Harry’s Place

Something to make the athletes think:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513358&in_page_id=1770

We didn’t stick up for dictators in WW2 as it happened, but the athletes’ salutes were still a disgraceful episode. A timely reminder where appeasement leads.

So what would we like the athletes to do? Make a gesture of solidarity with the oppessed from the medal podium like a black power salute or something?

Comparisons with 1936 would have created howls from much of the left in 1980, and yet the twin evils of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were reasonably comparable. While China has a poor human rights record, modern China is not reasonably comparabale in that regard with either.

Human rights in China are getting better - though China is far from free there is definitely progress, though it is far from unitform and tends to progress in fits and starts. Comparisons with Cuba and Venezuela might be appropriate.

The appropriate response to China is engagement, whilst making it clear that certain behavior is unacceptable, but in many cases that may be better done in private, along with a clear statement of carrots and sticks. Public gestures of disapproval are more likely to do harm than good - though they are appropriate in case of egregious violations.

China acted poorly in recent events in Tibet, and the West should make it’s view of that clear (with appropriately calibrated actions as well as words). But the Chinese do have some reasonable cause to feel aggrieved by the tone and slant of much of the coverage in the West; whatever the underlying causes, the fact remains that a significant part of the violence was that of a racist mob who murdered and pillaged the lives and property of Han Chinese, solely because of their ethnicity - and this was rarely if ever even noted, let alone highlighed by most of the MSM.

There is no real difference of principle between the Chinese Communist regime and the Nazi regime. They both had a monopoly on political power and believed they owned the people. Both have revelled in brutal oppression of minorities.

Of course this is a far worse case. When Germany was awarded the Olympics it was a democracy. When China was awarded the Olympics it was a brutal totalitarian regime of long-standing. There should never have been any question of awarding the Olympics to China.

What should be done now? Each to his own. The only thing one can say for sure is that no decent person will pretend that these are normal games taking place in a normal country in a way that will advance the Olympic ideals of peace and celebration of youth. We should all do our bit for decency whether that means simply telling out friends what we think about it, protesting in various ways, boycotting Chinese goods, supporting the Free Tibet movement, not watching it on TV, and declining to celebrate any (rare) British successes.

Of course no self respecting democrat should be partaking in this pro-totalitarian circus.

“the fact remains that a significant part of the violence was that of a racist mob who murdered and pillaged the lives and property of Han Chinese, solely because of their ethnicity”

I saw this claimed by the CPB, and nowhere else.

Is there independent evidence that this happened. Can you point to reports which indicate how many were killed, and by whom?

There is no real difference of principle between the Chinese Communist regime and the Nazi regime.

So, the factories for killing people are where?

And, the war of general conquest - presumably that is imminent?

One doesn’t have to be a supporter of Chinese Stalinocapitalism to recognise this argument as over wrought bollocks.

Picture of Field here…

http://www.socialistunity.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/boycott-china-2.jpg

I was thinking, it’s weird that far more China ex-pats and students living abroad turn up at demos to support the Chinese government than the numbers that oppose it. Usually after people get a taste of the political and personal freedoms that we enjoy in the west they turn against their former dictatorship pretty quickly, but with China that doesn’t happen on anything like the same scale. Yes there’s the Tibetan folks to do with that specific problem, and the odd human rights activist, but they’re not exactly a large group given that China is a country of a billion people and are vastly outnumbered by the red flag wavers. Indeed the younger generation at universities across the world are more pro-government and patriotic than ever, despite having access to the internet and free media.

Very interesting. Any thoughts on this?

David T - last week’s economist made essentially this point; sorry not to be completely original.

Mike -

1. Pretty pathetic cartoon. I said “each to his own”. All I was asking is that we don’t pretend these are normal Games taking place in a normal country which will promote the Olympic ideals. I have never claimed to be operating a 100% China boycott. But I will be trying to avoid Chinese goods as far as possible and I will be happy to vote for any party advocating a full boycott of totalitarian China.

2. Your other post is much more interesting. I had noticed that myself.
I didn’t particularly want to post on that, since it would appear I had it in for yet another immigrant community. But it would appear that not only do we have an Islamist 5th column in the UK - we also have a Chinese 5th column who support suppression of Tibet and the Communist dictatorship against the democracies. We know of course that at Chinese Americans in the USA have engaged in treasonable supply of military secrets to the Beijing totalitarian regime.

