News & Politics - Controversy over 2008 Beijing Olympics

Dark Half Undine · 02-15-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Rocky Road Ahead for Beijing Organizers

By ANITA CHANG – 2 hours ago

BEIJING (AP) — As China prepares to dazzle the world at the Beijing Olympics, an uninvited guest is showing up early and threatening to mar the spectacle: free speech.

A political row erupted in Europe when some Olympic committees and officials tried to muzzle athletes from speaking out about human rights and other sensitive issues at the games.

Hollywood director Steven Spielberg quit as an artistic adviser to Beijing this week because he thought China wasn't doing enough to pressure Sudan to end the conflict in Darfur. Nobel laureates and former Olympic gold medalists added their voice on China's role in the humanitarian crisis by issuing an open letter.

The developments illustrate just how rocky the road to the Beijing Olympics is likely to be. With the event six months away, the world is taking a harder look at China's persisting ills — while the communist government is hoping the Olympics will redefine the country as a welcome global power.

The message China hopes to convey: "Look at us, we're a big friendly panda, not a big scary dragon," said David Wolf, a Beijing-based media consultant.

The current discord has challenged Beijing's meticulous plans for the games. The government has spent tens of billions of dollars making over the Chinese capital with architecturally stunning venues and infrastructure. The Beijing Olympics theme — "One World, One Dream" — carries a message of harmony.

But the combination of an authoritarian government with big Olympic ambitions on one side and a plethora of vocal critics on the other seems likely to make this summer's games among the most politicized in decades.

Politics has intruded before: The United States led a boycott of the 1980 Moscow games to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That prompted a Soviet-led boycott of the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984.

"No matter Beijing likes it or not, politics has been important part of the games from the very beginning," Xu Guoqi, a China-born historian at Kalamazoo College in Michigan, said in an e-mail. "The problem is that Beijing hates to be cornered by the critics of China who use the games to score politically or diplomatically."

And China's critics are numerous.

Britain's Prince Charles says he won't go to show support for the Dalai Lama, exiled from Chinese-controlled Tibet where he once reigned. World-class athletes have talked of wearing masks to block out Beijing's choking pollution. Human rights and media watchdog groups point with dismay to the practice of jailing dissidents and journalists on questionable charges.

In recent days the British and Belgian Olympic committees drew fire from rights groups after trying to ban athletes from making politically sensitive remarks or gestures during the Olympics. The British Olympic Association backtracked, saying it only wanted athletes to respect the Olympic Charter, which prohibits demonstrations and "political, religious or racial propaganda" at Olympic sites.

On Darfur, where Sudanese government forces and militias have fought rebels in a conflict that has left more than 200,000 people dead, campaigners want China to use its heft as a big buyer of Sudanese oil to push the government to end the violence. Spielberg said Tuesday his conscience would not allow him to act as artistic adviser to the opening and closing ceremonies.

Always prickly when it comes to foreign censure, Beijing has lashed out, accusing critics of injecting politics into sports. In a typical comment, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Thursday that some detractors of China's policy on Darfur "may have ulterior motives, and this we cannot accept."

Preparations were progressing smoothly and "we believe excellent ceremonies will be presented to the world," the Beijing Olympic organizing committee, BOCOG, said in a brief statement. It noted that linking sports and politics was "not in line with the Olympic Spirit."

With half a million or more foreigners expected in Beijing this summer, organizers will have to be alert for the unexpected. Groups critical of China's rule in Tibet and religious restrictions have said they want to join the throngs.

Beijing must be ready for the possibility of, say, "a Tibetan monk setting himself on fire in front of the Beijing Hotel," said David Zweig, a China expert at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

"They have to think about it very seriously. They are not very adept at handling street protests by foreigners. They've never done it," he said.

In a sign of its nervousness, Beijing has decided to restrict media access to Tiananmen Square — the heart of a pro-democracy movement crushed by the military in 1989 — especially for television crews. International Olympic Committee officials say privately it's because of concerns about demonstrations. BOCOG officials worry that the Olympic torch relay is vulnerable, particularly outside China.

