Olympic Snubs over Tibet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Reliable sources. Your post looks like nothing but pro-authoritarian propaganda. :juggle2:

---

He's right, you know. Everyone over here (read: The West) is making a big deal about Tibet, without actually reading from the Chinese perspective.

At the same time, isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to call for an end to propaganda and political motives for the games, and at the same time boycotting them to get a political change?

It is going to be politics and propaganda anyway, the Chinese government just wants it to be propaganda and politics in a way it is comfortable with and which it controls. Why should we acquiesce in that? Especially when it is the same double-standard that operates in Chinese foreign policy- exporting arms to genocidaires to buy influence and make a quick buck is "apolitical" and no one else's business, national sovereignty, cultural affinity to authoritarianism bla bla bla bla.

Oh, I don't know. Let's boycott Britain in 2012 over its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or something. Because that is the can of worms opened if you seriously want to do something about Tibet and China (for which I see damned little reason, regardless).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Yes, the Chinese government wants the rest of the world to be polite and not do anything political while it conducts a huge display of rank nationalism. It is complete hypocrisy, and the notion that these Olympics were ever apolitical or ever could have been given the Chinese government's attitude to them (i.e. they are a propaganda tool for both domestic and international purposes) is complete and utter nonsense. You may as well ask for a Communist Party rally to be apolitical. The idea that "no one is hurt" by these Olympics is also total garbage when you consider the amazing and oppressive lengths that the government is going to to present a perfect picture for the world- vast areas of agricultural land have been starved of water to keep Beijing's "rivers" looking like pristine streams, and of course plenty of dissidents have been summarily thrown in gaol to stop them causing any embarrassment. And, of course, the poor Chinese workers whom the government has threatened to fine hundreds of yuan if they use the toilets in stadiums they built, lest foreigners are put off by the thought of using the same latrine as a dirty Beijing resident. If the government in any Western country conducted itself in this way to put on a sports event people would be outraged, and also revolted at the notion that they can be bought off with clean dunnies and fake rivers. It is quite ironic actually- Westerners always express disdain for all those dumb Third Worlders that let themselves get bought off by demagogues with "bread and circuses", but they're letting the Chinese government do it to them right now.

The notion that a boycott would inevitably be pointless is a dubious proposition anyway because the immense effort the Chinese government has gone to in organising the Olympics shows it desperately wants everyone to show up for its debutante's ball.

---

That's what countries do everywhere. Don't you think that if Englands get's the World Cup or Euro football championship it's going to take special care of football hulligans for example.

Croatian police went to great lengths to remove posters and to paint over the graffiti that generally called people who disaggree with Bush and American policies that they should appear during his speech and voice that disagreement. The posters and graffiti said something like "let's not allow only obedient cattle at the speech of an international terrorist". The police removed those posters and painted over the graffiti and tried to find those responsible for the action and "detain" them during Bush's visit, so that Mr. Iraq-has-weapons-of-mass-destruction wouldn't feel uncomfortable.

Where's freedom of speech there? But no one cares cause it is a: 1) small country and 2) US ally...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

He's right, you know. Everyone over here (read: The West) is making a big deal about Tibet, without actually reading from the Chinese perspective.

---

I do not find it worth much to read the perspective of authoritarian regime like that of China, Human Rights Watch is infinitely more trustworthy in this matter. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

At the same time, isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to call for an end to propaganda and political motives for the games, and at the same time boycotting them to get a political change?

---

The point was not to end Chinese propaganda, but to put pressure on them regarding the Tibet issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That's what countries do everywhere. Don't you think that if Englands get's the World Cup or Euro football championship it's going to take special care of football hulligans for example.

Croatian police went to great lengths to remove posters and to paint over the graffiti that generally called people who disaggree with Bush and American policies that they should appear during his speech and voice that disagreement. The posters and graffiti said something like "let's not allow only obedient cattle at the speech of an international terrorist". The police removed those posters and painted over the graffiti and tried to find those responsible for the action and "detain" them during Bush's visit, so that Mr. Iraq-has-weapons-of-mass-destruction wouldn't feel uncomfortable.

Where's freedom of speech there? But no one cares cause it is a: 1) small country and 2) US ally...

