Sat, Jul 05, 2008

User login

TAG:

Olympics

The Beijing Olympics Are Like Berlin in 1936 All Over Again

 

Protesters in London: express their feelings for the PartyProtesters in London: express their feelings for the Party As the Chinese Communist Party attempts to shove its Olympic Flame down the world’s throat, it is encountering something it finds shocking: Resistance it cannot shoot. Protesters against the Party’s recent massacres in Tibet have hindered the Olympic Flame in London and Paris. Today the “Grab the Torch” game moves to San Francisco. Party hacks are responding to protesters with outrage and hubris. They have branded those who freely express their opinions through protest as “vile.”

“No force can stop the torch relay of the Olympic Games,” Sun Weide, spokesman for the Beijing organizing committee, said in Beijing on April 9. Oh, really? No force? Rather confident, are we? No surprise here: The Party does not respect the power of democracy; it does not recognize its legitimacy, thus it does not exist.

In fact, citizens of France and England did stop the torch relay in their countries through massive public protests. These protests are expressions of a growing tide of outrage that the Chinese Communist Party was invited to host the 2008 Olympics in the first place. There is a growing sense that if the Beijing Olympics must go forward at all, they should be used to expose the nature of the dictators in Beijing. The major issue for anyone who believes in democracy is simple: This is not about the games, it’s about democracy; the protests are not against the great nation of China, they are against the Chinese Communist Party. Now, in light of recent and continuing massacres in Tibet, the goals and methods of the Party have been exposed yet again.

But If You Go Carrying Pictures of Chairman Mao: you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.But If You Go Carrying Pictures of Chairman Mao: you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow. Why are citizens of democracies allowing the largest mass murderer in human history to wrap itself in the Olympic Flag? You cannot blame the Party. The Party is simply doing what it has always done. It is currently mounting its largest propaganda effort ever. In the past, the Party mounted such campaigns only in China: Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, The Great Leap Forward, and so on. For those of us outside of China, there are two essential aspects to these campaigns:

  1. They resulted in the death of at least 30 million Chinese, making the Party the largest mass murderer in history.
  2. Their primary purpose was to strengthen the Party’s grip on power.

So, what's the Party’s Olympic propaganda campaign all about? The Party wants to convince its own people that it is the legitimate ruler of China. It wants them to forget Tiananmen. It wants to make them ignore what the Party is doing now (and has done for 50 years) in Tibet. It is using propaganda in China to convince Chinese that Tibetan thugs were murdering poor Chinese in Lhasa, and the party had to crack down on them. The Party wants Chinese—and supporters of democracy around the world—to recognize that it is the legitimate ruler of China, even though it has acquired its power by mass murder, and has never been freely supported by those whom it rules.

The Party's Answer to Student Protest: tiananmen square, 1989The Party's Answer to Student Protest: tiananmen square, 1989 Modern nations—a status to which China aspires—recognize that legitimacy cannot be conferred by force of arms. The founding principle of modern democracy is that a government acquires legitimacy from the will of the people, as expressed through free elections. There is no substitute for a popular mandate. It is the only currency of political legitimacy. Any régime that acquires and maintains political power through the barrel of a gun—as Chairman Mao so famously expressed it—is ipso facto illegitimate.

The sad fact that all athletes preparing to compete in Beijing must recognize is this: When you hold up your medal, you are pinning it onto the chest of the Chinese Communist Party. You are helping the Party convince its own people that it's rule has legitimacy. You are helping the Party hide the facts of history from its own people, and the people of the world.

The facts of history are plain to see. The Party executed up to 3 million small landlords in 1953. The rational was simple: You cannot make an omelet without cracking a few eggs. They could not establish communism in China, and they could not create economic equality amongst all classes, until the petty bourgeois were murdered. That was just one of many such propaganda campaigns, which went on for decades. At least 30 million (and perhaps as many as 70 million) people died to establish the ideals of communism in China. How has that worked out? Well, today the Communist Party has dropped Communism as a realistic ideal. State-managed capitalism and crony capitalism are now the driving engine of China’s march to super-power status. The Party serves as the slave master for foreign corporations: Our shoes are cheap in America because the Party forces Chinese to work without free unions.