As the games approach, even minor disputes are likely to be magnified by the glare of attention, potentially knocking Beijing further off-message.

"Can you ensure that the sideshow doesn't move to the center stage? That's always a challenge for the Olympics and that will be the challenge for the Chinese this year," said Wolf, the media consultant.

One advantage for the Chinese leadership is its control over the media in China. That allows it to keep bad news from ordinary Chinese, who are largely supportive of the Olympics.

News of Spielberg's exit went mostly unreported for two days, until after the Foreign Ministry issued a response defending China's actions in Darfur. Beijing residents, who are eager to show off their city to foreigners, shrugged it off.

"Spielberg's action will have only very limited impact on the games," said Zhang, a 64-year-old Beijing resident who gave only his surname as is common in China. "Maybe he's an important figure in U.S., but here his words carry little weight."

Quote:

Some Criticisms Facing Beijing Olympics

By The Associated Press – 2 hours ago

Key criticisms facing Beijing's staging of the Aug. 8-24 Olympics:

___

FOREIGN POLICY — Hollywood director Steven Spielberg announced Tuesday he would no longer act as an artistic adviser for the games' opening and closing ceremonies to protest China's support for the Sudanese government, which is accused of human rights abuses in Darfur. Beijing has also been petitioned by Nobel Peace Prize laureates, former Olympians and 120 members of the U.S. Congress.

___

AIR POLLUTION — Athletes have been told to arrive late and leave early to avoid hot, polluted air, and Britain, the United States and other countries are considering supplying their athletes with breathing masks. International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge has warned that some events could be postponed and Haile Gebrselassie, recognized as the world's greatest distance runner, said he might skip the Olympic marathon altogether.

___

RELIGIOUS RESTRICTIONS — China's officially atheistic communist government maintains strict controls over all religious activity, and is reportedly ferreting out clandestine missionaries ahead of the games. Despite that, evangelical groups say they plan to be active in Beijing. Together with expected protests by the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, that poses the likelihood of protests and arrests that could tarnish the games' image. Protesters have also rallied against Chinese control over the Buddhist region of Tibet.

___

PRESS GAGS — China's state-controlled media is tightly leashed and press freedom groups regard the country as the world's leading jailer of journalists. China pledged to allow full freedom during the games and has lifted some restrictions over foreign media, but reporters and monitors say the government has failed to live up to those commitments.

HUMAN RIGHTS _ International human rights groups such as Amnesty International have urged governments, Olympic sponsors and individuals to pressure China to free political prisoners and ratify a key U.N. rights accord. Seeking to avoid controversy, Britain's Olympic Association asked its athletes to sign an agreement pledging not to speak out on political issues, but later backed down, saying that appeared to go beyond IOC rules.

I say...good. China wanted to enter the bidding war for the Olympics and didn't expect people to criticize them?

They want to be a part of the new global culture, then they need to start changing their tune about human rights and many other aspects of their questionable government.

**TheAngel** · 02-16-2008, 09:25 AM

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that China has a lot of things it needs to change, but at the same time, change doesn't come all at once without destabilizing the government and the people and plunging an already perilous situation into chaos. I think it's good that a dialog has been started, that's the first step, but people can't expect their entire political philosophy, international policy, and way of life to change in a matter of a couple of years. Look at how long the industrial revolution took in Europe, and this is where China is at now. At the same time, if I go over to a foreign country I'm expected to live by their rules and their laws and their social standards while I'm there. If I do something in a European country that's a crime that isn't in the US, I'll be judged by that country's standards. I'm not going to go to a conservative Middle Eastern country and walk around in jeans and a T-shirt. There's a big difference between initiating the change of policies that have been the backbone of a country's political policies for decades if not longer, and imposing your ideas and way of life on them with the expectation of instant change.