---

A classic example; but then again, China is somewhat bigger and thus more worrying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

I do not find it worth much to read the perspective of authoritarian regime like that of China, Human Rights Watch is infinitely more trustworthy in this matter. :juggle2:

---

I meant considering it from a Chinese point of view, not reading their official government news.

Quote:

---

The point was not to end Chinese propaganda, but to put pressure on them regarding the Tibet issue.

---

I know. I'll change what I said a little if that makes it more acceptable:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EMFM

At the same time, isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to call for an end to and political motives for the games, and at the same time boycotting them to get a political change?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I meant considering it from a Chinese point of view, not reading their official government news.

---

Well, what is a Chinese point of view? I assume it is among the population much of the same as what the government want to it be.

Quote:

---

I know. I'll change what I said a little if that makes it more acceptable:

Quote:

---

At the same time, isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to call for an end to and political motives for the games, and at the same time boycotting them to get a political change?

---

---

Well, ok, I'll not defend that stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I meant considering it from a Chinese point of view, not reading their official government news.

---

AFAIK, the general Chinese view of goings on in Tibet is that their treatment is no worse than that of Chinese elsewhere. The forced abortions and other genocidal treatment sounds awful, until one realises the same policy applies across China in the form of the one child policy. Indeed, this policy is more relaxed in Tibet and other inland areas, especially if the first child is a girl. Human rights is given scant notice in Tibet, but they're given little notice elsewhere in China too, in the Chinese government's efforts to build a modernised, industrialised nation. The difference is that Han Chinese being oppressed by a Han Chinese government doesn't sound quite as romantic or outrageous, so it gets ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

AFAIK, the general Chinese view of goings on in Tibet is that their treatment is no worse than that of Chinese elsewhere. The forced abortions and other genocidal treatment sounds awful, until one realises the same policy applies across China in the form of the one child policy. Indeed, this policy is more relaxed in Tibet and other inland areas, especially if the first child is a girl. Human rights is given scant notice in Tibet, but they're given little notice elsewhere in China too, in the Chinese government's efforts to build a modernised, industrialised nation. The difference is that Han Chinese being oppressed by a Han Chinese government doesn't sound quite as romantic or outrageous, so it gets ignored.

---

Indeed. Tibet in itself, IMHO, deserves no special recognition, and certainly not enough for us to boycott the games. After all, they were awarded by an independent commission to the country they found most deserving.

@ That's what countries do everywhere.
__________________

"That's what countries do everywhere"

No it isn't. Most countries do not make people prisoners of conscience in order to have a nice sports event- to claim that they do is just nonsense. That sort of thing is the preserve of authoritarians and/or sycophants. Comparing political oppression to cracking down on organised groups of violent hooligans is completely ridiculous.

"Let's boycott Britain in 2012 over its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or something. "

Yet another false comparison. If the British government were hosting the Olympics in order to run a colossal pro-Iraq and Afghanistan wars propaganda campaign it might be valid, but it isn't so it's not. The most you could say is that Brown would like to use it as part of his promotion of "Britishness", which unlike the rabid nationalism taught by the Chinese government is totally innocuous. On top of that, one of the things you will notice about the London Olympics is that no one is being summarily gaoled or deprived of their livelihood in order to hold them. And, to my knowledge, the British government is not supplying weapons to genocidaires. Someone is always going to be able find something about the host country they don't like, but the fact is that this year:
- The host country has by far the most objectionable government, in terms of its domestic conduct, at least since 1988;
- The conduct of the host country domestically has been unusually objectionable this year in particular;
- The host country is extremely irresponsible in aspects of its foreign policy also;
- The way that this host country has "organised" the event itself is also highly objectionable and also symbolic of its behaviour generally;
- The host country, from the outset, has quite openly sought to use the event for political purposes, whilst lambasting any countervailing views as "politicisation".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

AFAIK, the general Chinese view of goings on in Tibet is that their treatment is no worse than that of Chinese elsewhere. The forced abortions and other genocidal treatment sounds awful, until one realises the same policy applies across China in the form of the one child policy. Indeed, this policy is more relaxed in Tibet and other inland areas, especially if the first child is a girl. Human rights is given scant notice in Tibet, but they're given little notice elsewhere in China too, in the Chinese government's efforts to build a modernised, industrialised nation. The difference is that Han Chinese being oppressed by a Han Chinese government doesn't sound quite as romantic or outrageous, so it gets ignored.

