In much of the coverage of the torch relay, commentators have talked about the ‘supine’ British government and the ‘cowardly’ Bush administration which are failing to stand up against the brutes from the East, while cheering the French protesters and the Australian government for taking the Chinese on. As in the past, the driving force behind this outbreak of China-bashing is a perception that the West is in political and social decline, and the East might take its opportunity to snuff out ‘our’ civilisation once and for all. That 15 men in tracksuits could give rise to such an hysterical, out-of-control, fin-de-siècle, prejudicial debate reveals so very much more about contemporary Western fear and irrationalism than it does about Chinese wickedness.
Hmm. I think he has a decent point, even though his article does rather soft-play the whole Tibet issue. There has been something a bit, well, off-key about the venom directed against China, but then one should remember that for all its economic reforms, the grip of the Chinese Communist Party, an organisation responsible for some of the greatest mass murders in history (the Cultural Revolution, etc), does have rather a lot to live down. So for all that some of the demonstrations leave a sour taste, I think that most of those who object to what China is doing are on the side of the angels.
That 15 men in tracksuits could give rise to such an hysterical, out-of-control, fin-de-siècle, prejudicial debate reveals so very much more about contemporary Western fear and irrationalism than it does about Chinese wickedness.
Obviously, as to anyone with eyes ‘Chinese wickedness’ has been on public display for quite some time.
I think that most of those who object to what China is doing are on the side of the angels.
On this issue anyway.
Although I’m not actually a huge fan of the Tibetan independence movement* the Chinese tactics are deplorable and there are plenty of other reasons to protest the ChiComms.
*It’s not that I like the Chinese ruling Tibet I just don’t think the locals will be that much better.
Actually what rather concerns me is the dispiriting sight of the Chinese ‘SS’ being allowed to carry out security detail on the streets of London.
It does underpin the rumour that we have at least one and possibly more dedicated traitors in the Home Office with executive powers.
Some of the street protesters are undoubtably sincere but for the governments it’s all posturing for their own constituencies.
No sane government is going to go to the mat against China for the sake of a free Tibet since China is a massive market and a cheap source of goods. Even the brave KRudd must watch his back since his government is contemplating the opening of ten new mines to export nasty, CO2 spewing, coal to the Chinese.
The unions, especially the miner’s unions, would be less than amused if he queered that deal over something as insignificant as human rights for Tibetans.
(this comment may contain sarcasm)
So is he arguing that the Chinese state is not wicked? Or that it should not be pointed out? Or that people waving the flags of a communist state is not nauseating? No, I do not think he has a decent point.
It never even crossed my mind that China was going to snuff out western civilisation, just that the Chinese state is very wicked indeed to the people it controls, be they in Tibet or China. I have been delighted at the PR debacle the protests have give the Boys in Bejing.
Perry, I must say I found O’Neill’s article a bit odd for the reason you state. Remember, as I perhaps should have pointed out, that O’Neill and a lot of the other Spiked writers are Marxists. These folk probably used to keep posters of that old fucker Mao on their walls.
As have I – but only because it’s egg on the face of the Boys in Beijing. I’ll have to second Andy H’s sentiment that whatever government a hypothetical independent Tibet sets up is unlikely to be much better than the current one from Beijing. Fun to watch Beijing squirm, but the people picketing this relay are doing it largely for annoying reasons, which does rather limit how much enthusiasm I have for the whole spectacle. If they were protesting a bad government for being one part mafia, one part Hitler, one part Lenin, that would be one thing, but in reality they’re mostly expressing trendy spiritual solidarity with the Dalai Lama, which is another thing altogether.
…a bit, well, off-key about the venom directed against China…
OK, fine, whatever. I’ll agree with that the minute the ChiComs stop using Falun Gong followers as live (for a short period) organ donors.
Until then China deserves everything it’s getting.
They sought the games to showcase what a wonderful place they are now and well, it ain’t just cream that rises to the top is it?
I think, in the circumstances, the protests have been remarkably restrained. They used a fire extinguisher against the flame in Paris, I would have opted for napalm. Especially considering the thugs-in-artificial-fibre.