**sum1** · 02-16-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that China has a lot of things it needs to change, but at the same time, change doesn't come all at once without destabilizing the government and the people and plunging an already perilous situation into chaos. I think it's good that a dialog has been started, that's the first step, but people can't expect their entire political philosophy, international policy, and way of life to change in a matter of a couple of years. Look at how long the industrial revolution took in Europe, and this is where China is at now. At the same time, if I go over to a foreign country I'm expected to live by their rules and their laws and their social standards while I'm there. If I do something in a European country that's a crime that isn't in the US, I'll be judged by that country's standards. I'm not going to go to a conservative Middle Eastern country and walk around in jeans and a T-shirt. There's a big difference between initiating the change of policies that have been the backbone of a country's political policies for decades if not longer, and imposing your ideas and way of life on them with the expectation of instant change.

That's nonsense. That's the "it's their culture, let them do it" argument that people have used to defend honor killings.

"I'm not going to go to a conservative Middle Eastern country and walk around in jeans and a T-shirt."

Well you should be able to.

Just because a country has a history of human rights abuses doesn't mean we should say "Well that's the way they do things there" and tolerate it. A lot of people have suffered in China under the human rights abuses, are we supposed to not care about those people? In Saudi Arabia a woman is presently up for execution because she's been accused of being a witch. I'm not going to say "that's their way of doing things, we should tolerate it". Rather I say "look, this needs to be stopped". China needs to clean up its human rights situation. Now, before more people suffer.

As for Darfur, I've read that according to Amnesty International China has supplied military equipment (eg fighter planes) to Sudan and that this equipment has been sent for use in Darfur.

I've also read that people have been moved out of their homes in Beijing to make room for the Olympics.

It is right that people protest and boycott the Beijing Olympics.

***Jerry D*** · 02-16-2008, 06:34 PM

sum1, I actually agree with a lot of what you said, but please don't dismiss any other person's opinion as nonsense. Thank you.

**sum1** · 02-17-2008, 07:03 AM

Re China another thing that should be remembered is the Tibet situation. It hasn't been in the news much lately but Tibet is still under China's boot and I don't see anything being done about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry D (View Post)

sum1, I actually agree with a lot of what you said, but please don't dismiss any other person's opinion as nonsense. Thank you.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to just dismiss it. I called it nonsense because it seemed like dangerous nonsense to me. It seemed pertinent to describe it as such. Certain attitudes are I believe nonsensical and dangerous and cause a lot of harm. I mean, people who try to bring reforms have said how the "it's the way they do things, we should tolerate it/can't change it/shouldn't push for change" type of attitude seriously gets in the way of bringing reforms and saving people from things like honor killings. If an attitude is dangerously misleading and causes actual harm I think it's important to point that out. If it's deeply wrong I think it's important to point that out. Part of that is pointing out how the attitude is nonsensical. Otherwise I don't see how you can address how far wrong it is. I wasn't trying to just dismiss anybody's opinion. I didn't mean to be rude to anybody.

**TheAngel** · 02-17-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

Re China another thing that should be remembered is the Tibet situation. It hasn't been in the news much lately but Tibet is still under China's boot and I don't see anything being done about it.Sorry. I wasn't trying to just dismiss it. I called it nonsense because it seemed like dangerous nonsense to me. It seemed pertinent to describe it as such. Certain attitudes are I believe nonsensical and dangerous and cause a lot of harm. I mean, people who try to bring reforms have said how the "it's the way they do things, we should tolerate it/can't change it/shouldn't push for change" type of attitude seriously gets in the way of bringing reforms and saving people from things like honor killings. If an attitude is dangerously misleading and causes actual harm I think it's important to point that out. If it's deeply wrong I think it's important to point that out. Part of that is pointing out how the attitude is nonsensical. Otherwise I don't see how you can address how far wrong it is. I wasn't trying to just dismiss anybody's opinion. I didn't mean to be rude to anybody.

