Free Tibet, Goddamn It!
Why the Beijing Olympics Should Piss You Off
April 2nd, 2008
By James Spillane
Photo by Dante Busquets-Anzenberger
Most of the facts in this article are true.
As you’re all aware, Beijing is hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics. They’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this thing, they’ve built some cool buildings, and they’re trying to generally spruce up the city in anticipation of the international spotlight that they’ll receive. They’ve been working diligently on this thing for years, putting far more into it than the Greeks did when they half-assed it back in 2004. They know that this is their big moment to shine, to show China to the world as a modern, forward-looking country — the new superpower to reckon with — a respectable force in world economic and political affairs. In a way, this whole thing is a massive propaganda stunt.
But wait, wait, hold the phone! Aren’t Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg pissed off about something?
Right, the genocide! You see, China’s government has very close business and diplomatic ties to the Sudanese government, which butchered people in southern Sudan and is now butchering people in Darfur. Apparently, according to Ivory Tower Hollywood liberals like Farrow and Spielberg, genocide is “bad.”
And whatever happened to those Tibetans? Didn’t there used to be a Tibet? Oh right, my mistake, Tibet is actually an integral part of the Chinese Motherland, while the Dalai Lama is actually a capitalist roader splittist. Something like 500,000 Tibetans have died as a result of the Chinese occupation, which has crushed dissent and persists in trying to destroy Tibet’s culture. In 1995-ish, they kidnapped the six-year-old Panchen Lama, who has not been seen since. That’s an important thing to remember. The Chinese government kidnapped a six-year-old boy and has been holding him as a political prisoner. So in a way, dealing with China’s government is like dealing with any misty-eyed, mustachioed child molester.
China also has Uighers that it likes to oppress. What’s a Uighur? A Uighur is anybody belonging to a Muslim ethnic group in what is now northwestern China. A lot of them would also like their independence and don’t like being colonized by Han Chinese. Sometimes Uighur separatists bomb stuff, so China cracks down and presents itself as an ally in the “War on Terror.”
Oh, and remember the Tiananmen Square Massacre? Yeah, you know you do.
Now, there’s the unfortunate argument out there, made by Bush and others (like the Chinese government, for example), that the Olympics shouldn’t be politicized. Tough shit, they always have been. In 1936, you had the notorious “Nazi Olympics,” which were a large-scale Hitler propaganda stunt. In 1968, right around the time it was hosting the Olympics, the Mexican government massacred several hundred leftist student protestors. In 1980, the U.S. boycotted the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in ’82, the Soviet Union counter-boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics (take that!). So there, all sorts of political Olympiads.
To be fair, all Olympic games are propaganda stunts of a sort, but they’re usually for innocuous tourism. I’m not familiar with too many human rights abuses in Nagano or Lillehammer. The Beijing Olympics, however, are propaganda for a regime that has no respect for human rights—not those of their own people, not those of the Tibetans or the Uighurs and not those of the people of Darfur. But here this same regime finds itself with a golden opportunity to spread a glowing image of itself as modern and respectable to millions upon millions of people around the world. God, I could vomit all over my laptop!
So, I’m not sure exactly what the solution is for this issue, but I’m sure you’ll figure something out. If good campus liberals can bring to bear upon this cause even a fraction of the work they’ve done for Obama, I’m sure their work will succeed.
Comments & Discussion
Japan’s Emperor Akihito and other members of the royal family are unlikely to attend the Beijing Olympics amid concerns here about China’s crackdown in Tibet and other issues, a report said Wednesday.
The Japanese government thinks it is not a good time for a rare royal visit because of the unrest in Tibet, a recent health scare over Chinese-made “gyoza” dumplings and a spat over disputed gas fields, the Sankei daily said.
“We were planning not to ask royals to go even before the gyoza incident (surfaced in January). It is all the more true now that the Tibetan unrest occurred,” it quoted an unnamed government official as saying.
Japanese authorities have confirmed at least 10 people suffered pesticide poisoning after eating tainted dumplings imported from China.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao invited Emperor Akihito and other royals to the opening ceremony of the August Olympics when he visited Japan last year.
The emperor told Wen then that the government decides on the royal family’s foreign trips, a palace spokesman said.
The foreign ministry said no formal decision had been made.
“Nothing has been decided regarding the attendance of dignitaries,” a ministry official said.
The last trip to China by members of Japan’s imperial household was a landmark visit by Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko in 1992.
China remains deeply resentful over Japan’s brutal occupation from 1931 to 1945, an era in which the Japanese revered Akihito’s father Hirohito as a demigod.