Reasons? I am a bit surprised as my understanding is that a lot of Chinese immigrants in the UK are from Hong Kong and were in turn refugees from the Chinese communists. Of course a lot of the pro-Chinese demonstrators are trustie students from China. But there does seem to be basic support for suppression of Tibet from the Chinese community. Why? I think perhaps we forget the extent to which Chinese seem themselves at the centre of civilisation in the world. I’m guessing a bit here but I think a lot of Chinese people think Chinese domination of neighbouring people is part of the natural order and of a piece with Chinese people being the source of civilisation in the world. Probably the more the Chinese government appears to be appealing to traditional Confucian ideals the more it appeals to the expat community.

Whatever, it’s thoroughly depressing and casts yet another melancholy shadow over the 2008 Games.

David T - here is an eyewitness account from a respected, long-time western jouranalist in China - http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/

“What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa. And the Huis in Lhasa control much of the meat industry in the city. Those two groups were singled out by ethnic Tibetans. They marked those businesses that they knew to be Tibetan owned with white traditional scarves. Those businesses were left intact. Almost every single other across a wide swathe of the city, not only in the old Tibetan quarter, but also beyond it in areas dominated by the ethnic Han Chinese. Almost every other business was either burned, looted, destroyed, smashed into, the property therein hauled out into the streets, piled up, burned. It was an extraordinary outpouring of ethnic violence of a most unpleasant nature to watch, which surprised some Tibetans watching it. So they themselves were taken aback at the extent of what they saw. And it was not just targeted against property either. Of course many ethnic Han Chinese and Huis fled as soon as this broke out. But those who were caught in the early stages of it were themselves targeted. Stones thrown at them. At one point, I saw them throwing stones at a boy of maybe around 10 years old perhaps cycling along the street. I in fact walked out in front of them and said stop. It was a remarkable explosion of simmering ethnic grievances in the city.”

While it does not directly substantiate the most serious official PRC allegation the murder of Han Chinese by the mob, it irrefutably supports the Chinese case that there was pre-meditated racist mob violence against both Han property and people.

Dave W -

What a load of tosh.

Are you going to be similarly censorious about violence to German oppressors in occupied Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine etc.?

The Tibetan people, an essentially peace loving and tolerant people, have been pushed beyond all endurance . No right thinking person will justify violence against people because of their ethnic origin but that does not mean that one cannot see how oppression can lead to such violence.

So, the factories for killing people are where?

One doesn’t have to be a supporter of Chinese Stalinocapitalism to recognise this argument as over wrought bollocks.

Of course there were no death camps in 1936 or for that matter in 1932. But the nazi regime of 1933-1936 was not much different from the Chinese communist dictatorship. Germany in 1933-1936 was a repugnant regime and there was no question that even by the nazis’ own admission, repression and murder was the new order. In 1934 Hitler ordered the extrajudicial execution of hundreds of individuals without trials, and from March 1933 the purge of Jews from the public life of Germany was starting up.

So comparing Germany 1933-1936 with China 2008 is entirely legitimate.

Field - what, exactly is “tosh”. Do you dispute the eyewitness account ? Or are you suggesting that random Han civilians in Llasa are “oppresors” who deserve to have the property destroyed, their lives threatened, their children stoned ?

That you can so readily wave away violence done to ordinary Han residents of Tibet makes you as inhuman in your attitude as the Chinese government.

And FWIW, yes, I regard the ordinary Sudenten Deutsch to have been victims of what we now call ethnic cleansing - forcibly evicted from the land where most had lived for generations out of mind because their presence was inconvenient, and solely because their ethnicity.

The drivel that you spout here week after week is pitiful, but this really does cap the lot for it’s comtemptibility. Today you reveal yourself as no different at all from the scumbag CPC leadership - viewing ordinary individuals as pawns in some great game. “oh, I’m sorry; you don’t have any rights, because you’re on the wrong side”. The only difference is that for you such power is some pathetic wet dream.

Mike - “Indeed the younger generation at universities across the world are more pro-government and patriotic than ever, despite having access to the internet and free media. Very interesting. Any thoughts on this?”

I know a fair number of Chinese - both in China, and Chinese expats here in the US. I haven’t talked with many of them directly in these terms, but at one time or another I have had a lot of discussions about Chinese perception of their country’s place in the world.