This seems an eclectic spot:
So, Thadeus, should the SS of the U S Treasury Dept not accompany the Chief Exec to the U K?
Next, and not as an apologist for the ethnic dilution of Lahore (in particular), but little notice is given to the attrocities visited upon ethnic Chinese in the urban settings (which were the apparent thrust of the initial rioting).
Of course, one might say it serves those Chinese right for becoming part of a government sponsored resettlement project.
But, one should not confuse the demeanor of the Dalai LLama with the general character of the Tibetan people; nor forget that Tibet was once the seat of its own empire. Its populace did not derive from something like Shangri La; quite the contrary – a bloody past.
Yes, the present “Chinese Empire” opportunistically (and “wrongly”) pushed its boundaries westward there and toward Mongolia, and created tighter dominion over Xijiang (the Altai).
Those actions will limit the routes of access of “Westernization” to channels that the ruling coalitions may believe they can regulate (and exploit) successfully, principally in the Eastern reaches of China. That may be very important to the military factions, the areas they dominate, and source their manpower.
The Wall Street Journal had an editorial today advising George Bush to attend the opening ceremonies, but to walk in with…..the Dalai Lama.
I would pay money to see this happen. Not just for the fact that it would make things very clear to the Chinese, but also to watch the leftists who are so pro-Dalai go absolutely batshit crazy seeing the two of them together.
There were a few great parts to this editorial, starting with this exquisite piece of prose-
followed up with this-
When a leftist head asplodes from sheer befuddlement, does it make a sound?
Damian Penny had a great post about the anti-Chinese protesters:
You have to wonder: how many of the people wearing “Free Tibet” buttons in 2008 were wearing Chairman Mao buttons in the 1960s?
How do you know that? So, what, better the devil you know than the maybe devil you don’t know and who might not even exist?
I think we can answer what the Tibetans want. The Dalai Lama has never called for Tibetan “independence”, he only wants autonomy and the right to worship freely.
Beijing instead accuses him of being a “splitter”. No Tibetan who has a functional brain will want anything to do with a regime that denies them even the most basic of human rights.
Apologies for referring to Lhasa as Lhore !
That 15 men in tracksuits could give rise to such an hysterical, out-of-control, fin-de-siècle, prejudicial debate reveals so very much more about contemporary Western fear and irrationalism than it does about Chinese wickedness.
Sorry, I normally try for rational argument rather than personal abuse, but Brendan O’Neill is a moron.
Whoever allowed foreign government security thugs to exercise authority on the streets of the capitol should be sacked forthwith.
That they were thugs from a government well known for thuggery makes the matter worse, that they were Chinese is of no relevance whatsoever.
Nobody’s mentioned my bugaboo yet, namely that the Peking country won’t let the obviously discrete and independent Taiwan compete under its own name and official flag, instead having to compete under the idiotic name “Chinese Taipei”, with a flag with the Olympic rings, and some song other than its national anthem. This is just as much politicizing the Olympics as anything any of the protestors are doing.
I was shocked, but pleasantly so, last September when a Taiwanese pair reached the women’s doubles final at the US Open tennis tournament and the USTA used Taiwanese flags in the ceremony.
“It’s not that I like the Chinese ruling Tibet I just don’t think the locals will be that much better.”
Not a big fan of self-determination then, Andy H. I think most people would like to think that if there ever was an independent Tibet, the government would be a democratic one, and a tad less brutal and repressive than the current chinese government, so even if the locals weren’t much cop, they could be tossed out for another bunch.
I can’t help feeling some unease about this “free Tibet” stuff because it sound a little like Republican arguments for a “free” Ulster. (I love being a Catholic Unionist – it confuses Americans sooo much). I realise reading this that my sentiments are probably just mistrust of the rent-a-mob protesters – they’ve never been right before, so why should they be now (just finished reading Doris Lessing’s The Good Terrorist too).
If someone could point me to some good sources explaining the history here (online or written) I’d be most grateful.
Thanks in advance.
Funny how mass protests against China only began after it stopped being a proper communist state.
Not a big fan of self-determination then, Andy H.
I’ve got got no problem with it, but it ain’t a particularly important principle to me.