---

In the Netherlands the discussion and news coverage about the whole region has been about human rights in general at first, only after the protest has the Tibetan plight been at the foreground.

Anyway, people bear opression more easily from their own then they do from foreigners.

It's not as if the Chinese are simply aiming for nominal control of the land. Tibet is being colonised by Han chinese like Stalin did with the Baltic states. The state has taken it on itself to supervise buddhist temples and regulate succession of the Dalai Lama. It's a tradeoff between an increase in overall wealth and slowly dismantling of the traditional culture (or at least insofar it's offensive to chinese bureaucrats) Understandably, not everyone's happy about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

In the Netherlands the discussion and news coverage about the whole region has been about human rights in general at first, only after the protest has the Tibetan plight been at the foreground.

Anyway, people bear opression more easily from their own then they do from foreigners.

It's not as if the Chinese are simply aiming for nominal control of the land. Tibet is being colonised by Han chinese like Stalin did with the Baltic states. The state has taken it on itself to supervise buddhist temples and regulate succession of the Dalai Lama. It's a tradeoff between an increase in overall wealth and slowly dismantling of the traditional culture (or at least insofar it's offensive to chinese bureaucrats) Understandably, not everyone's happy about it.

---

Surely there are more effective ways of getting the Chinese government to change policy than with those symbolic and useless protests. IMHO these gestures are actually counterproductive, in that they only work to harden the Chinese position, and only serve to make the protestors feel good about themselves. Protests worked against South Africa because the world managed to enact a reasonably blanket coverage of sanctions against them. No-one's going to do that against the Chinese, so if one really wanted change, one would look for more effective methods.

More effective ways, like what? Trade embargoes?

I agree that the Olympic games aren't the right time or occassion for political pressure. In practice, it's a lighting rod. After the Olympics Tibet will simply fade from the Free World's collective consciousness again.

I'm not suggesting a solution. Realisticly speaking it's all moot talk since since no government in the world is going to act tough against the Chinese. Decades will pass, generation after generation growing more ignorant of their nation's old culture and eventually the region will be so thoroughly Sinicized that people will use chinese minority rights as an argument against Tibettan sovereignty. It just annoys me when people downplay the significance of all this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

More effective ways, like what? Trade embargoes?

I agree that the Olympic games aren't the right time or occassion for political pressure. In practice, it's a lighting rod. After the Olympics Tibet will simply fade from the Free World's collective consciousness again.

I'm not suggesting a solution. Realisticly speaking it's all moot talk since since no government in the world is going to act tough against the Chinese. Decades will pass, generation after generation growing more ignorant of their nation's old culture and eventually the region will be so thoroughly Sinicized that people will use chinese minority rights as an argument against Tibettan sovereignty. It just annoys me when people downplay the significance of all this.

---

One way to start would be to be less confrontational, but to argue instead for how retaining Tibetan culture can be beneficial to China, in the form of tourism, trade, etc. Reconcile the Tibetan government in exile with the Chinese government so that both sides gain - the Chinese get a puppet government in Tibet, while the current xiles get to defend and preserve their culture more effectively than they do at the moment.

Compared to the aspirations of the protestors, the above is far more modest and realistic, but it'll probably have far more beneficial effects for Tibet than these protests are ever likely to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

@ That's what countries do everywhere.
__________________

"That's what countries do everywhere"

No it isn't. Most countries do not make people prisoners of conscience in order to have a nice sports event- to claim that they do is just nonsense. That sort of thing is the preserve of authoritarians and/or sycophants. Comparing political oppression to cracking down on organised groups of violent hooligans is completely ridiculous.