I think you misinterpreted just about my entire statement. I'm not excusing what China is doing because of a difference of culture. I don't approve of their support of what's happening in Darfur, or their treatment of a number of religious groups or their social structure that is in place, but at the same time I don't like how people are using the Olympics as an excuse to bring this to light when it should have been done, and in some ways has been done, for decades. I'm sorry, but what did the committee that chose Beijing as the Olympic city expect. You do seem to be stuck on the honor killings example as well, but my example of wearing jeans and a t-shirt in a foreign country was a little bit less dramatic. I was expressing a conformation out of respect to cultural norms. I wouldn't walk around Europe with a US flag attached to my back, nor would I go to a minority event and shout anti-minority slurs. I think people are using China as a scape goat for a lot of things wrong in the world. It seems to me that a lot of other countries are guilty of similar things, but China's become the example of the moment and I don't think snubbing them is the right way to deal with the situation because they've already spent huge amounts of money on the situation and would be very economically hurt, and not just the government in this case but other working class people that could profit, as well as it potentially dissolving any other types of diplomatic relationships that could be fostered in the process.

Dark Half Undine · 02-18-2008, 01:32 AM

There have been many instances of political inklings in the Olympics, so I don't think it's really wrong that it's happening. It is the nature of any culturally global event.

**sum1** · 02-18-2008, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

I think you misinterpreted just about my entire statement. I'm not excusing what China is doing because of a difference of culture. I don't approve of their support of what's happening in Darfur, or their treatment of a number of religious groups or their social structure that is in place, but at the same time I don't like how people are using the Olympics as an excuse to bring this to light when it should have been done, and in some ways has been done, for decades.

I don't think I misunderstood your statement. And why shouldn't people use the Olympics to bring this to light? Heck, the Olympics should be good for SOMETHING and China's abuses need to be addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

You do seem to be stuck on the honor killings example as well,

It's an important example which people often screw up on, it deserves to be brought up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

but my example of wearing jeans and a t-shirt in a foreign country was a little bit less dramatic. I was expressing a conformation out of respect to cultural norms.

Cultural norms don't trump essential freedoms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

I wouldn't walk around Europe with a US flag attached to my back,

I don't see why you shouldn't. If people don't like it that's their problem. And I say that as a European.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

nor would I go to a minority event and shout anti-minority slurs.

That is not an appropriate example because that's different from the other stuff and it's not about cultural norms it's about not shouting bigoted things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

I think people are using China as a scape goat for a lot of things wrong in the world.

No, China is guilty of human rights abuses, oppression of Tibet, their Sudan involvement and other things. All those things need to be addressed. Addressing them isn't scapegoating it's addressing problems that need addressing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

It seems to me that a lot of other countries are guilty of similar things,

So those countries' abuses should be addressed too. That in no way means China's abuses shouldn't be addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

but China's become the example of the moment and I don't think snubbing them is the right way to deal with the situation because they've already spent huge amounts of money on the situation and would be very economically hurt, and not just the government in this case but other working class people that could profit, as well as it potentially dissolving any other types of diplomatic relationships that could be fostered in the process.

Any way of addressing the China abuses problem has its pitfalls. This is the method people have turned to and it's about time SOMETHING got done.

**sunnykerr** · 02-19-2008, 07:46 PM

I agree that something needs to be done about China's "interesting take on human rights," whether at home or abroad. But doesn't cultural sensitivity play some part in helping the message be better received?

Mind you, so long as we're all importing apparently half (if not more) of just about everything we buy from China, I don't see how any of us has got any credibility turning around and calling it out for anything it does.

And, of course, the fact that my cousin's been in the process of adopting from China for years now in no way colours anything I have to say about the country.

**sum1** · 02-20-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

I agree that something needs to be done about China's "interesting take on human rights," whether at home or abroad. But doesn't cultural sensitivity play some part in helping the message be better received?

"Cultural sensitivity" is repeatedly used as an excuse for not doing anything about things like this. People should be more concerned with human rights and less concerned with cultural sensitivity. This isn't about culture, this is about human rights abuses, oppression of a nation and involvement with a rogue regime. Cultural sensitivity is just a red herring here. I don't honestly see how cultural sensitivity plays a part here. This is about protest and putting pressure on a regime that is doing wrong. Cultural sensitivity is not relevant. When non-Americans protested against America going to war in Iraq did they stop for sensitivity to American culture? I certainly don't think there's any way in which the present protest should be more culturally sensitive than it is. And like I've said, bringing up cultural sensitivity is usually an excuse for doing nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Mind you, so long as we're all importing apparently half (if not more) of just about everything we buy from China, I don't see how any of us has got any credibility turning around and calling it out for anything it does.