China is a country with a long history, and most Chinese see the west’s acendency of the last couple of hundred years as being anachronistic, and western colonialism in China in the late C19 and early C20 is seen as humiliating. Chinese, like most people, are generally patriotic, and there is a lot of pride in China’s economic achievements since Deng. There is also a subtle racism in the way that especially populists in the west talk about China, and that, combined with other aspects of the west’s attitude to China has a tendency to provoke rather a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.

Most Chinese in America know that their country has a long way to go, and this can contribute to making them more prickly than, for example Americans confronted with anti-American xenophobia in Europe. So, while Americans abroad (or at least those patriotic ones, not hate-america lefties) can smile and let the steady stream of quiet vitrol go by, Chinese expats, lacking that self-confidence tend to react. Eveyone I know wants democracy and western standards of human rights, but hearing patronizing lectures on the subject, often understandable generates a defensive response.

I haven’t encountered much intrinsic pre-CPC sentiment, except in as much as the CPC can be seen to embody the PRC when China is under verbal attack, and I perceive the CPC as being generally tolerated rather than liked or supported. The CPC continues to be able to credibly claim credit for the amazing economic boom - the economy is doubling in size every 5 years, and wages and standards of living in many coastal areas are rising at similar rates. And in their day to day lives most urnab Chinese continue to get freer, and so there is at least a widespread sense that even in the area of civil and political rights, things are slowly improving.

In this context, the prevelence of overt patriotism both in Chian and amongst expat Chinese when the PRC comes in for harsh criticism is quite explicable, and should not be taken as any great love for the CPC or it’s leadership.

Dave W

The CCP makes a rod for its own back; not only by their appalling treatment of the Tibetans in the past hence creating the tensions of today, but by banning free media coverage and imposing state censorship.

Chinese Communists are in no position to complain about Western media treatment. The Western media can provide much fairer coverage because of its free market approach (not perfect, but fairer); if the CCP go against that, they only likely get more slanted coverage. But explaining that to the communists is like hitting a brick wall. It’s ‘democratic centralism’ all the way

Human rights violations in China are egregious and ongoing, and the CCP is breaking commitments it clearly made to the IOC. Only the yesterday I read in the SCMP of the Chinese government threatening to de-register lawyers offering to represent the Tibetan protesters in court; that’s simply their job, and threatening lawyers carrying out their vital function goes against the rule of law - but that is common in China’s socialist legal system. The legal representation and trials that the Tibetan protesters have had so far had have been a sham, of course.

The Chinese legal system is sham. Believe it or not that is an improvement; under Mao they barely had a legal system.

The weakness of the Chinese legal system is pretty well demonstrated during the handover of Hong Kong. Beijing managed to water down some of the territory’s democracy at this time, but they barely touched the English common law system; the rule of law and an independent judiciary are the Hong Kong’s clearest victories. Beijing were simply were not in a position to tamper. I suspect many Chinese scholars know the PRC’s legal system is a joke.

Benjamin - I largely agree with you. I said - “But the Chinese do have some reasonable cause to feel aggrieved by the tone and slant of much of the coverage in the West”

I was referring at least as much to the Chines population as to the government, and having reason to feel agreived is subtly but significantly different for having good grounds for complaint, as complaints can reasonably be judged in the context of the complainants other behavior - and the CPC systematically slants almost all local media.

As you know, I have no shortage of distate for the CPC. However, the Olympics are justifyably a matter of pride for almost all Chinese. Protest and sanctions should be carefully directed at the CPC, and not China; roughing up disabled athlethes in their whellchairs is not an appropriate response to anything the CPC has or may have done.

However, the Olympics are justifyably a matter of pride for almost all Chinese.

I absolutely agree. I would also say China is transformed from the worst days of Maoism (although that is a very low bar). Let the Olympics proceed peacefully, but a few boycotts of the opening and closing ceremonies might be in order.

Benjamin - Good post on your blog, by the way.

“Expanded in the early 1950s to its current giant size, it’s like a vast, grey parking space. Whilst the high culture of Paris, Tokyo’s technological innovation or Chicago’s muscular Americana are in some sense celebratory and inclusive, Tiananmen Square is antiseptic, cold, purely and exclusively a testament to power.”

I felt something similar the first time I visited; it gave me something of the sense of what Speer had in mind in his architecture. Seeing it for the first time in the bitter cold of a gray December afternoon reinforces that sense, and I found it even more intimidating under those circumsatnces than on my subsequent visits.