Hitler at the Olympics: Berlin, 1936Hitler at the Olympics: Berlin, 1936 Hosting the Olympics is the Chinese Communist Party’s conscious attempt to confer legitimacy to its rule, methods, and goals. It seeks legitimacy in China and around the world. Sound familiar? The Nazi Party tried this in 1936. Western athletes who claim we must not taint the Olympics with politics are speaking from ignorance or self-interest. Is that what they would have said to homosexuals and Gypsies who were already being rounded up by the Nazis, even as the world gathered to celebrate the 1936 Olympics in Berlin? Is that what they would have said to German Jews, in 1936, who though not yet being arrested, were already forbidden to enter stores or restaurants?

Just what part of “Never Again” do those in Europe and America, who accept the Party’s Olympic propaganda campaign, not understand? Samantha Power has quoted author David Rieff's suggestion that, "'Never again' might best be defined as 'Never again will Germans kill Jews in Europe in the 1940's.'” I suggest that “never again” means we cannot allow the Party—already guilty of mass murder in Tibet and China—to host the Olympics even as it supports genocide in Sudan and Burma.

That’s the Party that is just dying to meet you in Beijing: A Party that is even now massacring Tibetans, once again, while our governments do nothing. The Party is doing the same thing it has been doing for the last 50 years, and with the Olympics on the horizon, the situation bears an increasingly eerie resemblance to Berlin in 1936.

Time to stand up and be counted.

What You Can Do
Start A Conversation: When you buy a pair of shoes, explain to the clerk that you need them to help you find a pair that were not made in China. They will ask why, and you can explain that the Chinese shoes are cheap because the Chinese Communist Party:

  • Prevents its laborers from forming unions
  • Does not enforce China’s EPA regulations (which American manufacturers are required to do)

If You Had to Walk a Mile in Tibetan Shoes: you'd definitely boycott the PartyIf You Had to Walk a Mile in Tibetan Shoes: you'd definitely boycott the Party This education process can work in any store. Educate yourself about why Chinese goods are so cheap. When you go to Whole Foods, and cannot find frozen edamame except from China, ask to see the Manager. Explain to them why you will not buy the edamame from China, and ask why Whole Foods is not supporting American farmers.

Whenever you have time, every purchase, in every store, can be a moment to spread the facts about the Party. The real strength of a democracy is educated citizens.

Protest: If you're in San Francisco, you can protest against the Olympic Torch.

Get involved with Students for a Free Tibet and join in some of their actions.

The Story of Tibet: the first-ever history of Tibet written with a Dalai LamaThe Story of Tibet: the first-ever history of Tibet written with a Dalai Lama Educate Yourself: Thomas Laird worked with the Dalai Lama over the past ten years to write a popular history of Tibet. The Story of Tibet: Conversations with The Dalai Lama is the first-ever history of Tibet written with a Dalai Lama. This is required reading if you want to know what’s happening in Tibet and China during this Olympic year. You can read reviews of the book and a sample chapter here.

Laird contributed interviews to this interesting Australian radio piece on Chinese and Tibetan History.

You can also hear him n the Paula Gordon show, and on WHYY, Philly.

Watch this chilling, detailed, covertly-made documentary about what the Party is doing in Tibet.

One of the most amazing video reports about the recent protests in Tibet is here.

China Tibet War on Youtube:
See The Party version of history and recent events here.
Watch a rebuttal here.

Keep abreast of Tibetan news here.

Here is a story to start with: The Party thugs who are providing security to the running of the Olympic Flame through the streets of San Francisco were selected from a special unit of the People’s Liberation Army. This same unit is used to suppress Tibetans in Tibet. Imagine that Nazi Party Brown Shirts were running an Olympic Flame through a US City in 1936. That’s what’s happening as we sit and watch. See the facts, here.

Ask yourself: Who made the decision that it was okay for these thugs be on the ground in a US city? Find out, and protest directly to them. What message does that send to the Party? That their actions in Tibet are legitimate?

Links to Follow:

Tibet Justice Center
Students for a Free Tibet
International Campaign for Tibet
International Tibet Support Network
Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy
Human Rights in China


 

Spielberg, What Took You So Long?

 

ET Gives Spielberg: a talking toET Gives Spielberg: a talking toIt was so disappointing when, back in April 2006, Steven Spielberg joined the art advisory team for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. I remember being struck by the double standards inherent in his action: A man whose films include Schindler's List and Munich, and who had created the Shoah Foundation, was willingly entering the employ of an authoritarian regime known for its oppression of religious and spiritual groups, political activists, and of course, Tibetans. Religious rights and freedom of expression are just two issues on the long list of Chinese human rights abuses. And then there's China's involvement in Darfur.

