This will get some backs up. The BBC this evening is proving a rich source of spleen for me. They led their 10 o'clock bulletin with reports on the Beijing Olympics which kick off tomorrow, reporting on the smog in the city, the concerns of the IOC over the pollution, the human rights protests, the problems in Tibet, the mist over the Great Wall as the flame arrived and ll the problems. They somehow failed to major on the importance of this event to the Chinese.
Now don't misunderstand me, I would not seek to defend this repressive one party regime which has some pretty huge problems with corruption, the suppression of Tibetan and Uighur freedom, pollution etc etc ad nauseum.
However, China is changing rapidly, it is engaging more and more with the world, its civil society is opening up, which suggests that democracy is coming, even if it still has some way to travel, its economy is growing exponentially, it is even doing far more to address environmental issues than we are, despite the rampant pollution there.
This is a massive event for China and for ordinary Chinese people. This Olympics marks China's entry into the major league in the world and we are being pretty churlish in our response. Of course we should highlight the serious human rights abuses but we should also engage with this huge, important country and not seek to ruin their party.
This attitude reminds me of a number of Americans who turned up in Barcelona in 1992 - widely acknowledged as one of the most spectacular Olympics ever - wearing T-shirts with the slogan 'It'll be better in Atlanta'. Well, they caught cold because Atlanta was pretty piss-poor. I hope London doesn't experience the same degree of anti-climax, with so much of our media having sought to rain on China's parade.
Perhaps we can look forward to Chinese reporters here in four years' time discussing our abysmal transport system, the terrible food, the bad weather, the widespread restriction on travel as everyone is required to show their IDs at the checkpoints the next government will probably set up everywhere around the stadium, the crime, the poverty...
It's easy to pick holes - and China has some pretty gaping ones - but it might be better to be a little more positive as well.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
But that is precisely the point. Chinese reporters won't have to put up with "minders", be challenged by overzealous Police Officers who have failed to keep abreast of regulations on foreign media and will be able to talk to British people quite openly and freely about their day to day experiences. This is NOT happening in China even today with the Olympics going on.
The Chinese Government keep on about the journey and how well they are doing. What they fail to appreciate with regard to human rights is that the journey doesn't count.
It is how fast you get to the destination of freedom for all and the ability to influence and have a say in who governs you that matters.
This is precisely NOT the time to do soft on China since the Communist Party of China have politicised these Games to prop up their regime. If the Labour Party or Conservative Party had done the same then they would have been held up for ridicule.
That is the whole point. The Chinese media will be free to have a go if they so choose. They won't have to carry around regulations, have to be followed around by British "minders" and be challenged by the British Police everytime they want to talk to a British citizen. And yes, if someone thinks things are shite then they are free to say so without reprisals.
BBC journalists have been harrassed in a way that is unimaginable here even in this so-called relatively liberal time. The fact is that journalists still have to look over their shoulders when they report in China.
The Chinese Government has politicised these games to prop up their regime. But, now that it is "payback" time and they are under the spotlight they don't like it. As usual they are hiding behind the figleafs of "don't politicise sport" and "don't interfere in our internal affairs". This is pathetic in the 21st Century. This also let's down the Chinese people who are forced to be highly defensive of their Government after years of being fed the lie that the Chinese Communist Government = China.
If we were told that to criticise the Labour Party and Gordon Brown was unpatriotic we would rightly laugh ourselves silly but this is precisely the view that Chinese people are expected to take. This is paranoia of a kind that has no right to persist in the modern age.
Unfortunately by saying that we "should lighten up on China" you in fact are perpetuating the Communist Party of China = China lie.
The Chinese people are not the Communist Party of China no more that any of the political parties in our country are identified precisely with the people of Britain. Political Parties in the UK and the general public are distinct and we should not allow the CPC to continue to pedal the lie that somehow despite having a membership representing a small minority of the people that they have the right to be the identity of the Chinese nation.
NO!
I have tried to post a comment twice which nails some old lies pedalled by the CPC.
I will post on this issue. I consider this position supine at best.
The Communist Regime made many promises they did not keep. Journalists in China are followed around and have to have "minders" for God's sake. That would not happen in London now or in the future. Nor would a Chinese journalist if they wanted to speak to any British Citizen be challenged by the police and asked what they are doing there. The police are not even up on the current regulations in force there it would appear. They assume that they have a right to demand what journalists are doing when they don't.
