A Touch of British Wit -- Tibet: the West can use the Olympics as a
weapon against Beijing / Michael ****tillo
"The unprecedented grandiosity of the torch¡¯s itinerary must have looked
great on the drawing board. In practice, Beijing has secured a rolling
programme of antiChinese protest circling the globe."
-- Michael ****tillo
From The Sunday Times
March 23, 2008
Tibet: the West can use the Olympics as a weapon against Beijing
Michael ****tillo
Adolf Hitler¡¯s glee at exploiting the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a showcase
for Nazism turned to fury when the black American athlete Jesse Owens
won four gold medals. The Chinese leader****p must by now be wondering
whether staging the Games in Beijing will bring the regime more
accolades than brickbats. Be careful what you wish for, as Con****ius
probably said.
In defence of the Olympic movement, Berlin had been selected before the
Nazis came to power. No such excuse covers the decision to award the
coveted prize to Beijing. In 1989 the Chinese government crushed the
peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square as the world looked on in horror.
China still secured the Olympics and a propaganda triumph and has looked
forward to showing off to the world.
The authorities must have reflected that other governments are rarely
brave enough to boycott the Olympics. The Berlin Games proceeded even
though the Nazis had by then implemented the infamous Nuremberg laws
that deprived German Jews of basic human rights.
Admittedly the Americans led a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics
because Soviet troops had stormed Afghanistan (Russian invasion bad,
American invasion good). China knew that, short of marching into
neighbouring territory, nothing it did would put its show at risk.
All the indicators suggested that China would be given a soft ride. When
President Jiang Zemin visited Tony Blair in 1999 the Metropolitan police
treated pro-Tibet demonstrators roughly. Double-decker buses were used
to ****eld the protest from Jiang¡¯s sensitive eyes. As Wa****ngton became
embroiled in the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and
extraordinary rendition, not to mention the tremendous loss of civilian
life in Iraq and Afghanistan, Premier Wen Jiabao, the prime minister,
must have been confident that America would avoid dialogue on human
rights.
In any case we are all in awe of China¡¯s economic power. When Gordon
Brown toured there last month, he talked of business op****tunities.
Prime ministers loathe being asked to raise human rights issues that
threaten to interrupt the smiles, handshakes and toasts by which the
success of visits are measured. Brown probably limited himself to the
vaguest urging of reform.
China¡¯s economic sway is such that it has undermined US foreign policy
with impunity. America aims to use its muscle to shape a world that
embraces western values. In developing countries it insists that
governments respect the rule of law and reduce corruption as a condition
for trade and aid. China, on the other hand, has extended the hand of
friend****p to gruesome regimes (including Sudan¡¯s). Beijing¡¯s
requirement for natural resources is its only consideration. Maybe it
has enjoyed thwarting America¡¯s attempts to ex****t its liberal values.
So China had every reason to expect a trouble-free Olympics that would
show its best face to the world. In Berlin the anti-Jewish notices were
taken down in the weeks preceding the Games. In Beijing the use of cars
has been restricted to reduce air pollution.
In the modern world governments are not the only players. Steven
Spielberg, the film director, withdrew as artistic adviser to the Games¡¯
ceremonies, remarking that his conscience did not allow him to continue
while ¡°unspeakable crimes¡± were being committed in Darfur.
His decision has transformed the situation. In that moment the Beijing
Olympics flipped from being an op****tunity for the Chinese government
and became a threat. China¡¯s deep concern that the Games should be a
success provides those who oppose its policies with a narrow window of
op****tunity. It delivers leverage both to domestic dissidents and to the
outside world, unparalleled since Tiananmen.
With the news blackout imposed by China on the country¡¯s interior we
cannot know whether the Tibetan protests are op****tunistically linked to
the forthcoming Games. But the Olympics are a political factor and the
situation is dynamic. The eyes of the world are turned disapprovingly on
Chinese policies.
¡°If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against
China and the Chinese in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to
speak out on human rights,¡± declared Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US
House of Representatives, before cheering crowds of Tibetans in northern
India, where she had gone to meet the Dalai Lama. Such outbursts had not
featured in China¡¯s ¡°script¡± for the Olympics.
Our prime minister, discovering the courage of others¡¯ convictions, has
said that he, too, would like to meet the Tibetan spiritual leader.
David Cameron has congratulated him, so we have a new consensus. We have
moved a long way since Blair claimed to have too many requests for
meetings to find time to receive the Dalai Lama during his 2004 visit to
Britain.
China failed to understand that politicians in democracies cannot
predict what positions they will take. Spielberg¡¯s d¨¦marche has changed
everything for them. In a few weeks they have moved from avoiding
anything that might offend Beijing to scrambling to be seen as
pro-Tibetan. It scarcely matters whether the riots in Lhasa were, at
least in part, brutal and racist, nor that such violence is in defiance
of the Dalai Lama¡¯s strictures and undermines his authority. The Tibet
bandwagon is rolling and every democratic politician clamours for a
place on board.
As western politicians are exposed as being powerless to avert economic
downturn and as Iraq and Afghanistan smoulder on, heaping opprobrium on
China offers an agreeable op****tunity to divert attention from the
politicians¡¯ other woes.
The genie is out of the bottle and there is no predicting where this may
end. All our politicians say that boycotting the Olympics is not on the
cards. But that is for now. If the situation in Tibet deteriorates,
pressure will grow to use the Olympics as a weapon against Beijing. If
China continues to thwart western journalists in their attempts to
re****t dissent, the hostility of the world¡¯s media can be guaranteed.
However, if it allows events to be re****ted, the protesters will seize
their chance.
Anyway, there is much that can be done short of a total boycott. The
Olympic torch is to embark on a world tour, providing the occasion for
Tibet and Darfur protests around the world. When it arrives in London, I
predict that the 2,000 police being mobilised that day will go easy on
the demonstrators and no buses will block our view of them. Sir Trevor
McDonald, scheduled to be a torch bearer, will surely face insistent
calls to withdraw.
Mia Farrow, the actress, will front the protest when the torch p*****
through San Francisco. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton must then
consider how to garner sup****t from those demonstrations in America¡¯s
most populous and perhaps most liberal state.
The unprecedented grandiosity of the torch¡¯s itinerary must have looked
great on the drawing board. In practice, Beijing has secured a rolling
programme of antiChinese protest circling the globe.
If celebrity torch bearers are forced to pull out one by one, China will
suffer daily public relations disasters. Nor does its recruitment of
Spielberg, a spectacular coup at the time, look such a brilliant move now.
The ceremonies on which he was advising will provide the next focus.
They can be shunned without disrupting the s****ting events which
supposedly are the point of the Olympics. Indeed, once the politicians
have aligned themselves with Tibet and Darfur, what justification could
they offer for allowing the regime to bask in global adulation?
When China bid for the Olympics it judged correctly that democratic
politicians are pusillanimous. Given their hunger for Chinese contracts
they would not let massacre in Darfur or torture in Tibet disrupt a good
party. But Beijing failed to see that western statesmen are even more
craven towards their celebrities and media.
Beijing¡¯s other mistake was being too anxious for the Games to be a
success. A man who wants something too much makes himself vulnerable.
Surely Con****ius said something of the sort.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_****tillo/...
|