We live in a world that still grapples with the Holocaust; indeed—a world in which Holocaust survivors remain (albeit in dwindling numbers) to share their testimonies. We have seen the kind of suffering that victims of the Holocaust endured repeated again and again in the sixty years since—in Cambodia, East Timor, Guatemala, Rwanda, and Sudan. You'd think we would have learned a long time ago from the global mistake of the Armenian Genocide, which kicked off the bloody 20th Century and set the world stage for what was to come. Spielberg's choice to creatively support the Olympic games in China seemed to imply that he'd learned only to value money over humanity.

His decision, finally, to protest Beijing's support for Sudan by resigning from the Olympics team is late, but heartening.

Related: Jewcy's Darfur Coverage


 
DAILY SHVITZ
Boycotts and International Sports

An editorial in yesterday’s New Republic returns to the increasingly urgent question of participation in next year’s Beijing Olympics, and the possibility of a boycott by US athletes in protest at China’s appalling human rights record. TNR’s editors concede that a boycott is unlikely to happen, for commercial as much as political reasons, but propose an alternative; instead of refusing to attend, US athletes should use the Games, and their attendant publicity, to make highly public, and visual, protests against the lack of free speech and civil liberties in the country, akin to John Carlos and Tommie Smith’s famous Black Power salute in Mexico City in 1968. (Then, as now, the well-lunched suits at the IOC took a dim view of anything which threatened their cash cow. Carlos and Smith were immediately banned from the rest of the Games.)

The nexus of sport and politics is a complex one; it’s rarely as simple to disentangle the two as we would like, but by the same token it can be difficult to decide when the boycott is an appropriate weapon to use against a rogue state. Most historians and sports fans would agree that the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games achieved bugger all (except for Scottish sprinter Allan Wells, whose gold medal in the men’s 100m was at least partly attributable to the absence of US sprinters, though he regularly beat all-comers for some time afterwards). As for the retaliatory Soviet boycott four years later, it was simply pathetic.

But at the same time as the superpowers were using sport as a continuation of cold war by other means, the boycott of apartheid South Africa was in full swing. South Africa had been banned from the Olympics as early as 1964; much more damaging to that sports-mad nation were worldwide boycotts of the cricket side and, most crucially of all, the Springboks rugby team, which was (and is) central to the Afrikaner identity in a way it’s perhaps difficult for outsiders to appreciate. (When Nelson Mandela attended the World Cup Rugby final in 1995, he wore the hated [by black South Africans] green jersey to make the presentation to the winning Springboks team, and in doing so made a powerful gesture of reconciliation that is remembered to this day.) Whether the boycott ultimately contributed much to the fall of apartheid is doubtful, however.

The biggest controversy of recent years surrounded Zimbabwe’s participation in the 2003 Cricket World Cup. After a protracted, farcical will-they won’t-they dance that lasted some weeks, the England team forfeited their match against Zimbabwe rather than travel to Harare to play, but on the mealy-mouthed grounds of player safety rather than out of principle. Two Zimbabwean players – black bowler Henry Olonga and the (white) captain, Andy Flower, had rather more guts, and wore black armbands in a match against Namibia as a protest against the “death of democracy” in Zimbabwe - and were immediately sacked, eventually being granted asylum in the UK. Zimbabwe continue to participate, albeit sporadically, in international cricket; Mugabe’s people continue to starve. England’s protest, like that of the brave Zimbabwean players, made headlines but changed nothing.

Fast forward to the present day, and calls for a boycott of Beijing 2008 come and go. The arguments for and against such action will not be rehearsed here, but it’s unlikely to get off the ground either way; there’s just too much invested in the Games for a boycott to be called at this stage.

The Games should never have been awarded to China. The expressed hope was that bringing the Olympics to Beijing would help open up the world’s most populous nation and persuade its rulers to relax restrictions on political freedom. This process may be happening on its own – very slowly – but it’s hard to see, ten months out, much cause for optimism, and there’s every expectation that the Games will instead be a massive propaganda coup for the Chinese regime. And the upcoming attention does not, for example, seem to have had any discernible effect on their support for the junta currently liquidating opposition in Burma. Nonetheless, there are few grounds for imagining that a boycott would make any difference whatever to the Chinese people or their rulers in the longer term.