I think most people would like to think that if there ever was an independent Tibet, the government would be a democratic one, and a tad less brutal and repressive than the current chinese government,
Oh, I’d like to think a new Tibetan government would be democratic too.
so even if the locals weren’t much cop, they could be tossed out for another bunch.
This is probably true even if the new government wasn’t democratic, but it might get bloody.
I wasn’t engaging some tremendous capacity for understatement when I said “I’m not a huge fan,”
if I had to pick a nominal ‘side’ it would be the Tibetans its just not something I can get particularly excited about.
Why is that important? As long as it is not repressive, what is so important about democracy?
Nothing. I was using democracy in that unfortunate “freedomanddemocracy” sense. Sorry.
“You have to wonder: how many of the people wearing “Free Tibet” buttons in 2008 were wearing Chairman Mao buttons in the 1960s?”
Hmm.
Not many; most of them didn’t look old enough.
So for all that some of the demonstrations leave a sour taste, I think that most of those who object to what China is doing are on the side of the angels.
Well, yes and no. I’ve been puzzling over this one for a few days and I’m not convinced I’ve come to the right conclusion yet.
It’s surely possible to condemn the Chinese government’s policies and to welcome the embarrassment the they are experiencing, on the one hand, while still having little sympathy for those engaging in the current batch of protests.
Perhaps I am overly cynical, but there seems to an awful lot of bandwagon on-jumping in these popular outpourings of moral indignation. The anti-Chinese Protest cause, as we are seeing it played out now, seems to be the Moral Cause du jour, just as Darfur was only a few months ago and before that Iraq civilians and before that – well, you get the picture.
The psychological benefits of waving a banner around, mouthing a few slogans, maybe going on a demonstration or two, far outweigh the minimal costs to one’s self. In return, you get affirmation of your essential moral goodness and you get to show the world that you are on the side of the angels.
My enemy’s enemy is not, after all, always my friend.
Is that in the same sense that Samizdatans “probably” used to be racists?
For what it’s worth Mao: The End of the affair(Link)
My question is why did the Chinese take over Tibet in the first place? There are no strategic resources or anything else of a strategic nature there. Was it just the usual bully boy thuggery because they could get away with it? Enquiring minds want to know.
And BTW a pro Tibetan demonstration took place in Toronto recently. About a dozen Tibetan refugees were attacked by a crowd of approximately one thousand Chinese protesting Tibetan crimes against the Han people. You can’t make this stuff up! The valiant Chinese protesters roughed up one or two unfortunate Tibetans – terrified no doubt of being assaulted by the bloodthirsty Tibetan few.
“So, Thadeus, should the SS of the U S Treasury Dept not accompany the Chief Exec to the U K?”
Good point. Some of us have long been embarrassed at the lead-footedness of the President’s praetorian overseas. Or here in the States, for that matter. It’s only slightly more silly to bully people over a trashy media event than to discommode thousands for the safety of a single politician, IMO.
“Funny how mass protests against China only began after it stopped being a proper communist state.”
Astute observation M.Could it be the “new” enlightened communists don’t approve of the “classic” communists going capitalistic?
Consider: How often do USSS agents lay hands on foreign citizens, in those peoples’ home country, in order to protect the President from embarassment, when there is no threat to the President’s safety? Nor even a perception of such a threat?
I would respectfully submit that this does not happen very often. (Although, there was an event in Chile or Peru, I can’t remember which, where the USSS made asses of themselves to the host head-of-state’s security detail. Paranoia isn’t necessarily bad, IMHO, but you have to wind it in a little when you’re in someone else’s house.)
If the devil I don’t know turns out to exist and is worse, then yes. Let’s at least acknowledge the risk here – local majority rule is not always better than corrupt foreign rule. Zimbabwe and Mozambique spring to mind, but there are plenty of other examples, and the history of Tibetan governments past (admittedly, not a very long history) doesn’t inspire much confidence. If there is little basis for believing that rule from Lhasa would be worse, there is equally little basis for believing it would be better, and if I lived in Tibet I would certainly want some assurance, before sticking my neck out for a revolution, that chances were good I stood to gain from it. Additionally, there are questions of the Han Chinese currently living in Tibet. Not all of them are evil land-grabbers, and I think I would want some assurance that there aren’t going to be any cleansing operations after power changes hands before supporting a handover. The issue is, in any case, a lot more complicated than most of the protesters you see on the news are aware, and for that reason I find myself enjoying this spectacle more for the embarrassment it causes Beijing than out of any sense of shared cause with the protesters.