The two countries have recently worked to mend ties, which were strained by former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi’s annual visits to a war shrine in Tokyo, which Beijing regards as a symbol of Japan’s militarist past.
Chinese President Hu Jintao is expected to visit Japan in the coming months.
http://www.france24.com/en/20080402-japans-royals-likely-skip-olympics-report
Well well, the Japanese have finally discovered human rights and respect for other nations, how about the Nanjing Massacre perfectly performed by the Japanese Army in China? They still deny this fact in Japan and no Japanese children should learn about it.
And the genocide is a lie. Check in the Web, for example Wiki, how many ethnic Tibetans were living in Tibet up to 1951 and how many now ethnic Tibetans there are now, then you will see you has a strong prejudice and are totally wrong. And there are bilingual schools for Tibetans and there is a radio broadcast in Tibetan language. Although it is true there are restrictions on religious practices, but not only for Tibetans, but for all nationalities in China.
I am not declaring the Chinese government is doing everything right. But sometimes the DL is telling you folks something wrong. I get to know it through American sources, you can check it in the Web and you will find out enough American sources critising him, and with enough evidences. Don’t believe him blindly. Why shouldn’t a monk lie, if it is in his interest? Europe know enough of monks lying through out the whole history.
Ok, “a chinese,” I am the fellow who wrote this column. Here are some comment I have on your comment.
First, you say, “And the genocide is a lie” and you follow that up with some stuff about Tibetans. I never referred to a genocide of Tibetans. The only genocide I referred to was the one in Darfur. Are you denying that somebody’s been committing genocide in Darfur?
You reference the DL. I only made one reference to the DL. You seem to think that I’m taking my cues from the fellow. My information on Tibet comes in large part from Tsering Shakya’s authoritative history, “The Dragon in the Land of Snows.” This sounds like a slightly more reputable source than Wikipedia.
You talk about American sources. I’ve read some books about Tibet by Mikal Dunham and Patrick French. They’re Americans.
I don’t know of any situation where the Dalai Lama has knowingly lied. I think he’s a better fellow than his Chinese counterparts. I think he’s better than Mao, Hua, Deng, Jiang, and Hu. The Dalai Lama has killed far less people than these people.
I suppose the point I want to make here above all else is that the Chinese government’s presence in Tibet has been, on the whole, sinister. I’ve read accounts of abbots during the fifties being forced to eat their own feces, of monks forced to copulate with nuns, of an abbot set on fire and pushed off a cliff, and children made to shoot their parents. In 2006, they shot a seventeen-year-old nun in the back. In 1995/6, they kidnapped the six-year-old Panchen Lama, as I mentioned in the column. He has not been seen since. I think it definitely says something about a government that kidnaps six-year-olds for political purposes.
Ok, so there are my comments on your comments. I appreciate your input. Forgive me if these comments come out to be about as long as the original article. It seemed like the thing to do. Forgive any spelling errors.
Also, I hasten to reiterate that people should feel free to point out any genuine factual errors. This is based on research I’ve done in the past; I didn’t want to bother looking it up again. I’m a “columnist,” not a journalist.
It’s funny to see hw u guys r arguing over here. Americans n Chinese r both brain-washed by their gov’ts.
Anyone knows Dalai lama here? Why did this dude come to the States at first place? I think CIA can probably give u some really gross answer.
Ha, by the time China “kidnapped” a kid, U.S. just tried to interfere everything in every country. If there was not a recession now in the economy n so many protests against the war in Iraq, the States might be caring abt the car accidents all over the world!
Dearest R,
Glad to see you’re joining our conversation!
Much as I did for “a chinese,” I will rebut your points. First, you claim that we’ve been brainwashed by our respective governments. Although I can’t speak on behalf of “a chinese,” I can assure you I’m not following the lead of anyone in the Bush administration on this issue. They’ve demonstrated almost no leadership on Tibet (and many things) and seem pretty content to let the Chinese government commit as many atrocities as they want to, so long as they do it quietly enough that it doesn’t cause Bush PR problems.
As for the Dalai Lama, I’m not quite sure you’re what you’re trying to say there, but you appear to be referencing the ties between the Tibetan Resistance and the CIA. These lasted until about 1969 and, although they were certainly established and maintained as a matter of Cold War politics on behalf of the U.S. government, I don’t think it reflects poorly on the Tibetans. They wanted help wherever they could get it and if the CIA was willing to provide them with assistance, I don’t fault them.
You put “kidnapped” in quotation marks when referring to the Panchen Lama. It’s actually pretty well substantiated that this kidnapping took place, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make there.