Benjamin - I’m not in favor of boycotting the openeing, but rather the sending of 2nd tier, rather than A-list representatives. Brown should not be there - period. Sending Miliband, the sports minister and a couple of 2nd rate royals is the right way to handle this.

At this point, boycotting should be a personal matter.

Heads of state should not visit and regular folk should not watch.

This discussion is too good to be hidden away in a comments thread.

I don’t suppose that Dave and Benji - who both have the advantage of some familiarity with China - would be prepared to do a series of posts, perhaps responding to each other, on this subject.

It is an open offer.

Gwan! Email me if you’re able to.

LC, I think the crucial point is that there were plenty of indications, nit least Mein Kampf that the war of general conquest - indeed the war of annihilation - were on the cards.

The PRC might be a not very nice state, but I don’t think anyone is seriously going to suggest it plans such a general war and that its leaders have already written down which countries they plan to attack and the particular minority ethnic group they will blame.

The one thing that is not in dispute is that Hitler tempered his anti-jewish policies in the run up to the Olympics. Perhaps the Olympics helped some people to live (because they bought more time for Jews to escape) or perhaps they lulled the west into a false sense of security so ensuring the deaths of (millions) more by encouraging appeasement.

Don’t know the answer to that…

David T - OK, on a long flight, sometime; don’t hold your breath though. Since I acheived VP-ness my time for such things has become limited (still amazed at the time you are able to find to spend on HP). I still owe you that Regular Joe vs Little Guy thing…

Congratulations!

Dave W -

I have a strong whiff of BS entering my nostrils…and it’s coming from your direction.

Anyone reading my post can see I am not seeking to justify the violence. I am simply saying it is a consequence of illegitimate Han Chinese oppression. If you go into a country, import millions of people in a deliberate campaign of ethnic intimidation, if you vandalise centuries old religious institutions, shoot refugees, torture dissidents, pack off hundreds of thousands to Gulags…then don’t be surprised if a few of your people get chopped up in the street when the oppressed get the chance to retaliate.

If all you are saying is “I don’t like ethnic violence” then I am afraid you are just worshipping at the altar of fatuity. I don’t like it either. But where it occurs I look at why it is happening and how it might be stopped.

Here the vast bulk of wrongs are all on the Han Chinese and Chinese Communist side (just as they were on the German side in World War 2). No one invited their army into Tibet. No one asked them to forcibly import millions of their compatriots. No one asked them to try and eradicate Tibetan culture. The solution to the violence is for the Han Chinese government to withdraw its military forces from Tibet. I am sure a returned Dalai Lama would do everything possible to ensure the fair treatment of all ordinary Han Chinese immigrants who were willing to subject themselves to democratic government in Tibet. However I am equally sure that the vast majority of Han Chinese would emigrate back to China proper as they have never had any interest in living with Tibetans.

field - “However I am equally sure that the vast majority of Han Chinese would emigrate back to China proper as they have never had any interest in living with Tibetans”

What possible evidence do you have for that statement? Have you asked them?

As someone who works with a fair few Chinese people at university in London, I think there are a number of reasons why they are generally supportive of the Government. The first reason is economic. Many of the students over here are first generation middle class - their families come from basically peasant or labourer backgrounds, and they have opportunities that their families could never have dreamed of. The economic situation in China itself is pretty good as well - one thing I never realised until actually speaking to Chinese people is that they basically don’t pay any tax - the Government’s income comes mainly from profits from state owned industries. So any services provided by the Government are a pretty big plus point in their favour - especially money to send people to universities in Britain and America!

Overseas students also have considerable freedoms, even compared to us - they can usually stay in the West for as long as they want, and when they go back to China they are pretty much guaranteed a decent job.

Having said that, many seem to embody that saying about the censor being in the head. I’ve not asked about Tibet, but I’ve asked about the Falun Gong, and the reply is usually something like “I don’t know anything about that”. I was once chatting to a Chinese about what music someone liked, and the answer was “underground music”. When I asked what underground music was, it actually means illegal music. It’s also accepted that there are many students over here who are basically informants whose job it is to report on what students are up to.

So there are problems with freedom of speech, even over here, but the Government has control over people’s economic and social prospects (including students over here) so they seem to regard it as a trade off - keep positive about the regime and you can participate in the economic boom. Which is not unlike the situation you get over here working for a major corporation.