"Let's boycott Britain in 2012 over its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or something. "

Yet another false comparison. If the British government were hosting the Olympics in order to run a colossal pro-Iraq and Afghanistan wars propaganda campaign it might be valid, but it isn't so it's not. The most you could say is that Brown would like to use it as part of his promotion of "Britishness", which unlike the rabid nationalism taught by the Chinese government is totally innocuous. On top of that, one of the things you will notice about the London Olympics is that no one is being summarily gaoled or deprived of their livelihood in order to hold them. And, to my knowledge, the British government is not supplying weapons to genocidaires. Someone is always going to be able find something about the host country they don't like, but the fact is that this year:
- The host country has by far the most objectionable government, in terms of its domestic conduct, at least since 1988;
- The conduct of the host country domestically has been unusually objectionable this year in particular;
- The host country is extremely irresponsible in aspects of its foreign policy also;
- The way that this host country has "organised" the event itself is also highly objectionable and also symbolic of its behaviour generally;
- The host country, from the outset, has quite openly sought to use the event for political purposes, whilst lambasting any countervailing views as "politicisation".

---

C'mon, Chinese are inexperienced amateurs compared to US. What Bush did to winter olympics in Salt Lake City? He used it to further his "war on terror".
I don't remember hearing any calls for boycott because of that. They put the flag of the WTC there even though tradition states that only flags of participating countries are allowed.

I'm not really saying that Chinese are the good guys in all this, but wondering are we supposed to be against that stuff based on principles or just because China is doing it in this particular case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Yet another false comparison. If the British government were hosting the Olympics in order to run a colossal pro-Iraq and Afghanistan wars propaganda campaign it might be valid, but it isn't so it's not. The most you could say is that Brown would like to use it as part of his promotion of "Britishness", which unlike the rabid nationalism taught by the Chinese government is totally innocuous. On top of that, one of the things you will notice about the London Olympics is that no one is being summarily gaoled or deprived of their livelihood in order to hold them. And, to my knowledge, the British government is not supplying weapons to genocidaires.

---

Look, my only point is that any action against the Beijing Olympics on political grounds is going to come back and bite the UK. No, I don't think the two states are comparable - yet that hasn't stopped certain people taking such comparisons depressingly far, and my statement was the hypothetical cry you'd be hearing from a surprisingly large part of the world.

The time for complaints about the choice for China was a long time ago, and it has been blatantly obvious for even longer that it flaunts human rights. Why is that an issue now? Why does it take the relative non-issue of Tibet to bring it to the campaigning front? It would imply that for the majority of people protesting the Olympics' location human rights is not the primary issue, or we'd have seen significantly more uproar earlier. What then, are the motivations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

- The host country, from the outset, has quite openly sought to use the event for political purposes, whilst lambasting any countervailing views as "politicisation".

---

I agree with that one, without reserve - yet as has been pointed out, this is of all times and many nations. Still, the hypocrisy in all those cases annoys me immensely.

"this is of all times and many nations"

But is it comparatively rare for a country practising that sort of hypocrisy and human rights abuse on such a scale to host the Olympics. As I said before, the last time it even came close was 20 years ago AND that was at a time when democracy and human rights generally were less respected worldwide than they are now. And on top of that the government in charge of them ended up being undone anyway- the regime was teetering and having all eyes on the country actually helped push it over the edge.

"What Bush did to winter olympics in Salt Lake City? He used it to further his "war on terror".
I don't remember hearing any calls for boycott because of that. They put the flag of the WTC there even though tradition states that only flags of participating countries are allowed."

In my opinion Bush is a complete twat, but frankly I would say that is another false comparison because:
1. The US government did not seek to have an American city host the Winter Olympics for the blatantly political purpose of promoting itself as a great power and for nationalist propaganda domestically.
2. The US government has done and may do many objectionable things depending on your point of view (I would certainly say it does) but it isn't a one party state, it doesn't abuse its own population in the same way that China's government does, and it isn't presently facilitating genocide, to my knowledge at least.
3. The flag of the WTC has memorial rather than simply political significance.
4. Putting up or taking a flag of the WTC is of no practical relevance to anyone except Americans, who evidently feel good waving it around, so I don't particularly care. By contrast the line which the Chinese government is running about keeping the Olympics "apolitical" is the same line which it runs on its relation with some of the worst regimes in the world, so it heartily deserves to be clearly rebutted.