No true. Any country that doesn't have China's level of human rights abuse has a right to call China on what it's doing. Not to mention that this protest isn't about countries doing something it's about individuals and groups taking action. What would you have us do, ignore what China's doing because countries trade with China? That's what's being going on so far and the result is a lot of suffering for a lot of people.

**‘ChelsღChina** · 02-20-2008, 10:29 PM

Straight from the yahoo front page:
(it was on the front page...it moved)

Quote:

China Media, Public Angered by Spielberg
Wednesday February 20 7:48 AM ET

Hollywood director Steven Spielberg's decision to quit the Beijing Olympics over the Darfur crisis is drawing condemnation by China's state-controlled media and a groundswell of criticism from the Chinese public.

Last week, the American director withdrew from his role as an artistic adviser to the opening and closing ceremonies of the Summer Games, accusing China of not doing enough to press for peace in the troubled Sudanese region.

Officially, the Chinese government has not directly criticized Spielberg by name, expressing only "regret" over his decision. But the state-run media and the public have been far less restrained.

In newspaper commentaries and lively Internet forums, they have expressed outrage, scorn and bewilderment that China's Olympics have come under international criticism from Spielberg and others.

A biting front-page editorial Wednesday in the overseas edition of the People's Daily, the Communist Party's official newspaper, blasted Spielberg for his decision.

"A certain Western director was very naive and made an unreasonable move toward the issue of the Beijing Olympics. This is perhaps because of his unique Hollywood characteristics," it said.

Over the weekend, the Guangming Daily, also published by the Communist Party, ran an editorial saying Spielberg "broke his promise to make his contribution to the Beijing Olympics and betrayed the Olympic spirit."

He "is not qualified to blame China because he knows nothing about the great efforts the Chinese government has made on Darfur," it said.

An editorial in the China Youth Daily was equally scathing.

"This renowned film director is famous for his science fiction. But now it seems he lives in a world of science fiction and he can't distinguish a dream from reality," it said.

China is believed to have influence over Sudanese leaders because it buys two-thirds of the African country's oil exports. China also sells weapons to the Islamic government and defends it in the United Nations.

More than 200,000 people have died in Darfur in a conflict between rebels and militias backed by government forces.

China often uses its newspapers to make statements it does not want to officially comment on. But the issue also has exploded on the Internet, where scores of Chinese have been quick to add their criticism of Spielberg.

"We should have never invited him in the first place," was one retort on Sina.com, the country's largest Internet portal.

Others asked why China's Olympic Games were being linked to Darfur.

"Spielberg used the sacred Olympics as a tool. There are so many simpler or more complicated issues than the Darfur issue in the world," one said. "I rarely heard him say anything. Why was he so keen this time?"

But the recent storm of international criticism has prodded China to take some steps.

Earlier this week, the Foreign Ministry announced that China's special envoy to Darfur will be making his fourth visit to the region later this month.

In a telephone call Tuesday to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Premier Wen Jiabao detailed China's efforts to establish peace in Darfur, a move that underscored the sensitivity of the issue.

On Wednesday, the head of marketing for the Beijing Olympics defended China's stance on Darfur and appealed to activists not to pressure sponsors to pull out of the games.

"China has been doing a lot toward the resolution of the Darfur issue," said Yuan Bin, director of the Beijing Olympics marketing department. "I want to say the Olympics should be kept nonpolitical."

Yahoo! Movies: Movie News

It seems clear to me that China thinks we're being way to harsh on them.

I think someone forgot to tell them that the Olympics have rarely been nonpolitical.