Despite their ineffectiveness, however, boycotts remain popular. And for many people around the globe, there’s no doubt who’s first in the firing line, metaphorically and literally, in any shopping list of nations that deserve the cold shoulder; yep, it’s the nasty Jooos and their ‘apartheid occupation regime’ in Palestine. And it’s quite often forgotten that Israel has been the object of the longest sporting boycott in history. Teams from all over the Muslim world refuse to compete with them, not just on the sporting field but in everything from high school debating to international tap-dancing. Israel’s soccer team play in the European Championships rather than the Asian Cup for a reason. And this boycott extends, through any number of official and unofficial channels, to anything and everything to do with the state of Israel.

Inevitably, the trend has spread, in the past few years, to the bien-pensant, anti-Zionist left in the UK and the US, most notably in the form of the UCU boycott of Israeli academics and universities, which was only recently defeated thanks to a legal challenge. The boycottistas, with the keen support of the far left, are fond of comparing their campaign against Israel to the good old days of the anti-apartheid movement, but the truth is that behind the impassioned pleas for Palestinian civil rights and [sometimes] justifiable condemnations of Israeli excesses, lies a hardline anti-engagement agenda that does as much to poison the well for peace as the most extremist West Bank settler.

Support for a boycott of Israel, whether sporting, academic, economic or political, relies not on disapproval of this government or that, but of Israel as such; comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa feeds both covertly and consciously into the all-too-prevalent idea that Israel is a cuckoo in the nest which doesn’t belong on Palestinian soil, that it is an illegitimate regime which must be brought down by international pressure. That is not to say that all supporters of the boycott have suspect intentions; but their simplistic, cack-handed approach does nothing to encourage a dispassionate view of the steps that need to be taken to bring about a lasting peace, because it loads all the blame onto one side. But of course, for the SWP and many of the other hard-left groups involved, there is another, darker agenda at work. You don’t see them clamouring to boycott the murderous thugs who run Gaza.

I find the issue of boycotts very difficult. On the one hand, I applaud the stance of the British Prime Minister, who says he will not attend the EU–African summit in Lisbon in December if Mugabe shows up. And I was angry that the England cricket team didn’t have the courage to stand up and say that they would not travel to Zimbabwe to play them in 2003. On the other, there’s plenty of evidence that boycotts are not only ineffectual but also hit the wrong people, punishing innocent working people for the crimes of politicians and soldiers. As for sport, once you bring politics onto the field of play, it’s difficult to know where the line should be drawn. If we boycott China over their support for the Burmese regime, why not South Africa over their support for the Mugabe thuggocracy?

So, on balance, I agree with TNR’s suggestion; show up to the Games, but make sure the Chinese government don’t get a free ride. How glorious if the winner of the men’s 100m could dedicate his victory to the political prisoners in China’s jails, or the winning basketball team unfurl a subversive banner that even Chinese state television would struggle to censor. It might not be Jesse Owens sticking it to the Fuhrer, but it would be something, wouldn’t it? Until the IOC banned them the next day, of course.


DAILY SHVITZ
Preparing to Protest China

In preparation for next year’s Olympics, the Chinese government has made a concerted effort to crack down on “chinglish." Now it is confronting the more serious problem of reducing the incredible amount of pollution in Beijing.

Considering that these developments have clearly happened in anticipation of international attention, it’s clear that the Chinese government’s motivation is not to improve communication with foreign countries or ensure the health and comfort of Olympic athletes (forget its own people) but to pretty up its image—that is, sheer stubborn pride (which is why when it comes to iPhones, say, they'll giddily flout international patent laws).

Logically, then, this really ought to work. Why does it feel like wishful thinking? (And why is it semi-embarrassing to make obvious points, even when they’re right? The banality of talking about evil?)

As the Olympics approach, people with all sorts of beef with China will seize the opportunity, not just those concerned with the genocide in Darfur, but China’s support of the genocide in Darfur is the most important protest for Americans, athletes and spectators alike. That said, here’s hoping that Spielberg, Johnny Cheek, and anyone else who decides to protest resists the impulse to go all Live Earth on China—all they have to do, and, really, this is the most effective protest, is show up, shut up, and refuse to play along.