft power exerted on it, or that China doesn’t care about losing its soft power for the future.
Perhaps I stated my case too starkly. I didn’t mean to imply that the protests are meaningless to China. I’m sure they’d prefer they stopped. But it’s not nearly so important to them that they’d actually cede territory over it. Particularly not territory that they consider to be rightfully theirs.
Nor did I mean to say that soft power is irrelevant to superpowers. It’s just much less relevant. I said that very large countries can do what they want within reason. The Bush example you gave is what I would call doing what you want without reason. American foreign policy was widely loathed throughout the world long before Bush, however, and it didn’t hinder our exercise of power significantly because it wasn’t so over the top like it is now. China has a long, long way to go before it gets as bad as us.
Actually, I would counter that soft power is infinitely more important in relations between superpowers than it is in relations between smaller, and especially developing, nations. Small and developing nations really can feasibly employ direct economic and military measures against each other to resolve disputes. Superpowers, however, cannot. The United States and China will not ever go to war directly with each other for the forseeable future; and neither will they embargo each other. All that is left when the giants of the world community interact is soft power and very very small amounts of economic maneuvering.
I don’t think anyone thinks that protests are really going to amount to a “free Tibet.” But a lot of people think that they can have a good outcome if they help make this an issue that the world community starts to persue in negotiations and pressure with China.
That’s a good point, but I think once nations hit a certain critical mass, they can essentially start manufacturing their own soft power at will. When the powerful keep asserting something over and over again, it eventually becomes the truth.
Now, having dislodged my head from my posterior, let me return to the specific case at hand. A great deal of countries have serious problems with territory where the local population wants to break away, or have partial sovereignity. If they don’t, they have religious/ethnic minorities that cause “problems,” and they don’t always deal with them in delicate ways. (I definitely don’t want to sound like I’m apologizing for this stuff here.) What China is doing is not really any different than what dozens of nations throughout the world are doing. I really don’t see any groundswell of moral outrage coming up any time soon in the world community.
If the country involved was Shitholistan, and Shitholistan had oil, no nukes, a weak military, and was aligned with Russia rather than the West, then you might see some action. But this is China, not Shitholistan.
Here is an interesting series of articles on China’s effect on the environment. It is a 10 article series with the last one being about their attempt to accomplish the “green” olympic status by this summer. It is an interesting series by the New York Times, and I think that it will help to paint a picture as to why many people have a problem with the Olympics being held there.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/08/26/world/asia/choking_on_growth.html
Unrelated, but still funny, is this cartoon. Enjoy!!!
http://www.uclick.com/feature/08/04/09/gm080409.gif
Good allegory, JH; you never fail to elicit, from me, a violent laughter that pisses off my roommate.
Howard French did an article on the social unrest in Tibet. Hu Jintao’s strategy, according to French, goes something like this:
“[Jintao] seems to be wagering that China can hunker down, keep a tight lid on Tibet through the Olympics and wait for the Dalai Lama, who is 72, to die.”
If this represents, in anyway, the true strategy of Jintao, then god help him. Tibet has gained worldwide recognition, and will probably only gain more as the time for the Olympics edges closer. Also, if the Dalai Lama does die, I highly doubt it will extinguish the call for autonomy. The Tibetan Buddist will find some way to connect a lineage to someone inside or outside the Tibetean region — and the issue will carry on, all the same.
Meanwhile, the pressure amounting worldwide is something for China to consider.
“President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has suggested that he might consider using his presidency of the European Union this summer to organize a boycott of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.”
What does this really mean? Well, in terms of overall power and influence, not a whole lot. However, it does signify that the international community has its eyes fixed on Tibet — China knows that and so does Tibet.
That strategy is pretty similar to the Israeli hard right’s strategy with Palestinian refugees. Let them stay in exile for a few generations and they’ll slowly lose their passion for nationhood. This century will tell how successful these strategies will be.
I just realized that last sentence was really lame. Oh well.
I don’t know if Hu’s strategy will work. I’m pretty sure that they will find another Dalai Lama somewhere. After all, this is the 14th one; why stop at 14?
JH, do you really think that the world is holding China to a higher standard? Are there any real comparable contemporary examples of Western countries abusing people in disputed territory like that?
Falkland Islands and Great Britain, under Thatcher “the Milk Snatcher.”
Turkey (Please PLEASE for the love of God don’t tell my gf I said that).
How about Spain? It’s a genuine question; I’m not sure.
France has surely done some nasty stuff in North Africa in the last century or so.
While it wasn’t over disputed territory per se, Germany initiated a pretty extensive genocide some years back.
England in Northern Ireland.
America has extensively trained and funded savage right-wing militias in South America in the very recent past.
America invaded Iraq without provocation a while back, and continues to interfere in its internal politics.
Yeah . . . what about the Belgians in the Congo? I think Turkey’s got the hit on Cyprus — I can say that, right?
Britain also participated in this invasion.
If you consider South Africa Western, then yeah…ummm…South Africa.
Ok, I think David may get it. I’m tired of seeing your name on the recent comments list. Go away.
Right, but for it to be a “double standard,” JH, there have to be examples where the standard was not applied. I haven’t been around for all of those examples that you cited, but from what I have read, it seems that the same human rights groups and international organizations denounced all of those events just like they do the Chinese crackdowns in Tibet. Right?
Let’s also admit that we have come along way in recognizing human rights, especially in the last half to quarter of a century. I don’t think you can imagine Britain, the US, Germany, Spain, or any of the others participating in human rights abuses like this in 2008 without bringing down strong criticism from everyone else in the world. Unless you can imagine that, there is no real double standard.
Now, that doesn’t mean that China won’t see one. They will probably make that argument, and could even cite some examples in the somewhat recent past.
Turkey’s been misbehaving in Cyprus for a while, but their main crime is against the Kurds.
This, I should add, occurred during the NATO bombing of Kosovo, when the West was congratulating itself over its prevention of genocide
in an Eastern aligned country, while a more extensive genocide was happening within the borders of a member of NATO in good standing (Turkey).Let’s also admit that we have come along way in recognizing human rights,
If by “we” you mean continental Europe, fine. But America is torturing people at this moment. What’s worse, these are people who have been completely denied due process. We now break entire nations at will in the service of our own domestic psychodramas. No moral authority comes out of Washington. We’re the villains, not China.
“We’re the villains, not China.”
I would venture to say that the US and China are equally villainous in this matter….
I am always tempted to continue a debate like this, but I realized that I really don’t want to defend the US and its torturing practices. You are right.
I think I am still being fairly consistent in condemning China for its abuses while I also condemn my own country for its. I would also guess that most of the protesters along the torch path and most of the NGOs would equally denounce both countries also.
Extraordinary rendition is extraordinary villainous. I think that’s fair to say.
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/atrocities.htm
Very compelling website workidda. Thank you for posting it.
Just for the record, the protests are a good thing for the international community right now. I’m very proud of our world when I see them. Historically, we’ve come a long way. Do I think they’ll make a difference? I doubt it. But its important that our policymakers feel pressured to take a tougher stand with China on these issues. I don’t think we risk as much by being tough with China as we think we do. There are just as many economists working in China as there are in the US. They can do a cost/benefit analysis as well as we can and they are not going to do something that jeopardizes China-America business relations.