Quote:

"Spielberg's action will have only very limited impact on the games," said Zhang, a 64-year-old Beijing resident who gave only his surname as is common in China. "Maybe he's an important figure in U.S., but here his words carry little weight."

^ that just doesn't seem true now does it.

**sunnykerr** · 02-25-2008, 05:40 PM

Well, forgive me for thinking that people might be more amenable to what foreigners have to say if said foreigners took a second to respect the customs of their land. I'm quite aware that human rights supersede just about anything. I never said it should be otherwise. I never said cultural sensitivity should justify human rights abuses. And I've certainly never used cultural sensitivity as an excuse for accepting human rights abuses.

As for who has the right to criticize... I just hope we're not looking too closely at what's going on at home before we get on our high horses with another country. Just because it's worse somewhere else doesn't mean we don't have a lot of hubris playing judge and jury. Especially when our trade agreements help finance this whole operation.

**TheAngel** · 02-25-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Well, forgive me for thinking that people might be more amenable to what foreigners have to say if said foreigners took a second to respect the customs of their land. I'm quite aware that human rights supersede just about anything. I never said it should be otherwise. I never said cultural sensitivity should justify human rights abuses. And I've certainly never used cultural sensitivity as an excuse for accepting human rights abuses.

As for who has the right to criticize... I just hope we're not looking too closely at what's going on at home before we get on our high horses with another country. Just because it's worse somewhere else doesn't mean we don't have a lot of hubris playing judge and jury. Especially when our trade agreements help finance this whole operation.

That's just it. It seems to me like nothing we say can be taken seriously because the US imports so much from China and we're guilty of terrible human rights violations as well. Not to say that we shouldn't speak out, but we have no credibility. We say how terrible China is while we unload their cargo ships on our shores and write them a great big check.

**sum1** · 02-26-2008, 10:06 AM

So just because the US isn't perfect on human rights we should all ignore China's human rights abuses? Or because countries trade with China we should encourage China to continue abusing its citizens?

Anyway the US isn't perfect on human rights but it sure is better than China. Nor does trading with China take from the credibility of the opposition to China's actions. Trade with China is unavoidable, it's one of the biggest countries in the world. Trade with China is necessary, hard fact. Doesn't mean China's human rights abuses should be ignored. And no it doesn't mean there's no credibility to the opposition to the human rights abuses. Countries have to trade with China, but that doesn't they should ignore everything China does wrong. Should China get a free pass to abuse its citizens just because countries trade with it?

It seems to me I'm seeing a lot of effort being made to find fault with a justified protest against wrongs that need to be protested. I have to wonder why people are looking for reasons to oppose the protest. Is there something wrong with opposing human rights abuses? Should China be encouraged to continue on as it has been, causing suffering to great numbers of people?

Quote:

Well, forgive me for thinking that people might be more amenable to what foreigners have to say if said foreigners took a second to respect the customs of their land.

Respecting customs or not respecting customs doesn't come into this. Quibbling about cultural sensitivity is detouring off into irrelevant stuff. I know of no way in which the protest could be more culturally sensitive. This is not about cultural sensitivity.

Quote:

As for who has the right to criticize... I just hope we're not looking too closely at what's going on at home before we get on our high horses with another country. Just because it's worse somewhere else doesn't mean we don't have a lot of hubris playing judge and jury. Especially when our trade agreements help finance this whole operation.

Hubris my ass. Opposing human rights abuses isn't hubris. It's trying to prevent harm from coming to fellow human beings. And if you look closely at what's going on at home, as you put it, you're not going to find a human rights situation anything as bad as China's. If people rightly want to push for improvement in China's human rights situation that's a worthy cause, not getting up on "high horses". And no you don't have to be perfect to have the right to criticize actions like China's. All you have to have is the will to help oppose the injustices. As for trade agreements with China, that's a reality that's not going to change, quibbling over it doesn't mean China should be allowed to oppress its citizens and Tibet. It's not "hubris" to condemn China's wrongs, it's just doing the right thing, which everybody should be doing. Imagine if the whole world joined in the condemnation, wouldn't it be more likely that there'd be beneficial change? Much more productive than trying to find fault with a justified protest that's trying to help people.

