But as most of us will remember and continue to read about, since the moment the IRC announced that Beijing was to host the 2008 Games and the painstaking if not costly preparations began, it was evident that the three-week sporting event will exposing some of China’s extremely ugly social truths that is hidden behind the modernized, developed and glorifying (if not some what sterile) image it hopes to present to the world.
Not mentioning the crackdown on the homeless, politically radical, artistically non-mainstream and other groups and individuals that would deem “embarrassing” to be seen by international visitors, and the corruption deals that goes hand in hand with construction and sponsorship contracts for the games, but relatively non-Olympic related political issues has also moved further into the spotlight, and proven to be bigger embarrassment for the Chinese government ahead of the Games in August. How could sports not be mixed with politics when we're talking about the high profiled Olympic Games? The latest debacle that has erupted with the uprising of Tibetan protestors in March this year have culminated into a domino effect of protests and dissent towards Chinese government’s policies regarding Tibet and also its various human rights abuses towards it own citizens as well as its support for other repressive governments such as Myanmar and Sudan. This perhaps is best known as, at least to me, an extremely successful PR campaign in ‘stalking’ the Olympic torch under the watch of the entire world.
Sadly, while the world has heard the Tibetans and increasingly more and more sympathetic towards their cause, I am not so sure if the Chinese have done the same. The whole exercise has failed to point out to most Chinese citizens on to question the policies and behaviour of their government, and instead the backlash (which is of course encouraged by the Chinese government) against Tibet and other voices of protests has in fact made Chinese people more defensive of their government’s actions, rather than opening a broader space for questioning systematic repressive policies its government applies to which ever group that dares to oppose or speak out against its powers. The debate within China has distorted the point of the issue from the fact that the Tibetans have been violently repressed and persecuted and their culture slowly destroyed (and this is not just since the 1959 invasion) to the fact that Western media has ‘misled’ and ‘misrepresented’ or even ‘fictionalised’ their reports of the isolated incidents relating to March 2008.
The fact is, for most people inside China, access to information and knowledge (which obviously facilitates the development of ideas and social agendas), particularly through the media, cyber space and the public education system is still very much controlled and dictated by the central government, a regime that is desperate to maintain its strict and authoritarian lead over its 9 billion people, and have done little to liberate social freedoms despite rapid economic advancements and development in recent years. Strategies in affirming that its people have confidence in its lead is through pumping propagandas that glorifies nationalism, national pride and national unity. Matters/icons of national pride such as the Olympic Games, The Great Wall and pandas etc are particularly important in being institutionalised and celebrated amongst the population because psychologically this is one of the most effective ways of keeping followers happy and content with their leaders. Territorial issues such as the very controversial ones with Tibet and Taiwan, and reclaiming the Diaoyu Islands off the coast of Japan is also high on the agenda in preserving national pride, especially because there are external opponents that could be demonized and blamed, such as of course the Dalai Lama, Taiwan’s succession of outspoken leaders and Japan’s government/monarchy that only 60 years ago invaded and pillaged China and most of Asia during WWII but has never formally apologized. The facts about these territorial disputes taught to the Chinese are official government issued versions with very clear cut single sided views, and describes the opposition with quite emotional language such as ‘splittists’ ‘traitors’ and ‘rapists’ that have denied China their 'right of ownership over their rightful land'. Have you ever noticed that when
So why am I not surprised that a large gathering (all voluntary… of course) of bussed in ‘pro-Chinese’ supporters gathered in
Apart from the busloads partying away in Canberra (smashing in the skulls of pro-Tibet protestors at the same time), the strong and defiant reaction from the Chinese ‘Netizens’ acts as a mouthpiece on blogs and chatrooms across the web for a gruntful Chinese population united by the insult of losing face in front of the world. Whilst accusing the pro-Tibet protesters as being ‘violent violators of peace and harmony’, the retaliation against the US-Chinese student who was accused of joining the Tibetan protests in the US when the torch was there by pelting stones at her family home in China well as the verbal and physical abuse towards the pro-Tibet protestors in Canberra yesterday is an example of a ‘two-faced’ attitude that some people allow themselves to adopt. The situation does remind me very much of the time when the Chinese government very unusually tolerated (or orchestrated?) massive protests against various American consulates in China when NATO ‘accidentally’ (as it did claim) bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, as well as the various unofficially sanctioned lootings and smashing of Japanese owned businesses across China whenever an issue about a Japanese Prime Minister visiting their war shrine boils over. This unfortunately is also a typical Chinese political behaviour - one law for us and one law for others.
Limited human rights and free speech are not the only sad pitfalls of a highly regulative authoritarian regime. A society that has its knowledge, ideas, freedoms and social discourses so regulated and censored does not have the same capacity as freer societies to develop worldly and open-minded attitudes that will keep up with the tides of time in an interconnected and ever interactive global economy and community.
The attitudes behind the backlash against the criticism the world’s public and media has towards China’s human rights policies/records that has been shown by both Chinese government and civilians alike in the recent weeks in fact demonstrates that China is not ready to come of age , and that it is not ready to take on the world. The self-righteous yet insecure Chinese ego is easily offended in adversity and China has not the grace, eloquence nor open mind to even consider a different angle or a different approach to the hard lines it has taken on towards the invaded and slowly genocided Tibet, or any other contentious issues at that, or what the world thinks of it, let alone dialogue. Dialogue in any extent, at any stage, has proven to be the major element in any conflict resolution at any time in/between any cultures through out human history. But of course for all sorts of reasons we can sight in different examples - although perhaps pride has been a major obstacle in most cases - many leaders of their times choose not to take that path.
Global powers are seldom liked, often despised of, and never popular. Perhaps it’s well founded when a global power does what it likes, irrespective of international law or norms, when it is arrogant and non-perceptive; perhaps it tries to consol itself by saying its because the rest of the world is envious of its stature and might. What ever it is,
One World - One Dream? How about One
................
NB: to be updated in a few days with proof reading and links