You conclude by bashing American foreign policy. I think that’s somewhat irrelevant to the issue at hand, as it in no way justifies the actions of the Chinese government.
So, all right then.
Quoted from Telegraph
Tibet protests indeed backfired disastrously– all heart and no brain
JSwan 12 Apr 2008 02:35
I’ve been involved in the cause of human rights in China and the Tibet issue for many years now, and Richard Spencer is exactly right– the protests have backfired disastrously, and not just among ordinary Chinese. The vast majority of regular people I know (Britons, Germans, Americans, Australians, Canadians) without a prior inclination either way on this issue, now find the Tibet movement and the drive to improve human rights in China overall, to be populated by a combination of fools, zealots and professional protesters with far too much spare time on their hands.
Rupertornelius said it right, as did Stanford– there’s been too much overzealous protesting and too little calm, seasoned discussion of what’s actually a very complicated issue. The assault on the Paralympian torchbearer in a wheelchair was an utter fiasco, you’re right.
But the Tibet protesters in San Francisco also suffered international humiliation when a reporter there walked up to the protesters and simply asked them to find Tibet on a map– almost none of them, hardly a single one, even had any idea where Tibet was. http://tinyurl.com/5kgdse
I saw the full version of this report and many protesters didn’t even know it was in Asia! His report, of course, was broadcast throughout the USA and even internationally, the result being that the Tibet activists came out looking like those knuckleheaded professional protesters who protest anything and everything under the sun without even knowing what they’re talking about.
Even worse, there were some elderly Tibetan people in San Francisco who chastised the Free Tibet protesters themselves. This is complicated, but before the Chinese entered Tibet, the truth is that most of the Tibetan population was subjected to virtual slavery, in the form of being serfs on their land subject to the rule of nobles. For all their flaws, the Chinese authorities have prohibited this while actually encouraging a decent degree of freedom of religion and cultural integrity among Tibetans, certainly in recent years. And not just in Tibet itself– most Tibetans aren’t in Tibet anymore, they’re in other parts of China along with the country’s 50 other or so minorities. Yet they are still maintaining their Tibetan identity and uniqueness, as I myself found out to my surprise while in China years ago. Things still need reform and improvement on this front, but it’s a complicated issue that requires cool heads to dialogue and negotiate, not hot heads to protest like this.
Anyone who fantasises that the protests have had the effect of “turning away heads of state from the Opening Ceremonies,” is being delusional. Most of the Western world is attending in one form or another. Canada’s PM is not attending but never said he planned to, and in fact, the Premier there is attending. Gordon Brown isn’t showing up but again, he never planned to– Britain is being represented by a minister there regardless, and he’ll be there for other aspects of the Olympics. Angela Merkel in Germany is now caught in an embarrassing pickle because she said she wasn’t attending but said it wasn’t a boycott, but other German ministers are attending, and Merkel’s entire plan is in a state of confusion. Same with France. Spanish ministers are attending, as are those of most other European countries. And with good reason– to improve human rights in China, we need to go there ourselves. We need to see the situation with our own eyes and speak with the Chinese people themselves, in other words, genuine dialogue with them.
To be perfectly honest, in terms of the cause of human rights in China, I think a boycott is a dumb idea anyway. You’re only going to make progress in China by physically going there and interacting with the Chinese people on the ground– the authorities and the ordinary people. As individual Chinese gain wealth, they become less subservient toward their government and more insistent on basic rights, a freer press, releasing political prisoners and so forth. Things in Tibet need improvement but they’re much better than twenty years ago, to be honest– I visited Tibet last year, and all the signs are in both Mandarin Chinese and Tibetan, the Tibetan people are encouraged to celebrate their culture, to take part in festivities, to celebrate their holidays. And no, there wasn’t a government minder with us, we were free to go where we wanted.
On other issues, China’s environmental and animal protection record needs improvement, there needs to be more oversight of products there– like a Food and Drug Administration– more checks and balances, better protection against arbitrary power and corruption by officials, a more independent judiciary, certainly an end to the practice of political prisoners, even a kind of list of basic human rights so that people accused of crime, or who are being persecuted by a corrupt official, aren’t attacked by someone with arbitrary power. Nobody is saying that China is ideal, and reforms are needed.
But the truth is, as I found out while in China, the Chinese people and even the authorities are moving in the right direction– if more gradually than many of us would like. And most of the Chinese authorities really do seem to be sincere about doing their jobs well. There’s a meritocracy in China to select public servants and political leaders that, if anything, may even work better in some respects than the power-driven free-for-all that’s turned the selection of public officials in much of the West, not only in the UK but especially in the USA, into an image-driven fiasco.