Furthermore you are perpetuating a myth that the Chinese Communist Party = China. This is a very old lie. This is no more true in China than the notion that the Labour Party = the British people. Such a notion is laughable here as it should be there.
If the Chinese media want to publish highly critical reports of the UK then that is their perogative. They are FREE to do so. In China the Government through it's various agencies tries to control the message, badly. In doing so it has harmed itself in the eyes of the world.
This is certainly NOT the time to loosen up on the Chinese Government. It is not the journey to human rights that should count it is the destination and they have been very slow in this respect although I accept that some strides have been made. Development can move hand in hand with democracy as other countries have shown. China could be the same but for the controlling obsession of the CPC. Worryingly our Government have been showing the same tendencies in the name of security.
Thanks for your comments. As I acknowledge, this is a difficult situation and I do not for one second seek to condone China's regime.
I must also take issue with your comment that I equate the regime and the Chinese people. I do not, which is why I think we should be more positive about the games, as they are important for ordinary Chinese.
I strongly believe that a more positive approach will deliver democracy to China far better than climbing up flagpoles and waving flags. That is just too middle class to be effrective. The only way to bring China to freedom is by persuasion.
It is true that for many ordinary Chinese people, these games are important. However, this is in the context of a state controlled media and propoganda apparatus.
If we say "everything is fine as it is" to China, why would they have any incentive to change? All the reporting shows that the olympics has led to a crackdown on disidents, not the opposite as so often claimed beforehand. A positive attitude has done nothing to speed change.
Furthermore, I am ever frustrated how references to the ordinary people of China clearly refer only to those living in the newly industrialising areas, and more generally the new middle class.
70% of the population lives in the countryside, where they live in crushing poverty that has little changed for decades, where they do not even have the right to own their own land and the government often steals it from thousands at a time, where they face internal immigration and effectively second class citizenship keeping them from moving up in the world.
Here, there have been many very large movements of civil unrest, typically resulting in the arrest of the leaders and heavy repression.
China is a dictatorship. That means we don't know what the ordinary Chinese person wants. Furthermore, appealing to the importance of the average man is illiberal anyway. Majority support does not justify oppresion of a minority, nor does it give us cause to remain silent while such is ongoing.
I'm not saying 'everything is fine as it is', just that we might be a little less critical and little more engaging to seek to get this important country to develop as we would like to see it develop.
China's new middle class may be a minority of the people in that country but change is going to come from them, not from a Home Counties British activists waving flags.
Sorry for the multiple posts. I didn't realise that the comments were getting through as I got an error message and thought that my messages had been lost so I tried again!
To add one further comment, there is no evidence of any goodwill on the part of the Chinese Government. To my knowledge not one dissident has been released.
The Chinese people are a great people held back by a Government which gives them less freedom than they truly deserve. If the full potential of the Chinese people were liberated they would be able to make a massive contribution to humankind.
I agreed with George Bush for a change in his speech (and I was shocked to do so). I only wish that he could have been more Reaganesque and have challenged Hu Jintao to tear down the firewall that divides China from the West and allow free exchange of ideas.
All ther pronouncements from international politicians will do nothing to change China. Quiet negotiation, pressure and support for their emerging civil society will.
(NB: I did consider editing your comments but decided that would look like censorship!)
Argh, I wrote a long comment and then got an error. How irritating.
There is a new middle class, but oppresion has increased in the last few years and the same old petty oligarchs are running the show, I see no new civil society.
The only people we will be allowed to engage with are those the oligarchs approve. Furthermore, how is ignoring the rights abuses a good plan? Do you have any historical example where this has been helpful in reducing them? I can't see why you think this is a good tactic.
Do you think we should do the same for Burma or North Korea? Is wealth a special property? Singapores economy is doing quite well, should we tell our Liberal bretheren in the Singapore Democratic Party to get lost, and engage with the leadership rather than criticising?
I don't think your position represents a coherent viewpoint, but it special pleading applied only in the case of China.
Furthermore, given we know they have forced labour camps without trial for dissidents, that there are substantial accusation of live organ harvesting, that they are in general an oppressive regime, how are we to not make this central to our discourse?
