Slaying the Dragon
The west must face up to its ignominious policy concerning China and human rights
On Wednesday China marked 100 days until the Beijing Olympic Games begin as the Olympic torch arrived in Hong Kong. Yet there, too, the protest-hit global relay left its mark as officials deported scores of protesters ahead of a parade planned for Friday.
Despite Beijing's propaganda offensive, which included mass rallies in foreign countries in support of the Chinese government, the protests in Tibet have shown the real face of China to the world. Yet that face was always there for the world to see. Sadly, western governments have been complicit in gross human rights abuses in China. Globalization enabled western leaders to look the other way like three little monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.
China was -- and still is -- a brutal dictatorship. According to the U.S. State Department's most recent human rights report, "the People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state. […] The government's human rights record remained poor, and in certain areas deteriorated. There were an increased number of high-profile cases involving the monitoring, harassment, detention, arrest, and imprisonment of journalists, writers, activists, and defense lawyers, many of whom were seeking to exercise their rights under law. […] Other serious human rights abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings; torture and coerced confessions of prisoners; and the use of forced labor, including prison labor."
Naturally, the U.S. is far from being Mr. Clean, yet there is no doubting the deplorable state of China's human rights record. In addition to this, there are the issues of China's repression in Tibet and its support for the Sudanese government, among other things. These facts and others all seem lost as western consumers buy products "Made in China". Not only this, China has begun to make inroads in the cultural sphere as well. In Hungary, for example, Chinese soap operas have even begun to slowly displace those from Latin America.
Robert Weissman, editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor and director of Essential Action, wrote at the end of February an excellent article in which he exposed the hypocrisy of the western world when it comes to human rights. Although his article, entitled Human Rights Hypocrisy: Hidden in Plain Sight deals with US government hypocrisy on human rights, the scope of the problem is such that it's applicable to all western countries. In other words, government hypocrisy on human rights is also a phenomenon of globalisation.
In his article, Weissman points how during a news conference George Bush had said that he wouldn't meet with Raul Castro because of Cuba's human rights record. A few minutes later he explained how excited he was to visit China for the Summer Olympics. This is a position that most leaders have also adopted, although recent protests have forced some to skip the opening ceremonies in Beijing as a token sign of their concern over the Tibet issue.
According to Bush, the reason he is unwilling to meet with dictators like Castro is because it would send the wrong message. Moreover, it would also give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity. Yet the same can be also said of China. Granting China the Olympic Games in the first place was a big mistake: it merely further legitimizes the Chinese government's policies and human rights record.
The legitimization of China's dictatorship and its methods is a process which has been long in the making. As Weissman notes, after the Tiananmen Square massacre Big Business spent more than a decade trying to fully normalize U.S.-China relations. "Corporations and their government allies offered their standard line about how commercial engagement would spur political freedom, but not many people took that seriously," writes Weissman. "It was widely understood that the government simply subordinated whatever concern it had for advancing human rights to its aim of advancing corporate interests."
Spirit of the games
The view of Bush and many other western leaders is that they aren't actually legitimizing China's human rights record by going to Beijing for the Olympics; rather they are simply going there to enjoy a sporting event. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) head, Jacques Rogge, takes a similar view. While saying that he's "very concerned" about the unrest in Tibet and other international issues he nevertheless believes that the Olympic Games provide an opportunity to bring the spirit of the Olympics to China and through this bring about some sort of change. As a result, he and many others are against the idea of a boycott of the Olympics, noting that this runs directly counter to the spirit of the games. Of course, what Mr. Rogge and others fail to note is that the present crackdown against Tibetan protests and the way in which the torch relay was forced through its route also run counter to the spirit of the games.
The prevailing argument against a boycott of the Olympics is that it doesn't do much to solve the problem. There have been several boycotts of the Olympics: in 1956 a couple of European countries refused to attend the 1956 Melbourne Games because of the brutal suppression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union; in 1980 there was a massive boycott of the Moscow Games by western countries; conversely, four years later most communist countries stayed away from the Los Angeles Games.
There is no doubt that some Olympic boycotts in the past have been used to advance a political agenda, in particular the 1980 and 1984 boycotts. Then issues behind these boycotts simply masked the underlying increase in cold war tensions thanks to the end of détente and the rise of the New Right and Ronald Reagan in the US.
On the other hand, the notion that athletes would be punished by a boycott puts the Olympics in too much of a saintly light. The Games have long since lost their shine, and has become big business. The problems of drugs have further tarnished the reputation of sport in general. Thus, one can go so far as to say that the spirit of the games have long since passed away.
Sadly, the history of the Olympics has been tarnished with attempts by the IOC to legitimize brutal dictatorships. A prime example was in 1936 with Nazi Germany. Indeed, there are many similarities between the social fascism of Hitler's regime and the corporate fascism of modern day China in how the Olympics have been used for their own propaganda purposes. For example, in both cases the Olympics were superbly organised. This, in turn, reflected the efficiency of the dictatorial regime and helped to sway outside opinion in their favour.
There is no doubt that a big mistake was made awarding China the Olympics. This big mistake merely demonstrates that fundamental reforms are needed at the IOC and a set of firm guidelines needs to be established of which country can qualify to host the event. Among these guidelines should be not only economic conditions, which current guidelines foremost concentrate on, but socio-political aspects which conform to the spirit of the games, the main one being a country's human rights record.
Unfortunately, what has been done can't be undone. There is the possibility of moving the Games elsewhere, as was threatened with Greece in 2004 when it looked as if would not be ready in time. Yet considering the logistics involved, the IOC wouldn't be willing to take on the responsibility for such a move.
The only option left would be a boycott of the Games. A boycott of the Olympics is needed to not only send a signal to China that its human rights records doesn't conform to the spirit of the event it's hosting, but also to the IOC that the mistake it made in awarding the Olympics to Beijing was a wrong one. Of course, with all the money and prestige invested in the Games (and nothing to do with the hard work invested by the athletes), not only by the host country but also by participating countries and corporations, the likelihood that this will happen is slim. Nevertheless, realising that the issue of China's human rights record is a sensitive political issue, world leaders can't simply ignore it; hence, the symbolic offer by some to skip the opening ceremonies.
Yet a boycott doesn't have to be high key. What makes the Olympics unique is that millions, if not billions, will be following the event. If a large number of this great mass decides to not pay attention, this will have more of an effect on China than the symbolic act of a few world leaders. Given the dynamics of the attention economy propelled by the innovations in information and communication technologies, anything is possible. Indeed, what will be interesting to see in a little over a month's time is China's reaction to the potentially more volatile issue of the Tiananmen Square massacre now that the issue of Tibet has slowly moved off the media radar.