THE NEW REPUBLIC

25.04.2008

China and the Olympics, Continued

Last week, I debated Steve Clemons on whether President Bush should boycott the Olympics opening ceremony to show disgust over Chinese human rights abuses. I argued that Bush should boycott (or at least find some other way to express his disapproval publicly); Steve disagreed. Much of the debate boiled down to the question of whether Beijing was susceptible to public pressure on human rights--whether embarrassing Chinese leaders over the Olympics might cause them to moderate their human rights policies, or whether it was just grandstanding that would (at best) accomplish nothing and (at worst) spark a nationalist backlash that would alienate China even further from the west.

So I was interested to see that, today, Beijing signaled it was willing to meet with representatives of the Dalai Lama, which it has not done since last summer. According to The New York Times:

China appeared to bend to international pressure on Friday as the government announced it would meet with envoys of the Dalai Lama, an unexpected shift that comes as Tibetan unrest in western China has threatened to cast a pall over the Beijing Olympics in August.

Of course, it's hard to know just how much the recent negative publicity surrounding the Olympics--the protests at the torch relay, the comments of Nicolas Sarkozy, who said he might not attend the opening ceremony--contributed to this move. Plus, offering to meet with the Dalai Lama's representatives is obviously a very small concession. As two experts quoted in the piece point out, the announcement could very well be a mere public-relations gambit rather than a step that will lead to true progress on human rights.

Still, Beijing's move suggests that it is paying close attention to international criticism of its human rights record during the run-up to the Olympics--and that it may be willing to respond to such criticism constructively. Which at least raises the possibility that protests--by athletes, by activists, and by elected leaders like President Bush--aren't doomed to backfire.

--Richard Just

Posted: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:42 PM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ChanRobt said:

A sophisticated acquaintance of mine, a man who had done a lot of business in the Pacific and China several years ago made a prediction to me.

He said that the Communist regime would not survive the combination of admission to the WTO and the Beijing Olympics.

It will be interesting to me-- and I imagine the entire planet-- to see how close to true his prophecy comes.

April 26, 2008 1:21 AM

blackton said:

channy, your buddy is wrong. The Commies are going nowhere anytime soon. there simply is no mechanism for any kind of orderly transition of power that exists outside of the government and the party, no grassroots organizations that are on hand to pick up the pieces, and no opportunity to mobilize any kind of movement to overthrow the party. And within the party the reformers have been taking a beating lately.

It would take an epic disaster for the party to be overthrown by the people (and I can see this shaping up in the twin catastrophes of the demographic nightmare and environmental one).

and all this crap Just is saying is window dressing. The commies are more interested in using whatever methods of dealing with Tibet that are available, they are pragmatists, if there had been no Olympics but an uprising and no protests outside of china about it, they still would do so. Surpressing an uprising costs money. The chinese are amendable to pressure, but most of it is economic. If you recall in 2001 when our spy plane landed in Hainan the crew and the plane was released to coincide with one of the shipping seasons for clothing. There was no way they were going to risk a boycott in the US. They will make a public show of face, but quietly back down behind closed doors.

April 26, 2008 10:11 AM

blackie, you're analysis rings true.

I doubt my friend was envisioning a peasant in the street kind of revolution. I think he foresaw something more sublte, but inexorable.

For myself, I think the problem is going to be the disparity between the ever more prosperous, but relatively small middle classes of certain cities and the vast peasantry that is not benefiting from China's astounding new financial strength.

Even trillions of dollars in the bank could melt very quickly for the regime. And they are as much hostage to the U.S. as the U.S. is to them. Probably much more so until such time as China can truly equal our productivity and economic creativity.

April 26, 2008 2:57 PM

Rhubarbs said:

If the subject of debate is, Resolved: "President Bush should boycott the Olympics opening ceremony to show disgust over Chinese human rights abuses," then I'm against it.

I believe President Bush should not attend the Olympics opening ceremony to preserve the century-plus of tradition in which the U.S. president does not attend foreign Olympics. Not "boycott," just not attend. And not to demonstrate any particular disapproval, but to continue a useful tradition. It would retain for his successors the freedom of action to not attend future foreign Olympics without the non-attendance being seen as a boycott or a snub. (And how insulting would it be if, once the president has attended the Olympics in China, another president declines to attend them in, say, Brazil? Or London?) Alternately, Bush's non-attendance now would allow a future president to use the first presidential Olympics attendance as a meaningful reward -- say, if South Africa or India hosted the Olympics.

But then, that would be the prudent thing to do -- to continue a traditional practice and leave intact the integrity of the office as he found it. So I'm sure it never even crossed Bush's mind to do so.

April 26, 2008 4:27 PM

channy: but relatively small middle classes of certain cities. but you would be surprised to know that that middle class is not really so small, but makes up about 300 million chinese. You wonder how this can be so but I will relate something to you. In the small city of Wuyi, perhaps 100,000 (small by Chinese standards) I visited a Chinese teacher friend. He makes 4,000 rmb a month. This comes out to $500 a month, but due to standard of living he has bought a four story modern town house, the first floor having a living room, kitchen, dining room and small garage, second floor converted into an apartment for his mother, 3rd floor having two bedrooms for he and his wife and a study for him, and the top attic floor having a ping pong table and laundry room with small balcony. In addition he has all modern appliances and a small chinese made minivan.

The chinese peoples lives have improved immensely over the past 15 years, far more than you can imagine. My 26 year old wife (who is from Shanghai) was never in her first elevator until 18. Her family didn't have a tv until she was a teenager. Now they have 3 apartments, 1 which they rent out, and 1 which they bought for their son (my brother in law) who has two girls (the one child law has changed, now many people can have two)

My wife comes from true peasant stock. When she was a girl they had a dog, neighbors complained about the dogs barking so her parents gave them to another family member. He promptly ate the dog.

Such things are almost unthinkable now. Only really poor people do such things. (which, granted there are still many such people)

As I said, I still see disaster in the future 50 million men who are unmarriageable and a deteriorating environment, but I don't think revolution will occur because peoples desire for cheap goods are not being met.

April 26, 2008 6:49 PM