Should we ignore it and just say how great the olympics are? Will this somehow lead down the path of reform?
I agree that the focus on Tibet is a reflection of middle class inanity. Its also true that protests probably won't change anything. I don't think there is any position to condemn protestors, as not protesting also probably won't change anything.
It is better to try than to stand by and do nothing. How many times has the world ignored dictators, and not engaged in real scrutiny? How many times has this ended well? Keeping a vigilant eye on them is the best thing we can do, not something to say we shouldn't.
PLease pay heed to my original posting. I'm not condoning the regime for one second.
However, I think it is fair to say that the Chinese government is changing, if slowly and that should be encouraged.
I simply don't see how whining in the West will make the Chinese change.
Examples of how less forthright diplomacy has worked in the past:
1. Greece being welcomed into the EC in 1981 to entrench its democracy
2. The same for Spain and Portugal in 1986
3. The Oslo diplomacy between Israel and Palestine in the early 1990s - subsequently derailed by Yasser Arafat and numerous Israeli leaders
4. How about the end of the 'Cold War', brought about by diplomacy after so many wasted and destructive decades of sabre-rattling?
5. The Cuban Missiles Crisis. A screen for very sound, quiet diplomacy behind the scenes which both sides could claim victory from without losing face.
Your examples of Burma and NortH Korea are instructive and they demonstrate the difference quite ably. China IS engaging with the world in a way these two regimes are not doing. China is opening up to more outside influences, such as good old politics and democracy.
I still firmly believe that we will achieve inordinately more by talking than by flag waving and demonstrations.
I think we are bound to continue to disagree on this but I'm grateful for your thoughtful comments.
You keep on saying China is reforming, but I do not believe this to be the case. As I said, its regime has recently become more represive, and economic reform does not automatically lead to civil reform.
I don't think we disagree as deeply as you think however. I think that protest and criticism are important- human rights abuses are harder to do when we focus upon them.
However, I also think that trade agreements and many other diplomatic moves are good for China as well. There is a place for agreements and opening up society.
I still think we should be forthright, and I do not think your analogies follow. Yours either represent engaging with new, weak democracys- which I would certainly agree with, supporting for example continued EU talks with Turkey, while still criticising its mistakes, such as with the Kurds, stongly. China is not in this situation- autocracies are not open to the same influence, and we don't really have anything (EU membership) to bribe them with anyway.
The rest represented ending wars, which is a rather different kettle of fish. None of those cases really aided in regime change, and as to the cold war, I would credit the Soviets internal collapse not diplomacy- and indeed, external support was valuable for the dissidents.
Once again my post has been swallowed by the internet! Pretty annoying!
Anyway, I do not think we disagree as much as it may appear. I do not, however, think it is fair to say the Chinese government is changing. I've given lots of examples of how it isn't, economic boom doesn't automagically make for a more liberal society.
I do agree that there is an important space for diplomatic moves. I think treatys giving China a fairer deal in trade are important, both in progressing tis society and just because being poor is bad even if it remains autocratic. Other agreements can also be constructive.
However, I do not think that this means we should moderate our discourse in general. Foreign and trade ministers when negotiating obviously can, but not in general. By drawing attention to human rights abuses, we make them harder to perform. The riots in Tibet and the Falun Gong would both be facing even stronger repression without the strength of foreign disapproval. So I think I feel our obligations in this regard are the opposite of what you suggest.
I also think your analogies are poor. Democracies joining the EU is a different issue. Firstly, as democracies however weak they are more open to change, and China isn't going to join the EU and accept new laws that override its old ones.
The rest refer to peace treaties, which are a whole other kettle of fish. China recently solved a territorial dispute with Russia peacefully, which is fine by me. I hope Chinas many other territorial disputes can be solved similarly. This won't change their regime, and as to the Soviet Union, their collapse was as much due to internal issues as anything else- and foreign support for i.e solidarity was an important factor.
I'm not convinced Democracy is around the corner in China. What evidence of that happening have you got?
Sorry I'm not usually a pessimist
I have not suggested tht democracy is round the corner and I don't necessarily believe that will happen any time soon.
What I do know is that the bleatings of the western middle classes are going to have a far more limited effect on changing China for the better than will the emerging middle classes in that country.
Post a Comment