In addition, the other hand if the intention of a boycott would have been in relation to, say, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see that it could have made any difference given that Afghanistan had been invaded and that the Bush maladministration was determined to invade Iraq in spite of the damage which it was known it would do to relations with many countries.

By contrast we actually know that China does care about not being stood up at these Games and in fact has put behind the scenes pressure on both Sudan and Burma to curtail their state terrorism precisely because it is an embarrassment. However, the generally weak criticism of China's notorious relations with these countries means that it doesn't see it as worthwhile extending this pressure to anything of practical import, such as ending or delaying commercial relations, impounding foreign aid, or, most importantly, ceasing weapons exports (and as I have noted elsewhere although the vast majority of the Sudanese army's material is in terms of monetary value sourced from countries other than China, the best estimates are that in quantitative terms 90% of the small arms exported to Sudan and which end up in the hands of the Janjaweed are Chinese made), much less extending this pressure to other countries that are close to China and to Sudan and Burma and also supply the latter two with arms (e.g. Iran, North Korea).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

The time for complaints about the choice for China was a long time ago, and it has been blatantly obvious for even longer that it flaunts human rights. Why is that an issue now?¨

---

The time for protests is right now because China is exploiting the Games right now. The idiot Brown even allowed them to ´hijack´ the Olympic flame (as one British commentator has said) and parade it through the London streets and in front of Downing Street 10 under Chinese supervision, with stupid Coca Cola and Samsung pom-pom girls out front, followed by a bunch of gross Chinese officials who were shouting orders at the athletes, for Pete's sake. Thank God the French decided to douse the silly thing and whisk the buggers away in a police van. What a disgusting display of western moneygrabbers and Chinese chauvinists this was. Yuk.

Olympics is not about sport its about selling advertising.

The athletes are just there for entertainment and hold your attention while they wear corporate sponsored costumes, run past corporate logos, eat corporate sponsored foods, and in between you get a break from the events and watch corporate tv ads.

The only corporations that don't get heavily mentioned are the ones the athletes are pumping into their veins. Gawd knows why considering the Pharmaceutical companies must want a slice of the action too.

A sign from an anti-China protest:

https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/...d108ea9nx5.jpg


:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

A sign from an anti-China protest:

https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/...d108ea9nx5.jpg


:laugh4:

---

I believe the proper answer to this is:

"Yes."

EMFM I agree, people are stupid.

And how does the world feel about having made that mistake?

Went to a international center panel today on the China-Tibet relationship.
3 people, one American, two ethnic Han born in China.

The Chinese had made up a 'fact sheet' they handed out to listeners. Included fun things, like how Tibet was 'liberated' from Britain, how 90% of them were slaves when China invaded, how the title of Dalai Lama was first given by the Chinese emperor, how western media is biased, and how it doesn't give the real opinions of Tibetans, which they know better than us because the Chinese media shows Tibetans saying they are happy with China.

Interesting perspective.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Went to a international center panel today on the China-Tibet relationship.
3 people, one American, two ethnic Han born in China.

The Chinese had made up a 'fact sheet' they handed out to listeners. Included fun things, like how Tibet was 'liberated' from Britain, how 90% of them were slaves when China invaded, how the title of Dalai Lama was first given by the Chinese emperor, how western media is biased, and how it doesn't give the real opinions of Tibetans, which they know better than us because the Chinese media shows Tibetans saying they are happy with China.

Interesting perspective.

CR

---

What do you expect from twits? The main fact of the matter is that Tibet was part of Qing China at its close, not having been relinquished by right of war or treaty, and the two states that succeeded it, the Republic of China (ROC) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) both claimed it as part of China. The ROC was never strong enough to enforce this claim before they were evicted from the mainland and into Taiwan, but the PRC were. Tibet is as Chinese as Hong Kong was British until 1997, for they're both part of the claims and obligations of Qing China, handed down to its successor states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

A sign from an anti-China protest:

https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/...d108ea9nx5.jpg


:laugh4:

---

epic failure :laugh4:

I don't like the way China looks right now. It's growing in power and looks very dangerous. I can see another Cold War but this time the U.S. is outnumbered and outgunned.