Now – what reasons do you have for believing that things will get better once the Chinese leave?
Noooooooooo !
Nobody in Beijing !
bloody games !
Millie Woods –
If you can , read the current issue of the ECONOMIST, and learn something about the mineral reserves of that area (largest Chromium deposits, e.g., inter alia).
However, with the usual “efficiencies” of central planning bureaucracies, the Chinese oligarchs have made a proper cock-up of development (better characterized as prep for exploitation via colonization).
Still, the value of the added buffer against eastward moving westerization, when annexed to policies in Xinjan ( a Turkic-Muslim sector) may seem well worth the cost to the national capital (which is growing steadily).
“the venom directed against China”
Please don’t forget that the Chinese regime has been assiduously indoctrinating the people to hate Westerners.
RRS,
“So, Thadeus, should the SS of the U S Treasury Dept not accompany the Chief Exec to the U K?”
All presidents and prime ministers (including our own Provincial Governor) take a security detail with them when they go abroad (or anywhere).
This was not about bodyguarding the Chinese Head of State (which is customary). This was a public cultural/sporting event that could and should have been policed by the Her Majesty’s Finest.
So who gave the green light for the Chinese state militia to police the streets of London?
And there are two ‘d’s in my name.
Apparently the chinese security force was present in California, too, according to this article(Link) by NBC Sports. (It’s not mentioned until very late in the article, though.) Who authorized that?
My question is why did the Chinese take over Tibet in the first place?
One media report stated that Tibet is the headwater for Chinese agricultural irrigation needs downstream.
/shrug
(Link)
It looks like the Japanese are learning from our mistakes.
Olympic ‘Thugs’ Rejected By Japan
Good for them.
Mr. Tremayne:
My sincere apologies for poor typing skill
…and the history of Tibetan governments past (admittedly, not a very long history) doesn’t inspire much confidence.
Where is this dark history that you speak of documented? Just doing a quick Google search all I can find is either Chinese propaganda or the rantings of those with an anti-theocratic bias and a political agenda.
Where are Blake and Mortimer now that we need them?
Thank you all for answering my question about the motivation for invading Tibet. However, when the event occurred so long ago was the knowledge of all these water and mineral resources known. I doubt it. I’m still on the bully boy thuggery page and with the latest example of Chinese thugs 1000 to 12 Tibetans In Toronto fresh in my mind I’ll stick with it.
I don’t find anything off-key about the protests.
The Chinese government wanted to set up a favourable (to them) publicity stunt to impress the public back home. It is quite appropriate for dissidents to rain on their parade. And it is not acceptable for the Chinese government to try to impose their own thugs on protesters in western cities. They will have ample opportunity to oppress their own dissenters when the games are underway in Beijing. They can’t expect the rest of the world to save their embarassment.
I will admit to having an anti-theocratic bias. I don’t really see the difference between a kleptocracy with no concept of rights based on communism and a kleptocracy with no concept of rights based on comic book superstition. Both are kleptocracies, and their relative worth has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Millie,
there are multiple reasons for China to invade. I’m not sure which ones have actually gone into the Chinese state’s decision making. The important ones are:
History/ manifest destiny: Tibet was occupied by earlier Chinese dynasties and therefore is a part of China. No questions brooked.
Mineral wealth – mentioned in a comment above.
Geostrategic importance – again, as mentioned above, it’s a gateway to Pakistan and Central Asia. It also serves as a buffer between India and China – even if China has no plans to invade India, it will feel worried about an independent Tibet creating road links with India and exposing the Chinese mainland to the possibility of attack.
Chinese strategy seems to call for expanding circles of influence throughout Asia – occupation and Hanisation of territory contiguous to the heartland, and construction of military facilities in the next circle – Pakistan, Myanmar, the Spratly islands, and Indochina.
