Over the last few weeks the persistence of the imperialist impulse in world politics has been widely illustrated by the prevalence of so-called protests against human rights violations in China mounted in some locations where the Olympic flame was displayed. One of the most unfair and yet most publicised campaigns of calumny against a people and a nation that can be imagined has been parading as a genuine moral movement.

Very simple and basic assumptions of truth and eventuality have been ignored as a clique of apologists for Western superiority have manipulated the issue using the unfortunate Tibetan situation as the basis for a racist attack against Chinese growth and resurgence.

Listening to the promoters and supporters of the protests one could forget that when China was awarded the Olympic hosting Tibet had been regarded as a province of the nation for more than two decades. At the time of the award no demand was made for the reversal of this arrangement. It was therefore surprising that out of the blue only a few months to the Beijing games Tibetan protests exploded and began to be defined as the foundation on which China’s right to host the games should be questioned. There is no doubt that the Tibetan nationalists have been a long-suffering ethnic minority in the Chinese national formation, but they are not the only ones.

The problems of ethnic minorities in China are integral and constant factors of the internal political dynamic of that complex nation. When China was awarded the right to host the Olympics these problems were well known and accepted by the International Olympic Association as matters that should not militate against the awarding of these rights. It is therefore very suspicious that suddenly the matter should have emerged as a major cause for disenchantment over Beijing’s good fortune.
China is without a doubt one of the most important nations in the modern world.

Its long years of isolation have been vindicated as the foundation on which its national commitment to an improved standard of living for its population and its global expansion as an exemplary economic power emerging from the so-called Third World is based. These values served as the basis for its claim to be ready to host the Olympic Games and the award of the hosting indicated that this was considered to be more than enough.

There was no suggestion that major political changes had to be made before the games were held. It is therefore disingenuous and dishonest for this to become the key issue facing the Chinese on a global scale now when only a few weeks remain for the games to begin. This development is totally contrary to the spirit and the historic role of the Olympics as a forum for the reconciliation and harmonisation of global humanity. Those who have encouraged the outburst of anti-China sentiment disguised as the defence of pro-Tibetan insurgency argue that the Chinese government’s crackdown on this insurgency is itself contrary to the Olympic ideal.

They fail to admit that the defence of internal security that the Chinese regard their actions as being was both inevitable and unavoidable under the circumstances. It is naïve and unrealistic to expect the Chinese to suddenly reverse almost three decades of political control in a territory that they have annexed simply in order to justify hosting a ceremonial event.

The fact that those who granted them the hosting rights knew the circumstances of the Tibetan annexation and did not make its reversal one of the conditions for the hosting of the Olympic Games defines these protests as self-serving rather than genuinely moral acts of public responsibility.

The suggestion has been widely touted as the torch relay moved from Europe through Africa (where only one nation was given the opportunity to participate in the ritual) into Asia that it is appropriate and proper for the event to be used as an instrument of political blackmail against China. This is obviously both wrong and contrary to the protestations of selfless and responsible engagement with the Chinese authorities that many Western Governments claim to be the basis for their relations with that nation. The extensive coverage that protests around the torch relay has attracted from major organs of the global media indicate that in fact the real intent of many of these protests is to foment trouble for China rather than to make vital points about its conduct of affairs of state.

In any case the purpose of the games should not be to provide a forum for antagonists of the host nation to mount attacks against it. The most successful, or at least most notorious, examples of political protest and insurgency in relation to the games in the past were not mounted on that basis. African-American athletes protested on the podium against the institutionalisation of racial prejudice in their own nation not in Mexico the host nation. Palestinian insurgents carried out their horrific massacre of Israeli athletes in Germany as an extension of their war at home.

When America withdrew from the Moscow Olympics most African nations refused to accept this as correct because they felt that by the same token they should have refused to participate in American based games in protest against the racial prejudice that was still prevalent in the USA. The attempt to build a case for a similar boycott against Beijing provoked by the Tibetan independence movement is an unfortunate development and should not be supported by the rest of the world.

China has certainly changed its attitude towards many things in recent times. The hosting of the Olympic Games is bound to influence this process unless provocation generated by its political opponents cause the Chinese Government to reduce its commitment to change. Those who believe that because South Korea changed its government from a military junta to a democratically elected parliamentary system shortly after it was awarded the Seoul Games some twenty-odd years ago China will react in the same way to stage-managed protests around the world are pursuing an improbable dream. The circumstances are not the same. China is not a small American puppet state.

China won the contemporary hosting rights on the basis of its own economic ability and even because of its political stability. When South Korea won the hosting rights the organisation of the games was virtually sponsored and subsidised by its American masters to showcase the virtues and successes of American sponsored democracy. This was an unspoken but well known part of the process. In the recent contest the Chinese made no such concessions because they did not have to. While many of those who will attend the Olympic Games in Beijing might sympathise with the sentiments expressed by Tibetan nationalists this will not be their primary reason for attending the games.

There will be no better opportunity for moving China towards greater internal freedom of expression and economic self confidence than for the Beijing Olympics to be successful. Attempts to prevent this will only be counter-productive and will destroy the spirit and the objective of the games being awarded to China in the first place. If this is the objective of the protests in other parts of the world then they are creating the problem rather than providing the solution in the effort to improve the human rights record of the host nation.

Responses By Text Only:
08056180039