**sunnykerr** · 02-26-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

So just because the US isn't perfect on human rights we should all ignore China's human rights abuses? Or because countries trade with China we should encourage China to continue abusing its citizens?

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying. We should all line up to encourage China to commit human-rights abuses.

I was in no way pointing out that it might be more effective if we weren't trade partners with the country.

Nor was I saying that we can criticize them till we're blue in the face, as long as we keep funding their government through our trade agreements, I don't what kind of incentive China has to budge on anything, human rights or otherwise.

Oh, no. I'm all about encouraging human-rights abuses.

Quote:

Anyway the US isn't perfect on human rights but it sure is better than China. Nor does trading with China take from the credibility of the opposition to China's actions.

Well, I sure hope the US have a better human-rights record than China. I mean, what kind of democracy would it be if they didn't?

And, of course, opposing clear human-rights abuses will always have some inherent credibility. But it might be more credible if the American and, as I was referring to my own, Canadian governments backed their opposition with some actual action.

Quote:

Trade with China is unavoidable, it's one of the biggest countries in the world. Trade with China is necessary, hard fact.

The USSR was once the biggest country in the world. Whole nations avoided trade with it for decades just fine.

Quote:

Should China get a free pass to abuse its citizens just because countries trade with it?

As long as countries continue to trade with it, we are given them a tacit free pass. Condemnations devoid of any real-life consequences are just hot air.

Quote:

It seems to me I'm seeing a lot of effort being made to find fault with a justified protest against wrongs that need to be protested. I have to wonder why people are looking for reasons to oppose the protest.

Trust me, sitting at a computer and typing out my thoughts on an issue does not require all that much effort.

Nor do I consider pointing out what I see as gray areas to be any kind of opposition to codemning human-rights abuses. Merely pointing out ways it could be much more effective.

Quote:

Respecting customs or not respecting customs doesn't come into this. Quibbling about cultural sensitivity is detouring off into irrelevant stuff. I know of no way in which the protest could be more culturally sensitive. This is not about cultural sensitivity.

Well, if you say so...

Quote:

Opposing human rights abuses isn't hubris. It's trying to prevent harm from coming to fellow human beings. And if you look closely at what's going on at home, as you put it, you're not going to find a human rights situation anything as bad as China's.

1) Opposing human rights abuses is trying to prevent harm from coming to fellow human beings? Really?

2) And of course I wouldn't find anything as bad as China in North America. We're either fifty years too late for the worst of it, or we've made peace with the fact that taking a human life is somehow okay if the government deems the person deserved it, or we ship them out to foreign countries.

Quote:

And no you don't have to be perfect to have the right to criticize actions like China's. All you have to have is the will to help oppose the injustices.

It feels like a counter-argument, and yet I don't remember saying anything to the contrary... Weird.

Quote:

As for trade agreements with China, that's a reality that's not going to change, quibbling over it doesn't mean China should be allowed to oppress its citizens and Tibet.

Now I'm quibbling. Well, while I'm at it, wouldn't you say that Native Americans might find the situation in Tibet awfully familiar?

Quote:

It's not "hubris" to condemn China's wrongs, it's just doing the right thing, which everybody should be doing. Imagine if the whole world joined in the condemnation, wouldn't it be more likely that there'd be beneficial change? Much more productive than trying to find fault with a justified protest that's trying to help people.

If you're waiting for the whole world to get together on anything... well, I wouldn't hold my breath. The whole world pretty much agreed global warming was a bad thing and ratified an agreement to do something about it. The next American administration went back on it and my government pretty much did nothing to back up its own pledge.

The whole world pretty much agrees that what's happening in Darfur is awful and should be stopped. Hasn't prevented China from doing business with the Sudan, has it? So it's already proven that it doesn't give a rat's behind about global opinion. And why should it? Who cares what we say when we're still willing to do business? We're not gonna bite the hand that feeds us.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Controversy over 2008 Beijing Olympics