Ted Schuerzinger:
‘Chinese Taipei’ may be an idiotic name, but is there not a far greater idiocy at work here?
The greater idiocy is not athletes from this island being forbidden to compete under the name of ‘Taiwan’ or even ‘Republic of China’.
The greater idiocy is the very fact of their proposed participation in what is even now mistakenly believed to be, of itself, an a-political athletics competition.
The correct political angle here is not the human rights abuses of the Chinese State within Tibet. It is the totalitarian nature of the PRC’s existence itself.
“Please don’t forget that the Chinese regime has been assiduously indoctrinating the people to hate Westerners.”
pst314: I have certainly come across a similar ‘doctronaire’-like hatred of Taiwan on several occasions.
“That 15 men in tracksuits could give rise to such an hysterical, out-of-control, fin-de-siècle, prejudicial debate reveals so very much more about contemporary Western fear and irrationalism than it does about Chinese wickedness.”
“Hmm. I think he has a decent point, even though his article does rather soft-play the whole Tibet issue.”
The ‘point’ is neither clear, nor apparently ‘decent’. The protests reveal to me a popular anger toward the PRC, regardless of the nature of those protesting. Do you actually think fear is an ‘irrational’ response to the activities of a totalitarian State? I think western fear of China is entirely rational for the dual reason of the PRC’s totalitarian nature, and the creeping totalitarian nature of western States. Anticipation and preparation is required of those of us who may have any dealings with the PRC, and fear is a facilitative state of mind for this.
“…an organisation responsible for some of the greatest mass murders in history does have rather a lot to live down.”
That understatement has a disgustingly casual tone – and I realise you yourself are ‘on the side of the angels’. Nothing less than loud and clear condemnation is appropriate for any mention of the PRC in a blog posting.
The psychological benefits of waving a banner around, mouthing a few slogans, maybe going on a demonstration or two, far outweigh the minimal costs to one’s self. In return, you get affirmation of your essential moral goodness and you get to show the world that you are on the side of the angels.
And let’s not forget the all important motivation of interaction with like-minded members of the opposite sex.
I will admit to having an anti-theocratic bias. I don’t really see the difference between a kleptocracy with no concept of rights based on communism and a kleptocracy with no concept of rights based on comic book superstition.
Well, at least I can see clearly where you are coming from now. I can’t answer for how rights have worked in theocratic societies because I’ve never studied it. But I think it’s a mistake to assume that a theocratic heirarchy necessitates the type of oppression we are talking about. It may or it may not. There are theocracies and theocracies afterall. The idea of forcibly modernising traditional cultures has been characteristic of but not limited to the ultra-materialistic socialism of the Soviets and the Chinese. The Soviets were firm believers in materialist science and the idea of progress. This idea of modernisation did not restrict itself to religious forms but extended to traditional customs of ordinary life. As a result traditional cultures had their backs broken and although some of them have recovered to a certain extent the discontinuity from the root forms have engendered such a displacement that attempts at revival often produce only modern diluted caricatures. See the new age type of Shamanism which exists in modern day Mongolia for example. Alchoholism and other problems are rife in many cultures which have been forcibly “modernised”.
Logically true, but I can’t think of any theocracies off the top of my head that haven’t been oppressive. And it seems unlikely to me that there ever could be such a thing. Any situation where you entrust a priest class with power on the basis of their mystical ability to know divine will, you’re setting yourself up for trouble – not only because such a government is hugely unlikely to be accountable to its populace, but also because it is hugely unlikely to be grounded in reality.
Right – but that has more to do with the “forcibly” than with the “modernized.” It is ultimately in the interest of humanity to cast off religion – but I agree that there is a proper process involved, and that putting the cart ahead of the horse in this process can be and has been disastrous.
Nothing “casual” about my attitude towards that regime, Mike. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the old English art of understatement.
Sorry Jonathan, I do get a bit irritable sometimes – it’s just that, used in this sort of way (i.e. to talk about mass-murdering totalitarians), I really don’t like understatement.
Being English myself I use understatement all the time and yet I completely understand why it gets up the nose of a certain type of American; it can give an impression of sloppy casualness wholly inppropriate to gravely serious subjects.