China has its own way of doing things, and with such a large and ancient population, they want to maintain social harmony there. Countries like Britain and France only made things much worse there with our clod-headed imperialistic attempts in China in the past 150 years, even though we were unsuccessful at it. China was never colonised after all, and when the Afghans defeated the British and even humiliated us like that in 1842, that basically ended any hope we’d had of controlling the trade routes going into China. And the Chinese, of course, hit back hard after that against Britain, France, the USA, basically all the Western powers in 1950. They have a historical reason for being mistrustful.
Things like this don’t help to build trust with the Chinese either– http://tinyurl.com/5cq9qz
The truth is, much of the Western media outright lied about some of the Tibet coverage– falsely labeling people as “Tibetan protesters” when in fact they were Han Chinese fleeing violent riots, or making false claims about the origin of the protests (they indeed weren’t peaceful), even an Australian fellow in Tibet recorded the violent attacks against individuals and shops in Tibet– http://tinyurl.com/6nm8ne In fact, many of the scenes claimed to be taking place in Tibet, actually occurred in Nepal, and the police (claimed to be Chinese security services) were actually Nepalese security forces! A total misrepresentation in Western media that does grave damage to our credibility.
These kinds of things have understandably enraged ordinary Chinese who, as I’ve found from working in China, actually tend to be favourably inclined to the West and want to interact with us. These distortions in Western media make us look like fools, and even anger Western citizens as well.
External urgings for reform can still be valuable in China, nobody denies that. But they have to be calm, seasoned, and inclined toward constructive dialogue. Yelling and shouting, and especially these kinds of attacks and misrepresentations on China, anger not only Chinese but the world against us.
The truth is, most Chinese aren’t really that different from people in the West. And the Chinese people do want freedoms there, they want their rights protected, they want checks and balances. So the best way to bring this positive change about, is to engage in constructive dialogue, to trade with the Chinese, to interact with them more.
We in Britain and the West in general, absolutely do need to improve the state of our foreign-language education and particularly, our teaching of the Mandarin Chinese language. To communicate with the Chinese on a person-to-person level, we need to speak their language better. It’s not nearly as difficult as some have claimed, and in my own organization, we made a commitment to improve our Chinese fluency years ago. This has paid tremendous dividends for us in helping to push for intelligent reform within China, because it opens the bridge of communication that actually enables us to understand each other.
Hm, that last post actually had some persuasive elements to it. I will reflect on them:
On the whole, I think I’m swayed somewhat by the notion of active and constructive engagement with the Chinese government. You certainly can’t ignore them, that would accomplish about as much American policy towards them before Nixon’s trip.
One of my concerns on the issue is that the “let’s engage with them” people seem to optimistic in their conviction that this engagement and the changes currently taking place in Chinese society will lead to democracy and human rights. How exactly will this happen? At what point and under what circumstances can we expect the Chinese government to say, “Ok, from now on, the people can elect their leaders in a popular vote.” It’s one thing to say that their society is changing in that direction, but how is it realistically doing to about?
Tibet will probably not be freed; the Chinese government’s annexation of the country has become something a “fait accomplis.” The Dalai Lama himself no long advocates for full independence.
I don’t buy the argument implied in the above post that the feudalist society in Tibet before the PLA’s invasion somehow justifies that invasion. For instance, I think it’s a fine thing that the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia and drove the Khmer Rouge from power, but that certainly doesn’t justify replacing them with a puppet regime.
And what about the Panchen Lama? And the thousands of people displaced in order to make room for Olympic buildings? What about innocent Falun Gong members? What about the support for Burma’s military dictatorship? What are we to do with all of that?
It’s a fairly tricky issue. As you’ll recall from my column, I did not propose any real solution for the matter. I just wanted to “put some things out there.”
Here is also probably a good place to comment that I wouldn’t be in favor of an Olympic boycott. That would kind of fuck up the engagement thing. On the other hand, I think protests are justified in order to call attention to the human rights situation in China and its occupied territories. Certainly, these protests should be conducted intelligently and by people who know what they’re talking about (far too many otherwise justified protests are plagued by people in them acting in ways that alienate potential support).
There we go then. I might post more comments on here later. I’m not sure. Thank you to whoever posted that thing from the Telegraph.
I regret my use of the phrase, “China and its occupied territories.” I should have phrased it, “China and the territories occupied by the Chinese government” or something like that. It is always important to distinguish between a country and its government. Certainly conventions of speech (like speaking about “China” when discussing the Chinese government)can become habits.